A totally marginal figure? Recent events and campaign promises beg to differ- they feed into a lot of the angst that Dylan Roof and his ilk are feeling.

:D :D :D
I'm sorry, are you saying that that stuff is okay, because "the country I am writing from" does bad things? THAT is your defense? "We, the bastion of freedom and democracy and all good ideals are better than a third world country with a 60% literacy rate, so it is ok"?
If you are, then what on earth has that got to do with the topic at hand?
Why are you comparing "the country I am writing from" with "the US or any other Western country today"?

Because I got the impression that you're trying to claim nothing's wrong with Islam as it is today...that's obviously not the case. There's a massive current of intolerance, oppression and violence in many Islamic countries (e.g. PEW did a survey a few years ago...according to that more than 50% of Pakistanis believe death penalty is appropriate for "apostates"), and there's state backing for a lot of that. Terrorism is only one of the most extreme manifestations of Islamic intolerance, but the attitudes behind it enjoy a lot of support in many Islamic countries. And as long as that's the case, there is no reason why Islam, at least in its majority Sunni variant, should be viewed positively by non-Muslims.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm simply stating that claims that Islam is somehow uniquely violent and that theological matters are exclusively (or even majorly) relevant to the state of the world today in terms of the issues mentioned in this thread are fairly naive viewpoints.
But what has that got to do with "the country I am writing from"? Do you feel that Pakistan is representative of Islam? That because of the actions of people in Pakistan, or the Pakistani government(?), sunni muslims should not be viewed in a positive light?

I don't know if Islam is "uniquely" violent. Certainly Christianity was extremely intolerant for a long time and also caused a significant amount of violence (though many Christians would probably claim that was a "corruption" of the faith...personally I think that's a meaningless distinction, religion is what believers make of it). But you can't deny that there is a) a long tradition of violent expansion in Islam justified as doing God's work, and b) a significant part of the Muslim world hasn't really left that interpretation of the faith behind. Other religious traditions have very unpleasant groups today as well (e.g. some of the more fundamentalist Jews in Israel or some Hindu nationalists in India), but none to the extent Islam has, for whatever reason.
As for Pakistan being "representative"...well, maybe not, but it certainly is quite a significant part of the Muslim world given its large population. And it's not the like the results of that PEW survey were that great for many other Islamic countries either (that is, apart from Turkey and Central Asia which are relatively moderate because of a certain secularist tradition; but iirc e.g. 50% of Egyptian Muslims believe Sharia should apply not just to Muslims, but to non-Muslims as well...which isn't an academic matter given the presence of the Copts in Egypt).

I think it's dangerous to classify entire groups of people. How many of you have actually spoken to a devout Muslim? I have. A former co-worker of mine is originally from Iraq and we spoke about our faiths for the 5 years I worked there. It was very enlightening. He explained a lot about Iraq and the differences between various "Muslim" nations, about the differences between Sunni and Shia. About varying interpretations between different Mosques and how interpretation can differ from place to place.

It seems to me, it's not all that different than here. Let me give you an example, I had a cousin who died in a head-on collision with a drunk driver. At the funeral, the priest suggested she might not go to heaven because she was living with her boyfriend prior to marriage. Pretty audacious. It's not like every Christian priest agrees on everything. How many different versions of Christianity do we have in the United States? And while the Unitarians seem to be fairly sympathetic to homosexuality, not like a lot of other Christian faiths are so favorable. Right? What about abortion clinic bombings? What about the Westboro Baptist Church?

You cannot tell me that some Christians do not have radical interpretations of their holy text either. While there may be radical Muslim sects now, do you really think it would be any different if "Eastern" nations were performing "regime change" and overthrowing Western governments? Do you really think there might not be some level of Christian violence from fringe groups if the tables were turned?

And while Western society now attempt to give equal rights to women, when did that change? 100 years ago? And while in predominantly Muslim countries women have fewer rights, it is more complicated than that. Women do not work but there is a strong obligation for men to provide for their families more so than Western nations. It's easy to say, living in the West, that we have evolved quicker, but is it also possible that we have lost some things, or that their are societal parts of Eastern society that might have things more right than us? But even then there are signs of change in the East. A Saudi prince has suggested maybe its time to let women drive. It may be a small step, but it's their step and not forced at the point of a gun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic with the concerns some have with immigration in Europe. That it may be occurring too fast, with too many, and it may be impossible to find jobs and assimilate so many without problems and culture clashes. That risk of terrorism has increased because with so many it's hard to vet refugees for extremists or prevent those who do not quickly get jobs from being influenced by extremist agitators. It's a serious issue worthy of debate.

But don't let this fear misguide you. Islam has been around for thousands of years and I haven't seen thousands of years of Islamic warfare against the West or Christianity. In fact, most Muslim nations have sizable Christian populations. That should tell you that the core of the religion is at least peaceful enough and it's primarily extremists one needs to worry about.

Umm, yes, you have...why do you think the Byzantine empire is no longer around (or why do you think Zoroastrians are now a tiny minority in Iran for that matter)? There were two Islamic invasions of Europe, one by the Arabs/Berbers in the 8th century, and later by the Ottoman Turks from the 14th century onwards, also lots of warfare with religious overtones in the Mediterranean for centuries which only ended when Europeans achieved clear military superiority in the 19th century. Historically, the Islamic world has been the archenemy of Christendom/the West...we shouldn't be enslaved to that history, but we can't ignore it either.
As for Christian minorities in Islamic countries their position isn't really good anywhere and many of those communities (along with other obscure minorities like the Mandaeans) are being purged from the Mideast right now or already have been. Turkey got rid of most of its Christian minorities a long time ago (though admittedly it was not just due to Islam there, partly also to nationalism)...the future for Christian minorities in the Mideast looks bleak (though I suppose the Copts will hang on because there are so many of them).

I'd agree though that one shouldn't stereotype or demonize individual Muslims. But the general intolerance and extremism widespread in many Islamic countries is certainly something one has to take into account in immigration policy.

Statistics from polls and surveys and the like are always fairly suspicious to me unless they're incredibly extensive and very very specific in their questions. I mean, if I told you that 21% of Muslim Americans sometimes believe it is justified for the military to target and kill civilians, you might be aghast (or who knows, you might be "I knew that already"). That's a horrible number! 1 in 5 muslims in America think there are justifications for the military to target and kill civilians!
But then you look at these statistics in the context of others, you see that almost 60% of Christian Americans feel it is sometimes justified for the military to target and kill civilians, and over 50% of Jewish Americans think it is sometimes justified (nonreligious Americans were the only group other than muslims who had a greater percentage say it was never justified- 56% to the Muslim Americans 78%). And you might say "Muslim Americans are not representative of Muslims worldwide!" (although this topic appears to be more about immigrants), but then we have statistics showing that muslims across the world are less likely than religious Americans to support targetting and killing of civilians (the highest percentage is 51% for Palestinian muslims, but then compare that to 52% for Israeli Jews).

See, I'm not sure I agree with that at all. For example, you mention Zoroastrians- now, no doubt, Muslim treatment of Zoroastrians hasn't always been rosy, but when the Arabs initially defeated and dethroned the elite priest-class who held power over the Persians, they didn't allow conversions to Islam. The conversions came much later (not that I'm saying it was necessarily due to the superiority of the islamic ideology, probably more so that they wouldn't get taxed as much). Besides, to this day we have communities of non-muslims in Muslim communities (Zoroastrians, Assyrian/Syriac Christians, Coptic Christians, Irani Jews, even in India, which was almost completely ruled my Muslims for several hundreds of years, still has a Hindu majority!). Again, not saying their treatment was always rosy and wonderful, I just bring it as an example of how your thesis doesn't really work, ESPECIALLY if we compare it to the absolute lack of non-Christian native minorities in Christian-majority lead nations (which I do, again, because looking at communities in absolute isolation from each other won't give us useful data)- the original wiccans, or druids, viking religion, mithraic religion etc. The Native Americans were a "lucky" exception :P.

If the systemic animosity of Muslims against non-muslims in muslim-majority areas is notable, I'd say it is because of it being a relatively recent phenomenon.

And as for Christian nations and Muslim nations being historical "arch-enemies", that is simply not true. They allied together almost as often as they were at each other (and no, I'm not naive enough to say it is due to some co-religionist brotherhood, it was simply strategy and politics when it was convenient). Of course, when they were against each other, religion was used as the propaganda tool to drum up the masses, but I very much doubt religion had any part to play in the real reasons on either side.

1. I did IRL multiple times in my life.

2. In addition to what Morolf replied to you, I would also point out that the Quran was only written in the 7th century so technically it hasn't been around for thousands years unless you see it from a religious point of view and believe Allah has been here since the beginning of times.

3. I invite you to dig around for articles on the fate of Christians in the Orient. Many articles in French but I suppose you can find some stuff in English.

4. As you're from US, I guess you have this binary point of view (peaceful or extremists) as the community is not as established as here. You have to take into account that while acts of terrorism are "worldnews-worthy", you don't get the full picture as you don't see the changes over the years that the community has on its surroundings. A very good example was this recent video from the official French TV about women getting socially excluded from bars:
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/societe-quand-les-femmes-sont-indesirables-dans-les-lieux-publics_1958225.html
This video has sparked a lot of comments in the French medias and I can tell you we have the same kind of things in Brussels and terrorism is only the extreme side of this kind of change. While we could debate on theology, the most important thing for people is how religion and the habits which derive from it influence the daily life in society (otherwise, religion wouldn't be such a big deal). This is why in Belgium, the black African Christians are very much more appreciated as their habits and values are closer to us.

I point out that a guarantee into heaven is emigrating and dying in the process of bringing the faith to other countries. You then tell me that no, its about emigrating from countries that are oppressing them. Then I give you a quote that clarifies the verse from a Muslim scholar. I think I'll take the scholar's word on it.

No, I'm not. You see, I can point out the hypocrisy of a culture with rampant homosexuality that then punishes it when its caught with someone with a bit too much hair on their face or a bit too old. Punishes it to an extreme.

When its being driven by the culture, and then brutally punished by the same culture that enables it then yes that is a bad thing.

When the punishment involves death, it certainly is a bad thing. Part of the rampant homosexuality seems to stem from how the women are covered from head-to-toe in garb.

Perhaps as far as the abundance of homosexuality goes, certainly not as far as terrorism or support of terrorism. Even in the United States the percentage of Muslims that support things like Sharia law is disturbing.

The problems of Islam are multi-faceted, the single topic being terrorism, the parts that lead to it being the culture and religion of Islam. This isn't hard to follow.

Going to have to be more specific about what topics I'm 'ignoring'.

I get info from a wide variety of sources, its bound to happen sooner or later that one is either exaggerating, misrepresenting or outright lying. If they are doing one of those I will stop making reference to false information.

Doesn't change the fact that Islam is a religion of violence and subjugation.

Then be more concise.

Still not getting it. This topic is about terrorism. Understanding it and preventing it are, IMHO, a very big part of that and that leads back to the Quran. You can't discuss terrorism without going to it's source.

I did a bit myself and they all check out, but go ahead and dismiss it all because you don't have the time.

There's a reason it's frequently sourced.

Wow, NINE whole deaths! That would be a slow day for Islam! This is the best you can do? I have three examples in the SAME year with the lowest count at twelve and you give me one incident a year ago with a count of nine?

Islamic terrorism is off the charts, Christian terrorism is a footnote.

Respect you, but you haven't done your research. Islam's existence is draped in war, slavery, violence, subjugation and terror. Lesser known info about slavery: European countries learned of racial slavery from the Arab Slave Trade.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/

You're joking right? Please show me the statistics of Christian terror and lets compare the stats. Not a DAY goes by that someone doesn't die with the last words in their ears being "ALAHU AKBAR!".

Except the scholar isn't saying what you're saying? So...are you ACTUALLY taking his word for it?
Yes, you are oppressed, you move to another place, you die in the process, it is a path to heaven according to that verse.
Where does it mention moving in order to convert people, or that conversion of other people has anything to do with it at all?
Certainly, Islam (like many other religions) is a proselytising religion, and certainly encourages proselytism, but none of that is even mentioned anywhere in the context of emigration, except by you. Again, as I mentioned, all this can be clarified quite simply by reading the actual literal text of the Quran even a line above the one you quoted, but yeah, ignore that in favour of the opinion you want to hold. I guess that works for you.

Eh? "The women"? Which "The women"?
The only countries in the world where covering from head to toe is law is portions of Taliban controlled Afghanistan and ISIL controlled territory. But if you feel like including headscarves and such, you can extend that to Iran and Saudi Arabia. The combined total population of all those countries is less than 1% of the global muslim population.
But yeah. "the women" are covered from head to toe. I guess it is easier to speak in generalised sweeping statements about the group we want to otherify.

"Wide variety"? I bet I could name the entire collection right here if I wanted...a collection of conservative right-wing rags, the closest of which that come to "news" is probably stuff like breitbart and fox and the dailymail, and "blogs" like frontpagemag. All have been regularly shown to shovel around BS.

Yes, because they make a very easy stick to whack people on the head with in an attempt to shut them up (basically how you tried to use it here as well). Most people can't be bothered to go through such a list. Congratulations on looking up one or two. I've done so myself before. It has a very interesting methodology, all the more because they don't even provide sources. All acts by muslims count as a tally against their religion. Any deaths involving muslims at all seems to count, whether or not that had anything to do with terrorism at all. Any deaths in warzones by military participants counts as well.
So yeah, going by that logic, I guess we have to protect ourselves from the "Catholic terrorism" of Mexican drug lords, which cost us thousands of deaths this very year too.

"Allah tells us that those who migrate for the sake of Allah, seeking to earn His pleasure and that which is with Him, leaving behind their homelands, families and friends, leaving their countries for the sake of Allah and His Messenger to support His religion, then they are killed, i.e., in Jihad, or they die, i.e., they pass away without being involved in fighting, they will have earned an immense reward....... "

This seems very clear to me. Key phrase here being "to support His religion, then they are killed, i.e., in Jihad".

Considering those articles are specifically about those regions and this odd phenomenon has been observed in other Muslim countries where dress isn't as strictly enforced I'd say the point stands.

The Orlando shooting may have been another example of this hypocrisy. The shooter may have been homosexual himself and wanted to guarantee his place in heaven with the shooting.

When possible I try and get it from the horses mouth, which is of course going to be biased as well.

In case you hadn't noticed the vast majority of 'deaths in warzones' listed on that site specifically talk about the target of CIVILIANS. "But the west does it too!"... no. A missile strike that misses it's target or has 'collateral damage' is not the same as DIRECTLY targeting civilians for the purpose of TERROR which DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS.

If you can directly tie the actions of the cartels to Catholic teachings I'd love to see you try.

Terrorism DIRECTLY links with the teachings of Islam.
Criminals who are Christian/Catholic are generally not committing crimes based on scripture. Unless I missed something about selling drugs.

:D I can't believe we're still talking about this. I don't know how many times I've repeated that the very passage you lifted the verse from disagrees with you, yet you just keep repeating that same verse and not looking at the passage. And even looking at that quote, you posted dozens of translations a while back that do not mesh at all with your interpretation, but now choose the one that does. Truly an example of forming an opinion and then finding things to back it up.

"bacha bazi" (i.e. "child playing") has been a practice in Central Asia and Afghanistan since the BC- way before Islam even entered the equation. So I don't know what you're talking about.

No they don't.

If you can tie the actions of "DIRECTLY targeting civilians for the purpose of TERROR" "DIRECTLY TO THE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS", I'd love to see you try as well.
But yeah, when your criteria marks "terrorist" as "muslim person who does bad things" and "non-civilian" as "any able-bodied male of combat age", it becomes very easy to pull down statistics on civilian deaths and "collateral damage" from such strikes (which appears to kill less than 2% of the terrorist leaders they target).

I'm giving you a SCHOLAR explaining the verse! Its great if there are less conquest oriented interpretations but its obvious some Muslims are going to take that interpretation! I'm pointing to it because it helps explain the migrant crisis! Connecting the dots isn't that hard.

So they just worked the Quran around it. That's... nice.

Yes... they do.

Here are a few examples since you couldn't provide anything to the contrary.

-2016.12.20 Iraq Mosul 7 31 Seven civilians are killed when ISIS rain down rockets on a residential area.
-2016.12.25 Syria al-Bab 30 40 At least thirty civilians are targeted and deliberately killed with ISIS explosives while trying to escape.
-2016.12.20 Syria Deir ez-Zor 4 0 Four civilians are burned to death by a Sharia court as their families are forced to watch.

A simple search of the word 'civilian' results in 248 hits. Not all of these are going to back up folks in war zones but there is a clear pattern of Islamic terrorists DIRECTLY TARGETING CIVILIANS.

By the way go ahead and subtract the first example as it was a rocket strike. I'm sure they didn't mind the civilian deaths though ISIS being ISIS.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

It goes on and on verse after verse on violence towards non-believers. All countries go to war, in modern times we often fight over resources or perceived threats. Islamic 'war' and terrorism uses it's holy text to back up their violence. That is a problem and it is undeniable.

You are indeed! Except the scholar isn't saying what you want him to say, no matter how much you wish!

Pithy responses with no backing. Nice! Odd I see nothing in the Quran supporting what you say.

References, please? Or is your reference a site that doesn't provide any? It is very easy to control the narrative this way.