Do Not Bash Muslims

[setst777]

Here is a talk by Dr. Jeffrey Bale, where he stated, it is stupid to insist the terrorism from Islamism has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam itself.

In this talk, Dr. Bale did mention the terrorist's reference to the ideology of Islam as represented by certain verses from the Quran, Ahadith, Sira but provided no examples nor details.
He stated Al Bagdadi of IS in his opening declaration contain 30-40 quotes from the Quran.

However where I differ with Dr. Bale is his insistence Islamism is only one extreme [a far right] interpretation of Islam. [24:00]
I have argued, Islamism is the default and closer interpretation of Allah's ideology of Islam which can be easily verified to the Quran [Ahadith and Sira] as demonstrated, e.g. the 3400++ of contemptuous verses against the non-believers.

What is critical here is Dr. Bale recognized the truth that at least Islamism is an integral part of Islam which he claimed is adopted by those on the "far-right of Islam".
I have also argued the far-right [the evil prone] of Islam comprised [conservatively] 20% or a pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims.

@25:00 Dr. Bale insisted the ideology of Islamic terrorists cannot be condemned as unislamic else the principles of takfir applies, i.e. it is sin for Muslims to call another Muslim [who had declared the Shahada], an apostate without valid divine basis.

In any case, as I had argued, no human can judge whether a Muslim's act is right or wrong, except Allah can judge on Judgment Day. Thus there in no divine recourse for the majority to counter the evil and violent acts of Islamist terrorists.
This culminates in a malignant STALEMATE Dilemma where the Islamist terrorist and evil doers can commit their good ethical Islamic based acts [evil and violent to the nons] as a religious duty forever.

That the ideology of Islam enable an unresolvable STALEMATE Dilemma that contribute to perennial evil and violent acts means the ideology of Islam itself is a threat to humanity, especially when WMDs are easily available.

The solution is thus to wean off the ideology of Islam since no humans on earth can resolve the STALEMATE Dilemma.

Hi Joyousperson,

Yes, I recommend the video by Bale. Bale is even more clear in his video, then in the "Bale" source that Joseph provided that the extremist groups are definitely Muslims, and Islam, and that they are primarily (the single most important cause) motivated by their ideology of Islamic doctrine, just as Nazi groups are motivated by their ideology of Hitler, or Christian anti-abortionists motivated by their ideology of Jesus and His followers, etc. Bale states that to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Bales also stresses that the Islamist Ideology is just as valid as the more modest Islam ideologies - both are Islam, and are Muslims. This teaching of Bale is even more precise then the "Bale" source Joseph supplied. Bale says that anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish. Joseph needs to understand this.

Bale even states, what I have been writing, in contrast to Joseph's view, that social factors have little to do with the extremist motivation of Muslims, but rather are predominantly ideological - Islam's sacred books.

For instance, Bale mentions that the Islamic extremists are not shy about why they do what they do - as 'extremists will talk your ear off for hours in many channels of social media about their Islamic ideology quoting from the sacred books.' Their ideology is crystal clear according to Bale, so that one would have to be willfully blind not to see it. So Islamic terrorists are not ignorant of Islam or Islamic doctrine as Joseph has stressed, and that Islamic ideology is the major motivating factor.

Regarding the fallacy of social factors motivating Jihadists, Bale states that these extremists are not holding up signs asking for a job, but are yelling "Allahu Akbar!" as they carry out their jihad attacks that are clearly guided by their many Scripture references by their sacred books. Exactly what I have been saying, and of which Joseph has been attacking - saying they are not primarily motivated by religion but by social factors.

Bale also stresses what you and I have repeatedly stressed that, even though "extremist" Muslims are fewer in number, they are a great danger to civilization - a threat that is not recognized by the US government policy or many so called "experts." Why so threatening? Bale states because politicians are willfully ignoring the source of the problem - Islam's sacred scriptures which extremists turn to as justification for their actions against the infidels in worldwide Jihad for Islam. Bales says for anyone not to recognize the danger is a "fool."

Joseph has been harping that Islamic terror has little to do with their religion, but rather are driven by social factors of those involved, and that terrorists are ignorant of Islamic doctrine - Just the opposite of what Bale stresses as the great threat today.

Unlike Bale, Joseph does not recognize the threat that Islam itself poses that motivates Jihad against the world. That is the danger that Bale stresses, and that you and I have repeatedly stressed to Joseph with no avail.

Bale mentions that one of the reasons for this lack of understanding of Islamism is an ignorance about Islam. This should be obvious. I have repeatedly stressed this ignorance of Islam - For instance, for someone not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do is in no position to talk about Islam.

Another reason Bales mentions for this lack of understanding is "mirroring" which is the projecting of one's own biased views onto Islam despite the fact that the Islamic extremists themselves clearly state their beliefs and the reasons for their beliefs. In the quotes I provided by Joseph, we can see how he is using his own personal experience to label the Islamic extremists as non-Muslim, not part of Islam, and ignorant of Islam's core doctrines. Bale stressed that such bias ignores the reality of Islam and the danger of it's core doctrines, as expressed in Sharia, that promote Jihad on infidels and perceived apostates.

Joseph attempts to use source data that only show correlation as proof to substantiate his biased understanding of Islam despite the fact the the Islamic extremists themselves clearly explain what motivates them. Bale stressed that this is "foolish," as if one's personal bias is more important then the self-proclaimed Islamic ideology that is actually motivating the extremist.

The whole video clearly portrays an Islam that is foreign to what Joseph has been trying to promote - which according to Bale is a biased and ignorant understanding of Islam that only a fool would hold onto, and such views are promoting the failed policies regarding extremists by politicians for years. And that is the danger - not recognizing the threat of the Jihad apocalyptic nature of right wing Islamic ideology.

Bale describes more things that I like, but I will leave that to those who view his video. NOTE: Bale is Joseph's source that he says he agrees with.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joyousperson,

Yes, I recommend the video by Bale. Bale is even more clear in his video, then in the "Bale" source that Joseph provided that the extremist groups are definitely Muslims, and Islam, and that they are primarily (the single most important cause) motivated by their ideology of Islamic doctrine, just as Nazi groups are motivated by their ideology of Hitler, or Christian anti-abortionists motivated by their ideology of Jesus and His followers, etc. Bale states that to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Bales also stresses that the Islamist Ideology is just as valid as the more modest Islam ideologies - both are Islam, and are Muslims. This teaching of Bale is even more precise then the "Bale" source Joseph supplied. Bale says that anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish. Joseph needs to understand this.

Bale even states, what I have been writing, in contrast to Joseph's view, that social factors have little to do with the extremist motivation of Muslims, but rather are predominantly ideological - Islam's sacred books.

For instance, Bale mentions that the Islamic extremists are not shy about why they do what they do - as 'extremists will talk your ear off for hours in many channels of social media about their Islamic ideology quoting from the sacred books.' Their ideology is crystal clear according to Bale, so that one would have to be willfully blind not to see it. So Islamic terrorists are not ignorant of Islam or Islamic doctrine as Joseph has stressed, and that Islamic ideology is the major motivating factor.

Regarding the fallacy of social factors motivating Jihadists, Bale states that these extremists are not holding up signs asking for a job, but are yelling "Allahu Akbar!" as they carry out their jihad attacks that are clearly guided by their many Scripture references by their sacred books. Exactly what I have been saying, and of which Joseph has been attacking - saying they are not primarily motivated by religion but by social factors.

Bale also stresses what you and I have repeatedly stressed that, even though "extremist" Muslims are fewer in number, they are a great danger to civilization - a threat that is not recognized by the US government policy or many so called "experts." Why so threatening? Bale states because politicians are willfully ignoring the source of the problem - Islam's sacred scriptures which extremists turn to as justification for their actions against the infidels in worldwide Jihad for Islam. Bales says for anyone not to recognize the danger is a "fool."

Joseph has been harping that Islamic terror has little to do with their religion, but rather are driven by social factors of those involved, and that terrorists are ignorant of Islamic doctrine - Just the opposite of what Bale stresses as the great threat today.

Unlike Bale, Joseph does not recognize the threat that Islam itself poses that motivates Jihad against the world. That is the danger that Bale stresses, and that you and I have repeatedly stressed to Joseph with no avail.

Bale mentions that one of the reasons for this lack of understanding of Islamism is an ignorance about Islam. This should be obvious. I have repeatedly stressed this ignorance of Islam - For instance, for someone not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do is in no position to talk about Islam.

Another reason Bales mentions for this lack of understanding is "mirroring" which is the projecting of one's own biased views onto Islam despite the fact that the Islamic extremists themselves clearly state their beliefs and the reasons for their beliefs. In the quotes I provided by Joseph, we can see how he is using his own personal experience to label the Islamic extremists as non-Muslim, not part of Islam, and ignorant of Islam's core doctrines. Bale stressed that such bias ignores the reality of Islam and the danger of it's core doctrines, as expressed in Sharia, that promote Jihad on infidels and perceived apostates.

Joseph attempts to use source data that only show correlation as proof to substantiate his biased understanding of Islam despite the fact the the Islamic extremists themselves clearly explain what motivates them. Bale stressed that this is "foolish," as if one's personal bias is more important then the self-proclaimed Islamic ideology that is actually motivating the extremist.

The whole video clearly portrays an Islam that is foreign to what Joseph has been trying to promote - which according to Bale is a biased and ignorant understanding of Islam that only a fool would hold onto, and such views are promoting the failed policies regarding extremists by politicians for years. And that is the danger - not recognizing the threat of the Jihad apocalyptic nature of right wing Islamic ideology.

Bale describes more things that I like, but I will leave that to those who view his video. NOTE: Bale is Joseph's source that he says he agrees with.

Well said.
Hope JosephZ will listen to this video to exorcise what he had been brainwashed or self-mirroring by his own deceptions.

However I do not agree with Dr. Jeffrey Bale totally and that there are other alternative acceptable moderate interpretations of Islam.

As you have stated [I agree], Dr. Bale is in no position [no credibility as far as I know] to simply assert there are alternatives to what is Islam.

There is only one true Islam from Allah and the one adopted by Islamist terrorists and other evil prone Muslims [as I have understood their views] are the default interpretation that carry a 90% weightage is the closest to Allah's original message as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran and supported by the Ahadith.

 

[setst777]

Like I said earlier, you are way off with that 10,000 figure. The actual numbers have been around 2 to 3 times higher in recent years and prior to 2010, other ideologies were higher than that of extremist Islam.

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
False again. Islamic terrorism is by far the leading cause of terrorism throughout the world. I gave you the statistics – about 10,000 times higher.

Joseph responds: Like I said earlier, you are way off with that 10,000 figure. The actual numbers have been around 2 to 3 times higher in recent years and prior to 2010, other ideologies were higher than that of extremist Islam.

Setst RE:
Those statistics I gave was deduced from the 2010 terrorist attack info and chart, which shows that of the 13,000 worldwide terrorist attacks, almost all of them were concentrated in Muslim countries.

I quote:
Despite the intense media focus on terrorist activity around the world, the numbers of people actually killed by terrorist attacks has remained low. Terrorism only killed 13,000 in 2010, a relatively low number when compared with other types of violent death, namely armed conflict and interpersonal violence.
Terrorism

Global terrorist attacks...

Number of deaths from terrorism

Global death toll of different causes of death

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/07/Global-Death-Toll-of-Different-Causes-of-Death-Oxfam0.png

My deduction of 10,000 time higher for Islam terrorist attacks stems from the fact that at least 10,000 terrorist attacks are Islamic in contrast to 26,445 total terrorist attacks. However, I am obviously making guestimates here; so, I admit that this is not the best evidence for 10,000 times, but it does show that predominantly Muslim countries make up the majority of all terrorist attacks and terrorist deaths in 2010 - even though terrorism was low that year.

I quote another source that I can prove a better estimate over a 15 year span - but only for terrorist deaths - as follows...

In the past 15 years, 98% of all terrorist attacks were in Muslim countries – mainly Muslim on Muslim, with others against Christians and other religious groups. Only 2.2% occurred outside of Muslim countries.

Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

“Of 167,221 terrorism-related fatalities reported from 2001 to 2015, almost all — 163,532 or 98 percent — occurred outside the United States and Western Europe, according to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database. The U.S. government-funded GTD is the world’s largest public database on terrorist attacks.”
Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

167,221 (total terrorist deaths) – 163,532 (terrorist deaths outside of Muslim countries) = 3,689

163,532 (Muslim terrorist deaths) divided by 3,689 terrorist deaths outside of Muslim countries = 44 times.

Terrorist attacks resulting in death in Muslim countries (mainly Muslim on Muslim) is 44 times higher than terrorist attacks in non-Muslim countries.

Increasingly we seeing more terrorist and violent Islamic attacks in non-Muslim countries - especially in Europe. Even though the rate has declined since 2017.

setst777 said: ↑
You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

Joseph responds:
<<
I showed you. You can either accept what I presented or not.
>>

setst RE: You never showed that by the sources. Where is you evidence?

The sources, Bale and Yahyah both state throughout their source material, including Bale's video, that Islamic extremist is clearly an integral part of the religion of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=5jq_8SBlaF8

Your own posts in contrast to Bale and Yahya and others of the 6 witnesses I provided, which you say you agree with, speak for themselves.

Joseph writes:
<<
What's important to note is that Reliance of the Traveller is one single source on Islamic law out of literally hundreds, yet you are taking it as gospel.

Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law, nor is it recognized as such by Islamic scholars.
>>

Setst RE: First of all, I never said that Reliance of the Traveller was the only source they used. I have repeatedly referred you to the Quran, the Hadith, and Sira, as well as Tafsir of Islam's greatest scholars as source material. I quoted those sources numerous times along with Sharia. So that is why I do not understand your point in quoting the forward.

Reliance of the Traveller is a Sunni Shafii manual, similar to the Sharai figh manuels of the other schools, are a guide to be used along with Islam’s sacred scriptures: The Quran, The Hadith, the Sira. As well, the Tafsir helps explain Islamic Sharia. These are the legal sources Islam of all sects use to define their faith and rules for living that traditional and fundamental Muslims live by in submission to Allah and His Messenger, and are the same sources they use to quote in expressing their faith.

Sharia is mentioned quite a bit in Islam, and so is not some nebulous mystical undefinable nothings that no one understands. Sharia figh was meant to explain and interpret Sharia Law, and is a guide to be used with the other legal texts of Islam.

setst777 said: ↑
Have you fully read all the material your quotes come from? What about Bale? Did you read the whole work on the subject? Did you completely read the whole of every source you quoted from?

Joseph responds:
<<
I'm very familiar with most of the sources I have provided in this thread especially those that originated from experts in the field of Terrorism and Violent extremism. I have listened to their lectures, read their research papers, and in the case of William Braniff, I have taken several courses offered by his organization, some of which contained resources from Dr. Bale.
<<

Setst RE: You are "familiar." Does that mean you completely read their source material from its origin? I ask because many of your statements disagree with Bale, whom you said you agree with. As well, you really didn’t know what Sharia was, or why Muslims dress the way they do. You also said you agreed with my six witnesses, but your own statements show that you believe just the opposite. So, do you really read the sources? Considering all these facts, how are you qualified to have any credible discussion about Islam?

setst777 said: ↑
I quoted your own comments alongside what Bale, Yahya and others state. Nothing was out of context.

Joseph responds:
<<
What you have done in your last post is a perfect example of taking things out of context. Quoting single sentences from people out of works or comments that involve several paragraphs or pages doesn't give a complete picture of what is being said or the intent of the individual.
>>

Setst RE: That is a cop out. I originally quoted the entire articles. You have not proven that anything was out of context that pertained to the subject, so your argument is fallacious.

You tried to show that I quoted two source quotes out of context, but actually this was your fault of not understanding the context as I have shown you.

In contrast, you have not given any response that validates your claims that I am taking things out of context – This is one of your most popular cop out responses when you are caught in your own contradictory opinions that disagree with the sources you say you agree with.

Joseph writes:
<<
Your entire post came across as a rant and was very difficult to follow. If anything it's proof that you take things out of context. I also feel that you are having difficulty comprehending what you read from me and others. There were so many misrepresentations of what I and others have said in that post that I really didn't know where to start. I would suggest you reread this thread from beginning to try and get a better understanding of what I have been saying.
>>

Setst RE: The message was simple and Very easy to follow. Nothing was out of context - You never proved all the statements you made that I contrasted to Bale and Yahya and others were out of context. That is just your statement without proof.

You are caught in a trap of your own making, so you are making unsubstantiated accusations to try to discredit the evidence against your ever changing views and lack of credibility.

 

[JosephZ]

I quote another source that I can prove a better estimate over a 15 year span - but only for terrorist deaths - as follows...

In the past 15 years, 98% of all terrorist attacks were in Muslim countries – mainly Muslim on Muslim, with others against Christians and other religious groups. Only 2.2% occurred outside of Muslim countries.

That is not at all what any of your sources say.

“Of 167,221 terrorism-related fatalities reported from 2001 to 2015, almost all — 163,532 or 98 percent — occurred outside the United States and Western Europe, according to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database. The U.S. government-funded GTD is the world’s largest public database on terrorist attacks.”
Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

Not all of the countries outside of the US and western Europe are Muslim and in no year has the number of terrorist attacks been 98% percent Islamic related. Not even close. As I have said before, between 1970 and 2010 only 10% of global terrorism was the result of Islamic extremists. between 2010 and 2017 the percentage has been over 50%, but nearly all of this Islamic related terrorism has been occurring in Muslim countries that have been in a state of conflict or war.

Your source literally confirms everything I have said in this thread about terrorism. The reason it does is because I use the exact same sources. Every chart, graph, and statistic I have given in this thread on terrorism came from the data found at the Global Terrorism Database.

Here is more from your source:

Researchers at the Institute for Economics and Peace have combed the GTD data for patterns and identified two features common to countries where terrorism thrives. According to their research, 92 percent of all terrorist attacks in the past 25 years have occurred in countries with widespread state-sponsored political violence, while 88 percent of attacks have occurred in places with violent conflicts.

“The link between these two factors and terrorism is so strong that less than 0.6 per cent of all terrorist attacks have occurred in countries without any ongoing conflict and any form of political terror,” the researchers write in the 2015 Global Terrorism Index Report.

In most Muslim-majority countries with a significant level of terrorist activity, one or both of these features are present. Iraq may be the most extreme example of a country with a long history of state-sponsored violence and conflict over political authority. At the other end of the spectrum is Egypt, where authoritarian regimes have long sanctioned violence against political opponents.

And what I have said in this thread:

Islamic terrorism is higher in countries that are in conflict.

Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.

Terrorist attacks resulting in death in Muslim countries (mainly Muslim on Muslim) is 44 times higher than terrorist attacks in non-Muslim countries.

Deaths are higher in those countries because they are in a state of conflict and many regions are in a state of lawlessness which allows terrorists to plan and coordinate larger and more sophisticated attacks.

False again. Islamic terrorism is by far the leading cause of terrorism throughout the world. I gave you the statistics – about 10,000 times higher.

Joseph responds: Like I said earlier, you are way off with that 10,000 figure. The actual numbers have been around 2 to 3 times higher in recent years and prior to 2010, other ideologies were higher than that of extremist Islam.

Setst RE:Those statistics I gave was deduced from the 2010 terrorist attack info and chart, which shows that of the 13,000 worldwide terrorist attacks, almost all of them were concentrated in Muslim countries.

I quote:

Despite the intense media focus on terrorist activity around the world, the numbers of people actually killed by terrorist attacks has remained low. Terrorism only killed 13,000 in 2010, a relatively low number when compared with other types of violent death, namely armed conflict and interpersonal violence.
Terrorism

Your sources clearly show that terrorist attacks related to Islamic extremism are 2 to 3 times higher than that of other ideologies, not 10,000.

Joseph responds:

I showed you. You can either accept what I presented or not.

setst RE: You never showed that by the sources. Where is you evidence?

I provided you with a direct quote from Dr. Bale.

The sources, Bale and Yahyah both state throughout their source material, including Bale's video, that Islamic extremist is clearly an integral part of the religion of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=5jq_8SBlaF8

And I agree with them as I have already pointed out. Let's use some common sense for a moment. Would I be using terms like "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic extremists" if I didn't believe that terrorism carried out in the name of Islam wasn't related to to the religion?

You are "familiar." Does that mean you completely read their source material from its origin? I ask because many of your statements disagree with Bale, whom you said you agree with.

Like I said, I think you are having difficulty comprehending what I have been saying in this thread and this is why you get the impression that I disagree with much of what Dr. Bale says in his material.

Joseph attempts to use source data that only show correlation as proof to substantiate his biased understanding of Islam despite the fact the the Islamic extremists themselves clearly explain what motivates them. Bale stressed that this is "foolish," as if one's personal bias is more important then the self-proclaimed Islamic ideology that is actually motivating the extremist.

Show me where I have denied that extremists use Islam and Islamic texts to explain their motivation. Joyousperson has many times quoted the leadership of ISIS and I have asked him why he chooses to believe them over the voices of the vast majority of Muslims who condemn them from doing so.

To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian extremism, including Christian terrorism, is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."

The whole video clearly portrays an Islam that is foreign to what Joseph has been trying to promote - which according to Bale is a biased and ignorant understanding of Islam that only a fool would hold onto, and such views are promoting the failed policies regarding extremists by politicians for years. And that is the danger - not recognizing the threat of the Jihad apocalyptic nature of right wing Islamic ideology.

Dr. Bale isn't talking about the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow in that video. The subject Islamic extremism and he only briefly mentions the religion of Islam to show that there is a difference between the two. Dr. Bale makes it clear that those like yourself who conflate the religion of Islam with Islamic extremism are in error and part of the problem when it comes to countering violent extremism.

Bale describes more things that I like, but I will leave that to those who view his video. NOTE: Bale is Joseph's source that he says he agrees with.

I do agree with Dr. Bale and what he says in that video. Start at the beginning of the thread and read all of my posts in full and you will find that this is the case.

As well, you really didn’t know what Sharia was, or why Muslims dress the way they do. You also said you agreed with my six witnesses, but your own statements show that you believe just the opposite. So, do you really read the sources? Considering all these facts, how are you qualified to have any credible discussion about Islam?

Your education and understanding on this subject comes from the internet, anti-Islamic sites, and propagandists as the sources you have shared and your posting clearly show. EVERYTHING you have said in in the thread can be found on sites like answeringIslam and politicalislam. This is the reason you have such a distorted view of Islam and why you have difficulty separating Islamic extremism from the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow. In addition, you yourself are a fundamentalist, so you would naturally lean towards the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

 

[setst777]

That is not at all what any of your sources say.

Hi Joseph,

setst777 said: ↑
I quote another source that I can prove a better estimate over a 15 year span - but only for terrorist deaths - as follows...

In the past 15 years, 98% of all terrorist attacks were in Muslim countries – mainly Muslim on Muslim, with others against Christians and other religious groups. Only 2.2% occurred outside of Muslim countries.

Joseph responds:
<<
That is not at all what any of your sources say.

“Of 167,221 terrorism-related fatalities reported from 2001 to 2015, almost all — 163,532 or 98 percent — occurred outside the United States and Western Europe, according to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database. The U.S. government-funded GTD is the world’s largest public database on terrorist attacks.”
Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries …
Your source literally confirms everything I have said in this thread about terrorism. The reason it does is because I use the exact same sources. Every chart, graph, and statistic I have given in this thread on terrorism came from the data found at the Global Terrorism Database
>>

Setst RE: I will let the reader of these posts study the article for themselves. The subject and title of the article is:

Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

When I view the statistics in context, I clearly see predominantly Muslim terror attacks against others. And that is what the article clearly demonstrates by the evidence provided.

Notice that many other places in the world have problems, but predominantly Muslims handle these problems through terrorism.

Keep in mind that, while you have pointed out a correlation between Muslim countries and all the issues they have, you still fail to understand the Islam Ideology is the major factor creating these many problems, and resulting terrorism in Muslim countries.

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
[Yahya]

The whole religion of Islam is jaded by their only sacred Scriptures, which commands Islamic orthodoxy to commit jihad against all those who are not true Muslims.

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.” [Yahya]

setst777 said: ↑
Terrorist attacks resulting in death in Muslim countries (mainly Muslim on Muslim) is 44 times higher than terrorist attacks in non-Muslim countries.

Joseph responds:
<<
Deaths are higher in those countries because they are in a state of conflict and many regions are in a state of lawlessness which allows terrorists to plan and coordinate larger and more sophisticated attacks.
>>

Setst RE: While you have pointed out a correlation between Muslim countries and all the issues they have, you still fail to understand the Islam Ideology is the major factor creating these many problems, and resulting terrorism in Muslim countries.

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
[Yahya]

setst777 said: ↑
The sources, Bale and Yahyah both state throughout their source material, including Bale's video, that Islamic extremist is clearly an integral part of the religion of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=5jq_8SBlaF8

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
And I agree with them as I have already pointed out. Let's use some common sense for a moment. Would I be using terms like "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic extremists" if I didn't believe that terrorism carried out in the name of Islam wasn't related to the religion?
>>

Setst RE: You agree with them, but they disagree with you. Bale and Yahya contradict your own opinions and statements about Islam and Muslims being only peaceful and loving. You have repeatedly stated that Islamic extremists are not part of the religion of Islam and are not Muslims. Bale and Yahyah clearly contradict and oppose you, yet you say you agree with them.

4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph writes:
<<
Qur'an 5:3 was the final revelation to Muhammad.
Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you.

This came when the enemies of Islam had given up hope in fighting against Islam and Allah gave assurance that Muslims no longer need to fear them. From that point forward Islam was to be spread through Daʿwah. Which means rather than use violence, Muslims are to invite others by sharing the message of Islam
>>

NOTE: You are teaching your belief that, since 632 – the year of Muhammad’s final revelation – that true Islam is only about peace with no violence.

4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph responds:
<<
The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history. This is no different than the battles found in the Old Testament.
>>

NOTE: Here again, you reinforce your belief that violent Jihad fulfilled its purpose 1,400 years ago (632 AD), and is not part of true Islam today. All your statements confirm this belief. For example…

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph said: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph said: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph said: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph said: It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions.
>>

setst777 said: ↑
Joseph attempts to use source data that only show correlation as proof to substantiate his biased understanding of Islam despite the fact the Islamic extremists themselves clearly explain what motivates them. Bale stressed that this is "foolish," as if one's personal bias is more important then the self-proclaimed Islamic ideology that is actually motivating the extremist.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Show me where I have denied that extremists use Islam and Islamic texts to explain their motivation.
>>

Setst RE: What we said is that you say that Islamic extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. So if extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam, then where are they getting their ideas from?

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph said: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

setst RE: Dr. Bale clearly states in the video that Islamic terrorists have a legitimate understanding of their ideology from Islam's core sources in the same way that other more liberal Muslims do.

Dr. Bale, in the video, makes no judgment that the Islamic terrorist or extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam; rather, he stresses that all have a legitimate understanding of their faith from the core sources within Islam.

Joseph writes:
<<
To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian extremism, including Christian terrorism, is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."
>>

Setst RE: You disagree with Dr. Bale.

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph said: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph said: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Note: According to Yahya, Sharia is the predominant cause of the problems, which totally disagrees with you.

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.” [Yahya]

setst777 said: ↑
The whole video clearly portrays an Islam that is foreign to what Joseph has been trying to promote - which according to Bale is a biased and ignorant understanding of Islam that only a fool would hold onto, and such views are promoting the failed policies regarding extremists by politicians for years. And that is the danger - not recognizing the threat of the Jihad apocalyptic nature of right wing Islamic ideology.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Dr. Bale isn't talking about the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow in that video.
>>

Setst RE: Dr. Bale never makes that distinction. Bale only mentions ONE religion of Islam with many differing, but legitimate, Muslim sects within - including moderates, fundamtalis, extremists, etc.

Religion of Islam is one. Bale never divides up the religion of Islam itself.

You disagree with Bale in practically every way imaginable, of which I have shown by your own statements in contrast to what Bale actually said.

Joseph continues:
<<
The subject Islamic extremism and he only briefly mentions the religion of Islam to show that there is a difference between the two. Dr. Bale makes it clear that those like yourself who conflate the religion of Islam with Islamic extremism are in error and part of the problem when it comes to countering violent extremism.
>>

Setst RE: Dr. Bale states that the problem with the ignorant and foolish is not recognizing that Islamic extremists Muslims are also part of Islam - they define their faith by the sacred books of Islam.

 

[JosephZ]

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.” [Yahya]
Joseph responds:
Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.
Setst RE: No Joseph, "Many Muslims." Read it again.

There are around 100,000,000 Wahhabist and Fundamentalist Muslims. That is many.

Sharia is for all Islam – that is the definition of Sharia in Islam for all Muslims - not just Wahhabist and fundamentalists - LOOK....

Not the Shari'a you are describing in this thread.

Many [not some, by many] Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Once again, 100,000,000 is many.

Joseph wrote: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Yahya states just the opposite – who is right, you or Yahya?

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. [Yahya]

Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … [Yahya]

I agree with Yahya.

To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam..."

setst777 quotes Joseph as follows:
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam
Joseph responds:
<<
This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>
Setst RE: Yes they do. According to Yahya and Bale, both extremists and other Muslims represent the same religion – Islam. That is what they stated.

I think you are having trouble with the definition of "represent."

Muslim extremists represent extreme interpretations of Islam (A tiny minority) and Muslims (Non-extremists) represent the more accepted religion of Islam (The vast majority).

So when I say:

"Islamic extremism and terrorism does not represent (point out the chief quality or qualities of) the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow."

This is a true statement.

Setst RE: Yes you did. I already responded with quotes from YOU. If you don’t like what you write then why do you write it?

Can you start quoting my posts using the quote feature of the forum? If you will do this it will make it easier for me to go back and read what is being said in context and in turn I can better clarify what I'm saying in those posts.

Setst RE
clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Dr. Bale is literally talking about you in that paragraph.

you have not given any response that validates your claims that I am taking things out of context – This is one of your most popular cop out responses when you are caught in your own contradictory opinions that disagree with the sources you say you agree with.

If you will use the quote features of the forum I would be able to do this.

setst777 said: ↑
False again. Islamic terrorism is by far the leading cause of terrorism throughout the world. I gave you the statistics – about 10,000 times higher.

This is wrong. It's between 2 and 3 times higher.

In the past 15 years, 98% of all terrorist attacks were in Muslim countries – mainly Muslim on Muslim, with others against Christians and other religious groups. Only 2.2% occurred outside of Muslim countries.

This is wrong. While most terror attacks occur in Muslim majority countries (primarily because of the state of conflict and lawlessness that exists in them), it is not true that 98% of all terrorist attacks occur in Muslim countries.

When I view the statistics in context, I clearly see predominantly Muslim terror attacks against others. And that is what the article clearly demonstrates by the evidence provided.

No one would deny that the majority of terrorist attacks over the past decade or so have been taking place in Muslim majority countries.

Notice that many other places in the world have problems, but predominantly Muslims handle these problems through terrorism.

This is not true. Between 1970 and 2010 90% of terrorist incidents worldwide were carried out by non-Muslims. Ireland experienced widespread terrorism during "The Troubles." Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the Tamil Tigers a predominantly Buddhist terrorist group in Sri Lanka was the world leader in suicide attacks. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa, which according the United Nations, was responsible for more than 100,000 deaths, the abduction of between 60,000 to 100,000 children, and the displacement of as many as 2.5 million civilians between 1987 and 2012 was just as viscous as ISIS. The LRA claimed it was fighting for the establishment of the rule of the Ten Commandments in a theocratic Uganda. Their activities covered a large swath of Africa committing atrocities in not only Uganda, but also South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

"The LRA is fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Biblical Ten Commandments of God. That is true because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.” -- Vincent Otti, LRA Commander

Here in the Philippines the majority of terrorist incidents are carried out by the New People's Army, a Communist terror group, which has a significant amount of support from the Christian population and many of it's leaders are Christians.

Global Terrorism Database

The New People's Army— the armed unit of the Communist Party of the Philippines—was responsible for most of the casualities, or 35-percent of the total deaths, followed by the Abu Sayyaf group responsible for 18-percent of the deaths and the Maute group, responsible for 8 percent of deaths ascribed to terrorism.

From an article on a recent attack:

...the NPAs were led by a certain Christian Pastor of the Guerilla Front 33 of the NPA Southern Mindanao Regional Command (SMRC).

An older article:

Nuns and priests working with the communists divide church... ''They begin to see God as a historical process, Christ as a liberator and faith becomes commitment to the Communist Party. ''It used to be the church said killing could only be justified in self-defense,'' the priest said. ''But in our case, where there is what we call structural injustice, we believe you don't have to wait for the other person to kill you first before you kill them.''

The NPA/Communist ideology is a form of Christian Communism like what is found in Latin America where terrorism is also widespread. This is why you see many of it's members who also belong to the Church. In fact, many in leadership positions of these Communist Christian terrorist groups are Priests, pastors, and other church leaders.

Baptist churches have been found to fund and support much of the terrorism taking place in Northeast India.

The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. They have been accused of funding terrorism and forcing local tribals to convert to Christianity at gunpoint.

The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels.

At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity. A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism. It is believed that as many as 5,000 tribal villagers were forcibly converted from 1999 to 2001. These forcible conversions to Christianity, sometimes including the use of "rape as a means of intimidation,"

The NSCN

Equally disturbing is the NSCN faction’s dubious claim of being the torch bearers of Christ’s gospel. Isak Chishi Swu the NSCN-IM chairman has on records said that Nagalim will send out 10,000 missionaries around the world when it achieves independence. “Our intention is that Nagalim is for Christ. We have proclaimed it. Nagalim is for Christ. God has got his plan for Nagalim,” he said. “We were evangelized by the American Baptist missionaries back in 1839, and we don’t have the adequate words to thank the American missionaries.”

There have been reports from North east region that the Naga insurgents have used threats and intimidation in areas where they operate all the name of Lord Jesus Christ...

And there are also the Anti-Balaka Militias in the Central African republic that resort to terrorism.

After the Muslims were baptised into the Apostolic Church in a ceremony attended by the village headman, they “had to show the anti-balaka [their] baptismal cards to not be killed,”

“We had no choice but to join the Catholic Church,” the oldest brother told Amnesty International. “The anti-balaka swore they’d kill us if we didn’t.” Another brother said that the family members have to attend church services every Sunday. “We have to confirm that we’re really Catholic,” he explained.

“The anti-balaka told us to go to church,” recalled Abdoulaye A. “‘If you don’t want to, we’ll kill you,’ they told us.”

“If you refuse to be baptised you have to pay a fine,” said Hassan I., age 61, who lived in Balego until recently

“It is effectively illegal for us to pray,” said Abdou Y., in Mbaiki. “We have to hide, do it quickly, and do it by ourselves. Collective Friday prayers are impossible.”

Besides massacres, sectarian killings, and wholesale ethnic cleansing, one of the clearest signs of the intensity of sectarian animus was the destruction of the country’s mosques. In town after town, village after village, mosques were looted, vandalized, damaged or destroyed in early 2014, at the same time that the Muslim population was driven out. Some have estimated that more than 400 mosques were destroyed.

These are not all of the examples of terrorism taking place in the world. Right-wing extremism and terrorist activities have been on the increase in recent years. There is also left-wing and environmental terrorism that takes place. So as you can see, it would be incorrect to say that predominantly Muslims handle their problems through terrorism. If this were true, why is Islamic related terrorism at the levels we have seen over the past decade a recent development? Why did it make up such a small percentage of terrorist attacks globally prior to 9/11?

Terrorism extends across all ideologies.

 

[JosephZ]

Setst RE: I will let the reader of these posts study the article for themselves. The subject and title of the article is: Most Terrorism Victims Are in Muslim Majority Countries

Anyone who reads that article will be able to clearly see where you are wrong in saying incidents of Islamic terrorism are 10,000 times higher than that of other ideologies and that 98% of terrorism takes place in Muslim countries.

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
[Yahya]

I'm in agreement. This is once again why I deliberately use the terms "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic Terrorism."

You have repeatedly stated that Islamic extremists are not part of the religion of Islam and are not Muslims.

I have said that they don't represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

What we said is that you say that Islamic extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. So if extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam, then where are they getting their ideas from?

Joseph said: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.

Every study ever done on this subject has shown that the rank and file members of Islamic extremist/terrorist groups have little to no understanding of the teachings of Islam.

Here is some information on what has been discovered about people who join Islamic extremist groups.

From the UN:

UN study finds foreign fighters in Syria 'lack basic understanding of Islam'

“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” said the authors of the report, which was based on interviews with 43 people from 12 countries.

“Religious belief seems to have played a minimal role in the motivation of this sample,” the report found, saying economic factors had become more important as terrorist groups promised wages, homes and even wives.

From MI5 in the UK:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 saysthere is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In the Philippines:

Cocoy Tulawie, a politician and member of an influential family in Sulu, said this has long been the norm and local government officials have been in connivance with Abu Sayyaf for decades.

He said younger members are ignorant of Islam, yet they are extremely fanatical about representing it. Their version of Islam is flawed simply because the dawas - or Islamic schools - are usually in the main towns and they do not get the chance to study the Quran "properly".

That ignorance, he said, is what makes them dangerous.

Here's another report:

Thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits’ knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and “hadith” — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just “basic” knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an “intermediate” knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam.

The group preys on this religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.

As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.

Most Islamic terrorist also live worldly lives; drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc., all of which are forbidden in Islam. Here in the Philippines many of the ISIS inspired terrorists drink alcohol and are meth addicts. Many fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria also use drugs.

Hardly devout Muslims or well educated in Islamic doctrine.

Dr. Bale clearly states in the video that Islamic terrorists have a legitimate understanding of their ideology from Islam's core sources in the same way that other more liberal Muslims do. Dr. Bale, in the video, makes no judgment that the Islamic terrorist or extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam; rather, he stresses that all have a legitimate understanding of their faith from the core sources within Islam.

This is true of those in leadership positions and a very small percentage that join these organizations, but the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of Islamic extremists do not. Dr. Bale would not argue against that fact.

Setst RE: Dr. Bale never makes that distinction. Bale only mentions ONE religion of Islam with many differing, but legitimate, Muslim sects within - including moderates, fundamtalist, extremists, etc. Religion of Islam is one. Bale never divides up the religion of Islam itself.

This is not true. He indeed makes a distinction between the two.

Dr. Bale states that the problem with the ignorant and foolish is not recognizing that Islamic extremists Muslims are also part of Islam - they define their faith by the sacred books of Islam.

Once again, I'm in agreement with Dr. Bale.

To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam..."

You are caught in a trap of your own making, so you are making unsubstantiated accusations to try to discredit the evidence against your ever changing views and lack of credibility.

In contrast, you have not given any response that validates your claims that I am taking things out of context – This is one of your most popular cop out responses when you are caught in your own contradictory opinions that disagree with the sources you say you agree with.

Below is a perfect example of how are taking things out of context and misrepresenting what I am saying in an attempt to make it appear that I'm in disagreement with Dr. Bale and other sources.

Joseph writes:
To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian extremism, including Christian terrorism, is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."

Setst RE: You disagree with Dr. Bale.

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
Joseph said: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

In the second sentence of mine that you quoted you only highlighted part of the sentence to make it appear that I said Islamic extremism isn't part of Islam.

"What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam"

When you add the rest of the sentence it is clear that this is not what is being said:

"that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow."

When I say "that the vast majority of Muslims follow," this means that the Islamic extremists follow a sect of Islam that is not part of mainstream Islam.

Now when you put the above sentence in context with other statements I have made in this thread, it becomes perfectly clear that I agree with Dr. Bale and the others you say I'm in disagreement with.

You will not find what you are saying here about Islam taught in any legitimate school that offers Islamic Studies whether it be from a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought, nor will you find Muslims who believe that way outside of the small minority which make up the extremists fringe.

Notice I associated Muslims with the extremists fringe in the above quote.

What you are criticizing is not the religion of Islam that almost every Muslim in the world follows; what you are criticizing is an extremist sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. It's not the religion of Islam that Islamic terrorist follow, its an extremist interpretation of Islam.

Notice I used the term "sect" and said "extremist interpretation of Islam."

My point is that the 90% of the world's Muslims who reject the extreme sects of Islam such as Salafi/Wahhabism and the acts of the less than 1% of those [Muslims] who actively participate in violent jihad have access to the exact same 6236 verses in the Quran that you do, yet they know how to put those verses into textual and historical context unlike yourself and come to a different conclusion.

Muslims don't interpret Islam or the Qur'an as you do and you are legitimizing a violent sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

sect:
noun
a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

It is quite clear from the above passages that I associate Islamic extremism and terrorism with Islam. This thread is an on going conversation and everything has to be put into full context. So when I say something like the following in a post:

"I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam."

When you put it into context with what I have been saying all along, there shouldn't be any confusion about what I mean.

Your response is obviously false. Your recent experts and Yahya show that Islamic terrorism is part of the religion of Islam.

I have also directly linked Islamic terrorism to the religion of Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

Sets777,

As I had suggested somewhere the introduction by JosephZ of all types of terrorism is a straw man fallacy which he introduced to deflect the real issue.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." - wiki
​

My main point which I started was the ideology and the ethos of Islam is inherently malignant, evil and violent.
This is substantiated by the 3400++ verses that are full of contempt, aggression, hatred and violence against non-Muslim disbelievers.
This is evidently proven by the whole gamut and range of real terrible evil and violent acts committed by a-critical-SOME Muslims as a religious duty which to Muslims mean "doing good" [SLH: Salih] for the cause of Allah.

There are thousands types within the full range of terrible evil and violent committed by certain large numbers of Muslim. So it is not practical to list all the types of evil and violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.
So, to give a clear and notable example of the above I often use this specific statistics of the extreme violent acts which is reasonable reliable [given some margin of errors];

Currently it is 35,278* DEADLY and FATAL [i.e. with death] Islamic terrorists attacks since 911. *34,993 above was linked sometime ago.
I believe this statistics [albeit a minor margin of error] is a more accurate basis than those highly selective and filtered figures from START [Dr. Braniff] which is clouded by ALL other types of terrorism.
The first impression of these attacks are often traceable to political, social, etc. carried out by SOME Muslims. As you, me and others know, the ultimate root cause is traceable to the ideology of Islam [as Dr. Bale and your witnesses concurred].

This is where JosephZ went off tangent & the rail and desperately strayed using the straw man fallacy [red herring] and the tu quoque fallacy by deflecting the issue to ALL types of terrorist attacks.

This is the cheat and deception [i think this is a subconscious thing used by many] to deflect from the main topic.

This terrible evil and violence by Islamists are increasing and the threat towards the future is potentially very critical which could even threatened the human species. Note the apocalyptic element mentioned in the above videos I linked.
Dr. Bale [in another article linked somewhere] even alluded it is possible Muslim terrorists could use nuclear weapons and other WMDs, given that they have nothing to lose as regardless of what happens to the human species where they are assured of a place in paradise with eternal life.

The main problem here is the full range of terrible evil and violence emanating from the ideology of Islam exist and must be tackled seriously. Therefore it is critical we focus on tracing such existing evil acts and its potential in the future to its ultimate root cause which you, me and others has traced to the ideology of Islam.

The other types of non-Islamic related evil, violent and terrorist acts must be tackled and resolved, but they are off topic and a deflection tactic used by JosephZ in this case.

Note this same video re Dr. Bale, especially from minutes 14:00 to 17:25;
Here Dr. Bale highlighted the ignorance of those apologists who are not aware of the root causes and elements that are contributing to Islamic terrorism. e.g. the Quran, Ahadith, Nansakh, i.e. the concept of abrogation, and many others.

Perhaps due to time factor, Dr. Bale did not go into the fuller details of the Quran and other reference to find the root causes. I don't read of him doing it elsewhere either. If he had done so, I bet what he produced will the same arguments are those he accused as "anti-Islam bashers" he brushed off.

I would suggest again that we avoid discussing ALL types of terrorism and its %, and such % themselves will not be effective to resolve the real and evident terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims in the name of Islam.
To topic, the focus is on Islamic related terrorism ONLY and determining its ultimate root causes, i.e. to the ideology of Islam.

Thus whenever JosephZ deflect to ALL other types of terrorism in comparison to Islamic related terrorism, just ignore it. I have taken the course from START and I know those statistics are not efficient in this particular case.

Remind JosephZ there are real evident terrible evil and violent acts committed a-critical-SOME* evil prone Muslims who are compelled and inspired by the terrible evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam.
There are perhaps hundreds of thousands terrible non-terrorist and terrorist evil acts committed by Islamist since 1400+ years ago.

The latest statistics showed 35,200+ fatal attacks since 911. The point is even if we reduced it to 10% - 3500+ or even 1% - 350 to the most notable ones, they are still of concern to humanity especially if we view it to its WMDs [nuclear and biological] apocalyptic potential in the future.

JosephZ's main point is based on the thinking and actions of the majority of Muslims who are evidently peaceful in nature. Therefore Islam is a peaceful religion. This is stupid logic, i.e. note the ad populum fallacy I have highlighted to him many times.
But you have already blown such an argument to pieces in comparison to lay Christians and their low affiliation of Christianity-proper.
I have given the example of the 95% of lay-Buddhist who are not adhering to Buddhism-proper but rather a bastardized form of Buddhism to suit their current psychological, intellectual, intelligence,spiritual state. I believe it is the same with lay-believers who are the majority of all religions.

 

[Joyousperson]

As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.

Most Islamic terrorist also live worldly lives; drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc., all of which are forbidden in Islam. Here in the Philippines many of the ISIS inspired terrorists drink alcohol and are meth addicts. Many fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria also use drugs.

Hardly devout Muslims or well educated in Islamic doctrine.


This is true of those in leadership positions and a very small percentage that join these organizations, but the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of Islamic extremists do not. Dr. Bale would not argue against that fact.

It is a blatant lie to assert

"Most Islamic terrorist also live worldly lives; drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc., all of which are forbidden in Islam."​

There are probably some who do the above, but they are a minority who are hidden in a jungle, in remote areas or elsewhere.
How many Muslims in the previous Islamic State, Saudi Arabia and other Muslims majority nations would have done the above openly?
One of the Speaker in the Conference in one of the video here;
Mike Grimm
stated the above excuse is a sham and is typical of the foolish to use such an argument.

Even Dr. Bale alluded to a similar condemnation of using such point to argue the above.
In 28:09 - 29:08 Dr. Bale mentioned the use of the excuse of the psychological states of the terrorist attackers is foolish and noted Islamist terrorists did not protest about jobs, etc. but rather shouted Allah-u-Akbar.
Dr. Bale's point is, regardless of whatever the outer obvious actions of Islamist fundamentals and extremists, to ignore the ideological element of Islam is foolish.

Dr. Bale argued there are alternative interpretations of Islam which are peaceful. I totally disagree with this point. Note the Ahmadiyyas, the sufi who are supposedly peaceful are not recognized as Islamic by the majority.
There is only ONE Islam from Allah as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran [the direct words of God via Gabriel and Muhammad] which immutable.
How can an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah be so capricious as to allow and accept two or more forms to Allah immutable Islam, this is ridiculous.

This point to the fact that the Quran - the core of Islam - is full of ambiquities, thus it is from a false God and is a false religion [which you agreed]. So Why are you defending such falsehoods? Should a Christian defend lies?

 

[JosephZ]

It is a blatant lie to assert
"Most Islamic terrorist also live worldly lives; drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc., all of which are forbidden in Islam."
There are probably some who do the above, but they are a minority who are hidden in a jungle, in remote areas or elsewhere.

They are not just confined to the jungles. The 9/11 attackers, Paris attackers, and ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria and the foreign fighters that joined them have all been described to be involved to one extent or another from the list I gave. This information comes from interviews with people who knew the extremists, former hostages, toxicology reports, and interviews with the extremists themselves.

How many Muslims in the previous Islamic State

Most of the rank and file members. Many take meth to stay awake and the Islamic State is even involved in drug trafficking and prostitution to fund its activities. In addition many of the ISIS recruits coming from the west were also known to have substance abuse problems.

It's no secret that most Islamic terrorists aren't devout Muslims and every study on this subject has come to the same conclusion. Every one.

 

[setst777]

I'm in agreement. This is once again why I deliberately use the terms "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic Terrorism."

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.” [Yahya]

Joseph responds:
Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.

Setst RE: No Joseph, "Many Muslims." Read it again.

Joseph responds:
There are around 100,000,000 Wahhabist and Fundamentalist Muslims. That is many.

Setst RE: Saudi Arabia (Wahhabist) does not even make the top ten countries where there are terrorist attacks even though they are involved in some acts of terror in the Middle East. The USA has more terrorist attacks than Saudi Arabia.

Iraq (by far) leads in terrorism. Iraq is Shia Muslim.

Iran is Shia, and is the leading supporter of terrorism in the Middle East.

You are missing a great deal of the major Jihadist activity by concentrating only on Wahhabists. You include "Fundamentalist" but whenever I describe a fundamental view of Islam, you say it is "Wahhabist." So, you actually use the terms anonymously.

So the figure you provide is not accurate. Not to mention that the majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims support and want Sharia Law – the leading cause of all the violence in Islam.

Even so, I couldn’t care less if there were only 100 million total fundamental or traditional Muslims, the fact remains that Islam is jaded toward violence and Jihad by their own core Scripture sources. The traditional, classical, orthodox sects of Islam (which are many, and includes Shia) are the ones that actually follow Sharia as found in their sacred Scriptures. That is why Islam is a danger to the world.

setst777 said: ↑
clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism...‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Dr. Bale is literally talking about you in that paragraph.
>>

Setst RE: Hardly. I don’t attribute all the jihadist elements to Islam in general. Islam itself, as I have repeatedly stated, represent the liberal, moderate, as well as the traditional and fundamental sects within Islam.

However, the core teachings of Islam, as found in Sharia, are jaded toward Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers against Islam. The traditional, classical, orthodox and fundamental sects of Islam carry out Sharia, and by doing so, will also carry out Jihad as commanded. That is the danger that I am stressing in this whole dialogue with you.

The liberal and moderate Islam sects, which represent the majority of Muslims in the West, are far more secularized by their own admission, and do not follow Sharia as Allah commanded.

setst777 said: ↑
you have not given any response that validates your claims that I am taking things out of context – This is one of your most popular cop out responses when you are caught in your own contradictory opinions that disagree with the sources you say you agree with.

Joseph responds:
<<
If you will use the quote features of the forum I would be able to do this.
>>

Setst RE: Cop out. I gave time and date of your messages I responded to. So look up the time and date.

When you quote me, you do not give a time or date, not even the ID Message number; yet, I respond to your messages and your arguments, never making excuses or broad generalizations as you have been doing. As well, the "quote features" do not prevent tampering with the message, it just makes the message "appear" authentic.

setst777 said: ↑
When I view the statistics in context, I clearly see predominantly Muslim terror attacks against others. And that is what the article clearly demonstrates by the evidence provided.

Joseph responds:
<<
No one would deny that the majority of terrorist attacks over the past decade or so have been taking place in Muslim majority countries.
>>

Setst RE: Good. No need to harp on it over and over then, since you agree. While Ireland, and some groups, had problems, that does not diminish the fact that since 632 AD, Islam has been the major source of terror and violence in the world - and this is due to the Core Teachings - Sharia.

Remember, there is a big difference between racist acts of violence and an ideology that demands global Jihad. Only Islam has such an ideology that threatens the civilized world. That is what I am stressing in this dialogue with you.

I quote (which is very accurate and true):
<<
There are pockets of racists in the world, and individuals who engage in terrible acts of violence against innocent people. These are dangerous men, capable of doing tremendous damage. But no group threatens global peace the same way that political Islam does. None has its reach or material and theological support. None has created more mayhem and death in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Sri Lankan massacre is just another harrowing reminder.
[David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/22/islamic-terrorism-remains-the-worlds-greatest-threat-to-peace/]
>>

setst777 said: ↑
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
[Yahya]

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
I'm in agreement. This is once again why I deliberately use the terms "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic Terrorism."
>>

Setst RE: You agree yet disagree. The core teachings of Islam are the reason Islamic orthodoxy carries out Jihad. Liberal and moderate Muslims don’t submit to the core teachings of Islam as found in Sharia - by their own admission they are secularized. You disagree, saying that religion has little to do with Islamic terrorism.

setst777 said: ↑
You have repeatedly stated that Islamic extremists are not part of the religion of Islam and are not Muslims.

Joseph responds:
<<
I have said that they don't represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

Setst RE: You misrepresent yourself repeatedly when it suits you. Your own statements clarify and define that only the moderate peaceful Muslims represent the religion of Islam, and that fundamental and extremist Islam sects are not Muslims and are not true Islam. That is the clear distinction you have made.

I quote you:

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph said: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
<<
Joseph said: The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history.
>>

Joseph quotes:
<<
setst777 said: ↑
What we said is that you say that Islamic extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. So if extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam, then where are they getting their ideas from?

setst777 said: ↑
Joseph said: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.

Click to expand...
>>

Joseph responds: Every study ever done on this subject has shown that the rank and file members of Islamic extremist/terrorist groups have little to no understanding of the teachings of Islam.

Setst RE: No "expert" can prove that distinction, just as no one can prove my knowledge for my faith, or the reasons I do things. You forgot Dr. Bale and Yahya whom you repeatedly said you agree with do not agree with you. Don’t you think Yahya should know?

You viewed Dr. Bale’s video. What Bale say?

“Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions.” [Dr. Bale]

What does Yahya say?

Yahya teaches us that Sharia itself is the origin that leads to chaos, violence and serious conflict...

Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … [Yahya]

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Note: Islam Sharia Law leads to serious conflict.

setst777 said: ↑
Dr. Bale clearly states in the video that Islamic terrorists have a legitimate understanding of their ideology from Islam's core sources in the same way that other more liberal Muslims do. Dr. Bale, in the video, makes no judgment that the Islamic terrorist or extremists are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam; rather, he stresses that all have a legitimate understanding of their faith from the core sources within Islam.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds: This is true of those in leadership positions and a very small percentage that join these organizations, but the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of Islamic extremists do not. Dr. Bale would not argue against that fact.

Setst RE: Dr. Bale has argued against your facts in the “Bale” source you provided and also in the Bale video he describes such thinking as foolish and naive.

In the video, Bale demolished that fallacy. Regarding the fallacy of social factors motivating Jihadists, Bale states that these extremists are not holding up signs asking for a job, but are yelling "Allahu Akbar!" as they carry out their jihad attacks that are clearly guided by their many Scripture references by their sacred books and not social factors.

Bale wonders how the "experts" can tell terrorists what they believe or why they act, when the terrorists themselves show by their actions and by the Scriptures they quote, why they act. Bale calls those "experts" foolish.

You like to argue about everything but are unable to comprehend the obvious.

setst777 said: ↑
Dr. Bale never makes that distinction. Bale only mentions ONE religion of Islam with many differing, but legitimate, Muslim sects within - including moderates, fundamtalist, extremists, etc. Religion of Islam is one. Bale never divides up the religion of Islam itself.

Joseph responds: This is not true. He indeed makes a distinction between the two.

Setst RE: I have searched the video and your “Bale” source and have not found such a distinction made. I could have missed it. Please show me where Dr. Bale makes that distinction.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

I have also directly linked Islamic terrorism to the religion of Islam.

setst777 said: ↑
Dr. Bale states that the problem with the ignorant and foolish is not recognizing that Islamic extremists Muslims are also part of Islam - they define their faith by the sacred books of Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, I'm in agreement with Dr. Bale.
>>

Setst RE: Once again… No you do not agree with Dr. Bale. Your position, which you made clear in your own posts, is that you don’t believe Islamic extremist are Muslims, or are part of true Islam.

Why is it I must keep proving to you what you believe? Notice that 80% of our dialogue is reminding you of what you believe that disagrees with the most recent sources you say you agree with. I have never had to do this in any other discussion with anyone in my life.

July 5 2019, Thursday 8:58 pm

<<
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

NOTE: Bale makes clear, and so does Yahya, that these Islamic extremists are

• followers of Islam,
• they are Muslims,
• they, just like the other sects, do represent true Islam.

July 7 2019, Thursday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph said: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

NOTE: Bale and Yahya make clear that Islamic state governments and extremist groups are Muslims. And Sharia, in large part, is the the origin of extremism and fundamental and tradition Islam.

Joseph writes:
<<
Below is a perfect example of how are taking things out of context and misrepresenting what I am saying in an attempt to make it appear that I'm in disagreement with Dr. Bale and other sources.

Joseph writes:
To paraphrase Dr. Bale "Islamic extremism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian extremism, including Christian terrorism, is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."

setst777 said: ↑
July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
Joseph said: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.

Click to expand...

setst777 said: ↑
July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
Joseph said: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

In the second sentence of mine that you quoted you only highlighted part of the sentence to make it appear that I said Islamic extremism isn't part of Islam.

"What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam"

When you add the rest of the sentence it is clear that this is not what is being said:

"that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow."

When I say "that the vast majority of Muslims follow," this means that the Islamic extremists follow a sect of Islam that is not part of mainstream Islam.

Now when you put the above sentence in context with other statements I have made in this thread, it becomes perfectly clear that I agree with Dr. Bale and the others you say I'm in disagreement with.
>>

Setst RE: Highlighting is not taking out of context. And I already responded to your use of “it’s not the religion of Islam" just a short while ago in this post. The context of your messages show that you do not include Islamic extremists as being Muslims or part of true Islam.

<<
JosephZ said: ↑
You will not find what you are saying here about Islam taught in any legitimate school that offers Islamic Studies whether it be from a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought, nor will you find Muslims who believe that way outside of the small minority which make up the extremists fringe.

Click to expand...

Notice I associated Muslims with the extremists fringe in the above quote.
>>

Setst RE: This only shows that you change your mind, frequently. You clearly stated - your quotes in this post - that

• extremists are not Muslims
• do not represent true Islam
• are not followers of Islam.

Joseph, you continue in like manner, showing that in some of your responses extremists do represent Islam – even if a small fraction. But then, you contradict yourself in your other messages saying the Islamic extremists are not Muslims and do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.

In summary,

This discussion was to help recognize that Islam is a danger to the world, in that:

Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

You disagreed, which was the reason for the dialogue.

You got off on many tangents and arguments in which I patiently reviewed and responded to, but did not actually address the threat of Global Islamic Jihad which Bale and Yayah, and all my six witnesses address and warn about.

During our dialogue, you have shown us that you obviously are very mixed up about Islam and Sharia as found in Islam's sacred Scriptures.

You are also mixed up about what you believe - changing your mind continuously so that conversing with you accomplished nothing. You are not quite sure what you believe, and disagree and then agree with the sources you provide.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

Fundamentalists of any religion see the world through binary, all or nothing filters. Fundamentalism is by nature extremism and does no favors to its followers or victims.
It hinders objective thinking, reason, and impedes ones ability to understand the syncratic dynamics which make up humanity and the world.

That being said, I have met many peaceful and loving Muslims. I referenced on another post where a Muslim offered me comfort at a time when no Christian did. That served as a reality check to the wrongfully assumed ideals about Christians and Muslims both.

 

[setst777]

Fundamentalists of any religion see the world through binary, all or nothing filters. Fundamentalism is by nature extremism and does no favors to its followers or victims.
It hinders objective thinking, reason, and impedes ones ability to understand the syncratic dynamics which make up humanity and the world.

That being said, I have met many peaceful and loving Muslims. I referenced on another post where a Muslim offered me comfort at a time when no Christian did. That served as a reality check to the wrongfully assumed ideals about Christians and Muslims both.

Hi Richard

Thank you for contributing to this thread.

Regarding fundamentalists, here is the definition that pertains specifically to Islam:

Islamic Fundamentalism - [General Definition]

Islamic fundamentalism has been defined as a movement of Muslims who regard earlier times favorably and seek to return to the fundamentals of the Islamic religion[1]and live similarly to how the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions lived. Islamic fundamentalists favor "a literal and originalist interpretation" of the primary sources of Islam (the Quran and Sunnah),[2] seek to eliminate (what they perceive to be) "corrupting" non-Islamic influences from every part of their lives[3] and see "Islamic fundamentalism" as a pejorative term used by outsiders for Islamic revivalismand Islamic activism.[4]
Islamic fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Types [of Islamic Fundamentalism]

Islamic fundamentalism
(at least among Sunni Muslims) traditionally tends to fall into "traditionalist" and "reformist" tendencies:

• Traditionalists accept "the continuity" between the founding Islamic "texts"—the Quran and the Sunnah—and their commentaries. Traditionalists take "imitation" (taqlid), accepting what was said before and refusing to innovate (bidah), as a "basic principle, They follow one of the great schools of religious jurisprudence (Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali). Their vision of the sharia is essentially legalistic and used to determine what is religiously right or wrong for Enjoining good and forbidding wrong. Traditionalists are sometimes connected to the popular forms of Sufism such as the Barelvi school in Pakistan)."[20]
• "reformist" fundamentalism, in contrast, "criticizes the tradition, the commentaries, popular religious practices" (Maraboutism, the cult of saints), "deviations, and superstitions"; it aims to purify Islam by returning to the Quran and the Sunnah. 18th-century examples are Shah Waliullah Dehlawi in India and Abdul Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula. This reformism is often "developed in response to an external threat" such as "the influence of Hinduism on Islam". In the late 19th century salafiyya was developed in the Arab countries, "marking a phase between Fundamentalism and Islamism."[20]

Islamic fundamentalism - Wikipedia
Topic: Types

I too have met friendly Muslims, and I have Muslim friends. However, the Muslim friends I have are mostly secular [liberal] Muslims. While they may know their faith and Scriptures, they confess to me that they do not actively practice their faith.

I have some Sunni Muslims friends that do know their faith and practice it. They express awareness of the doctrine of Jihad against unbelievers. The discussing of our beliefs is a major key to the friendships in those cases, which is why they were willing to share their understanding of Jihad.

I would wager to say that most Muslims you will ever meet will appear friendly and helpful. However, that does not mean any particular Muslim you meet will have friendly thoughts or beliefs about unbelievers.

Blessings,
setst

 

[Joyousperson]

In summary,

This discussion was to help recognize that Islam is a danger to the world, in that:

Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

You disagreed, which was the reason for the dialogue.

You got off on many tangents and arguments in which I patiently reviewed and responded to, but did not actually address the threat of Global Islamic Jihad which Bale and Yayah, and all my six witnesses address and warn about.

During our dialogue, you have shown us that you obviously are very mixed up about Islam and Sharia as found in Islam's sacred Scriptures.

You are also mixed up about what you believe - changing your mind continuously so that conversing with you accomplished nothing. You are not quite sure what you believe, and disagree and then agree with the sources you provide.

Well argued.

JosephZ as with all Muslim apologists do not have well grounded arguments but has loads of fallacies, i.e.

1. Fallacy ad populum; based on observation of the actions of the majority of Muslims instead of the essence of the relevant ideology of Islam.

2. Tu Quoque fallacy: Deflecting to 'what about Christians?' what about this? and what about others terrorists? which are off tangent from the main discussion, i.e. Islamic-related evil and violent acts.

3. Equivocation and Conflating: Conflating believers with the ideology when the main issue is with the ideology.​

4. Hasty Generalization: Conclude the WHOLE sources of serious critique [anti-Islam] as useless merely because a few of their points are contentious.
​

There are many other weakness in JosephZ's arguments or lack of arguments to support his points.

 

[Joyousperson]

They are not just confined to the jungles. The 9/11 attackers, Paris attackers, and ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria and the foreign fighters that joined them have all been described to be involved to one extent or another from the list I gave. This information comes from interviews with people who knew the extremists, former hostages, toxicology reports, and interviews with the extremists themselves.

What I read of the 911 cases was, the jihadists went to the entertainment center as a deception and disguise to avoid suspicion.

You stated 'MOST' without solid evidence but merely based on hearsays.

I agree there are some who had drank and taken drugs since it is not easy for them to kick the old habits they had cultivated in the past years.
Regardless you cannot ignore the ideological element of jihadism within Islam as Dr. Bale and others had reminded.

Most of the rank and file members. Many take meth to stay awake and the Islamic State is even involved in drug trafficking and prostitution to fund its activities. In addition many of the ISIS recruits coming from the west were also known to have substance abuse problems.

It's no secret that most Islamic terrorists aren't devout Muslims and every study on this subject has come to the same conclusion. Every one.

One critical point is there are various elements to be considered, i.e. the eschatological/salvation and ethical/moral elements within the ideology of Islam.

It is stated in the Quran, those who kill non-Muslims in the cause of Allah will go straight to paradise and all sins will be forgiven.

61:11. Ye [Muslims] should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive [JHD: yuJahidu] for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you [Muslims], if ye [Muslims] did but know. [Duty of a Muslim to ensure a place in heaven and paradise] [motivation for jihadists]
61:12. He [Allah] will forgive you [Muslims] your sins and bring you [Muslims] into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eden. That is the supreme triumph. [sins removed, therefore pure profit]

9:88. But the messenger and those [Muslims] who believe with him strive [JHD: jahada] with their wealth and their lives. Such are they [Muslims] for whom are the good things. Such are they [Muslims] who are the successful. [in this world and on the day of judgment] [True Muslims]
9:89. Allah hath made ready for them [Muslims] Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide. That is the supreme triumph.

28:7. And as for those [Muslims] who believe and do good works, We shall remit from them [Muslims] their evil deeds and shall repay them the best that they [Muslims] did.

29:64. This life of the world is but a pastime and a game. Lo! the home of the Hereafter that is Life, if they [infidels] but knew. [inspire martyrdom]
​

Note: there are many other similar verses similar to the above which inspire Jihadist to commit these terrible acts as a religious duty to contra their sins.

​

As I had stated earlier, Allah in the Quran ranked believers in terms of;

1. Muttagin - highest, e.g. those who fight for Allah
2. Mushin - medium, comply with 6 pillars of Iman
3. Muslim - lowest, comply with 5 pillars of Islam
​

Taking drugs, drinking alcohol, dancing, are not serious sins, i.e. forgivable sins. To wipe off all these mild sins, the jihadists would take the most effective path to paradise, i.e. be a jihadists to kill non-Muslims and to be more assured, be a suicide-bomber.
As you can see, superficial devoutness, prayers -5 times every day, pay zakat as much as possible, perform haj many times, don't carry heavy weights within the ideology of Islam.

From the above, what it lead to is the potential for some really serious Muslims to kill all non-Muslims and themselves with WMDs and earn the greatest favor from Allah. This is very possible while you are defending Islam like there is no tomorrow with very immature logic and rationality.

The above is all in the Quran, i.e. Allah's word, how are you going to argue against Allah's commands?

 

[Joyousperson]

Fundamentalists of any religion see the world through binary, all or nothing filters. Fundamentalism is by nature extremism and does no favors to its followers or victims.
It hinders objective thinking, reason, and impedes ones ability to understand the syncratic dynamics which make up humanity and the world.

These days, the term 'fundamentalist' can be loose and wide. I would prefer to discuss Muslim and Islam as follows'

1. What is critical for a religion and its believers is, how close a believer is complying with the ONLY intended message of God in the Quran.

2. For Islam, its core message is represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran [supported by the Ahadith].

3. The point is, there are 3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses of the Quran contains loads of evil and violent elements [in a range of degrees] as commanded by Allah.

4. Therefore a good Muslim by definition MUST comply [among others] with the evil and violent elements in the Quran [3 - to the Muslim are good] to commit [1] terrible, evil and violent acts on non-Muslims to gain assurances of going to the Islamic paradise with eternal life.​

That being said, I have met many peaceful and loving Muslims. I referenced on another post where a Muslim offered me comfort at a time when no Christian did. That served as a reality check to the wrongfully assumed ideals about Christians and Muslims both.

What is critical here is one must always separate all believers from the specific ideology as a starting point. All believers will comprised of the good, the bad and the ugly.
E.g. there were many Germans who had helped Jews from the Nazis during WW II.

The Muslim who did good initiated that as a good human being driven by good human values and not being a good Muslim.
Note the obligation of a good Muslim;

3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends biṭānatan بِطَانَةً ب ط ن ] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper [ʿanittum عَنِتُّمْ ع ن ت ] you [Muslims]. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.
​

There are loads of other verses that command Muslims not to befriend nor help non-Muslims except when it benefit Islam in some ways.

Thus a good Muslim has to obey Allah to the utmost as above, i.e. cannot befriend nor help non-Muslims unconditionally.

Therefore the good person [who happened to be a Muslim] who befriend and helped non-Muslims cannot a good-Muslim in the eyes of Allah and Islam.

 

[JosephZ]

Setst RE: Saudi Arabia (Wahhabist) does not even make the top ten countries where there are terrorist attacks even though they are involved in some acts of terror in the Middle East. The USA has more terrorist attacks than Saudi Arabia.

Iran is Shia, and is the leading supporter of terrorism in the Middle East.

Wahhabism (An export of Saudi Arabia) is the primary ideology behind most Islamic terrorism. All you have to do is read the State Department's Annual reports on Terrorism and you will find the overwhelming majority of the designated terror groups are Wahhabist and/or groups funded by Saudi Arabia.

Iraq (by far) leads in terrorism. Iraq is Shia Muslim.

al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS has been responsible for almost all terrorism in Iraq resulting in around 95% of the terrorism in Iraq being carried out by Sunni/Wahhabist Muslims.

Setst RE: No Joseph, "Many Muslims." Read it again.

What is the main subject Yahya is addressing in that article?

You are missing a great deal of the major Jihadist activity by concentrating only on Wahhabists. You include "Fundamentalist" but whenever I describe a fundamental view of Islam, you say it is "Wahhabist." So, you actually use the terms anonymously.

That is because what you are describing in this thread is Wahhabism.

Cop out. I gave time and date of your messages I responded to. So look up the time and date. When you quote me, you do not give a time or date, not even the ID Message number; yet, I respond to your messages and your arguments, never making excuses or broad generalizations as you have been doing. As well, the "quote features" do not prevent tampering with the message, it just makes the message "appear" authentic.

No, it's not a cop out. If you would use the quote feature I could click on it and it would take me directly to the post and location the quote comes from. Sometimes I make several posts on the same day and many of them are quite long, so it is time consuming to go back and look for them even with the time of the post being given. The quote feature does more than just make the message appear authentic, it allows the reader to use one simple click of the mouse to go directly to the source.

Good. No need to harp on it over and over then, since you agree. While Ireland, and some groups, had problems, that does not diminish the fact that since 632 AD, Islam has been the major source of terror and violence in the world

When you make outrageous claims like Islamic terrorism is 10,000 higher than other ideologies and that 98% of terrorism occurs in Muslim countries it requires a lengthy response.

 

[setst777]

Wahhabism (An export of Saudi Arabia) is the primary ideology behind most Islamic terrorism. All you have to do is read the State Department's Annual reports on Terrorism and you will find the overwhelming majority of the designated terror groups are Wahhabist and/or groups funded by Saudi Arabia.

Hi Joseph

I did not see your post and received no message via email that you had posted to me. So I reply now to your latest post...

setst777 said: ↑
Saudi Arabia (Wahhabist) does not even make the top ten countries where there are terrorist attacks even though they are involved in some acts of terror in the Middle East. The USA has more terrorist attacks than Saudi Arabia.

setst777 said: ↑
Iran is Shia, and is the leading supporter of terrorism in the Middle East.

Joseph responds:
<<
Wahhabism (An export of Saudi Arabia) is the primary ideology behind most Islamic terrorism. All you have to do is read the State Department's Annual reports on Terrorism and you will find the overwhelming majority of the designated terror groups are Wahhabist and/or groups funded by Saudi Arabia.
>>

Setst RE: You are looking at a specific time period only. Throughout Islamic history, especially in Iraq, we see constant Islamic terrorism that did not include Wahhabism, especially by the Sunni.

In recent history, 1947-2003, the Sunni (Ba’ath Party) was a major cause of terror. And even at present, although Wahhabism and Salafist Sunni are major sponsors of terror, most of the active terrorists are Sunni. Iran is Shia and has long been a sponsor of terror as well.

Erdogan (Sunni) is a sponsor of terror against Israel.

setst777 said: ↑
Iraq (by far) leads in terrorism. Iraq is Shia Muslim.

Joseph writes:
<<
al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS has been responsible for almost all terrorism in Iraq resulting in around 95% of the terrorism in Iraq being carried out by Sunni/Wahhabist Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: ISIS is Salafi/Wahhabi, but many Sunni of various schools and groups joined the ISIS fight because the similarities in Jihad between the four schools of Sunni and Salafi and Wahhabi.

Once again your understanding is based on a very narrow time period (2003-2006). Before ISIS, Iraq had a long history of terrorism. And after ISIS we still see Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorism.

We learn that once a powerful leader, like Saddam, is removed from power, then we see how all the many sects of Islam begin their Jihad against each other for ideological reasons having to do with Sharia.

What we learn from ISIS is that, although being few in number with less technology and no air force, the devastation that even a small group of Jihadists can have is astronomical. It took major technologically advanced nations of the world, years of fighting, billions of dollars, and much bloodshed and displacement of civilian populations, to finally overpower ISIS. And even with all that, they are still existing and spreading to other countries.

Never underestimate numbers within an group over the Islamic Ideology doctrine that empowers such small Islamic groups to exert catastrophic devastation.

When we consider that Jihad against unbelievers, apostates, and hypocrites is a command of Allah within all four schools of Sunni and in Shia, we can see the never ending and significant potential for global Jihad.

Yes, the Wahhabist are tapping into that ideological relationship with the Sunni Muslims to carry out terrorism. And Wahhabists, Sunni and Shia are all involved in re-indoctrinating the Western Muslims through Mosques and Islamic organizations to create a potential Armageddon of future soldiers for terrorism and war against the nations they now reside.

And this re-indoctrination in Mosques is an extremely huge concern, since Salafism is considered by many to be the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world.

It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.[167][168][169][170]
Salafi movement - Wikipedia

Big name terrorists such as, Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Sayyid Qutb, Abu Bakr al Baghdad, Mullah Omar are only the tip of the ice burg. We will continue to see global Jihad as long as Islam and Sharia (as found in Islam’s sacred Scriptures) exist, just as Yahya and Bale teach. And, now that the Islamic countries are becoming more technologically advanced, the catastrophic potential of Islamic terrorism grows ever higher.

The threat of Islamic Global Jihad is the warning that Dr. Bale and all my six witnesses are stressing.

You say you agree with Bale and all my six witnesses regarding Islamic Global Jihad... However, in our weeks long dialogue you fought hard to show that Islam and its sacred scriptures were not the cause of Islamic terrorism. These arguments of yours is just the opposite of what Bale and my Six Witnesses stressed as the danger.

Since you now say that you agree with Bale and all Six Witnesses, my point has already been successfully completed in this discussion.

setst777 said: ↑
No Joseph, "Many Muslims." Read it again.

Joseph writes:
<<
What is the main subject Yahya is addressing in that article?

Setst RE: The Subject of the article is a warning to the West as summed up at the end, where Yahya states as follows:

And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end.
A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved. [Yahya]

You and I are now in agreement that we do acknowledge the problem. Now we must spread the warning to others, so that the USA and all infidel countries will hopefully wake up to the danger of Islam facing the world.

Traditional Islam is a type of Islamic fundamentalism that is represented in the four schools of Sunni Islam representing, by far, the majority of Muslims.

The reformist movements are also a type of Islamic fundamentalism – the two major reformist movements being Salafi and Wahhabism.
Islamic fundamentalism - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
You are missing a great deal of the major Jihadist activity by concentrating only on Wahhabists. You include "Fundamentalist" but whenever I describe a fundamental view of Islam, you say it is "Wahhabist." So, you actually use the terms anonymously.

Joseph responds:
<<
That is because what you are describing in this thread is Wahhabism.
>>

Setst RE: This is your thinking because you do not understand the teaching of Jihad in traditional Islam as represented in the four schools of Sunni Islam and the Sharia Figh, and all their sacred Scriptures, of these schools. Even the most liberal school, Hanafi, has an almost identical Sharia figh command for Jihad against unbelievers as do the other Sunni schools…

The Al-Hidayah: A Classic Manual of Hanafi Law defines jihad as follows:
“Jihad is a communal obligation…Jihad is determined till the Day of Judgment…’Then shall ye fight, or they shall submit (Qur’an 48:16)’ When the Muslims commence battle, and they have surrounded a city or a fort, they are to invite the inhabitants to accept Islam…If they respond positively, they are to refrain from fighting them, due to the attainment of the purpose. If they refuse, they are to invite them to the payment of jizyah, and this is what the Prophet ordered the commanders of the armies to do for it is one of the consequences upon the conclusion of battle…if they reject the invitation, they are to seek the help of Allah and engage them in combat.”

The main difference between Wahhabi and Sunni on Jihad are as follows:

Wahhabists are enemies of any Muslim sect or group that does not believe exactly like they do as hypocrites,

Sunni tradition allows more discretion.

So naturally we are going to see more Jihadist activity sponsored by Wahhabist Islam, including Jihad against unbelievers – socially, legally, and physically.

While all Sunni do not practice Jihad against others, those that do are called “Sunni Jihadists.” The reason for this distinction is that Sunni Sharia figh does not command all Sunni members of a particular group and location be involved in Jihad unless ordered to.

As well, Shari figh describes Jihad in stages…. When the Sunni group in a foreign land is a minority, or are weaker, then these Sunni Muslims are to make truces and live peaceably in stages as they gain more dominance over time.

The threat of Global Jihad by all Sunni living in the West is greater than ever since the Western Muslims are now being re-indoctrinated with Fundamental Islamic doctrine regarding Jihad against the West and all unbelievers through Mosques and Islamic organizations in the West.

Regarding Jihad being taught in Mosques by fundamental Islam (particularly Wahhabi/Salafi), we see a similarity in language between Wahhabi and all four schools of Sunni, except Wahhabi Jihad involves more targets. So the teaching is Jihad against the West in the Mosques in totally in line with Sunni Sharia figh and all their legal texts of jurisprudence.

setst777 said: ↑
Cop out. I gave time and date of your messages I responded to. So look up the time and date. When you quote me, you do not give a time or date, not even the ID Message number; yet, I respond to your messages and your arguments, never making excuses or broad generalizations as you have been doing. As well, the "quote features" do not prevent tampering with the message, it just makes the message "appear" authentic.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
No, it's not a cop out. If you would use the quote feature I could click on it and it would take me directly to the post and location the quote comes from. Sometimes I make several posts on the same day and many of them are quite long, so it is time consuming to go back and look for them even with the time of the post being given. The quote feature does more than just make the message appear authentic, it allows the reader to use one simple click of the mouse to go directly to the source.

Setst RE: Thanks for the info regarding the significance of the arrow. I am fairly new to Christian forums so I was not familiar with the arrow. I will research this further to see how to most efficiently quote with that feature. I had an immediate aversion to the "format" when I first joined this Christian forum, and so never desired to use it or study further about the features.

This will be my last message to you.

The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that:

Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

This is the Islamic global Jihad against unbelievers that Bale, Yayah and all Six Witnesses warn us about.

Blessings
setst

 

[Joyousperson]

This will be my last message to you.

The topic has been successfully debated. We are both in agreement with Dr. Bale and my Six Witnesses regarding the global threat Islam poses in that:

Islam's core Scriptures (Sharia) are the major reason why Global Islamic Jihad (social, political, physical) is taught and practiced by Muslims and Muslim groups and countries that represent traditional, classical, fundamental and orthodox beliefs of the religion of Islam.

This is the Islamic global Jihad against unbelievers that Bale, Yayah and all Six Witnesses warn us about.

Blessings
setst

Well argued, hope you will continue to expose the inherent malignant potential of the ideology of Islam in various topics.

There are pros with the ideology of Islam when it is practiced superficially.
However what is critical is the inherent malignant potential within the ideology of Islam that is very threatening to humanity's progress when practiced in its truest form.

The inherent malignant potential is represented by the loads of terrible evil and violent elements within the Quran [3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses of the Quran] and those in the Ahadith, Sira plus being catalyzed by the various tafsir.

This inherent malignant potential is very toxic like cancer cells which are at present semi-active and waiting to be full blown upon any weaknesses within humanity.

As discussed what is at stake for Muslims is the striving for salvation in the Islamic paradise with eternal life to avoid Hell. At present the majority of Muslims being lay-Muslims [secular, liberal] are taking Islam very superficially and not seriously.

However whenever the lay-Muslims' awareness of mortality and the need to be assured of paradise with eternal life is heightened they will definitely give attention to please [with zeal, the extra mile] the all-powerful Allah to grant them the salvation.

To meet Allah's expectation, i.e. to comply with All of Allah's words in the Quran to the best of their ability, inevitably means among others, committing jihad, warring and killing non-Muslims upon conditions [vague] set by Allah.

At present those inherent malignant cancerous elements are very active in a small 1-5% of Muslims [15-75 million!!], semi-active in say 20% of evil prone Muslims [pool of 320 million] and dormant in 75% of lay Muslims.
Despite the lower % of active evil prone Muslims, it is already evident with so much terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims throughout the 1400 history of Islam.

What is critical to understand is the inherent malignant cancerous elements [evil and violent] pre-exist within the ideology of Islam.
It is only a matter of time before greater and greater % of Muslims are exposed to true-Islam given the current trend of the speed in the spread of information through the internet and advance medias.

At present one of the strategy the evil-prone Muslims is using, is to find those very sinful Muslims [drinkers, drugs, various abuses, rapists, criminals ] and highlight to them they are hell bound which will heighten their fears re mortality and thus direct them to suicide-bombing to wash their sins with instant passage to the Islamic paradise with eternal life and eternal virgins at their service.

Just imagine when a greater % Muslims [every 1% = 15 million] are made aware of their possibility of going to hell [note the terror] if they do not obey Allah and Muhammad precisely, i.e. including complying with the terrible evil and violent commands in the Quran [Ahadith, Sira, etc.].

This is why we need very serious critique of the ideology of Islam as done by you, me and others.