TheIronRuler: Ideas are not dangerous, those who wield them are. They can be perverted and altered to the whims of the user, the same why a firearm can protect and can also harm civilians if wielded by a police-officer or a robber.
Thus Nazism isn't evil or dangerous, but it's about who follows it? I can't say "Nazism is violent and racist", I can only look at the actions and ideas of individual Nazis and have to approach them without 'prejudice'?
TheIronRuler: Nazism has its founding in Race superiority so there is no discussion value in claiming that it did or didn't. It is a fact.
Proof? How can I be sure that all Nazism everywhere at all times is racist?
TheIronRuler: Nazism has violence in its core. One of its creeds is forced expansion.
Every Nazi is an individual. Believe it or not, they choose how to follow the creeds of their ideology. The ideology changes based on the perception of the person and the ways he was exposed to it. There are many different sects of a ideology. A person may choose to follow certain acts decreed in a ideology. A person may have no faith but continue out of respect for his traditions. This discussion is a joke. People are violent because they are violent. Factors for the violence may include the creeds of the ideology which may decrease or increase the chances of violence, but you will be surprised how people are individuals even while following a ideology. Saying one ideology or the other is violent is stupid and this whole discussion is futile. There are always exception but here you may not put people in a box and say that because they are Nazi they can't be pacifists... It's ignorant. Enough with this discussion. --- Isn't that in direct opposition to your argument? Why should we accept your argument, yet ridicule those who say Islam has violence at it's core?
Islam or Christianity... Both books to which they swear have content that can defend violence. The Qur'an is pretty grotesque in it's description on what to do with enemies. Hunt them down, cut of their fingertips and so on. Verses like this are used to justify violence in the name of their religion. The bible is no better, but the argument there is "but that is the old testament".
This is the real danger with "holy" books. They make a poor moral foundation and invite misinterpretations and manipulation. Claim the violent Muslims aren't Muslims. They claim they are. You have a stalemate with a book supporting both views. So a religion of peace? No.
TheIronRuler: Nazism has its founding in Race superiority so there is no discussion value in claiming that it did or didn't. It is a fact.
Proof? How can I be sure that all Nazism everywhere at all times is racist?
TheIronRuler: Nazism has violence in its core. One of its creeds is forced expansion.
Every Nazi is an individual. Believe it or not, they choose how to follow the creeds of their ideology. The ideology changes based on the perception of the person and the ways he was exposed to it. There are many different sects of a ideology. A person may choose to follow certain acts decreed in a ideology. A person may have no faith but continue out of respect for his traditions. This discussion is a joke. People are violent because they are violent. Factors for the violence may include the creeds of the ideology which may decrease or increase the chances of violence, but you will be surprised how people are individuals even while following a ideology. Saying one ideology or the other is violent is stupid and this whole discussion is futile. There are always exception but here you may not put people in a box and say that because they are Nazi they can't be pacifists... It's ignorant. Enough with this discussion. --- Isn't that in direct opposition to your argument? Why should we accept your argument, yet ridicule those who say Islam has violence at it's core?
. Cute. Race Superiority is a part of Nazism as much as the Five pillars of Islam or the Shahadah is of Islam. It is the belief that there is a hierarchy of races. It is established. Expansion is at the core of Nazism. But mind you, expansion can be non-violent as well as I have demonstrated with Austria and the Saar region. Problem is, Hitler wanted violent expansion, i.e. going in and conquering Czechoslovakia. One can embrace Nazism but in order to do so he has to acknowledge the theory of race superiority as a fact. it is at its core.
Cute. Race Superiority is a part of Nazism as much as the Five pillars of Islam or the Shahadah is of Islam. It is the belief that there is a hierarchy of races. It is established.
The thing I noticed most of all is that Nazis think that whites should be in Europe and blacks should be in Africa. They don't necessarily state that whites are better in everything than blacks, they just think it is better for a society if it's homogeneous.
While it's horribly racist in modern eyes, it wasn't regarded as really evil in the thirties and fourties.
Your argument for 'diversity and individual interpretation' makes way more sense for Nazism than for Islam: Nazism hasn't got holy books or holy prophets nor does Hitler claim to be the final seal.
Cute. Race Superiority is a part of Nazism as much as the Five pillars of Islam or the Shahadah is of Islam. It is the belief that there is a hierarchy of races. It is established.
The thing I noticed most of all is that Nazis think that whites should be in Europe and blacks should be in Africa. They don't necessarily state that whites are better in everything than blacks, they just think it is better for a society if it's homogeneous.
While it's horribly racist in modern eyes, it wasn't regarded as really evil in the thirties and fourties.
Your argument for 'diversity and individual interpretation' makes way more sense for Nazism than for Islam: Nazism hasn't got holy books or holy prophets nor does Hitler claim to be the final seal.
. Hitler WAS the final seal. He tried to copy Napoleon and take control of everything or at least have his hand there. He had the final say in every matter of the third Reich.
Katatori-kun: I don't see much point in investigating evidence arguing for or against a question that is flawed at its very core. It strikes me a bit like trying to get gourmet food critic reviews of cyanide biscuits.
That's pretty much my stance when people tell me that I need to study a religion before I can criticise it. I don't need a degree in Unicornology to be able to cast doubts on the existence of unicorns. I don't need to have read a dozen highly biased, pro-Leprechaun books on Leprechaunology and have diligently sifted out the few scant objective facts from the reams of pretty illuminated Gaelic poetry in order to say with some confidence that Leprechauns are made-up nonsense.
And yet, when I take this approach to religions, people call me closed-minded if I haven't read every last scrap of scripture and contorted my mind to weigh up every last over-generous interpretation. Bah. Hitchens again: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence".
I'm sure there may be a specific theological argument to call Islam a "religion of peace". Like, for instance, those who are Muslim are at peace with Allah and those who are non-Muslim are at war with Allah.
As how the term comes across in common conversation and a general sense of peace as most laymen would interpret the saying, it hardly stands up to scrutiny. The Islamic world has hardly been an particular ocean of peaceful conduct either internally or externally, and there is surely no consistent and explicit exhortation of peaceful conduct towards other humans in its holy writings.
Commonly, the meaning of the term Islam is given as peace and also submission. "Violence in Islam" is an oxymoron; a meaningless phrase. The contemporary Muslim world situation appears to make the question, "violence in Islam?", a relevant one.
Anti-Islam forces, such as, Christian Fundamentalists, Zionists of all colors and shades, Russians, Serbs, Hindu Fundamentalists and others love to refer to the cherry-picked Quran verses to point out that Islam means terrorism and violence, not peace. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses of the West have been raised since their school days in believing that Islam is terrorism and violence. In addition, the pro-Zionist media loves to please the masses through reinforcing this belief and for keeping Islam unpopular in the West in order to prevent its propagation. As the Zionists see that an increasing Muslim voting population in the West as a threat to the existence of the Israeli entity, they would rather eliminate the presence of Islam in the West, particularly, the U.S.
In our time, we find it becoming more and more common for some people to misquote verses from the Quran, or narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), in order to support their twisted presentation of Islam as a hostile and violent religion. The majority of these verses are either mistranslated, taken out of context, or misunderstood due to lack of basic knowledge.Here: http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_1.php are examples of such ayahs in context to explain it in continium with the rest of the surahs to expose anti-islamists trials.
Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Is Islam more violent than other religions?
We all know that sweeping statements are always a bad thing (see what I did there?), so I'll try to phrase my answer as diplomatically as possible.
The average Muslim is probably no more or less violent or confrontational than anybody else. However, within Western Islam there exists an over-represented, over-exposed minority whose views and attitudes are diammetrically opposed to, and completely incompatible with, the laws and principles of the Western societies they currently live in. Probably for reasons that are more to do with cultural assertion and nationalism than religion, these people go out of their way to find offence where there is none, to impose their moral and cultural ideals on their liberal host-nations, and routinely react to the slightest criticism or provocation with violence, or the threat of violence, as their first and only form of dialogue. These are people who have no interest in integrating into their host country (to the point where many are content not to learn the local language), and who have no intention to embrace or acknowledge the native traditions and customs (or even the laws when these prove difficult to reconcile with their own convictions). This small, over-vocal and antagonistic subsection of Islam has no place in modern, secular society; and furthermore it's a poor reflection on "moderate" Islam that these belligerent fundamentalists are legitimised, unchallenged, and sometimes even protected by the moderate majority.
Katatori-kun: I don't see much point in investigating evidence arguing for or against a question that is flawed at its very core. It strikes me a bit like trying to get gourmet food critic reviews of cyanide biscuits.
That's pretty much my stance when people tell me that I need to study a religion before I can criticise it. I don't need a degree in Unicornology to be able to cast doubts on the existence of unicorns. I don't need to have read a dozen highly biased, pro-Leprechaun books on Leprechaunology and have diligently sifted out the few scant objective facts from the reams of pretty illuminated Gaelic poetry in order to say with some confidence that Leprechauns are made-up nonsense.
And yet, when I take this approach to religions, people call me closed-minded if I haven't read every last scrap of scripture and contorted my mind to weigh up every last over-generous interpretation. Bah. Hitchens again: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence".
You're comparing apples and oranges.
The OP's question is invalid because it derives from a demonstrably incorrect premise: Islam isn't any one thing. It doesn't have a single consistent attribute in all the minds of all the people who interpret it. Fact. We can verify this with simple observation of the vastly different interpretations of Islam all over the world despite the holy book being written in a language that is still in active use. So the question of if Islam is a religion of peace or violence is absurd. It's not an unprovable claim, it's not an unsupportable claim, it's flat out wrong.
Your claim about religion is quite different, because while evidence verifying religious dogma does not exist, that does not prove the religion to be incorrect. While you are welcome to disbelieve in any and all religions you see fit, to actively assert that any religion is wrong without evidence is to make the exact same sort of claim as religious people do. If you are are comfortable being religiously non-religious then there isn't anything wrong with that, but if you attack religions for lacking evidence while asserting their falsehood without evidence, you are a hypocrite. And that Hitchens quote of yours is particularly poor to quote- I recommend against deifying the belligerent old drunken sod any more than necessary. While he was generally a very clever man, that quote you reference is nothing more than an unsupportable justification for sloppy thinking.
Volf: I just finished watching a video that tackled the question, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
I think it depends. Islam isn't inherently any more violent than either of the other two Abrahamic faiths - The Old Testament is rather worse than the Koran in terms of horrific levels of violence and what we would consider immoral behaviour.
But there is certainly a trend of violence in certain practitioners of Islam. Just to be absolutely clear, that in no way means 'all Muslims are violent'. It's also true that there are elements of Islam teaching that are often still taken literally, and are offensive to your average Westerner - because they are opposed to things like gender equality, LGBT rights, separation of church and state. These teachings are also present in Christianity, but are generally no longer taken literally, so don't cause as many problems.
I'm of two minds about it really. I'm a firm believer in man-made religions, and it seems to me that most of the violent Islamic sects have grown out of militarism and persecution. The Afghan Mujahadeen (Taliban/al-Qaeda precursor) formed in opposition to the Soviet invasion. The Iranian revolution was a backlash against corrupt Western-supported dictatorship, and a cultural shift away from the Sunni states (diplomatically close to the US). It is true that the sometimes explosive language in the Koran makes violent interpretations easy, but the, as this guy will testify, you can do that with Christianity too:
So yeah, Islam isn't inherently more violent than the other Abrahamics[1], but has some violent practitioners as a result of prior and continuing mistreatment. The Middle East isn't a tinderbox because of Islam, but because of dictatorships, outside intervention, economic pressure and occasionally, outside intervention in dictatorships as a result of economic pressure! That said, there are still broad issues with regard to gender equality etc that will need to be addressed. I'd imagine this will happen as it has done and is doing with Christianity though - in fact, it'll probably happen faster.
[1] I'm only talking about the Abrahamic faiths because I don't know much about the others
Zachary Tarlow: Its only the extremists who are violent. Most muslims are peaceful.
That would depend on what population segment you are looking at. I would define most Muslim men in strictly Islamic countries (the ones bound by Sharia law in particular) as both extremists and unnecessarily violent. Not to the same degree as the terrorists we have been campaigning against, but still. Most of their barbaric actions are directed towards each other however, an attitude that gets little attention from the media. People sometimes seem to forget that the only reason the US is still in Iraq is because we inadvertently set off a long dormant civil war, we could have easily left only a few weeks into that mess, but only if we were willing to let the formerly oppressed Shiites commit genocide against their brethren.
Agema: And there is surely no consistent and explicit exhortation of peaceful conduct towards other humans in its holy writings.
There is, actually. I forget the exact verses. I can find the book if you need me to. But yeah, there's some pretty explicit stuff in there regarding being merciful and peaceful and so on. It's a shame it's ignored.
It doesn't really matter, if an individual is a violent asshole then they'll find some way to express that.
The vast majority of Muslims are ordinary people, trying to disown their entire religion because some people decided to use it to express violence is both shameful and hypocritical.
Agema: And there is surely no consistent and explicit exhortation of peaceful conduct towards other humans in its holy writings.
There is, actually. I forget the exact verses. I can find the book if you need me to. But yeah, there's some pretty explicit stuff in there regarding being merciful and peaceful and so on. It's a shame it's ignored.
Consistent and explicit; by implication holistically. There are explicit references to peace and mercy, but they are not consistent with other references that are warlike and vengeful. An adherent that advocates war can cherry pick a scriptural defence, and an adherent that advocates peace can cherry pick scriptural defence. From that, a critic can cherry pick the objectionable, and a fan can cherry pick the admirable.
TheIronRuler: Hitler WAS the final seal. He tried to copy Napoleon and take control of everything or at least have his hand there. He had the final say in every matter of the third Reich.
But is Nazism explicitly Hitler's ideology? Must every Nazi submit to Hitler?
As I see it, 'Islam' is a specific quite totalitarian Abrahamic religion that has Muhammad, Allah & the Quran at it's core. A religion that has all the characteristics of Islam, but is based upon the Prophet Sauron, Morgoth & and the Silmarillion is not Islam. In contrast, an ideology that has all the characteristics of National Socialism, is National Socialism. They do need a leader that has the personality cult and power of Hitler, but it doesn't have to be Hitler. They need to have ideas of racial purity, but this doesn't have to be the Aryan race.
The Netherlands had a Nazi-party, but their head was Mussert, not Hitler. If somebody 'steals' all the concepts of Islam yet replace their Prophet & God with their own, other Prophet, it isn't Islam anymore.
Agema: And there is surely no consistent and explicit exhortation of peaceful conduct towards other humans in its holy writings.
There is, actually. I forget the exact verses. I can find the book if you need me to. But yeah, there's some pretty explicit stuff in there regarding being merciful and peaceful and so on. It's a shame it's ignored.
Consistent and explicit; by implication holistically. There are explicit references to peace and mercy, but they are not consistent with other references that are warlike and vengeful. An adherent that advocates war can cherry pick a scriptural defence, and an adherent that advocates peace can cherry pick scriptural defence. From that, a critic can cherry pick the objectionable, and a fan can cherry pick the admirable.
Ah yes, that's true. I guess we should wonder why so many in that region of the world seem to want war all the time, and so cherry pick appropriate verses.
There is, actually. I forget the exact verses. I can find the book if you need me to. But yeah, there's some pretty explicit stuff in there regarding being merciful and peaceful and so on. It's a shame it's ignored.
Consistent and explicit; by implication holistically. There are explicit references to peace and mercy, but they are not consistent with other references that are warlike and vengeful. An adherent that advocates war can cherry pick a scriptural defence, and an adherent that advocates peace can cherry pick scriptural defence. From that, a critic can cherry pick the objectionable, and a fan can cherry pick the admirable.
Ah yes, that's true. I guess we should wonder why so many in that region of the world seem to want war all the time, and so cherry pick appropriate verses.
There's a brilliant episode of South Park (I forget which one) in which Mr/Ms Garrison sets out the reasons why everyone in the Middle East is so pissed off all the time.
Anti-Islam forces, such as...Zionists of all colors and shades
Well you are either brand new and aren't starting well, or you are a coward who is hiding behind a fake second userid.
You are hard to take seriously with quotes like the one above. It shows you to be biased and bigoted.
I hate to tell you this, but Jewish people are often the first defenders of Islam because we know it to be our brother religion. We know that we have more in common with Islam than with Christianity. We know that until the last century we were friends more than we were enemies. We know that even the problem in Israel/Palestine is actually created by western empires as they fell apart after WWII. We also know what it is to have our writings taken out of context (darn Christians and extremist/uninformed atheists are forever doing that to us too).
Stop spouting hate and assuming a conspiracy against you. By doing so you reinforce their stereotype of muslims.
There's a brilliant episode of South Park (I forget which one) in which Mr/Ms Garrison sets out the reasons why everyone in the Middle East is so pissed off all the time.
Basically it's the sand.
It could be the heat. I remember a study that correlated numbers of riots and general social unrest to temperature. It found that in temperate places unrest mostly occurred in the summer when it was a bit hot and everyone's all stressy.
I guess when it's hot all the time you're stressy all the time. :P
Naw but srsly they have special chimneys for that. Nifty things.
Batou667: And yet, when I take this approach to religions, people call me closed-minded if I haven't read every last scrap of scripture and contorted my mind to weigh up every last over-generous interpretation. Bah. Hitchens again: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence".
And yet, if you criticize religious people for not reading all of their own religious material, and even failing to read their holiest book, or even reading the holiest chapters (the Gospels, for Christianity), you're a racist and a bigot :D
Bepatient: Anti-Islam forces, such as, Christian Fundamentalists, Zionists of all colors and shades, Russians, Serbs, Hindu Fundamentalists and others love to refer to the cherry-picked Quran verses to point out that Islam means terrorism and violence, not peace.
Anti-Islam force like 'Russians'?
Bepatient: Unfortunately, the ignorant masses of the West have been raised since their school days in believing that Islam is terrorism and violence.
Actually, in the Netherlands you're told that Islam is a very peaceful religion just like Christianity and Judaism.
Bepatient: In addition, the pro-Zionist media loves to please the masses through reinforcing this belief and for keeping Islam unpopular in the West in order to prevent its propagation. As the Zionists see that an increasing Muslim voting population in the West as a threat to the existence of the Israeli entity, they would rather eliminate the presence of Islam in the West, particularly, the U.S.
Except that I can prove the exact opposite;
I think you're Muslim and I think you just joined. Welcome on the forums, we could need Muslims here.
Zachary Tarlow: Its only the extremists who are violent. Most muslims are peaceful.
xmbts: The vast majority of Muslims are ordinary people
Isn't that true for every ideology, how evil or violent it may be?
Agema: Consistent and explicit; by implication holistically. There are explicit references to peace and mercy, but they are not consistent with other references that are warlike and vengeful. An adherent that advocates war can cherry pick a scriptural defence, and an adherent that advocates peace can cherry pick scriptural defence. From that, a critic can cherry pick the objectionable, and a fan can cherry pick the admirable.
Danny Ocean: Ah yes, that's true. I guess we should wonder why so many in that region of the world seem to want war all the time, and so cherry pick appropriate verses.
You do know that Islam has 'rules' against cherrypicking? Things that are said later supersede stuff that is said earlier. And fact is that Muhammad started out weak and peaceful and later became more powerful, more aggressive and more warlike.
Kendarik: I hate to tell you this, but Jewish people are often the first defenders of Islam because we know it to be our brother religion.
But Zionist =/= Jew. There are Jewish Zionists of course (and there are non-Zionist Jews), but there are also Christian Zionists for example. Among the latter in particular exist subtypes that can be quite problematic, especially the variety that wants Israel to drive a hard line of continued war, not peace nor negotiations, but the destruction of Islamic holy places in an attempt to bring about the apocalypse (which is kind of anti-Israel if you think about it, as endless war is not in Israel's interests, either). I wish I was making that up, but those people exist and actually have quite some clout when it comes to the USA's foreign policy making. EDIT: Scratch that last remark. Some of the stuff he says sounds very questionable. I just thought I'd point out the above difference regardless, because it is an important one independent of what else one might think on the subject.
Danyal: Proof? How can I be sure that all Nazism everywhere at all times is racist?
Because there is a lot of talk like:
Hitler: The British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the race problem is the key to the history of the world. We National Socialists have become great in this knowledge. By devoting our attention to the existence of the race problem, we have found the solution for many problems which would have otherwise have seemed incomprehensible.
And no talk whatsoever saying "Race, meh, no big deal - we all get along together." At least, I'm not aware of any.
But is Nazism explicitly Hitler's ideology? Must every Nazi submit to Hitler?
Naziism is understood as what the reality of Nazi ideology was (is). Nazi ideology was inherently racist, so definitions of Naziism that exclude race do not fit our understanding of reality and thus aren't very useful.
However, the label Naziism could be appropriated for a new ideology sans racism by some new Nazi leader, at which point if it gained significant notoriety, the definition of Naziism would probably alter to encompass this new reality. However, as that hasn't happened yet, racism stands as inherent to Naziism.
Danyal: Proof? How can I be sure that all Nazism everywhere at all times is racist?
Because there is a lot of talk like:
Hitler: The British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the race problem is the key to the history of the world. We National Socialists have become great in this knowledge. By devoting our attention to the existence of the race problem, we have found the solution for many problems which would have otherwise have seemed incomprehensible.
And no talk whatsoever saying "Race, meh, no big deal - we all get along together." At least, I'm not aware of any.
So you're sure that Nazis everywhere are incredibly exceptionally racist?
But they're no true Scotsmen because they don't like haggis?
Agema: Naziism is understood as what the reality of Nazi ideology was (is). Nazi ideology was inherently racist, so definitions of Naziism that exclude race do not fit our understanding of reality and thus aren't very useful.
No, defining National-Socialism as something that must include racism does not fit our understanding of reality, because the Dutch National Socialist Movement did not refer to the racist ideology of the German Nazi Party.
Agema: However, the label Naziism could be appropriated for a new ideology sans racism by some new Nazi leader, at which point if it gained significant notoriety, the definition of Naziism would probably alter to encompass this new reality. However, as that hasn't happened yet, racism stands as inherent to Naziism.
Did you read the next sentence on Wikipedia? "After 1936, under the influence of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, the party became more oriented towards the Nazi Party and took over its anti-semitic and racist ideas." Ha ha!
But that's not the serious point.
You've changed terminology here from "Nazi" before to "National Socialist" now. This is significant as in English language at least the two are not entirely synonymous.
"National Socialism" is not a general political ideology. Lots of parties have called themselves "National Socialists" throughout history, with a range of different ideologies. "Naziism", however, does describe a specific ideology. (Since Hitler, I'd predict every national socialist party in the Western world and maybe even beyond has been to some degree fascist and racist, though.)
Secondly, the issue of prominence as mentioned before matters. One does not argue the term "Keynesian" in economics means making money by stitching and selling quilts because Diane Keynes of Pilotsville, Indiana makes a living stitching and selling quilts.
Agema: Did you read the next sentence on Wikipedia? "After 1936, under the influence of Meinoud Rost van Tonningen, the party became more oriented towards the Nazi Party and took over its anti-semitic and racist ideas." Ha ha!
Thus, it has been Nazist and not-racist for 5 years.
Agema: You've changed terminology here from "Nazi" before to "National Socialist" now. This is significant as in English language at least the two are not entirely synonymous.
Agema: "National Socialism" is not a general political ideology. Lots of parties have called themselves "National Socialists" throughout history, with a range of different ideologies.
And at least for me, National Socialism = Nazism. Seriously. Danyal: I want a strong leader, I want Nationalism, I want bread and work for the masses and I want to rejuvenate the country through expulsion of foreign elements. I am a National Socialist. Agema: You're a Nazi. Danyal: No, no! I'm not racist!
Agema: "Naziism", however, does describe a specific ideology. (Since Hitler, I'd predict every national socialist party in the Western world and maybe even beyond has been to some degree fascist and racist, though.)
I have never heard of 'Naziism' before and I thought you were making a spelling error :P Nazism=National Socialism and Naziism=the ideology of the German Nazis between 1933 and 1945?
Agema: Secondly, the issue of prominence as mentioned before matters. One does not argue the term "Keynesian" in economics means making money by stitching and selling quilts because Diane Keynes of Pilotsville, Indiana makes a living stitching and selling quilts.
People often make derogatory remarks about my 'urge to generalize' and about 'my stupid desire to put people in a certain box'.
xmbts: The vast majority of Muslims are ordinary people
Isn't that true for every ideology, how evil or violent it may be?
No, not really. If people believe strongly in something they'll really follow through with it.
There are (big) ideologies where the vast majority of people isn't ordinary?
The most condemned and hated ideology in the modern west is Nazism, it embodies everything we hate. Racist, violent, totalitarian, warlike etcetera.
Yet the vast majority of Nazis were ordinary people. Germans weren't a special race, how much Hitler might have wanted that.
xmbts: Now if Islam is such an evil violent belief system why is it that they have comparatively few nutjobs actually carrying out atrocities in it's name?
The conflict between Arabs and Israelis, Muslims and Jews, is not the only major conflict between Muslims and others. On the contrary, military contests along the borders of lands dominated by Muslims are pervasive. Samuel Huntington, a Harvard political scientist, observed, "The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts ... have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims. While at the macro or global level of world politics, the primary clash of civilizations is between the West and the rest, at the micro or local level it is between Islam and the others."[27] Among the conflicts enumerated by Huntington are the Bosnians versus the Serbs, the Turks versus the Greeks, Turks versus Armenians, Azerbaijanis versus Armenians, Tatars versus Russians, Afghans and Tajiks versus Russians, Uighurs versus Han Chinese, Pakistanis versus Indians, Sudanese Arabs versus southern Sudanese Christians and animists, and northern Muslim Nigerians versus southern Christian Nigerians.
Indeed, everywhere along the perimeter of the Muslim-ruled bloc, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. Muslims may only comprise one-fifth of the world's population, but in this decade and the last, they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than the people of any other civilization.
'Comparatively few'? Compared to what? Christians? Jews? Buddhists?
Isn't that true for every ideology, how evil or violent it may be?
No, not really. If people believe strongly in something they'll really follow through with it.
There are (big) ideologies where the vast majority of people isn't ordinary?
The most condemned and hated ideology in the modern west is Nazism, it embodies everything we hate. Racist, violent, totalitarian, warlike etcetera.
Yet the vast majority of Nazis were ordinary people. Germans weren't a special race, how much Hitler might have wanted that.
xmbts: Now if Islam is such an evil violent belief system why is it that they have comparatively few nutjobs actually carrying out atrocities in it's name?
The conflict between Arabs and Israelis, Muslims and Jews, is not the only major conflict between Muslims and others. On the contrary, military contests along the borders of lands dominated by Muslims are pervasive. Samuel Huntington, a Harvard political scientist, observed, "The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts ... have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims. While at the macro or global level of world politics, the primary clash of civilizations is between the West and the rest, at the micro or local level it is between Islam and the others."[27] Among the conflicts enumerated by Huntington are the Bosnians versus the Serbs, the Turks versus the Greeks, Turks versus Armenians, Azerbaijanis versus Armenians, Tatars versus Russians, Afghans and Tajiks versus Russians, Uighurs versus Han Chinese, Pakistanis versus Indians, Sudanese Arabs versus southern Sudanese Christians and animists, and northern Muslim Nigerians versus southern Christian Nigerians.
Indeed, everywhere along the perimeter of the Muslim-ruled bloc, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. Muslims may only comprise one-fifth of the world's population, but in this decade and the last, they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than the people of any other civilization.
'Comparatively few'? Compared to what? Christians? Jews? Buddhists?
Actually compared to Christians is a good one, do you know how many people have been killed in the name of God in the last 2,000 years? Lots.
But I don't feel like continuing this argument with you, I can't make you less bigoted because you clearly want to hate these people. Have fun buddy.
xmbts: Actually compared to Christians is a good one, do you know how many people have been killed in the name of God in the last 2,000 years? Lots.
You think that the amount of people killed in the name of God in the last 1400 years is significantly higher than the amount of people killed in the name of Allah in the last 1400 years?
xmbts: But I don't feel like continuing this argument with you, I can't make you less bigoted because you clearly want to hate these people. Have fun buddy.
Wait, because I'm concerned about cruelty inflicted in the name of Islam, I'm a bigot who wants to hate people?
I have never heard of 'Naziism' before and I thought you were making a spelling error :P Nazism=National Socialism and Naziism=the ideology of the German Nazis between 1933 and 1945?
I'm sure the two 'i' is an accepted variant is used in published material. Isn't it? Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me and I just spell it wrongly. At any rate: same word, different (my wrong?) spelling.
Whatever, Nazi(i)sm is understood to relate to the policies made and popularised by Hitler and his regime. You don't have to use it that way personally - you can use it to describe a movement of employing ice cream as a sex aid if you like - but it's much less useful for mutual understanding if others don't use the same meaning.
Agema: Whatever, Nazi(i)sm is understood to relate to the policies made and popularised by Hitler and his regime. You don't have to use it that way personally - you can use it to describe a movement of employing ice cream as a sex aid if you like - but it's much less useful for mutual understanding if others don't use the same meaning.
So... 1. Nazism refers to German National-Socialism between 1933 and 1945, despite all kinds of National-Socialists that were not German. 2. Nazism is evil because it's racist 3. It's racist because you can find some translated quotes where Hitler says racist stuff
.
I answered you.