NOTE: I'm not /pol/. I don't necessarily agree that the link below is completely true or not, but I'm curious as to what Veeky Forums thinks which is why I'm asking the question. This is a humanities question about how people choose to act upon religion.
How accurate is this video? youtu.be
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
It is pretty accurate. While personally I have a lot of Muslim friends and they are just normal Americans who smoke weed and don't even pay attention to this shit, there are millions of Muslims who are radical. The daily terrorist attacks at mosques and churches should show you that Radical Islam is no joke in the middle east.
>I'm not a /pol/, but ...
This is not a humanities question.
This is a politics question.
I understand that discussion on /pol/ sucks, but it sucks because of people like you.
There's no policies involved, it is a religion question.
>is X really surely positively absolutely infallibly true? Don't worry I'm not (insert group that uses source video to justify agenda) I'm just "curious"
>"I'm gonna tell you things, not give you sources to the research I looked at, and hope you believe me."
Why would you comment on a video you haven't watched? He cites his sources in the video.
>Asking questions that challenge my world views are wrong.
Muslims are weirdo fucks, they're all beta nerd types who go on about how they love cheeseburgers and smoke weed like everyone else but go home to their muslim neighborhoods where all of their sisters wear the veil and they're waiting on an arranged marriage, even the most degenerate ones still go to mosque once a week, I can't trust them sorry.
>posing questions with an answer in mind while attempting to get responses that validate your belief is right
>You can't ask this question because it would get responses that I don't like.
Why are you people so afraid to discuss potential negatives related to Islam?
If you resort to some strawman argument, you are disqualified.
Posing a question while you yourself already hold a certain viewpoint is the starting point of pretty much all discussion ever.
Just as an FYI the guy in the video is a jewish neoconservative who hates trump, /pol/ isn't too fond of him; here's him responding to alt right trolls
youtu.be
You can think of it like how Trump supporters and Republicans are made out to be incorrigible racists and bigots, Nazis and white nationalists, authoritarians and alt-right, when really you're talking about a huge demographic which for the most part are just following family traditions, feel alienated, neglected, or ridiculed by modern culture and economic prosperity, and are highly susceptible to the influence of anti-establishment and counter-culture ideologues, propaganda efforts by rich donors, populist media figures appealing to their insecurities, and even just attention where no one else would give them the time of day.
So it all comes down to how you define radicalism. Anti-Islam ideologues like the narrator of OP's video do so by grouping together the activities of political radicals, religious radicals, and religious conservatives.
He can't follow the script.
go back to pol
Fuck off, I'm not from that shithole. I don't believe in da joooooos or white supremacy just because I am curious about Islamism faggot
´just following family traditions´ or feeling alienated by ´modern culture´ or any of the other things you mention are no justification for supporting the killing of unbelievers or throwing gays off of buildings. Being a racist or a bigot or `alt-right' is a lot more harmless than being a radical muslim.
I don't think you or Ben Shapiro know what radicalism is.
Imho moderate muslims will always defend or try to condone radical elements way before they openly fight or condemn them, muslims aren't exactly volunteering information to the FBI in droves and consider even passive surveillance of mosques to be a violation of their rights, I don't even blame muslims per se it's simply in group/out group dynamics and is inescapable.
Enlighten me.
Muslims are not a problem in Eurabia because of Islam, they are a problem because they have higher crime rates than native Europeans. Most German crimes nowadays are commited by Syrian migrants not even native Germans, and Sweden is the rape capital of Europe due to Syrian migrants commiting so much crime.
Supporting the killing of unbelievers or throwing gays off buildings aren't family traditions or the result of alienation, but instead the result of media and education initiatives by Islamist organizations the way conservative talk radio drives much of American anti-establishment agitation or views on the use of deadly force by the police and military.
Veeky Forums is so fucking stupid. I'm going back to /pol/. Thanks for the fishes lads
Action taken is what defines religious radicalism. By the same logic that Ben Shapiro uses, you can say that 37% of Christians in the US are radical for being anti-gay. Another 24% believe women should be subordinate to men. So they are radical too, right? Same Pew Research by the way.
Nah mate, these things are the results of individuals deciding to do so or think so. Saying that muslims have no personal responsibility for the things they do and they do things only as a result of the actions of others, is treating them like less than human.
So a significant number of Americans are radical Christians. Doesn't invalidate the same claim about muslims.
Ordinary muslims have world view similar to western people 100-200 years ago.
And then there is wahhabism. It's like Cromwellians were still ruling Britain.
It's not a myth in a literal sense. As in, 9x%+ of Muslims are not interested in blowing anyone up. Unfortunately they will always side with the radical minority.
*It's a myth in a literal sense
I didn't say these things absolve personal responsibility, I'm saying the purposeful spread and solidarity of talking points is being driven by concerted effort. A Muslim man feeling revolted by and even violent towards homosexuality is his own responsibility. Several Muslim men just happening to march in the streets with banners all reading the same slogans and shouting the same demands hours after a radio sermon by a preacher/politician with ties to politically backed donations? That's something more than simple, personal animus.
Well a lot of them support military attacks on random Muslim countries and deliberate targeting of Muslim civilians so yes they are radicalised.
simply because it's politically incorrect, I can find no other reason besides the dumb fear of being called racist
>simply because it's politically incorrect
If only there was a board for that. We could call it /pol/ for short.
>Why are you people so afraid to discuss potential negatives related to Islam?
They are afraid of their innermost thoughts.
There's always full-blown nazi in every liberal. They are constantly fighting to keep it down.
yeah but there's no imageboard for that in real life, if you make an argument for the negative aspects of Islam you are automatically called racist and nazi for no aparent reason apart from having legitimate concerns
video is bullshit
t. exmuslim
Anyone who is Muslim will tell you Islam is too fucking confusing to make blanket statements about..
Go back to /pol/ faggot, regardless where you stand the OP is a /pol/ post
>it sucks because of people like you
What an open minded person you are. OP was simply asking a question, although it may be controversial for some people it's not a terrible one to ask.
To help answer OP, the shittes and the sunnis have been fighting for a very very long time with these tactics. Then you have the moors going into modern Spain and moving into Europe, the crusade was essentially a response to this growth through the Islamic caliphate.
But yes, the vast majority of Muslims are not going to go out and join the jihad. But there will always be a population of the more radical branches of islam, like the Wahhabi (which falls under sunni), because their text calls and permits for violence.
I doubt you've ever talked to a Muslim. An overwhelming majority of Muslims are against ISIS. Hell, even Saudi Arabia, the hub of Wahabbism, has 89% of it's people saying they're wholly against ISIS according to the Arab Opinion Index.
People like to cherry pick stats to fit their agendas. Islamophobia is a thriving industry and people have taken advantage of it
>Shapiro
Literally don't care what your video says, it's guaranteed to be 100% bullshit.
>I have a lot of Muslim friends and they are just normal Americans who smoke weed and don't even pay attention to this shit
Not saying you're wrong, but "regular guy" Muslims aren't always so regular, deep down inside. Pic related.
>one Islamic state wants to derides another islamic state only because they're in the middle of war and earning bad boy points
Pffft whatever, there is little difference between the average city in KSA and Raqqa. If anything the Saudis are even more oppressive than ISIS because they're not in a war for their existence and can dedicate more resources to the religious police.
Nice meme, saying most Muslims are against isis is meaningless when nearly everybody is against isis.
Why is it meaningless? The other guy said that Muslims support the killing of gays and unbelievers when that is clearly not the case among the majority of Muslims. Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam. Stop trying to use it as your evidence against Islam
>Ben Shapiro
Shapiro is a literal and unironic Zionist Jew. asking him about Muslims and Islam is like asking Antifa about the Alt-Right, he won't be neutral and objective.
>Ben saphiro
>Why jews vote left?
>Women Are Winning the War on Women
If you are not /pol/ why you watch /pol/ tier videos?
Because I'm a conservative and it sometimes overlaps. Read this:
>F-fucking terrorist subhumans financed by KILLARY KIKE CLITON
>Hehe I redpilled I'll vote trump he's an alpha male he will kick terrorist asses heh heh heh
>*trump sucks saudi cock*
>FUCKING IRAN
Jesus crist you guys deserved 9/11 so much
fuck off ben
I don't really care about Muslims and Islam, but you people are completely and utterly delusional if you think more than one Billion people in this world hold ISIS-tier views.
Ben Shapiro is the closest I can get to redpilled but this video was kind of meh compared to many of the rest.
He states in the video that he defines radical as incompatible with Western society. Supporting Shari'a in any way automatically adds you to the list.
He is just butthurt and intolerant. Many Muslim migrants are hard workers and contribute a great deal to the economy.
Any country that doesn't have Liberal Hedonistic Materialism as its established ideology is ''incompatible with Western society'' so spare me the attempt at convincing me that more than one Billion have ''Radical'' views, it won't work.
I think I speak for a few of the regular posters here who're aggravated with the explosion of thinly-veiled shitposting, memedropping, and generally caustic personal attacks.
A big part of the annoyance comes from mods leaving cancerous threads and posts up, so people feel like they need to swat away the flies. A large reason behind both concerns might be the fact that this board is a lot slower than /pol/, so people might be simply trying to bump threads with minimal effort. I think a lot of us would prefer to have a slow and enjoyable discussion than a shitfest though.
Please stay a while, and be considerate
The main appeal for Ben right now is that he criticizes the president in a level headed way (ie. not just screaming "HE'S A LITERALLY HITLER" over and over) and that he hates abortion. Pretty much everything else about him is wrong, but at least he's very good at explaining his incorrect beliefs.
This.
He's articulate, honest, and completely wrong.
>Then you have the moors going into modern Spain and moving into Europe, the crusade was essentially a response to this growth through the Islamic caliphate.
But that's wrong. The Umayyad Caliphate went belly-up three centuries before the First Crusade, and the Abbasids were collapsing throughout the century leading up to it.
>Support Sharia Law
>"Radicalized"
I wonder how many Christians support following Biblical law. Nevermind how many enter politics just to ensure the law follows the word of God.
I suppose there's a lot more debate among Christians as to exactly what God's Law is, but it seems they are nearly all radicalized by this definition.
Granted, supporting death for apostates and support for terrorists might be a better measure. You wouldn't hit a majority that way, but you'd still have fuckloads.
Not that Christianity can't get nasty as fuck during the worst of times, as can any religion - people are people, and even Buddhist will muderhobo if push comes to shove - but as to the state of things at this moment...
Not many Christians follow biblical law because for hundreds of years now the rules of the Church and the State have been separated. There are no countries on earth that follow biblical law, they all have completely separate law codes that were at a time long ago based on religious law. Old Testament law is also completely ignored because of the New Testament. I'm not an expect but Christians have that one saying that enforces the separation of Church and Sate too. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Islam is religious law written thousands of years ago, its cannot be changed or adapted because it was written by a prophet personally, changing his words, reinterpreting his words is heresy. Islam would be a great religion if it wasn't so brutal because its rules cannot change.
Christianity can be used to act in brutal ways because its so open to interpretation. However the rules of Islam are clear and brutal and will always be brutal.
They can both be awful but one is awful 24/7 and the other is awful because it can be used however the reader wants.
Reported for being a /pol/ post. Sorry, prefacing your post by saying "I'm not /pol/ and this is a humanities question" isn't enough, it has to actually BE a humanities question.
Talking about contemporary radical Islam is /pol/itical, end of story.
What's the deal with "secular" Muslims a la Bosnia, Turkey, etc.?
>I'm an orthodox jew, but believers in those particular texts aren't mutilating female genitalia
Well no, they're mutilating male genitalia
>reinterpreting his words is heresy
Books don't interpret themselves. Many peoples have interpreted Muhammad's words in different ways and, much like the Christians, they've killed each other over those various interpretations.
Further, separation of church and state is not a universal rule in Christian nations, and several nations have laws regarding "unchristian" behavior (in some cases, even witchcraft), and nearly all of them have one or more laws that have no basis outside of biblical doctrine.
They both have periods where they relax a bit and become increasingly secular, as well as those where extreme fundamentalists take over and theocracy, be it direct or indirect, becomes the rule of the day.
For most of the Islamic world, that day just happens to be today.
Granted, in regards to the Middle East, at least, given everything that's been going on down there, I suspect even if they were secular humanists sworn to pacifism, they'd still be blowing shit up.
But fundamentalists fuck everything up - whether they are religious or not, and when things are already fucked up, fundamentalists rise to power.
...
>religion is political, not humanities
Must everything that triggers you be banned?
>For most of the Islamic world, that day just happens to be today
You mean every day since the foundation of the religion? It isn't just the ME. Muslims are hostile in the Caucasus. Muslims are hostile in China. Muslims are hostile in SE Asia. Muslims are hostile in Africa, in Europe, in South America.
The only times when Islamic cultures have been relatively peaceful is when they have subjugated everyone else in their region and made Islamic law the law of the land. Throughout its existence Islam has been unable to exist alongside other religions without fighting for control.
Not him, but both /rel/igion and /phi/losophy really need to be their own boards. It's not as if we don't get enough shitposts masquerading as both to keep them both active, not only on this board, but across all the boards.
Veeky Forumstory would be pretty slow, but I'm sure enough of /pol/ would still be making holocaust and Africa related posts to keep it alive.
Wait, so they sampled a couple of a hundred Muslims and said that they represent all the 1.2 Billion Muslims? this ''evidence '' isn't evidence, its just bullshit.
>Throughout its existence Islam has been unable to exist alongside other religions without fighting for control.
True of pretty much every religion... Even when it's simply different flavors of the same religion.
...and there are plenty of Islamic nations out there that haven't seen a war in the past half millennia.
>couple of hundred
>~27,000
It is rare to find a poll or study with that many respondents
I don't give a shit if it's hundreds or thousands, you don't ask people that represent less than 1% of a group their views then say that they represent the rest of the group. The Infograph that you posted is complete and utter bullshit.
How else are you supposed to do a survey? As a rough estimate, it's fine.
> it's fine.
No it isn't, its literally putting words in peoples mouths. I said it once and i will say it twice, the Infograph that you posted is complete and utter bullshit.
You need to take a statistics class senpai
>you don't ask people that represent less than 1% of a group their views then say that they represent the rest of the group
1% of 1.2 billions is 12 millions. So there is group of people bigger than state of Israel that support totally everything Isis has done, and that's fucking scary. It wouldn't be a bad idea to ensure that absolutely not single one of them ever visits my neighborhood.
I'm not trying to ban it. It just doesn't belong ON THIS BOARD. You understand the difference?
If it was just one thread I really wouldn't give a shit, but the problem is that people keep bringing borderline /pol/ discussions here (understandably, because /pol/ sucks) and if it keeps up, pretty soon this board is going to be the Islamic Immigration and Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Discussion Board ... with a side of history.
topkek so this is the great mind of the humanities at work. Good to know that every single report, thesis and study that relies on less than 1% of a group is bullshit.
Waste of trips
Religion is humanities, yes or no?
>1% of 1.2 billions is 12 millions. So there is group of people bigger than state of Israel that support totally everything Isis has done, and that's fucking scary. It wouldn't be a bad idea to ensure that absolutely not single one of them ever visits my neighborhood
I don't give a shit. Don't try to group those 12 million with the other 1.2 Billion to make easier for you to villainize Muslims and Islam as a whole.
>1% of 1.2 billions is 12 millions. So there is group of people bigger than state of Israel that support totally everything Isis has done, and that's fucking scary.
That may or may not be true but how you are getting that from the post you replied to or the stats being discussed is a mystery.
>Good to know that every single report, thesis and study that relies on less than 1% of a group is bullshit.
Yes, absolutely. If a report, thesis or study tries to determine the views of a whole group by asking less than 1% of its members, than its complete and utter bullshit.
It can be. It isn't in this case.
Discussing actual theology? You're probably okay. Talking about contemporary trends in a given religion, particularly trends completely dominate political discourse? It's fine if you want to discuss that, but take it elsewhere.
The difference isn't hard to grasp, and conflating the two makes you a disingenuous fuck.
1% would be a huge sample, the Pew research we are talking about hasn't interviewed even 0.01% of Muslims.
see This is why Humanities is the laughingstock of universities.
You're a retard. That's the process by which we gather much of our statistics. As long as it is a balanced sample size it can be expected to be a roughly accurate number.
>That's the process by which we gather much of our statistics
Then our process is complete and utter bullshit.
>You're a retard
*Yawn* Ad Hominem, nothing of substance, as would be expected.
This.
That's why pollsters using a much larger sample size have accurately predicted the outcome of all the recent elections in the West.
>True of pretty much every abrahamic religion
ftfy
>That's why pollsters using a much larger sample size have accurately predicted the outcome of all the recent elections in the West.
I truely hope that you were being sarcastic...
Those places were forcefully kept secularized by the regime which was against islamic law.
Why in every photo I see of him does Trump look totally fucking unaware of what is going on?
Obviously.
In all seriousness you owe it to yourself to learn about statistics, how they are used, why they are used, and their benefits and drawbacks. Most of what you think you know is based on them.
>Then our process is complete and utter bullshit.
Right, I'm sure some dumb fuck on an anonymous image board with no education and whose entire argument is "it's bullshit!" histrionics has a better idea than hundreds of years of statistical science and math.
Kill yourself you slackjawed mouthbreather.