N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Very well then. I produce a couple of surveys, and I hear no more about cowardice to address statistical evidence one way or the other of radicalization, right?
Don't think you're a coward. You're just shy, that's all.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
You then must address my challenge on whether or not there is a moral equivalency supportable by current occurrences of ideologically pushed radical acts as endorsed in the name of Islam as opposed to those of any other religion. Correct? It's only fair.
That's an easy one. I don't think there is such thing as a moral equivalency between radical Islam and moderate secular west.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Here's a study on the radicalization of American Mosques. I've heard there's 4 of these, but I'll just post the first I found.
$1:
ABSTRACT
random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.
http://mappingsharia.com/ N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
OK, I know you have some uneducated insults on that one, so let's move on to one you'll like better.
I assure you, if I was insulting you, you would know.
Your thin skin is showing.
Certainly the first thing I note is the texts of which they give a couple of examples.
"The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4)… [85]" Standard stuff I suspect in the Koran and I doubt all that unusual in the more violent parts of the Bible. Not likely to be acted upon with modern moderate Christians, I posit, and unlikely to be acted upon by modern moderate Muslims. Yes, there is violence in the texts, but like the Bible they are written in the context of the time and are not likely to be enacted by the average moderate Muslim. (Don't know if you recall the stat I gave to Bart, that you had better odds being killed by a meteorite than you did by a suicide bomber)
Islam is one of those old timey religions full of fire and brimstone, so I'm not shocked at all that there are quotes like that in their religious materials.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I actually didn't know it existed. I didn't think it could be done. I'm still not sure it was done well, but it's a Pew Research poll done worldwide. I found it by doing something I almost never do. I clicked on a link from Media Matters.
So if it comes from Media Matters you know lefties like this. More precisely they can spin it. Here's a link to an example of that.
But let's look at some examples of stats the left believes shows Muslims are not being radicalized in anyway large enough to suggest we should pay attention to it.
$1:
Eighty-two percent of Afghans believe that religious leaders should have some influence over politics and 99% believe in sharia law, as do 91% of Iraqis and 92% of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
Interesting. And? What do you think that stat should tell us? For fun, what do you think the percentage of US citizens believe their leader should embrace religion? The US may not want it's priests engaging in politics, but t does not want its politics free from religious influence.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Here's an example of Afghan religious justice. I believe this one was for adultery.
Yes yes.... Islamic law is pretty harsh. We get it.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
How radicalized do you have to be to actually want that? Nobody is going to say that's an isolated example, I hope, because I can choke the server with pics like that of Islamic justice.
I don't think anyone suggests it's an isolated incident (Man, you'd argue with your own toes given the chance)
$1:
“At least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they are concerned about religious extremist groups in their country.”
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Half are not, so what does that say?
I dunno. What do you think it says? Does it mean they support it? Does it not affect them so it does not bother them? DO they simply not care? One can potentially read a lot into an open ended stat like that. 61.1 % of Canadians voted in the last election. What does that tell you? 39.9 % were obstructed? They didn't care? Open ended stats are open ended....
$1:
"In most countries where the survey asked Muslims about religious extremism, more than 75% say suicide and other violence against civilians is rarely or never justified.”
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
What is 25% of over a billion anyway, and how many of a population have to be radicalize towards violence before the rest do as their told? How many Nazis did it take to take over Germany?
Interesting thing about that. It's an after the episode question, really. Suicide bombings are an effective tool for terrorism when traditional conventional war would result in an ass whoopin'. I'm not at all surprised at that figure.
Kinda like going back to 1919 and asking Joe American what they thought of the idea of dropping a single bomb on a city, leveling it in a bright flash killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women, and children in order to win a war. Ask that same question in 1946. Bet you get different percentages of support.
$1:
Anyways that's a taste of Pew Research Poll. Here's the whole thing.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/T ... report.pdfSo there it is. Your challenge is addressed. Stop whining. When can I expect you to meet mine, coward?
Thanks for the info. Funny part is you rolled in with this:
$1:
Here's the thing though; if you want to be known as the religion of peace, shouldn't you be known for doing things that are, oh I don't know, peaceful?
All this rape, torture, slavery, beheading, suicide bombing - all to the calls of Jihad, and allulah Akhbars - are not good for the rep. The fact it's all so widespread, historically consistent, and inducing of power over so many, does not do the 'religion of peace' any favors if being peaceful is the rep they honestly want to be known for. It's reasonable to expect the "religion of peace" to expect some mocking, IMHO.
Then you backtracked and moved to the more reasonable:
$1:
Don't be silly. Where did you get the idea I hate Islam? You mean the religion Islam, right? Not the radical ideology that deals with matters other than worship. I hate radicalized Islam, and the effects of that ideology. I have no problem with the religion of Mohammed of Mecca. I might have a problem with the ideology of Mohammed of Medina.
Anyway, this all leads to the question, that I posed: What is the percentage of bad guys in a group that should result in labeling the whole of the group?
These discussions are so much more fun when we throw in reasonable stats and questions. It gets all exciting.
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
[/quote]
CKA Uber 
