Translated: "This one insane thing happened close to me, so I must then extrapolate that to apply to all people who I might associate with the people involved." See, that's some pretty seriously flawed logic. Yes, that is atrocious, and it's equally atrocious if a religious authority "blessed" it - but that doesn't in any way mean that Islam is a violent religion nor that all muslims are somehow affiliated with terrorists. If that was true, should we assume all single white men in their early 20s are mass murderers because of Elliot Rodger and the people who encouraged him to go on a killing spree? No. Extremists are extremists, and do generally not represent whatever group they might be associated with - unless their group is an extremist group, that is. Islam is not extermist islam, just as "single white men" are not MRAs or incels (and even among those hatred-driven groups there are entirely non-violent people, and I don't assume all MRAs to be potential mass murderers just because quite a few mass murderers have come from their ranks, and their ideology generally foments anger, self-hatred, hatred and violent rhetoric). See how easy that is?
I'm going to have to stop you there... the Islam is a violent religion. Christianity is too. And both are equally bad at that part of their history. Historically, violence is inherent to the religious idea that there is only one truth. There is no place for another reality, so you're either with or against it.
The problem with Islam is that its behind the curve and its followers are also behind the curve. For Christianity, at least here in Europe, most countries decided to separate church and state. In many Muslim countries, they haven't got that strict separation, in fact, Islam is still actively used to this day to exercise power and influence, win elections and maintain power and influence. Its a vehicle for that, first and foremost.
n the US, the separation of church and state is sort of 'halfway' through; every POTUS speech is still 'God willing' and there is a serious bit of Christian fundamentalism in power positions in the US. But its not integral to its foreign or domestic policy or democracy itself. However, this does explain why there is such a strong opposition to Islam, see my first two lines up there. An outsider can easily identify US foreign policy as Christian oppression.
Regardless. We don't live in medieval times anymore, so yes, Islam stands out in this day and age for the way it tries to spread its ideology or the way it fights opposing ones, and the ideas of many sub ideologies within Islam - hell they even didn't get to the point where they stop shooting each other in the face, yet. The fundamental problem with Islam is a lack of reflection and I think that also clearly rings through in the example given by
@64K . In Europe, we had big events that changed our perception of the place of religion in society. Islam has yet to experience that, and its followers so far seem largely unwilling to, the actual exception to the rule is the Muslim population of 2nd and 3rd generation in Western countries.
Those are the ones that will bring change. And I hate to say this, but yes, that is a minority. What's missing is the uproar among all those other Muslims wrt terrorism. We never see or hear it - and the reason for that is that same lack of reflection.
As for right wing terrorism (or left wing, also not innocent) compared to religious terrorism... its equally threatening really... I don't think this should be a contest.
Wait. This is offtopic
I'm dropping this one now. I will say its not entirely fair to swing the report hammer around when you're entering dangerous territory yourself... You can expect a response.
