Wait, that's not true at all. Most Muslim countries don't have a legally enforced Sharia Law. Only a handful do.

[en.wikipedia.org]

With "hordes of migrants" from any less developed country, you would imagine similar issues. The third and fourth generation descendants will (just like they are in the U.S.) generally be very much Westernized.

I can, and would be more than happy to, put you in contact with a few of my 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim friends from the UK who are about as English as they come.

@StephenHenkel I didn’t say sharia law, I was referring to their views on homosexuality, woman’s rights, ....

@805collins

I apologize for misunderstanding your opinion.

I will say that gay rights exist in some Muslim countries (as do rights for women). Turkey (though Erdogan is doing his best to destroy the beautifully multicultural and open mindedness of the country) is one example. Pre-war Syria would have been another.

Bosnia is another good example of a rather moderate Muslim country.

@StephenHenkel and the other part of the migrant problem is that they don’t share the same values as the places they are moving into

@805collins

Genuinely, most first generation immigrants don't. But in a few generations, I image 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation Muslims will be fully assimilated and many cultures around the world will be all the richer as a result.

Isn't that also in Revelations? The whole "once my message has touched all corners of the Earth..." dealio?

I separate practitioners from their religion. If I didn't, I'd have to assume Jews stone gays to death and kill anyone who works on Saturday. That would be silly.

He's wrong here.

1. Christians in Burkina Faso (West Africa) do engage in female genital mutilation at a rate of 68%.
2. We've seen a rise in Christian terrorist attacks.
3. For every 1 Israeli child killed by a Palestinian, 16 Palestinian children are killed by Israelis. Terrorism, the act of striking terror into others through coercive means, can be seen on both sides.
4. Shapiro's definition of radicalized includes anyone who believes the traditional view of 9/11 may be suspect. I believe that would include a very large portion of non-Muslim Americans. I'd argue this does not constitute "radicalization" and therefore his numbers are suspect.
5. Wanting Sharia Law in Muslim countries is not a radical belief--however, wanting honor killings is. What many Westerner's don't realize is that Sharia Law has many different interpretations.
6. We are NOT sending millions to Palestinian areas. There is literally a law in the U.S. that prohibits us from sending any monetary aid to Palestine so long as they have a Hamas or Hamas affiliated government. Shapiro misleads the listener by saying we send this aide to "Palestinian areas" which are Israeli settlements (to whom we are legally obligated to send 2.8bn per year).

I could go on.

I am not arguing that radical Muslims don't exist. I'm arguing that not all Muslims are radical something even Shapiro admits.

"The majority of them are peaceful people."
-Brigette Gabriel

I do not deny the existence of radical Islam. I simply worry about an inflammatory and bigotted narrative that all Muslims are radical and violent—claims I've seen on this site with some regularity.

did you watch the video? did you hear what Brigette Gabriel said about the non radicalized majority of muslims? When you're talking about upwards of 150 million violent members of any particular group the peaceful majority is irrelevant. @StephenHenkel

@iThink

Her 150 million is not for violent Muslims. It's for "radical" Muslims. Radical Muslims, based on the study she is citing, contains anyone who

1. Thinks Sharia Law should be the Law in Muslim countries (not too radical yet)
2. Thinks 9/11 is suspect
3. Supports the Palestinian government

This is not proof of violence, wouldn't you agree?

yes and that is a rather over simplified way of looking at radical Islam. I would never use the insulting language you refer to in reference to Muslims nor any other sect or group. Nevertheless there is no getting around the fact that the mere 1% of radicalized Muslims carry out about 99% of the violent and bloody terrorist attacks around the globe. To steal a line from the late great George Carlin - "it aint paranoia when they really are out to kill you" @StephenHenkel

@StephenHenkel Shapiro will calculate radical Muslim dishonestly I think. He'll look at actual radicals and slide over so the points you mention are lumped in the same group. Some is a limitation of the polling data but some is a bias he needs to check.

@iThink This depends entirely on how you define terrorism. If I asked you which has killed more human beings since 2001, Radical Islam or the U.S. government, what would you answer?

I won't say that the U.S. government is a terrorist organization, because i deeply believe the situation is much, much more complex than that. But I do think that the way in which we designate and caricature terrorism is genuinely suspect.

Finally, and I don't mind repeating, I have no qualms with people explaining and even ranting about the dangerous of radical Islam. That is not the purpose of this post. The purpose was to question the anti-Muslim rhetoric that extends far beyond the reality of radical Islam.

I agree with your point about extreme rhetoric. That applies to all issues across the spectrum of "hot topics" from abortion to terrorism to Trump. Talk about extreme and abusive rhetoric there seems to no limit the kinds of things people say and do (memes and so on) in order to exhibit their own hatred of Donald Trump. Severed heads, Trump pinatas, even a stage play where the assassination of Julius Caesar is re-enacted on they use a Trump like character as the doomed victim. I think hateful rhetoric is in over abundance in every sector of the sociopolitical spectrum. Climate change theorists, climate change naysayers, feminists, SJWs, White Supremacists, Black Lives Matter..."activist" college students. I don't think the Muslims are being singled out for hateful rhetoric. @StephenHenkel

@iThink

While I empathize with your point, I'm specifically speaking about this website. I haven't seen much from the left here.

This site, in particular, seems to have a pretty harsh view of Muslims.

I would say there is a fine line between embracing radical ideologies and carrying out violent acts in the name of those ideologies. (and lets face it sharia is both tacitly and explicitly promoting violence in the name of Islam) I tend to believe that the "merely radicalized" are ones who either have not yet been caught or have not yet stepped over a line into carrying out violent acts. But you are correct B Gabriel specifically talked of "radical" muslims but she did so in the context of a very large number of Muslims that we should be worried about. I think any sane non-Muslim person (especially Jews) should be very worried about those millions of "radicalized muslims. @StephenHenkel

I would disagree with you on Shapiro being dishonest in his analyses on any subject including radical and violent Muslims - or any other violent group for that matter...Antifa, BLM, White Supremacists and others included.@Penrodster

@iThink He fails, imho, calculating total number of radicalized. To get the number he has looked at the number wanting sharia law and conflating that with actively violent.
I think it's the difference between shouting "Fire" in a movie theatre and actually burning the place down. Both bad but different.

I think whenever someone like Shapiro or Peterson etc speaks there is a reasonable expectation that those who listen their words have a certain ability to understand the difference between their actual words and vague inferences. NONE of the staff here at IDW and countless other "intellectuals" as far as I know ever made any "shouts of fire in a crowded theater" - I'm pretty sure you can tell when there is an immediate threat and the words coming out of Shapiros mouth are not gong to "trigger" your impulse to run from danger. There is I believe and implicit hope that anyone who cares enough to pay attention when he speaks also has the minimal amount of ambition and curiosity to go look at data themselves and then to formulate and opinion on the veracity or accuracy of the things said.@Penrodster

@iThink Sorry I was unclear. I was comparing shouting "fire" to Muslims that might speak of violence but do not DO violence. Muslims that DO violence were the arsonists.
Shapiro lumps them together which I think muddies the intellectual waters. The two groups get handled in different ways.

In this country you will be immediately arrested for threatening violence. You don't have to follow through on the threat. Today on a news report (on my car radio) there was a short story about a young kid who made an offhand comment on a social media site to the effect that; "kids should not go to school today because someone is going to shoot the place up" The kid is now in custody of legal authorities. No telling what will happen to him going forward. I think it wise - wise indeed to pay close attention when someone cheers, promotes and threatens to kill you. Don't you agree? @Penrodster

@iThink Yes, but if those people are in a different country we handle threats and violent action differently. Two different categories.

It is not a separate issue at all. many thousands of them are right here in USA and Canada - right here in every major city in every State. Not saying people should be losing sleep over this but we can be thankful what whatever LE interdiction and preventative measures have been put in place to mitigate Islamic terrorism here at home. @Penrodster

I can put you in touch with a handful of Muslims very ready to denounce any violent Jihadists. Please let me know if you'd like to speak to them.

Additionally, if .001% of a group is problematic, is it accurate to label all members of that group as "monstrous murderers"?

Or worse, "muzzies" which I've seen around this site.

Maybe I'm using this site incorrectly. I looked at popular posts in Politics, that's how I formed this observation.

I will say that after a concerted slaughter a little emotion is not out of line. People get hurt and angry.

I hope so. I came here after listening to a good chunk of Eric Weinstein's various interviews. I was hoping to find well-researched discussions blooming with creative and nuanced thought—but instead, I found a lot of conspiracy and Islamophobia.

Is there a better way for me to use this site?

@StephenHenkel follow someone like jnaatjes (click on profile - click on follow). He provides insightful posts and pushes back when people don't engage that thing above their shoulders. I'd also suggest not using the loaded term Islamophobia or any of the "blank"phobia terms.

@RobBlair

Surely when one of the top posts involves the poster stating that all "Muslims are monstrous murderers" there must be some such definitively accurate term to describe her particular prejudice?

That said, thanks for the lead.

@StephenHenkel The statement is clearly hyperbole, and I would jump to considering it an anti-Islamic statement and not necessarily prejudicial. If it is prejudice and you feel inclined to belittle the poster's position feel free. I'd like to think that is a service we can and should provide.

@RobBlair

Aren't most anti-Islamic statements definitively prejudicial?

@StephenHenkel No. Being critical of religious doctrine is not prejudice.

@StephenHenkel I think this discussion alone is better and more nuanced than almost any you'll see on other social media sites. I've seen this consistently as well.

But just like with any group of people, members of the IDW have their biases too, myself included. To the previous point, I'm personally disgusted by some of the teachings of the Islam faith (though I highly respect others). Many here feel the same. But that hatred for certain ideas can easily bleed into a generalized hatred for a group of people. And yes, I would call that Islamaphobic.

And that brings up another bias people here have. Even though not everyone here is conservative, most are pretty anti-leftist, and are annoyed with how the left labels everything they disagree with as racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc. But just because the left mislabeles things doesn't mean they don't exist at all. And yet the terms themselves are triggering to lots of people here... understandable, but I think we can do better.

There aren't many people in the world who stay as intellectually honest as those who inspired the formation of this group (Weinstein, Shapiro, etc.). There's also the problem that any online platform outside of the mainstream naturally attracts alt-right types (another triggering word, even though all the members of the IDW, including the most conservative of them, rail against the alt-right all the time).

I still have some hope and am trying to fight against the extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric, while still acknowledging the problems with Islam.

@StephenHenkel I'd also recommend having conversations that aren't political. I've had lots of good discussions about God and philosophy here.

@jnaatjes Thank you for your thoughtful response. I've become a bit tired of the religious discussions. There's not much more for me in that arena (at this stage in my life) but maybe in a few whiles.

Psychology may be a bit neat. I'd love to find a thread jam-packed with social psychologists...

Are there places (on this site) you'd recommend?