And while that is not necessarily a fabrication, it is a little distorted. If even 1% of the entire Muslim population is extremist, that still leaves 10 million crazed Muslims looking to murder anyone who does not share their ideological beliefs. That still doesn't negate the fact that it's still, fractionally, a low percentage of extremists in the overall population.
The outlook is probably more like a huge percentage (perhaps even a majority in some places) want global Islam, Shariah for all, extreme modesty for women etc etc. The only difference is that despite wanting these things they are not always prepared to take extreme measures to acheive them, taking a more long term 'Allah will see to it eventually' kind of ending.
This however means that there is a strong temptation to 'look the other way' when it comes to certain situations. Sure, threatening to kill Rushdie is not condoned by this Muslim - but they might think that Rushdie brought it on himself and deserves to take some flak and should even 'expect' Allah to enact his vengeance through some 'extremist'. The means were questionable, but the end is noble kind of thing.
I went looking for examples of this attitude:
quote:
Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.
Source: telegraph
All this said - 'Islam' is a very wide demographic with probably more differences between groups than similarities.
quote:
About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view. Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan.
When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it. In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries. About three-quarters of Turkish and Lebanese Muslims oppose the stoning of people who commit adultery (77% and 76%, respectively), as does a narrower majority (55%) of Muslims in Indonesia.
The bottom line is: if religiously sanctioned death and mutilation is an extremist position - its a very common one.
Most people in the West say they would support the murder of Hitler. They argue that killing one person is worth it to save millions of lives (under the potentially mistaken notion that Hitler was a necessary condition of the Holocaust). This is a form of consequentialism, a balance of greater goods etc.
When you draw your morality from religious sources - this can lead you to quite different conclusions based on perfectly acceptable moral heuristics.
For instance - if you think that the Western culture is leading young Muslims to drink and engage in promiscuity which leads them to an ETERNITY of torture and even DISHONOURS their family which could result in the family being taken to hell (or the tribe etc etc). Then through simple consequentialism it is better to kill the occasional promiscuous teen or mutilate the odd set of genitials if means saving more Muslims from the eternal holocaust that is hell.
This is the argument Abe has brought to the table - that religion with eternal consequences (Christo-Islamic religions famously) if earnestly believed, can compel its believers to certain actions that others consider immoral or wicked.
For instance: There are two beliefs about a common phenomenon called 'hearing voices'
1. It is a hiccup of the mind, not serious on its own but possibly symptomatic of a mental illness etc.
2. It is a supernatural force (Shaitan, Allah, djinn etc) that must be obeyed or struggled with as appropriate.
If you believe Allah has commanded you to kill your neighbour then you are a morally obliged to do so. But if you believe you are having delusions that Allah is commanding you to do something you might go to a mental health pro or maybe just choose to believe it is a djinn that must be resisted or something.
Many Muslims think that wearing revealing clothes is bad, but other than tutting, gossipping, saying insulting things and ostracisation they don't do much more than that.
But some people realize that doing this could be construed as being no different to standing by as someone drowns. Their moral beliefs compel them to stand up for decency. How can there be peace when the West mocks us so? How can there be peace when x occupies y. Even if it means killing or dying, maybe it will be worth it, the greater good to obtaining peace for all mankind under the gaze of Allah's good will etc etc.
Beliefs direct actions. This is true of secular beliefs too: many people have died and killed for love, their country, honour, freedom, justice etc. It may well be true that some people kill and die for freedom while wrapped up in convenient religious beliefs meaning linear causality is less clear, but I challenge anybody that doesn't think religion wasn't a key motivational factor in the forming of Brit HaKanaim (Covenant of the Zealots). From wiki:
quote:
The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state. The organisation's members trained using stolen weaponry, and would torch the vehicles of individuals who drove during Shabbat and the shops of butchers that sold non-kosher meat.
Setting fire to properties because they don't meet certain purely religiously based standards? That's an immoral act that can only come about because of religion. Of course - people can set fire to property for all manners of reasons, but without religion laws this particular thing would not have occurred I'm sure.
There are often, perhaps always, political goals when we consider terrorism much like with Kach - another theocratic terrorist group that apparently felt a bomb at a girl's school was the way to advance us back to the glory of the Kingdom of Israel.
Naturally - I concede that Islam and Judaism are capable of motivating good behaviour in a person that might have otherwise misbehaved.
Unfortunately, the US - and the UK - suffered from a wave of Islamaphobia in the last decade and people with a head on their shoulders tried to rebalance things by rebuffing the blatant propaganda and lies of the Islamaphobes who tried to paint Islam as necessarily evil or antagonistic by referring to war passages. Unfortunately this lead to a dichotomy of people saying 'Islam isnt as crazy evil as we say and we shouldn't prejudice our dealings with individuals or nations on the basis of the prevailing religious beliefs' and 'Religion poisons everything'.
So sure - the clash of cultures is sufficient to explain the general big picture of things but religious views I feel, play a strong role in shaping the details of that clash as well as the resolution (or lack) thereof.
All that said and done - I really like the story in the OP. I saw some interesting evidence that religion played an important role in helping communities larger than 120 or so to flourish. Religion builds communities (but by unfortunately dividing those commmunities from other communities).
™ Version 4.2
