Stop fretting over religious sensitivities. We must push hard against Islamists

[Ralin]

Also:

How well has that work out for everyone? Liberals has been adopting the same language for 15 years since 9-11. It has done nothing for the many kids that grew up and went ahead to support ISIS.

The reality is what the liberals have been advocating has not made up difference.

How do you figure?

Do you know how many more kids would have grown up to support ISIS if liberal Euro-Americans had gone full bore criticizing Islam? Granted that's an unanswerable question in a lot of ways, but you need a whole lot more evidence to go from 'ISIS and other Islamists still have new recruits' to 'liberal calls for tolerance and understanding of Islam have not made a difference.'

True. But you have to start somewhere, otherwise nothing will ever change.

So if we want to have modern, liberal muslims, we also need to have mosques with liberal imams.

Indeed. Plenty of things in religion are blasphemous right up until they aren't. It's not like Allah is real or there's some sort of Muslim Pope who's the arbitrator of who the real Muslims are.

[ray245]

How do you figure?

Do you know how many more kids would have grown up to support ISIS if liberal Euro-Americans had gone full bore criticizing Islam? Granted that's an unanswerable question in a lot of ways, but you need a whole lot more evidence to go from 'ISIS and other Islamists still have new recruits' to 'liberal calls for tolerance and understanding of Islam have not made a difference.'

Has it made any difference in reducing Islamophobia? I'm not talking about the people who joined ISIS. I'm talking about whether society as a whole has become more tolerant of Muslims, 16 years after 9/11.

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

[Elheru Aran]

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

He didn't win the -popular- vote. That means that the majority of people don't agree with him. The way he was elected was by playing the Electoral College and winning, not by getting the majority of the electorate to approve of his views long enough to vote for him.

If the number of mosques and publicly visible Muslims (judging from attire/ethnicity, so you can take that for however much it's worth) in my area of Georgia is any indication, a fairly conservative suburb of the Atlanta metropolitan area... I don't think the actual level of Islamophobia is -that- high. It's more that the people who were talking about oppressing Muslims 10 years ago are -still- talking about oppressing Muslims... meanwhile the rest of the population, more likely than not, has actually met a few Muslims and found them to be okay people.

[ray245]

He didn't win the -popular- vote. That means that the majority of people don't agree with him. The way he was elected was by playing the Electoral College and winning, not by getting the majority of the electorate to approve of his views long enough to vote for him.

No, but the Republicans control all houses of the government in the US, Brexit happened in part due to Islamophobia, Le Pen came the closest ever in winning an election for the far-right in France. Anti-immigration rhetoric is on the rise in Europe.

If the number of mosques and publicly visible Muslims (judging from attire/ethnicity, so you can take that for however much it's worth) in my area of Georgia is any indication, a fairly conservative suburb of the Atlanta metropolitan area... I don't think the actual level of Islamophobia is -that- high. It's more that the people who were talking about oppressing Muslims 10 years ago are -still- talking about oppressing Muslims... meanwhile the rest of the population, more likely than not, has actually met a few Muslims and found them to be okay people.

Trump is still in power with people cheering him on as he tried to impose a Muslim ban. It doesn't matter whether the majority agrees with Trump or not. The problem is Islamophobes are able to exploit any weakness of a democratic system to gain power. Their rhetoric is still effective.

[Gandalf]

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

He didn't win the -popular- vote. That means that the majority of people don't agree with him. The way he was elected was by playing the Electoral College and winning, not by getting the majority of the electorate to approve of his views long enough to vote for him.

What difference does the popular vote make? It's an irrelevant metric. Trump got enough votes in the right areas to get into the big chair.

[Shroom Man 777]

Sometimes these things, unfortunately, have to come from "inside one's own house" since religious reform wasn't achieved by amazing atheist edgelords like Dawkins or whatever, it happened in-house due to schisms and argumentations and shit-fights and actual bloody murder. Christians shitting on Christians changed Christianity. We don't see Muslims telling Christians how to reform. Or Buddhists or whatever. Yes, to some degree in regards to the advancement of Christianity, some atheists and even supposedly-faithful-but-secularist-people contributed to the conversation... but that's because they're of the same "people" as the Christians and were former Christians themselves and are from the same communities...

But this is in the context of societies where a large majority of the population was some variation of Christian, usually with maybe a couple other minority religions like the Jews who were tolerated, mostly. Muslims and Jews absolutely would have told European Christians how to reform if they'd been able to, and probably they would have been right to do it.

You have a point, but I think you're kinda mixing 'it has happened this way' with 'it has to happen this way.' Having the impetus to reform be an internal thing isn't always a luxury that a religious community has, and that's not always a bad thing.

I'm not saying that outside forces telling screwy minorities or even foreigners telling locals to "cut that barbaric shit out" is necessarily a bad thing. British ordinances against bride burnings, even Maoist anti-lotus-feet and anti-Tibetan-Taliban, and even US anti-Taliban, measures are justified IMO.

You're right, my statement of "that's how it happened" shouldn't become "that's the ONLY way it can happen."

I guess I'm trying to articulate how difficult it is, historically and whatnot, for the alternative option - external voices contributing to the dialog of religious reform - to occur. I don't want to do the whole "it's human nature baaaah!" cop out, but I guess it's just this tendency of in-group and out-group dynamics. Either one has to use brutish imposing "force" (doesn't have to be outright commissars enforcing progressive edicts lol, it can be a sustained behavioral modification campaign like what Singapore or China have) or one can have some kind of really compelling dialog where all major parties approach the matter in good-faith and with openness. These options aren't that likely in most places though. It'd help if either you were in some really controlled environment (like China) or if it was a smaller community so while there isn't necessarily an overbearing controlling authority, nonetheless you're in an environment where "everyone knows each other" because you're in a puny island or something so inter-group influences can be more effective...

The sheer difficulty of articulating this is precisely why the process of assimilation, change, reform and progress is so damn hard lol. How can one pull it off when one has trouble even explaining it.

[Dragon Angel]

How well has that work out for everyone? Liberals has been adopting the same language for 15 years since 9-11. It has done nothing for the many kids that grew up and went ahead to support ISIS.

The reality is what the liberals have been advocating has not made up difference.

Has it made any difference in reducing Islamophobia? I'm not talking about the people who joined ISIS. I'm talking about whether society as a whole has become more tolerant of Muslims, 16 years after 9/11.

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

Yes let's ignore the rampant destabilization the West, especially the US, has inflicted upon the Middle East. I'm sure it was all the liberals calling for tolerance for Muslims that lead misguided children to join ISIS and people to hate Muslims more...

And yes, you were talking about kids who join ISIS. Look at your post.

[Shroom Man 777]

How well has that work out for everyone? Liberals has been adopting the same language for 15 years since 9-11. It has done nothing for the many kids that grew up and went ahead to support ISIS.

The reality is what the liberals have been advocating has not made up difference.

Has it made any difference in reducing Islamophobia? I'm not talking about the people who joined ISIS. I'm talking about whether society as a whole has become more tolerant of Muslims, 16 years after 9/11.

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

Yes let's ignore the rampant destabilization the West, especially the US, has inflicted upon the Middle East. I'm sure it was all the liberals calling for tolerance for Muslims that lead misguided children to join ISIS and people to hate Muslims more...

And yes, you were talking about kids who join ISIS. Look at your post.

Yeah.

I think that Western society's culpability and role, historical (and current) context-wise, in the creation of these movements, contributes to how difficult it is for sane people to articulate critiques of Islamic fundamentalism. Like, being aware of the context and the ongoing activities that contribute to it, is precisely why so many people are... tongue-tied in the way Simon Jester put it.

Like if you discussed Islamic extremism in a vacuum, just take away all contexts and just count all the religious lunatics committing violence, sure it'll be SO EASY to just say "that shit's bad and stupid mmmkay?" because it is. Fanaticism is bad. End of story.

But these occurrences don't... occur in a vacuum. We're all aware of this in the back of our heads. At least if we use our heads to some degree.

[Elheru Aran]

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

He didn't win the -popular- vote. That means that the majority of people don't agree with him. The way he was elected was by playing the Electoral College and winning, not by getting the majority of the electorate to approve of his views long enough to vote for him.

What difference does the popular vote make? It's an irrelevant metric. Trump got enough votes in the right areas to get into the big chair.

The popular vote is still relevant. Yes, Trump won-- but he won *despite* the popular vote. The popular vote shows that more of the population did -not- want him as President than did, and by some tenuous logical extension, can be assumed to similarly repudiate his views.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll also add that part of why many on the Left are so hesitant to criticize Islamic beliefs is because they do not wish to feed into the climate of vilifying all Muslims created by the Right.

The Left may, by and large, be reluctant to criticize Islam, but our society as a whole leans more toward active hostility toward Muslims.

How well has that work out for everyone? Liberals has been adopting the same language for 15 years since 9-11. It has done nothing for the many kids that grew up and went ahead to support ISIS.

The reality is what the liberals have been advocating has not made up difference.

Ray, the number of Americans that "grew up to support ISIS" is on the order of a few hundred. The FBI estimates about 150 Americans who've gone to fight for ISIS In Syria, out of a population of somewhere between two and three million. Including a scattering of lone nut terrorist attackers who say "for ISIS!" might boost the total... hell, let's be generous and say something like ten times that. Even though there have only been a single digit number of 'For ISIS!' terror attacks, let's assume a secret cell structure of over a thousand such terrorists who just... don't do anything.

If so, the number of Americans who "support ISIS" would still be about 0.05% of Muslims.

A strategy that prevents radicalization among 99.95% of the target minority population but fails with the other 0.05% is working pretty fucking well, in my opinion.

You're engaged in a very selective demand. A handful of cases of American Muslims deciding to fight for radicals? Under your argument, that's 'proof' that the left's strategy of not needlessly antagonizing and calling for punishment of Muslims is a failure.

But if literally 999 out of every 1000 Muslims don't become radicalized, or if the true radicalization rate is EVEN MORE than 999 per 1000... you don't care one way or the other.

If the radicalization rate in Muslim countries were as low as it is in the US, ISIL and groups like it would be an impotent, irrelevant, historical footnote.

[Flagg]

That's because Mosques are having construction stopped (illegally, but still stopped) by many municipalities, Muslims and Muslim-looking people are having their temples attacked with innocent men women and children massacred by Christian Terrorists murderers, and on and on. When more "Islamists" start killing Americans than Christian Americans I'll give a fuck. Until then, zzzzzz.

Yeah, but the perception of this double standards is making it extremely easy to fuel the rhetoric of Islamophobia. What you're are doing isn't exactly helping the Muslims either.

How does pointing out facts mean that I am "not helping Muslims?"

By suggesting the US worry more about the state and local municipalities that are refusing to issue permits for, or holding up construction of, Mosques?

The vandalism and arson of Mosques?

The Good Christian Soldiers who shoot up Sheikh Temples thinking they are Mosques due to moronocracy?

Your entire argument is that of the person who would rather end the minorities victimhood by getting rid of the minority rather than cracking down on the majority.

[Flagg]

Church attendances has been dropping for a pretty long time in Europe.

Good. Why would you view this as bad?

But more to the point: This is such a disgusting thread intolerant to the bone.

[Ralin]

Your entire argument is that of the person who would rather end the minorities victimhood by getting rid of the minority rather than cracking down on the majority.

Isn't Ray from Malaysia? Might want to consider that Muslims aren't the minority where he's from.

[AniThyng]

Your entire argument is that of the person who would rather end the minorities victimhood by getting rid of the minority rather than cracking down on the majority.

Isn't Ray from Malaysia? Might want to consider that Muslims aren't the minority where he's from.

He's from Singapore. I'm from Malaysia.

[ray245]

Yes let's ignore the rampant destabilization the West, especially the US, has inflicted upon the Middle East. I'm sure it was all the liberals calling for tolerance for Muslims that lead misguided children to join ISIS and people to hate Muslims more...

And yes, you were talking about kids who join ISIS. Look at your post.

Can you please not quote my post out of context? I'm not ignoring the West's action in the Middle East, or liberals are somehow the main culprits for kids joining ISIS.

My point was that Islamophobia is the fuel that shaped the views of many who wants to join ISIS and other Islamist organisations.

Ray, the number of Americans that "grew up to support ISIS" is on the order of a few hundred. The FBI estimates about 150 Americans who've gone to fight for ISIS In Syria, out of a population of somewhere between two and three million. Including a scattering of lone nut terrorist attackers who say "for ISIS!" might boost the total... hell, let's be generous and say something like ten times that. Even though there have only been a single digit number of 'For ISIS!' terror attacks, let's assume a secret cell structure of over a thousand such terrorists who just... don't do anything.

If so, the number of Americans who "support ISIS" would still be about 0.05% of Muslims.

A strategy that prevents radicalization among 99.95% of the target minority population but fails with the other 0.05% is working pretty fucking well, in my opinion.

You're engaged in a very selective demand. A handful of cases of American Muslims deciding to fight for radicals? Under your argument, that's 'proof' that the left's strategy of not needlessly antagonizing and calling for punishment of Muslims is a failure.

But if literally 999 out of every 1000 Muslims don't become radicalized, or if the true radicalization rate is EVEN MORE than 999 per 1000... you don't care one way or the other.

If the radicalization rate in Muslim countries were as low as it is in the US, ISIL and groups like it would be an impotent, irrelevant, historical footnote.

Except I'm not talking about America. I'm also talking about Europe, in which the number of people joining ISIS is far more problematic. Many of the terrorists attacks in Europe are second-generation citizens.

How does pointing out facts mean that I am "not helping Muslims?"

By suggesting the US worry more about the state and local municipalities that are refusing to issue permits for, or holding up construction of, Mosques?

The vandalism and arson of Mosques?

The Good Christian Soldiers who shoot up Sheikh Temples thinking they are Mosques due to moronocracy?

You aren't merely pointing out to facts. You're saying you are far less willing to offer any critique of Islam as opposed to Christianity. Read the OP post and the article in question. The author is a muslim activists trying to seek support in reforming Islam. Her argument is there is currently not sufficient support from others because people tend to avoid any legitimate discussion of Islam.

Your entire argument is that of the person who would rather end the minorities victimhood by getting rid of the minority rather than cracking down on the majority.

Did you even read the original article and look up who is the writer? Stop fucking strawmanning my post. I never said anything about not cracking down on the majority if they are constantly espousing Islamophobic views. When the fuck did I ever say we should get rid of the minorities?

You are the one throwing Muslim activists and reformers under the bus.

Good. Why would you view this as bad?

Who said anything about it being bad? If you read my actual post in its context as oppoed to getting all emotional, I am saying the decline or church attendance is part of the reason why Europeans and Americans became less religious. It's an organic movement within christian dominated nation that has been happening for decades as opposed to people somehow being magically enlightened by atheists like Dawkins and etc.

But more to the point: This is such a disgusting thread intolerant to the bone.

Why? The original article was written by a Musliam activist trying to say we need to be more willing to talk about Islam without being called an Islamophobe.

In case you are too lazy to look her up, this is her background:

Sara Khan is director of Inspire, a women's human rights organisation which seeks to address the inequalities facing British Muslim women

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Khan ... _activist)

[Dragon Angel]

Can you please not quote my post out of context? I'm not ignoring the West's action in the Middle East, or liberals are somehow the main culprits for kids joining ISIS.

My point was that Islamophobia is the fuel that shaped the views of many who wants to join ISIS and other Islamist organisations.

What more context are you asking for? Those were your posts. And you've just been saying many variations of "what liberals are doing isn't working nope" and "the Left is making this worse" all this thread in such a vague way as to be meaningless or supportive of something even harsher. An alternative by someone attempting to start a more liberal mosque was immediately cynically dismissed by you. People have explained to you exactly why the Left is extremely careful around this issue.

If you didn't intend to do this, then you will have to make yourself much more clear. That is not my job.

[ray245]

Can you please not quote my post out of context? I'm not ignoring the West's action in the Middle East, or liberals are somehow the main culprits for kids joining ISIS.

My point was that Islamophobia is the fuel that shaped the views of many who wants to join ISIS and other Islamist organisations.

What more context are you asking for? Those were your posts. And you've just been saying many variations of "what liberals are doing isn't working nope" and "the Left is making this worse" all this thread in such a vague way as to be meaningless or supportive of something even harsher. An alternative by someone attempting to start a more liberal mosque was immediately cynically dismissed by you. People have explained to you exactly why the Left is extremely careful around this issue.

If you didn't intend to do this, then you will have to make yourself much more clear. That is not my job.

This is because the notion of a reformation within Islam is an extremely complicated topic that have no easy solution.

I'm saying the approach ( at least in the UK) of turning a blind eye towards the more extremist preachers isn't working.

Neither is having a few liberal mosque suddenly going to result in a major reformation within Islam. Church attendance in the west in the 60s onwards didn't drop because churches became more liberal.

[Flagg]

The United States managed to elect a President that was even more distrusting of Muslims than George W. Bush. I hardly see that as an improvement.

He didn't win the -popular- vote. That means that the majority of people don't agree with him. The way he was elected was by playing the Electoral College and winning, not by getting the majority of the electorate to approve of his views long enough to vote for him.

If the number of mosques and publicly visible Muslims (judging from attire/ethnicity, so you can take that for however much it's worth) in my area of Georgia is any indication, a fairly conservative suburb of the Atlanta metropolitan area... I don't think the actual level of Islamophobia is -that- high. It's more that the people who were talking about oppressing Muslims 10 years ago are -still- talking about oppressing Muslims... meanwhile the rest of the population, more likely than not, has actually met a few Muslims and found them to be okay people.

Bush was constantly preaching that Americans shouldn't attack or discriminate against Muslims. That the one honorable thing he's done.

[Flagg]

Ray, I don't care who the author is. I don't care that me seeing right through you is causing you to have a tantrum. You can cry foul all you want.
The thread title alone is easily translated as "PC sucks, waa!"

[Flagg]

There's an underlying problem, which is the extent to which views on Islam have become a political football between the tribal affiliations of "Left" and "Right."

For Right Tribe people, terrorism plays right into the traditional narratives they've been sticking to for half a century or more: scary foreigners who don't honor our gods and traditions coming into our country to hurt the weak and innocent for no goddamn reason, and who can be forced to stop by a good stiff beating by Our Heroes in Uniform.

For Left Tribe people, Islamic terrorism... doesn't play into the narrative. This is not a group whose cultural diversity can or should be celebrated. The private opinion of nearly every member of Left Tribe is 'fuck terrorism.' And yet... there's a problem with saying it. The problem is that if you try to turn around and actively denounce terrorism, this rapidly gets turned cynically into a political weapon by Right Tribe people who care very little about the terrorism, and very much about sticking their thumbs into the collective eye of the Left Tribe.

And this is part of why when conservatives demand that Muslim leaders (or leftists in general) in western countries denounce terrorism, there's a tendency to shuffle the feet. Because it's really obvious to said Muslim leaders that these Right Tribe people are more interested in squeezing them out of the country and creating this horrible stereotype about Muslims, than they are about actually preventing terrorist attacks over the long haul.

It is far more in the interests of the Right Tribe that foreigners be viewed as demons, than that the country actually be safe from foreigners... Even though nearly every individual member of Right Tribe privately wants actual safety and nearly all would privately be willing to admit no basic problems with any specific individual muslim who isn't actively a terrorist themselves.

Just as it is far more in the interests of the Left Tribe that terrorists (who don't fit the narrative) be ignored, than that they be feared and discussed... Even though every individual leftist is all like 'fuck ISIL.' So the leftists shuffle their feet.

...

Of course, the foot-shuffling and reluctance to condemn is also taken as evidence against them. Furthermore, it creates some really bizarre results that don't make a lot of sense, the occasional people who said "how dare you celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden!?" but then turned around and celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, because there's an incentive to saying "look how Lefty I am!" by insulting Thatcher's ghost, but no such reward on the left for insulting bin Laden's ghost.

All in all, it's a terrible incentive structure and this is very far from the only issue where political polarization is stopping us from having an intelligent-ish response to a problem.

Largely I agree with this. The sad part is that people tended to moderate as they got older, but now (largely due to social media) if anything, they seem to be cementing their positions.

Though I fully admit that could be "Get Off My Lawn-ism!"

[Ralin]

Largely I agree with this. The sad part is that people tended to moderate as they got older, but now (largely due to social media) if anything, they seem to be cementing their positions.

Though I fully admit that could be "Get Off My Lawn-ism!"

I read an article (actual academic sociology article) about this for a paper last year. The gist of it was that overall social media does seem to have the effect of moderating people's political and social views, likely by virtue of putting them in contact with relatively diverse people and positions. BUT, there are exceptions and when someone ends up in an echo chamber of like-minded people they get very extreme and nasty very quickly.

So, globally Facebook is a moderating influence, the exceptions are the exact opposite.

[ray245]

Ray, I don't care who the author is. I don't care that me seeing right through you is causing you to have a tantrum. You can cry foul all you want.
The thread title alone is easily translated as "PC sucks, waa!"

It's not my problem that you can't tell the difference between Muslims and Islamists. The fact that you are judging everything by the title of the article alone speaks volume about you.

[Simon_Jester]

Your entire argument is that of the person who would rather end the minorities victimhood by getting rid of the minority rather than cracking down on the majority.

Isn't Ray from Malaysia? Might want to consider that Muslims aren't the minority where he's from.

Okay, but if he's going to make Malaysia-specific arguments or Singapore-specific arguments, he should say that they're specific to Malaysia or Singapore. And say that they're informed by Malaysian conditions. Because Malaysian conditions are very different from the ones that exist in the US or Europe. Rather than prattling about conditions in a country he doesn't know and how "we" for some nebulous we need to "take a stand" against a problem he doesn't comprehend.

Ray, the number of Americans that "grew up to support ISIS" is on the order of a few hundred. The FBI estimates about 150 Americans who've gone to fight for ISIS In Syria, out of a population of somewhere between two and three million. Including a scattering of lone nut terrorist attackers who say "for ISIS!" might boost the total... hell, let's be generous and say something like ten times that. Even though there have only been a single digit number of 'For ISIS!' terror attacks, let's assume a secret cell structure of over a thousand such terrorists who just... don't do anything.

If so, the number of Americans who "support ISIS" would still be about 0.05% of Muslims.

A strategy that prevents radicalization among 99.95% of the target minority population but fails with the other 0.05% is working pretty fucking well, in my opinion.

You're engaged in a very selective demand. A handful of cases of American Muslims deciding to fight for radicals? Under your argument, that's 'proof' that the left's strategy of not needlessly antagonizing and calling for punishment of Muslims is a failure.

But if literally 999 out of every 1000 Muslims don't become radicalized, or if the true radicalization rate is EVEN MORE than 999 per 1000... you don't care one way or the other.

If the radicalization rate in Muslim countries were as low as it is in the US, ISIL and groups like it would be an impotent, irrelevant, historical footnote.

Except I'm not talking about America. I'm also talking about Europe, in which the number of people joining ISIS is far more problematic. Many of the terrorists attacks in Europe are second-generation citizens.

How many individual Muslims are we talking about here?

Hint, if 10000 Muslims "radicalize" out of a population of, say, ten million... that can add up to a lot of terrorist attacks. But it's still one in a thousand of the total population. If the other 99.9% of Muslims are NOT radicalized into becoming terrorists, that indicates that whatever strategies are being used to prevent radicalization are working. They're not working as well as we might wish them to, but they're working.

You can't just say "some Muslims in Country X become terrorists, so Country X's strategy for preventing radicalization is a failure," any more than you can say "sometimes places in Country X get struck by lightning, so Country X's strategy of using lightning rods is a failure." And you certainly can't say "the lightning rods are a failure, so we should all dress up in big suits of metal armor and stand out in the rain on top of tall mountains, yelling insults at the thunder-gods."

Stop using words like 'some' and 'too many' and start using numbers, and it may throw your arguments into much better perspective.

This is because the notion of a reformation within Islam is an extremely complicated topic that have no easy solution.

I'm saying the approach ( at least in the UK) of turning a blind eye towards the more extremist preachers isn't working.

Neither is having a few liberal mosque suddenly going to result in a major reformation within Islam. Church attendance in the west in the 60s onwards didn't drop because churches became more liberal.

Saying the subject is complex does not grant you automatic free cover to prescribe your own non-solution 'solution' of "getting tough" as though that would somehow cut through all these complexities you so vaguely ramble about. "Getting tough" on a complicated problem rarely makes the problem better.

[ray245]

Okay, but if he's going to make Malaysia-specific arguments or Singapore-specific arguments, he should say that they're specific to Malaysia or Singapore. And say that they're informed by Malaysian conditions. Because Malaysian conditions are very different from the ones that exist in the US or Europe. Rather than prattling about conditions in a country he doesn't know and how "we" for some nebulous we need to "take a stand" against a problem he doesn't comprehend.

Given that this is a UK article in a UK newspaper written by a UK activist talking about the problems in the UK, why should anyone assume we are talking about America as the main reference point?

Radical Islam is far less of a problem in the US compared to Europe, with far less Americans joining ISIS than Europeans. It is true that Americans have far less to fear from domestic Islamist terrorist than Europe. But at the same time, American politics do have a heavy influence on shaping the discourse on Islamophobia in Europe.

How many individual Muslims are we talking about here?

Hint, if 10000 Muslims "radicalize" out of a population of, say, ten million... that can add up to a lot of terrorist attacks. But it's still one in a thousand of the total population. If the other 99.9% of Muslims are NOT radicalized into becoming terrorists, that indicates that whatever strategies are being used to prevent radicalization are working. They're not working as well as we might wish them to, but they're working.

You can't just say "some Muslims in Country X become terrorists, so Country X's strategy for preventing radicalization is a failure," any more than you can say "sometimes places in Country X get struck by lightning, so Country X's strategy of using lightning rods is a failure." And you certainly can't say "the lightning rods are a failure, so we should all dress up in big suits of metal armor and stand out in the rain on top of tall mountains, yelling insults at the thunder-gods."

Stop using words like 'some' and 'too many' and start using numbers, and it may throw your arguments into much better perspective.

You want numbers? Sure. Let's take the numbers of westerners joining ISIS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03 ... -for-isil/

USA: 150 official counts. Total population of USA is 321 million, which means roughly 0.00000004% of them are radical enough to join ISIS.
UK 760. Total population 65 million, which means the number of British who joined ISIS per head is 25 times higher than the American terrorists per head.
France: 1700. Total population 66.8 million. This means the number of French joining ISIS per head is 55 times higher than Americans.

Does geography play a huge role? Sure. But that doesn't explain why there are less Italian joining ISIS per head than the UK or France.

So some countries are having a harder time preventing radicalisation than others. Is Islamic radicalisation a big problem in the US compared to Europe? I don't think so. But there are a wide variety of reasons that explain why radical Islam is far less of a problem in the US than in Europe.

Saying the subject is complex does not grant you automatic free cover to prescribe your own non-solution 'solution' of "getting tough" as though that would somehow cut through all these complexities you so vaguely ramble about. "Getting tough" on a complicated problem rarely makes the problem better.

Is imposing more restrictions on radical Islam preachers "getting tough"? You do realise that there are many radical preachers in Europe that are effectively funded by foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and the other rich gulf states?

How are you going to tackle problems like this?

While the Muslim Council of Britain perfected the art of issuing press statements, it did nothing to push back on such poisonous teachings. For 10 years, my organisation Inspire, in an attempt to build resilience to extremism in Muslim families, taught theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology. The response I heard from hundreds of Muslim mothers was the same. No one has taught us this before and no one has taught our children it either. What was apparent is that the weak “community” defence system would not be able to hold back the tidal wave of extremist propaganda.

Is supporting organisation that tries to teach a theological counter-narrative "getting tough"?

[ray245]

Ran out of edit time:

I'm pissed off because no one seems to be reading the actual article. Instead, a whole bunch of people seems angry with me because of the headline alone.

You want solutions? This is the solution offered by writer herself trying to counter the extremists narrative:

We must provide platforms for young people to air their grievances, whether they are concerns around anti-Muslim prejudice or foreign policy and challenge wild anti-western conspiracy theories. It is vital that we hammer home the message that violence and terrorism, no matter what grievances the terrorists claim to hold, is never justified in Islam. Crucially, Muslim activists and scholars must weed out the extremists in our midst who justify their beliefs in the “name of Islam.” As one scholar said last week, it’s time we #CallEmOut.

Second, we need to start investing in grassroots Muslim counter-extremism organisations. At the moment, these lack essential funding and resources. Philanthropies and charities have a social responsibility to support Muslims who are on the frontline. A disastrous combination of muddled thinking about political correctness and a risk- averse outlook has acted as an obstacle.

But nope, no one seems to be talking about the proposed solution. Instead, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon train about Ray the idiot. Sure, I might be an idiot, but at the least try and engage with the article, and not simply at the headline alone.