I never said that Islam has a larger fringe.

However, there's a point when the fringe gets so large that it's commonplace, or mainstream.

I believe that is the case with Islam.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mainstream

With an estimated Muslim population of over 1,200,000,000 even if, somehow, you "knew" that 12,000,000 Muslims were on the "fringe" that still represents only 0.01 of the population.

Let's go crazy and double that number to 24,000,000 that still only represents 0.02 of the population

Not buying that comes close to mainstream, unless you are referring to mainstream bigotry. :nope:

So, out of the 1.2 billion Muslims, you're saying that somehow you KNOW that only maybe at most 24,000,000 have what we'd consider extreme views?

Did I post that?

The numbers I choose only represent the mathematical value of 0.01 and 0.02 of the population.

Maybe I misread your point, then. Care to elaborate?

Does this nonsense never end.

Fundamentalism is the mainstream teaching in Islam, and always has been - if it is worth to be called to be Islam depending on Quran and Sharia. And there is no other idea of Islam than this, there is no Islam justified to be called Islam that is not depending on Quran and Sharia. There is no "moderate" branch in Muhammad's teaching. There never has been that, and since the guy is dead, there never will be that. I think some of you have not just closed your eyes to inconvenient truths - you have poked pencils in your eyes.

A Muslim following Western rules and values, violates the rules of islam and it's values, necessarily so. That makes him a better person for sure, since the Quran wants him to be blind, hatefilled, intolerant, stupid, uncritical to Muhammad's selfjustification - violating all this necessarily makes him somebody we can deal much more pleasantly with - but he is not Muslim in Muhammeddan understanding anymore. Therefore he is a legitimate target for real Muslims to kill, according to the Quran that demands there killing. And although he violates islam, and by that is an apostate in principle - he nevertheless often insists on being identified and called as a Muslim. Which is not only absurd - it is plain and simple: stupid.

Islam is no moderate idelogy. Forget this bullsh!t. It is fundamentalism, totalitarianism, supremacism, and racism. It means no peace, as it clams. It means intolerance, violence, aggression, conquest, submission. That is the goal of Islam. True Islam - not some perverse minority branch of it, but Muhammad's demands to his followers. you want to argue with me that Muhammad's speeches are not the basis of the Quran's intention - not what Islam is basing on?

This on and on and on and on mistaking of "fundamentalism=non islam" with "moderation=Islam" is so breathtakingly stupid as well, and even more: so very, very nerve-killing. It is doing so very major damage also. It's like thinking of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - and thinking it is a democratic program or a liberal pamphlet - because one cannot believe that he meant what he wrote and thus he must have meant something different. and if one then concludes he meant what oneself is thinking, this is most comfortable: it relieves oneself of the nead to react, one must not accept a challenge and thus does not need to fight a conflict against it.

The only problem is that one is not adressing reality, but a fantasy universe inside one's own imagination.

You take this word "Islam" in your mouths, guys - but you mean something totally different than what Islam is. Whatever you talk about and may mean by your words - it is not real Islam you talk about. Islam has nothing in common with your misled descriptions - no matter how often you repeat them, they will not stop to be wrong by the facts.

If terms and labels do not mean their meaning anymore, then people obviously do not say what they mean. And if they do not know these mistaken labels and terms indeed, they even cannot realise that then they necessarily cannot mean what they say. Thus the confusion is perfect, and never-ending. and for Islam, this exact kind of confusion about itself is the most powerful weapon it has. It compares to the Trojan Horse.

Edit: And just for the record: terrorism is not what concerns me most. Even if we had a 9/11 every six months, we would not fall, and would adapt to it. Israel is living with terror since decades. germany and Italy have had decades of terror as well. The threat I am concerned over is that Islamic ideology is aggressively infiltrating our legal system. Our education. Our policy-making. Our courts, our law-making. Our cultural self-defining. And all these processes - are already unleashed and in full charge. Thanks, but no thanks for this social and cultural catastrophe.

Well you guys have fun.

I think his point is that sure, there is maybe 25 million extremists in islam. Thats a lot. but to put it in perspective, 25m is only .02% of the population, which isn't what one could deem mainstream. Thats my interpretation anyways :know:

Personally, I think there are a lot more than the 25 million, im of the opinion that there are roughly 100m. Personal thoughts only, no realy basis. I do however feel there are hundreds of millions more who are 'silent supporters'. They don't speak out against atrocities, but will begin to stir when their muslim brothers and sisters are 'slaughtered' by the infidels.

Note that I'm not saying there is no condemnation by muslims of terror attacks, but it is very very few people who speak against it.

If I'm right, which is a big if, I still don't feel personally that 100m out of 1.2 billion is mainstream. it is less than 10%. What is mainstream in my opinion is acceptance of the extremists' actions. Which leads me to wonder, is it apathy towards it, is it fear that they'd be targetted for speaking out, or is it silent support?

Oddly enough, I think the bird is correct here.

I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of it is folks like Skybird doing their level best to drive moderates into the extremist camp.

If you're gonna be shot it might as well be as a lion than a lamb.

It is: having been educated to behave like they actually do. By that it has become second nature.

It is the fruit of a cultural climate that does not depend on national borders and countries and ethnic groups, but comes in form of a feeling of a transcending identity. The Ummah is all. The individual is nothing. Islam is the inevitable goal of evolution. Welcome in the hive.

We need Richard Dawkins and his group of militant atheists to combat fundmentalist Islam. He and his followers are doing a great job of dismantling Christianity.

Actually, on NPR today they reported a lot of US Muslim clerics have spoken against honor killings and this crime in particular. That's a good sign.


The same could be said for Judaism and Christianity. There is a lot of room for zealots if those followers wanted to obey every part of the Old and New Testaments, Torah, etc. But most Jews and Christians just nod at the rules and injunctions (thank God!) and live the same lives as non-believers, and therefore are pretty mainstream, or as the pastor would say, secular. Thumbs up to all secular Christians and Jews, and Muslims too. I think over time and with better standards of living and education, Muslims will follow the same trend.

Have faith in McDonalds, U2, and JC Penney :D

But that is the point, neal - for me the old and new testament are not a unity, but a contradiction. The old testament and the Tora compare to the Quran, yes, but there is no parallel to the reformation of their construction of a revenging, tyrannic, inhumane deity - a reform that the message of Jesus/the new testament is. Jesus reformed the understanding of "God", and replaced the external entity of God that wanted to rule, with the internal quality man had to see in himself, making it as human or inhumane as the person in question was acting and thinking. The Bible holds two completely different understandings of God, do not get misled by that Jesus used the old language of the old testament to communcate - he had to use some verbal symbols to communciate himself, didn't he. If people would live by the preaching of Jesus, with reason and modesty, in the understanding of the semron on the mountain, I would not complain. to behave like a stupoid fanatic, or in a sect - needs you to violate these teachings of Jesus as I see them, and I see immense parallels between Jesus and the teachings of gautama buddha. Interestingly, when I said Jesus reformed the old relgion of the god of the Jews, comparable is said about Buddha, who sometimes also is descrobed as somebody who reformed the old faith of his world, hinduism. reformed Judaism/old testament is true Christian religion, reformed Hinduism is Buddhism, so to speak. I am convinced that in principle both men were no supernatural creatures, but just this: reasonable and wise men, and that both pointed with their fingers at one and the same moon, although both fingers had different skin colours and both men spoke different languages and used different cultural-dependant symbols to express what they meant.

( Interestingly it is said time and again by some historians that Jesus in the years before the time the gospels speak of, he may have travelled to India and probabaly met Buddha, becoming his student for a while. It's just a theory so far, but one with quite some flesh on its bones. If it would be true, I would not be surprised in any way. )

On the other hand, to live by the rules of the old testament and the Quran makes you a bloodthirsty inhumane barbarian, living by principles like "an eye for an eye", supremacist conquest, and inhumane intolerance for "heretics" and infidels.

In simplified words, to keep it short:

If you want to be a prototypic "good and peaceful man", you may follow the teachings of buddha and Jesus the Christ - which makes you a Christian in the real meaning of the word. Not all Christians do that - and thus are not really christians. Violating their teachings turns you into an intolerant nuthead, a barbaric fanatic, a misled person living his life in blindness.

Compare to this:

A fundamental nuthead, an intolerant barbar, a missionising fanatic you become by following the old testament, or the Quran - and violating the principles outlined by Buddha and/or Jesus. In order to follow these two men, you must violate obedience to the god of the old testament, or the Quran.

Therefore:

Not all Christians are truly christians in this meaning, which is at their loss . Most are not. "Most" means: 9 out of 10, if not more. a true Christian bases on jesus, not in a superstitious, infantile way, but by understanbding the reasonability in taking responsibility for your own fate, making choices and accept that by that you create consequences - so chose xour deeds wisely. That in principle is the old Hinduistic and buddhistic conception of - karma. And the early church until the 5th century, I believe, held up a belief in reincarnation, before the preists decided that this would undermine the power and controol they claimed of the the people, and thus deleted it from the official church-christian canon. The church until today, int he tradition of Paul, - claims jesus for itself, but does not follow him, but founds on all the bible and the old testament as well. That'S why I make a difference between church and Christianity. The church imo is not Christian. You can't be both: "churchian" AND christian. you can only be one of it. Both are mutually exclusive.

And not all Muslims may be true Muslim in the meaning of real Islam, which may be for their better. A true Muslim bases on the teaching given by muhammad, and muhammad was a gangster and godfather, a conqueror and megalomaniac tyrant. That's why i mean it as a compliment when telling a "muslim" I do not see him as a muslim. but I would ask him nevertheless to get clear about his loyalty to better values and principles and thus leave muhammad's tyranny behind. I have high respect for apostates of islam, since they must be very courageous people for the most, who had willed to give up a lot, friends, and family. In principle, by rules of true Islam, they are risking their lives - every real muslim meeting them has the obligation to kill them. Not the choice - but the obligation.

Neal,

I have to disagree with you regarding Christian teachings. To say there is no "moderate" version or form is just not so. If one were truly "fundamentalist" in a strict sense, you would not see the various denominations having discussions regarding things such as homosexual clergy and elders for example.

Allow me to use homosexuality as an example. Islam fundamentally teaches that a gay person should be killed. There is no moderate, forgiving attitude, no ability to reconcile the person. In Christianity (and again I am speaking protestant) - a person who chooses homosexuality can still be accepted, counselled, even embraced - while a pastor, church or mentor works with him to help him be convicted by the Spirit and turn away from his sin. If that person chooses not to turn from sin, that is their choice, but a Christian is taught to love the sinner - and hate the sin. Everything from living a Christian life as a light for the sinner to see, to working with the person should they choose it, we are called to remember that it is our role to embrace our brother while we seek to help him follow the path God has ordained.

I count among those I call friend a couple of people who are homosexual. Do I condone it? No - but I also do not pretend to know the struggles that God has ordained for them, and so I trust my Savior to guide them as He will, and make my life, my love of them without a love of their actions - a light He may choose to use.
I did the same for an old friend here - many of you remember LeoV (God rest his soul) - and I was glad to call him friend.

That's moderate, because Jesus paid the price for ALL sin for those that accept the gift. He is big enough to overcome that if they accept His help. Allah on the other hand - seems to have a real issue with homosexuals - to the point he has to kill them. I wonder if ole mohammed had a secret crush on men or something and wanted em all killed so he wouldnt be tempted and found out. After all - that wasn't very becoming behavior for a fearsome warlord of the time....

Ultimately - modern Xtianity in almost all its forms speaks first of forgiveness for the asking. Any sin (barring one) can be forgiven. *That one sin cannot be committed today.* While it does speak of punishment, that punishment is either spiritual - or a natural physical effect of bad choices. Islam speaks of strict, externally applied punishment that MUST be applied - there is no forgiveness, there is no mercy, no compassion from Allah (who amazingly enough is often called the "most merciful" - yet in the Quran that title is never demonstrated). If you commit a sin before Yahweh, you may ask forgiveness and it be granted. If you commit a sin before allah, why ask forgiveness? Punishment is due - regardless.

Ultimately - fundamental means one thing - more strict. Moderate means less strict. While there are various interpretations of each religion - no one can reasonably claim that Christianity is not more "moderate" - ie forgiving - than Islam. Islam is a fundamentalist religion - there is very little disagreement on the major theological tenants themselves by its own modern scholars (other than the whole do you have to be a blood descendant of mohammed to be in charge). For them, its very clear cut, it says what it says and it means what it says. Period. No wiggle room.

The same cannot be said for modern Xtianity.