The majority of cases that people use to insinuate that Christianity is just as bad as Islam are hundreds of years old and have very little relevance to Christian values.
The attacks in the article you linked are mostly just Christians doing non-Christian things.
Just because someone is a Sikh, for example, and they kill someone it doesn’t mean the killing was from teachings from the Guru Granth Sahib or inspired by it.
However, in Muslim terror attacks they are inspired by it. It is the culprit
We have already established it not just a few, its 680 million + who hold radical beliefs.
I seriously doubt 42% is correct too. It’s probably even higher.
According to polls in Bangladesh, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Moroco, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Palestinian territories, UK, US, France, it comes out to be that out of 943 million muslims, over 680 million have radical views and are favorable towards sharia law. If we add the rest of the Muslim world, which isn’t included in these calculations, and where we cannot find an explianation why there the percentage of radicalised individuals should be lower, we’ll have a majority with ease. A majority of the world’s Muslim population having radical views.
Centuries ago there was a war-lord, a rapist, a child-molesting pedophile. He is considered as the best example by the followers. Why would you follow someone you don’t agree with? Third grade logic required.
Are you sure it is preventable though? Do you think we can 100% prevent it in this country?
This question does not mean I think terrorism is no issue at all, and it most certainly does NOT extend even farther to mean I am in favor of just opening the flood gates and letting every single person into the country with regard to immigration policy, so don’t go there please.
Ok, well first off you have to define how you determine “radical views”. And that answer is not going to be the same from country to country because–surprise–cultures change from country to country. One would EXPECT countries run under sharia law for decades or centuries (or with it credited as the founding principles of the national law system) to have significantly more positive views on sharia–after all, it is what they grew up with, are familiar with, live with, had their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents grow up with…etc.
It would be like saying “the vast majority of Americans hold radical views on speech because they support free speech”–which incidentally is part of the whole “great Satan” thing the AQ boys rail about: they’re doing the same thing you just did… Well no shit most of us support free speech, our country was founded on it, our ancestors grew up with it and so did we. Similarly you cannot automatically call a muslim living in a historically muslim country a ‘radical’ because they don’t hold Western views of law.
If you want to develop a criterion for what radicalized views are then you need to take into account each country’s history and culture. Having survey results that show x% of muslims in the US support making Sharia a 2nd or a primary system of law here—that’s more likely to be radical yes. Having that same result in say…Afghanistan or Pakistan is probably not radical because generations were raised on it.
EDIT–Now, say support for suicide bombings or acts of terror are probably a more reliable indicator. On the other hand they’re likely too conservative because they don’t take into account people who would agree with just throwing gay people off buildings but not go so far as a truck bomb.
My post is to try to illustrate that determining what “radicalized views” are is important and not necessarily simple.
If there beliefs are incompatible with Western values, they are radical. Simple as.
If they want Sharia law which is incompatible with the West, they are radical.
How is a a immigrant coming in and then ramming people dead in the streets not preventable. Seriously, how do you see that as not preventable?
What I’m saying is that perspective matters. We see sharia as radical, they don’t. They see individual liberty as radical, obviously, we don’t. Trying to apply our perspective to their values and vice versa is like trying to measure the length of a football field using gallons. It doesn’t really make sense.
Not everyone in the world agrees with Western values like we do. So, we have 3 options:
Let our values erode. Hard pass,
co-exit, or
Install western values globally.
That’s basically it and we’ve been trying number 3 since the crusades so…
For the record, it’s not that I really disagree with you, but this attitude that this problem is so simple to solve just grates on me. It’s a very complex issue.
Well a simple solution would be that those who disagree with Western Values aren’t allowed into the West, otherwise your asking for a issue just like in Stockholm.
If they are not compatible then they shouldn’t be in the same place. Simple.
Well if Sweden hadn’t let in a metric shit ton of refugees this attack wouldn’t of happened. How in any way imaginable are you seeing that this could of simply been avoided.
Did they release that this guy was a refugee? I take it you’re against taking refugees then? Does Sweden have the internet? Do they have a non-refugee Muslim population? How secure is Sweden’s border? Do they bring in workers from countries with Muslim population?
Taking in a moderate amount of moderate refugees is fine. Taking in millions of culturally and socially incompatible is not. [quote=“anon50325502, post:97, topic:228299”]
Did they release that this guy was a refugee?
[/quote]
He was born in Uzbekistan. Excluding him we can look at other culturally incompatible refugees and what they have done to Sweden.
Rape rate increased by 1400%. Violent Crime rate up 300%. These are issues which could be avoided if Sweden’s Government were competent in the slightest. [quote=“anon50325502, post:97, topic:228299”]
Do they have a non-refugee Muslim population?
[/quote]
Yes they do, it’s quite a good population with low crime and high GDP, until they let in refugees. [quote=“anon50325502, post:97, topic:228299”]
How secure is Sweden’s border?
[/quote]
There border is now checked and controlled a bit better since the Start of 2017. This can’t repair the damage that has been done as over 150,000 applied to enter and were allowed in to Sweden during just 2015.
I don’t have to define anything. Radical views are everything that fundamentally contradicts or opposes the value system of a given society, nation, country. In this case - the majority of humanity. Surprise - the answer is going to be the same from country to country. Islam, as every other religion, is a belief system. It unites people who share common values and common vision of the past, present and future. Therefore no matter if you are Saudi or Afghan, most likely your outlook will be the same due to the same belief system applied in both regions, and the material culture plays no role.
The Sharia law is present in the Quran, Sunnah and not only, and it is integral part of the religion and there’s no second opinion. It is the Law of Allah, therefore it is accepted a priori. This acceptacne lays in the core of the Islamic extremism outside Muslim countries - any other form of law and constitution, different than those of Allah are false
“you cannot automatically call a muslim living in a historically muslim country a ‘radical’ because they don’t hold Western views of law.” - If by “radical” you mean a person who holds radically different values than mine, then I can if I wish so. Not that it sounds nice.