I do have a pretty good bullshit detector, though, and that shit stinks.

And I don't believe I've tried to declare what Islam is, only that the people who have committed horrible deeds in its name are claiming they are Muslims, and that their motivation is religious, so I think they only fair thing we can do is take them at their word.

No religion is monolithic and one would be foolish to think so. However one of the biggest problems then is that no one version of a religion can really ever be called the "true" or "right" one. That's the part that so few people get - both the violent fundamentalists and liberal apologists.

I know what Islam is.

It's another bunch of ancient superstitions and guesses on how things work and how everyone on the planet should live, whether they want to or not.


Christianity is another one.

The motivation of the person pulling the trigger is likely different than the motivation of the person who sent them there. And both of those are likely different than the motivation of the person writing the checks to fund the group.

to even say that one person's motivation is "likely different" than another's. It's entirely possible everyone involved has a religious motivation. I don't know enough to rule that out - do you?

The fact that the leaders do not volunteer to carry out these attacks indicates they have a different motivation.

The fact that the funders do not even live in the same country, much less broadcast their funding of the group, much less take part in an attack, indicates they have a different motivation.

If it was all "Kill'em to go to heaven", they'd all be pulling triggers.

Of course the same thing can motivate two different people to do two different things. Do you think all believers are monolithic?

then they're all going to kill infidels in order to go to heaven.

They aren't. Because the people "running" the organizations have different goals. And the people funding the organizations have different goals.

For example, the Saudis are funding them not so that they can kill infidels, but so that the people in Saudi Arabia will be pissed at the West instead of pissed at their corrupt, autocratic regime.

If one guy has a ton of money to help coordinate attacks, well what good would it do for him to blow himself up and take away the funding?

So he could also be motivated by his religion to provide funds while not doing any actual killing himself.

it's not an either-or choice. He can give the money before he blows himself up.

If he dies, it stops.

Lots of people at NASA are motivated to do their jobs because of a fascination with space exploration. Some of them fly on rockets; others clean floors. But they're motivated by the same thing.

Did you forget you were arguing the opposite position?

by space exploration.

Do you agree that's possible, or do you disagree?

get torn to shreds (not literally, metaphorically, and not here in A&A, here on DU) for various flaws in their public statements or persona. I can't imagine why that would be.

whereby the great white pope can be praised for criticizing capitalists, but mustn't be criticized for his misogyny or homophobia; yet any vocal atheist can be smeared and dismissed for once having an essay appear on some obscure conservative website.

guide on how not to talk about Islam. My first impression of this is that we are all being told to STFU.

...that the article was mainly aimed at Myriam Francois-Cerrah. Who seems to be a white Western feminist/leftish-ist person and convert to Islam. Disclaimer - I knew nothing of this kerfuffle until I read this article.

This comment especially:

Kiran - January 17, 2015 at 2:22 pm

Thanks Thulasi.

Yes I linked to 1 of her tweets up top in bullet-point 2. It is quite interesting to see Myriam Francois-Cerrah, a self proclaimed ‘feminist’, use her white privilege and the social capital she gained by converting to Islam as a professional victim against people of colour who’ve left the religion that she uses as her career and to gain media attention.

Interesting that the writer chose the word "kuffar" - in my admittedly limited experience, that's just about the most insulting term possible for Muslims to use about a non-Muslim.

I hope my blathering about living in the Middle East doesn't come across as "kuffar-splaining." I always try to make it clear that I'm only writing about what I saw/heard, strictly from the viewpoint of a stranger in a strange land.

And without mentioning any names or fora - cough cough - it often pisses me off to see alleged liberals grabbing the latest Muslim apologia and promoting it as "the true Islam."

Pro-tip - if you want to read about the "true Islam," you better learn Arabic. That's the only way you'll be able to read the really good stuff on the Web. Some of it so good that it occasionally attracts the attention of various intelligence services and gets the site shut down.

I have never thought that you were doing anything more than relating your experiences, not coming across as an authority. (Stranger in a strange land---I will have to pull that book back out and re-read it.)

Your explanation of how to know the "true Islam" makes me think that it is not so much a religion of peace...if the sites get the attention of intelligence services. Then again, it could be argued that these sites are only catering to the radical Muslims. I have mixed feelings about Islam...I admit that I am influenced in my opinions by the terrorist Muslims, but I also have to realize that there are millions of Muslims in this world, and most of them are not terrorists. I am not sure how much is propaganda from the reports that we get here in the US and how much is truth. I think that there could be a big gap between the two.

Just like any other group of humans. I knew one Muslim who had no problem with atheism. He was well-educated and generally liberal. Except on the subject of adultery - for that, he wanted the traditional sharia penalty imposed on both parties - death. I have no idea if that was because of some personal experience, but I doubt it. I went to his wedding, where he married his first wife.

Knew another guy who spent some time in the US, and fell head-over-heels for an American woman. He was already married and actually mulled over the idea of making her his second wife...which he could theoretically do under Islam. Oh, almost forgot the punch line - that woman he fell for? She was Jewish. I can't even imagine the complexity of that problem, even if she was a "secular" American Jew. AFAIK, spouses who marry Muslims are still absolutely required to convert.

I knew a couple in Saudi Arabia who faced that problem, except the husband was an atheist. The bride's father insisted he convert to Islam, so he did. But he never meant it for a second. His wife didn't seem to have any problem with that. Lovely couple and the two of them made some excellent homemade brandy. Tasted a lot like Courvoisier.

So just an example - several different Muslims, several different ways of thinking.

Total change of subject - to understand modern radical Islam, I think one good place to start is Sayyid Qutb.

And you should probably start with Fi Zilal al-Quran (In the Shade of the Qur'an) - his 30-volume commentary on the Koran.

Just kidding. Qutb spent some time in the United States, and it didn't liberalize him a bit - the experience horrified him. Especially the open mixing of the sexes, and the way uppity women went around wearing whatever they wanted. He was especially outraged when he went to a dance held IN A CHURCH and couples were slow-dancing together!

Strictly IMO, as always, but I think just about every current seed of radical Islam sprouted from Qutb's fields of bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

And I can sympathize with that position. Imagine the Ex-Muslim watching the Affleck/Harris "debate". What they saw was two non-Muslim westerners barking at each other about a religion to which they've never belonged.

And that's just one example of a demonstrable pattern. Whenever the topic of Islam pops up, the token talking heads are always the same; ex-Muslims almost never included in the conversation.

should be part of these discussions. And yes, it is embarrassing to watch two non-Muslims who know very little about it being the ones discussing it. But I still would like to have seen more "how to" instead of "how not to" talk about it from the article in the OP....or a title change.

...a kind of sarcastic introduction to what is essentially an informal rant.

I haven't checked it out myself, but I imagine Ex-Muslims of North America has a more serious take on the matter.

I think of Hakeem Olajuwon, a pro basketball great who always said his prayers. He was a man I respected. I don't confuse him with the beheaders. When I think of the beheaders, I don't think of individual Muslims, I think of religion and how it poisons people's minds. It's a distinction I wish I could make clearer so that religious apologists don't keep trying to sell me that BS about how religion can be a force for good. Hakeem would have been a great man even if he was an atheist.

"If you have a problem with a religion's fundamentalists, you probably have a problem with that religion's fundamentals."

When I speak critically of Islam, that's what I'm talking about: the religion's fundamentals. With billions of Muslims worldwide, I do not pretend to know what most of them think or believe; but I do know those with whom I am most intimately familiar are good, decent people. But, like you say, they would probably be good, decent people without the religion. My concern is whether or not the fundamental tenets of the religion give people excuses to behave badly under certain circumstances.