4 ms·

> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards,

by acqq 11y ago

> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

the_af 11y ago
Thanks, I know what Wahhabism is. Yes, the Saudis who support ISIS are wealthy. Do they represent the majority of Muslims?
- acqq 11y ago
  Salafists don't "represent" but they surely attempt to become majority and the Wahhabis are the biggest financier of Muslim education abroad, which is especially surprising for Europeans as most people just now learn what was happening for decades among them.
  - the_af 11y ago
    I'm sure they attempt to represent the majority, just like ISIS claims to represent all of "true" Islam. But the fact remains that they don't. Statistics show that most Muslims don't support ISIS: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-w... Even in Saudi Arabia, support for ISIS isn't universal. According to this ( http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis-has-almost-no-popular-support-in-egypt-saudi-arabia-or-lebanon http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis... ) there is only 5% grassroots support for ISIS there. Now, even 5% is certainly worrying, but that's nowhere near universal. Sorry, I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
    - acqq 11y ago
      I speak about Wahhabism, the official religious view in the whole Saudi Arabia, promoted abroad with their immense capital, so instead limiting the arguments to just "ISIS" is a major misdirection. Like that ISIS are the only one dangerous. They aren't.
      - the_af 11y ago
        Agreed, ISIS is not the only Muslim terrorist group. But not all Muslims identify with Wahhabism (which percentage of the total Muslim population is Wahhabi?), nor live in Saudi Arabia. It's also not automatically true that all Wahhabis, even if more intolerant, want to murder the infidel. Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. The fact remains that most Muslims don't want to kill you.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families. > most Muslims don't want to kill you One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow. Ask Armenians (Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide A Hindu from India also gave his voice in this discussion and somebody downvoted him, even though he wanted to point to something meaningful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus "The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule) The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus. So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.

by acqq 11y ago

the_af 11y ago

Thanks, I know what Wahhabism is. Yes, the Saudis who support ISIS are wealthy. Do they represent the majority of Muslims?

acqq 11y ago
Salafists don't "represent" but they surely attempt to become majority and the Wahhabis are the biggest financier of Muslim education abroad, which is especially surprising for Europeans as most people just now learn what was happening for decades among them.
- the_af 11y ago
  I'm sure they attempt to represent the majority, just like ISIS claims to represent all of "true" Islam. But the fact remains that they don't. Statistics show that most Muslims don't support ISIS: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-w... Even in Saudi Arabia, support for ISIS isn't universal. According to this ( http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis-has-almost-no-popular-support-in-egypt-saudi-arabia-or-lebanon http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis... ) there is only 5% grassroots support for ISIS there. Now, even 5% is certainly worrying, but that's nowhere near universal. Sorry, I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
  - acqq 11y ago
    I speak about Wahhabism, the official religious view in the whole Saudi Arabia, promoted abroad with their immense capital, so instead limiting the arguments to just "ISIS" is a major misdirection. Like that ISIS are the only one dangerous. They aren't.
    - the_af 11y ago
      Agreed, ISIS is not the only Muslim terrorist group. But not all Muslims identify with Wahhabism (which percentage of the total Muslim population is Wahhabi?), nor live in Saudi Arabia. It's also not automatically true that all Wahhabis, even if more intolerant, want to murder the infidel. Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. The fact remains that most Muslims don't want to kill you.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families. > most Muslims don't want to kill you One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow. Ask Armenians (Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide A Hindu from India also gave his voice in this discussion and somebody downvoted him, even though he wanted to point to something meaningful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus "The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule) The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus. So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.