CDZ A reminder that the rhetoric we hear about a country may not represent the people in that country

[Unkotare]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

 

[320 Years of History]

Soooooo, have you spent a lot of time in Iran?

I am not a tourist-----I deal with very hard reality. The closest I ever go to
YOUR kind of "experience" was the fact I was invited to a picnics
hosted by Iranians. I did not learn about the IRANIANS from those
picnics other than the fact that they always seem to want some kind
of melon after the shish kebob. I also learned a bit about the use of saffron

If there is some reason you don't want to answer the question, feel free to just say so.

Also, what do you mean by "YOUR kind of experience"?

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

You didn't write anything in that post, so you weren't talking to anybody.

 

[irosie91]

Soooooo, have you spent a lot of time in Iran?

I am not a tourist-----I deal with very hard reality. The closest I ever go to
YOUR kind of "experience" was the fact I was invited to a picnics
hosted by Iranians. I did not learn about the IRANIANS from those
picnics other than the fact that they always seem to want some kind
of melon after the shish kebob. I also learned a bit about the use of saffron

If there is some reason you don't want to answer the question, feel free to just say so.

Also, what do you mean by "YOUR kind of experience"?

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------a chat in a café in Teheran does not do it

 

[irosie91]

you make a good point------sorta. Not entirely perfect but sorta good. Regarding muslims, there are LOTS OF COMMONALITIES in the ethos taught to the various
muslim groups all over the world just as there are lots of commonalities in the ethos
learned by Christians all over the world and by the various jewish groups all over the world. THUS it is not entirely invalid to say "muslims are taught" just as it is not entirely invalid to say "Christians are taught" or even 'hindus are taught".
I would be perfectly happy to discuss with you DIFFERENCES I have noticed in the general perspective of IRANIAN MUSLIMS vs----PAKISTANI MUSLIMS----however I see nothing wrong with noting the GENERAL ETHOS of islam----just as
I see nothing wrong with discussing the general ETHOS of Judaism. In fact I have already stated that I have never heard of any Iranian muslim immigrant who was involved in terrorism------and to expand on that thought----by virtue of what I know about Iranians in the USA-------I doubt that there will be any. BUT based on what I have observed of PAKISTANI MUSLIMS------I believe we will see more of that which we saw in California. SEE???? DIFFERENT----a DIFFERENT COMMENT for a different group of muslims. I am really tired of that fake accusation
""" YOU SAID ALL MUSLIMS......... """ nope---I never did

I have used two colors to highlight certain phrases/statements you've written above. The key distinction between the content in red and that in blue is that the red text provides qualifiers that make it clear you refer to a specific subset of the Muslim community. The phrase in blue does not make that distinction.

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. Now I bid you, next time you see folks on here writing in unqualified terms about Muslims, ask yourself if whatever the things they specify pertain to all Muslims.

As for Muslims who hailed originally from Pakistan, I can't say I know any. I encounter such a person from time to time when I take a taxi, but that's as much interaction as I have had with Pakistani Muslims, or Pakistanis in general. That said, I've encountered more Pakistanis than I have Persians, for I am well acquainted with only five Persians and have no awareness of having met others. Accordingly, I have personal experiences that will give me insight about the relative likelihood of seeing terrorism perpetrated by Pakistanis vs. by Iranians/Persians.

As for the general ethos of Islam, I am not inclined to believe Islam has a "general ethos" of violence. I base that only on my readings of the Quran and the scholarly content I've read about matter and related topics. Some of that material includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Using the Qur’an to Justify Terrorist Violence: Analysing Selective Application of the Qur’an in English-Language Militant Islamist Discourse | Holbrook | Perspectives on Terrorism
  
• Conceptions of War in Islamic Legal Theory and Practice
  
• Faith or Doctrine? Religion and Support for Political Violence in Pakistan -- This paper discusses, among other things, the link (probabilistic correspondence) between one's (groups') being Muslim and Pakistani and their supporting political violence.
  
• The Process of Radicalization | Small Wars Journal
  
• Islam and Political Violence
• The Quran in Its Historical Context
• http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/article/1302.pdf
  
• http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/674/8584.pdf
  
• http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00509568/document
• Genesis of Suicide Terrorism

The fact of the matter is that Islam is not the only theist belief system that finds itself commingled with politics. The abortion debate in the U.S. is one such political topic. Ditto conscientious objection, capital punishment, same sex marriage, whether schools can/should teach evolution or creationism, and more. Moreover, the recent violence Nor is politically motivated violence unique to Islam's adherents.

Be that as it may, nothing in the historical record indicates that Muslims are/have been responsible for nowhere remotely close to most of the politically motivated killings/wars. Though I haven't checked to be sure, I suspect that the last time one Muslims could be accurately stated to be responsible for most of the politically motivated deaths/hurt in the world was when the Ottomans "ruled" the world.


(Click on the image to view its source.)

But that isn't really the key point I seek to make. The central point is that when seeking solutions about terrorism, or any other problem for that matter, we need to remain intellectually cognizant and respectful of the need to be equitable in our proposals and accusations. Whereas I don't personally know, or know enough about, most Muslims to say authoritatively on my own what makes one "bunch" of Muslims collectively different from another, I know enough to know that it's highly unlikely that most Muslims espouse the policy ideas and tactics we see Jihadist Muslims (e.g., ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda et al) promote and use.

JUAN COLE??? you have to be kidding

 

[irosie91]

I know enough to know that it's highly unlikely that most Muslims espouse the policy ideas and tactics we see Jihadist Muslims (e.g., ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda et al) promote and use.[/QUOTE]

your comment is about as significant as the true comment that most germans during
the 1930s and 1940s, even those who self described as being "Nazis" espoused
the policies and tactics and ideas of "Dr" Mengele

 

[320 Years of History]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

 

[irosie91]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

wrong------"muslims are taught" does NOT mean "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TAUGHT"--------in common parlance. In common parlance "muslims are taught" should be rendered "muslims are generally taught". You are confusing CHEMISTRY----with common parlance. In fact the statement "the molecular weight of a water molecule is "18" is GENERALLY TRUE------so that the statement is good enough for common parlance. -------In fact it is not ALWAYS
TRUE for ALL WATER MOLECULES

 

[320 Years of History]

you make a good point------sorta. Not entirely perfect but sorta good. Regarding muslims, there are LOTS OF COMMONALITIES in the ethos taught to the various
muslim groups all over the world just as there are lots of commonalities in the ethos
learned by Christians all over the world and by the various jewish groups all over the world. THUS it is not entirely invalid to say "muslims are taught" just as it is not entirely invalid to say "Christians are taught" or even 'hindus are taught".
I would be perfectly happy to discuss with you DIFFERENCES I have noticed in the general perspective of IRANIAN MUSLIMS vs----PAKISTANI MUSLIMS----however I see nothing wrong with noting the GENERAL ETHOS of islam----just as
I see nothing wrong with discussing the general ETHOS of Judaism. In fact I have already stated that I have never heard of any Iranian muslim immigrant who was involved in terrorism------and to expand on that thought----by virtue of what I know about Iranians in the USA-------I doubt that there will be any. BUT based on what I have observed of PAKISTANI MUSLIMS------I believe we will see more of that which we saw in California. SEE???? DIFFERENT----a DIFFERENT COMMENT for a different group of muslims. I am really tired of that fake accusation
""" YOU SAID ALL MUSLIMS......... """ nope---I never did

I have used two colors to highlight certain phrases/statements you've written above. The key distinction between the content in red and that in blue is that the red text provides qualifiers that make it clear you refer to a specific subset of the Muslim community. The phrase in blue does not make that distinction.

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. Now I bid you, next time you see folks on here writing in unqualified terms about Muslims, ask yourself if whatever the things they specify pertain to all Muslims.

As for Muslims who hailed originally from Pakistan, I can't say I know any. I encounter such a person from time to time when I take a taxi, but that's as much interaction as I have had with Pakistani Muslims, or Pakistanis in general. That said, I've encountered more Pakistanis than I have Persians, for I am well acquainted with only five Persians and have no awareness of having met others. Accordingly, I have personal experiences that will give me insight about the relative likelihood of seeing terrorism perpetrated by Pakistanis vs. by Iranians/Persians.

As for the general ethos of Islam, I am not inclined to believe Islam has a "general ethos" of violence. I base that only on my readings of the Quran and the scholarly content I've read about matter and related topics. Some of that material includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Using the Qur’an to Justify Terrorist Violence: Analysing Selective Application of the Qur’an in English-Language Militant Islamist Discourse | Holbrook | Perspectives on Terrorism
  
• Conceptions of War in Islamic Legal Theory and Practice
  
• Faith or Doctrine? Religion and Support for Political Violence in Pakistan -- This paper discusses, among other things, the link (probabilistic correspondence) between one's (groups') being Muslim and Pakistani and their supporting political violence.
  
• The Process of Radicalization | Small Wars Journal
  
• Islam and Political Violence
• The Quran in Its Historical Context
• http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/article/1302.pdf
  
• http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/674/8584.pdf
  
• http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00509568/document
• Genesis of Suicide Terrorism

The fact of the matter is that Islam is not the only theist belief system that finds itself commingled with politics. The abortion debate in the U.S. is one such political topic. Ditto conscientious objection, capital punishment, same sex marriage, whether schools can/should teach evolution or creationism, and more. Moreover, the recent violence Nor is politically motivated violence unique to Islam's adherents.

Be that as it may, nothing in the historical record indicates that Muslims are/have been responsible for nowhere remotely close to most of the politically motivated killings/wars. Though I haven't checked to be sure, I suspect that the last time one Muslims could be accurately stated to be responsible for most of the politically motivated deaths/hurt in the world was when the Ottomans "ruled" the world.


(Click on the image to view its source.)

But that isn't really the key point I seek to make. The central point is that when seeking solutions about terrorism, or any other problem for that matter, we need to remain intellectually cognizant and respectful of the need to be equitable in our proposals and accusations. Whereas I don't personally know, or know enough about, most Muslims to say authoritatively on my own what makes one "bunch" of Muslims collectively different from another, I know enough to know that it's highly unlikely that most Muslims espouse the policy ideas and tactics we see Jihadist Muslims (e.g., ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda et al) promote and use.

JUAN COLE??? you have to be kidding

Red:
No I don't, and I am not. I do not discredit or accept statements based on who makes them. Cursory consideration of the title of the pie chart would suggest to just about anyone that it's at the very least directionally correct given its title. WWI, WWII, and the Russian Revolution, are just a few examples of events/killings that suggest his figures are directionally accurate.

That said, if you read the papers for which I provided links, you'll find that Mr. Cole is not the author of any of them. As I wrote earlier, the papers I referenced aren't the only ones I've read on the topic of violence and Muslims/Islam/religion. Here are some more:

• Islam and Large-Scale Political Violence: Is There a Connection?
  
• Religious Dimensions of Political Conflict and Violence

I think it's accurate to say that the content on Mr. Cole's blog doesn't meet the standards of academic rigor; however, there is plenty of peer reviewed research and historical documentation that does corroborates many of the remarks found on his blog.

I have responded to your comment purely as a courtesy. As I indicated in the post to which you replied, whether Muslims are or are not the cause of most political killings, and/or whether they are the cause of more political killings than members any other religious affiliation, is not the key point I sought to make. It's not the central point I want to make because whether they are or they are not has nothing to do with the role of Islam in encouraging them to do so. Regardless of what Jihadist Muslims think the Quran says and instructs them to do, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are not terrorists, and they have not killed, and do not attempt to kill, anyone.

 

[irosie91]

you make a good point------sorta. Not entirely perfect but sorta good. Regarding muslims, there are LOTS OF COMMONALITIES in the ethos taught to the various
muslim groups all over the world just as there are lots of commonalities in the ethos
learned by Christians all over the world and by the various jewish groups all over the world. THUS it is not entirely invalid to say "muslims are taught" just as it is not entirely invalid to say "Christians are taught" or even 'hindus are taught".
I would be perfectly happy to discuss with you DIFFERENCES I have noticed in the general perspective of IRANIAN MUSLIMS vs----PAKISTANI MUSLIMS----however I see nothing wrong with noting the GENERAL ETHOS of islam----just as
I see nothing wrong with discussing the general ETHOS of Judaism. In fact I have already stated that I have never heard of any Iranian muslim immigrant who was involved in terrorism------and to expand on that thought----by virtue of what I know about Iranians in the USA-------I doubt that there will be any. BUT based on what I have observed of PAKISTANI MUSLIMS------I believe we will see more of that which we saw in California. SEE???? DIFFERENT----a DIFFERENT COMMENT for a different group of muslims. I am really tired of that fake accusation
""" YOU SAID ALL MUSLIMS......... """ nope---I never did

I have used two colors to highlight certain phrases/statements you've written above. The key distinction between the content in red and that in blue is that the red text provides qualifiers that make it clear you refer to a specific subset of the Muslim community. The phrase in blue does not make that distinction.

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. Now I bid you, next time you see folks on here writing in unqualified terms about Muslims, ask yourself if whatever the things they specify pertain to all Muslims.

As for Muslims who hailed originally from Pakistan, I can't say I know any. I encounter such a person from time to time when I take a taxi, but that's as much interaction as I have had with Pakistani Muslims, or Pakistanis in general. That said, I've encountered more Pakistanis than I have Persians, for I am well acquainted with only five Persians and have no awareness of having met others. Accordingly, I have personal experiences that will give me insight about the relative likelihood of seeing terrorism perpetrated by Pakistanis vs. by Iranians/Persians.

As for the general ethos of Islam, I am not inclined to believe Islam has a "general ethos" of violence. I base that only on my readings of the Quran and the scholarly content I've read about matter and related topics. Some of that material includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Using the Qur’an to Justify Terrorist Violence: Analysing Selective Application of the Qur’an in English-Language Militant Islamist Discourse | Holbrook | Perspectives on Terrorism
  
• Conceptions of War in Islamic Legal Theory and Practice
  
• Faith or Doctrine? Religion and Support for Political Violence in Pakistan -- This paper discusses, among other things, the link (probabilistic correspondence) between one's (groups') being Muslim and Pakistani and their supporting political violence.
  
• The Process of Radicalization | Small Wars Journal
  
• Islam and Political Violence
• The Quran in Its Historical Context
• http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/article/1302.pdf
  
• http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/674/8584.pdf
  
• http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00509568/document
• Genesis of Suicide Terrorism

The fact of the matter is that Islam is not the only theist belief system that finds itself commingled with politics. The abortion debate in the U.S. is one such political topic. Ditto conscientious objection, capital punishment, same sex marriage, whether schools can/should teach evolution or creationism, and more. Moreover, the recent violence Nor is politically motivated violence unique to Islam's adherents.

Be that as it may, nothing in the historical record indicates that Muslims are/have been responsible for nowhere remotely close to most of the politically motivated killings/wars. Though I haven't checked to be sure, I suspect that the last time one Muslims could be accurately stated to be responsible for most of the politically motivated deaths/hurt in the world was when the Ottomans "ruled" the world.


(Click on the image to view its source.)

But that isn't really the key point I seek to make. The central point is that when seeking solutions about terrorism, or any other problem for that matter, we need to remain intellectually cognizant and respectful of the need to be equitable in our proposals and accusations. Whereas I don't personally know, or know enough about, most Muslims to say authoritatively on my own what makes one "bunch" of Muslims collectively different from another, I know enough to know that it's highly unlikely that most Muslims espouse the policy ideas and tactics we see Jihadist Muslims (e.g., ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda et al) promote and use.

JUAN COLE??? you have to be kidding

Red:
No I don't, and I am not. I do not discredit or accept statements based on who makes them. Cursory consideration of the title of the pie chart would suggest to just about anyone that it's at the very least directionally correct given its title. WWI, WWII, and the Russian Revolution, are just a few examples of events/killings that suggest his figures are directionally accurate.

That said, if you read the papers for which I provided links, you'll find that Mr. Cole is not the author of any of them. As I wrote earlier, the papers I referenced aren't the only ones I've read on the topic of violence and Muslims/Islam/religion. Here are some more:

• Islam and Large-Scale Political Violence: Is There a Connection?
  
• Religious Dimensions of Political Conflict and Violence

I think it's accurate to say that the content on Mr. Cole's blog doesn't meet the standards of academic rigor; however, there is plenty of peer reviewed research and historical documentation that does corroborates many of the remarks found on his blog.

I have responded to your comment purely as a courtesy. As I indicated in the post to which you replied, whether Muslims are or are not the cause of most political killings, and/or whether they are the cause of more political killings than members any other religious affiliation, is not the key point I sought to make. It's not the central point I want to make because whether they are or they are not has nothing to do with the role of Islam in encouraging them to do so. Regardless of what Jihadist Muslims think the Quran says and instructs them to do, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are not terrorists, and they have not killed, and do not attempt to kill, anyone.

right----you made no point-------other than the fact that the overwhelming majority
of the entire world's population are not terrorists. A point with which I agree.
I have never killed an elephant-----and virtually no people in my state in the USA
have done so thus demonstrating that elephants are not endangered by human
beings. My own husband was born in a shariah adherent country as a jew. That country once harbored a very significant population of jews----now it is virtually bereft of jews and in the past five years there have been NO FURTHER pogroms---thus demonstrating-----that no genocide is actually ongoing. In the southern part
of the USA-------I know of no lynchings of ten year old black children in the past 30 years thus indicating that persecution of black americans in the southern part of the
USA is myth. Now tell me again about the KILL stats of the 20th century

 

[320 Years of History]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

wrong------"muslims are taught" does NOT mean "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TAUGHT"--------in common parlance. In common parlance "muslims are taught" should be rendered "muslims are generally taught". You are confusing CHEMISTRY----with common parlance. In fact the statement "the molecular weight of a water molecule is "18" is GENERALLY TRUE------so that the statement is good enough for common parlance. -------In fact it is not ALWAYS
TRUE for ALL WATER MOLECULES

I am not wrong. It is you who is mistaken, and mistaken on multiple counts.

Blue:
An example and explanation of grammatical/linguistic interpretations I noted in post #26 (highlighted in green in the quote sequence contained in this post) can be found here and here.

Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

 

[320 Years of History]

you make a good point------sorta. Not entirely perfect but sorta good. Regarding muslims, there are LOTS OF COMMONALITIES in the ethos taught to the various
muslim groups all over the world just as there are lots of commonalities in the ethos
learned by Christians all over the world and by the various jewish groups all over the world. THUS it is not entirely invalid to say "muslims are taught" just as it is not entirely invalid to say "Christians are taught" or even 'hindus are taught".
I would be perfectly happy to discuss with you DIFFERENCES I have noticed in the general perspective of IRANIAN MUSLIMS vs----PAKISTANI MUSLIMS----however I see nothing wrong with noting the GENERAL ETHOS of islam----just as
I see nothing wrong with discussing the general ETHOS of Judaism. In fact I have already stated that I have never heard of any Iranian muslim immigrant who was involved in terrorism------and to expand on that thought----by virtue of what I know about Iranians in the USA-------I doubt that there will be any. BUT based on what I have observed of PAKISTANI MUSLIMS------I believe we will see more of that which we saw in California. SEE???? DIFFERENT----a DIFFERENT COMMENT for a different group of muslims. I am really tired of that fake accusation
""" YOU SAID ALL MUSLIMS......... """ nope---I never did

I have used two colors to highlight certain phrases/statements you've written above. The key distinction between the content in red and that in blue is that the red text provides qualifiers that make it clear you refer to a specific subset of the Muslim community. The phrase in blue does not make that distinction.

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. Now I bid you, next time you see folks on here writing in unqualified terms about Muslims, ask yourself if whatever the things they specify pertain to all Muslims.

As for Muslims who hailed originally from Pakistan, I can't say I know any. I encounter such a person from time to time when I take a taxi, but that's as much interaction as I have had with Pakistani Muslims, or Pakistanis in general. That said, I've encountered more Pakistanis than I have Persians, for I am well acquainted with only five Persians and have no awareness of having met others. Accordingly, I have personal experiences that will give me insight about the relative likelihood of seeing terrorism perpetrated by Pakistanis vs. by Iranians/Persians.

As for the general ethos of Islam, I am not inclined to believe Islam has a "general ethos" of violence. I base that only on my readings of the Quran and the scholarly content I've read about matter and related topics. Some of that material includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Using the Qur’an to Justify Terrorist Violence: Analysing Selective Application of the Qur’an in English-Language Militant Islamist Discourse | Holbrook | Perspectives on Terrorism
  
• Conceptions of War in Islamic Legal Theory and Practice
  
• Faith or Doctrine? Religion and Support for Political Violence in Pakistan -- This paper discusses, among other things, the link (probabilistic correspondence) between one's (groups') being Muslim and Pakistani and their supporting political violence.
  
• The Process of Radicalization | Small Wars Journal
  
• Islam and Political Violence
• The Quran in Its Historical Context
• http://ejum.fsktm.um.edu.my/article/1302.pdf
  
• http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/674/8584.pdf
  
• http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00509568/document
• Genesis of Suicide Terrorism

The fact of the matter is that Islam is not the only theist belief system that finds itself commingled with politics. The abortion debate in the U.S. is one such political topic. Ditto conscientious objection, capital punishment, same sex marriage, whether schools can/should teach evolution or creationism, and more. Moreover, the recent violence Nor is politically motivated violence unique to Islam's adherents.

Be that as it may, nothing in the historical record indicates that Muslims are/have been responsible for nowhere remotely close to most of the politically motivated killings/wars. Though I haven't checked to be sure, I suspect that the last time one Muslims could be accurately stated to be responsible for most of the politically motivated deaths/hurt in the world was when the Ottomans "ruled" the world.


(Click on the image to view its source.)

But that isn't really the key point I seek to make. The central point is that when seeking solutions about terrorism, or any other problem for that matter, we need to remain intellectually cognizant and respectful of the need to be equitable in our proposals and accusations. Whereas I don't personally know, or know enough about, most Muslims to say authoritatively on my own what makes one "bunch" of Muslims collectively different from another, I know enough to know that it's highly unlikely that most Muslims espouse the policy ideas and tactics we see Jihadist Muslims (e.g., ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda et al) promote and use.

JUAN COLE??? you have to be kidding

Red:
No I don't, and I am not. I do not discredit or accept statements based on who makes them. Cursory consideration of the title of the pie chart would suggest to just about anyone that it's at the very least directionally correct given its title. WWI, WWII, and the Russian Revolution, are just a few examples of events/killings that suggest his figures are directionally accurate.

That said, if you read the papers for which I provided links, you'll find that Mr. Cole is not the author of any of them. As I wrote earlier, the papers I referenced aren't the only ones I've read on the topic of violence and Muslims/Islam/religion. Here are some more:

• Islam and Large-Scale Political Violence: Is There a Connection?
  
• Religious Dimensions of Political Conflict and Violence

I think it's accurate to say that the content on Mr. Cole's blog doesn't meet the standards of academic rigor; however, there is plenty of peer reviewed research and historical documentation that does corroborates many of the remarks found on his blog.

I have responded to your comment purely as a courtesy. As I indicated in the post to which you replied, whether Muslims are or are not the cause of most political killings, and/or whether they are the cause of more political killings than members any other religious affiliation, is not the key point I sought to make. It's not the central point I want to make because whether they are or they are not has nothing to do with the role of Islam in encouraging them to do so. Regardless of what Jihadist Muslims think the Quran says and instructs them to do, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are not terrorists, and they have not killed, and do not attempt to kill, anyone.

right----you made no point-------other than the fact that the overwhelming majority
of the entire world's population are not terrorists. A point with which I agree.
I have never killed an elephant-----and virtually no people in my state in the USA
have done so thus demonstrating that elephants are not endangered by human
beings. My own husband was born in a shariah adherent country as a jew. That country once harbored a very significant population of jews----now it is virtually bereft of jews and in the past five years there have been NO FURTHER pogroms---thus demonstrating-----that no genocide is actually ongoing. In the southern part
of the USA-------I know of no lynchings of ten year old black children in the past 30 years thus indicating that persecution of black americans in the southern part of the
USA is myth. Now tell me again about the KILL stats of the 20th century

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
  
• Variation of false dichotomy

 

[irosie91]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

wrong------"muslims are taught" does NOT mean "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TAUGHT"--------in common parlance. In common parlance "muslims are taught" should be rendered "muslims are generally taught". You are confusing CHEMISTRY----with common parlance. In fact the statement "the molecular weight of a water molecule is "18" is GENERALLY TRUE------so that the statement is good enough for common parlance. -------In fact it is not ALWAYS
TRUE for ALL WATER MOLECULES

I am not wrong. It is you who is mistaken, and mistaken on multiple counts.

Blue:
An example and explanation of grammatical/linguistic interpretations I noted in post #26 (highlighted in green in the quote sequence contained in this post) can be found here and here.

Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

you are very wrong. I am not writing a dissertation----I am communicating on a messageboard. "MUSLIMS" are taught------means ----in common parlance----
something like "catholics are taught" Neither statement suggests that EVERY MUSLIM IS TAUGHT..... nor does it suggest that "EVERY CATHOLIC IS TAUGHT..." "catholics are taught that it is important ----when one dies----to be in a "state of grace" " is a correct statement for the purposes of communication
on a message board. Children in the USA are taught that "DEMOCRACY and CAPITALISM" is a social, economic and political system superior to COMMUNISM -------in fact my ninth grade social studies class made a whole
"marking period" of that concept-------and as a 14 year old I happened to hear the
social studies teaching EXPLAINING that point to a student teacher-----that it was PART OF THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM

 

[irosie91]

there is more------for many years-----Medical students in the USSR were taught that
"MENTAL DISEASE" or-----mental aberrations are the result of CAPITALIST
THINKING ------- <<< a true statement-----I have discovered that not all graduates
of USSR medical schools believed it

 

[Unkotare]

I am not a tourist-----I deal with very hard reality. The closest I ever go to
YOUR kind of "experience" was the fact I was invited to a picnics
hosted by Iranians. I did not learn about the IRANIANS from those
picnics other than the fact that they always seem to want some kind
of melon after the shish kebob. I also learned a bit about the use of saffron

If there is some reason you don't want to answer the question, feel free to just say so.

Also, what do you mean by "YOUR kind of experience"?

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

 

[Unkotare]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. ...

No, not "necessarily."

 

[Unkotare]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

 

[irosie91]

If there is some reason you don't want to answer the question, feel free to just say so.

Also, what do you mean by "YOUR kind of experience"?

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

 

[320 Years of History]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

 

[Unkotare]

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

You present that as a quote. A quote from where? Where exactly did I say those exact words?

 

[Unkotare]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?