CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[saveliberty]

I guess if we were having a lot of attacks from Buddhists, we could call them Buddhist terrorists. Thing is, this is a group of Muslims making the attacks. I fully accept they are not really following their religion by being to the extreme. Eliminating the term Muslim ignores part of the issue which may be part of the solution. For instance working to enlist more help from Muslim religious leadership.

 

[DGS49]

A "phobia" is an irrational fear. The worldwide Islamic community has demonstrated emphatically that it is a breeding ground for extremism, coupled with distrust, hate, and homicidal sentiments against not only non-Muslims, but Muslims who profess slightly different versions of Islam. It is not irrational for The Western World to take precautions against being victimized, and if some innocent Muslims are inconvenienced or rejected in our attempt to make ourselves safe, that is an acceptable collateral happening. Why are 70% of the Syrian refugees entering Europe young-adult males? It gives one pause.

While Islam claims to be peaceful and hospitable, one cannot fail to notice that the millions of Muslim refugees (starting with the "Palestinian" refugees fleeing Israel in the late 40's) are NEVER taken in by Islamic countries, and they INVARIABLY seek to settle in Western countries where they are a small minority. Is this because they want to embrace the joys of being German, or French, or British? It does not appear so.

In fact, Islam is not a "religion" as that term is understood in Western culture. "Separation of Church and State" is absurd in Islam; Islam is a comprehensive "rule book" for life that demands physical enforcement and hence, the dominance of government (in Islamic countries) by Islam and its leaders. In Iran, for example, every action by the elected political leaders and bodies is subject to being overturned by the chief imam. Even "moderate" Muslims around the world, when speaking truthfully, all support the concept of Sharia law - along with the enforcement that goes with it.

 

[Tilly]

The word Islamophobia is a ridiculous misnomer, IMHO. A phobia is an extremely irrational dislike or fear of something. To dislike or be critical and concerned over the beliefs and ideas that make up Islam, or any religion for that matter, is not irrational, nor is it extremely fearful or hateful. It is no more phobic to dislike and criticise a religious set of beliefs, than it is any other set of beliefs.

And, as someone (NOT Christopher Hitchens, apparently) once said: Islamophobia: a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

 

[pillars]

The same pattern is played out over and over again, as when Muslim populations grow within liberal countries, they press for more and more autonomy, the younger generations become more radical than the older, and pressure is applied within the Muslim community to place Islam above the country that has allowed them to settle. Those so-called "moderate" Muslims (who are still extremely conservative in attitudes) are called Uncle Toms or the equivalent and small states within a state start to develop. As these grow and spread, all who are not Islamic are harassed and persecuted, political clout grows accordingly, and at a certain point of Islamic concentration, the host community becomes under siege by the Islamists.

What would be your solution to this?

Also, how is this different from Christian conservatives in the U.S. who want to establish a theocracy or create policies where businesses don't have to follow the law if it violates their religious beliefs?

It strikes me that fundamentalist Christianity has these same tendencies.

 

[pillars]

Why are 70% of the Syrian refugees entering Europe young-adult males?

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response This data, collected by the UN, seems to conflict with your claim. It shows that about 21% of 4.4 million Syrian refugees are men, ages 18-59.

I also found this article on Politico, which overviews the demographics of Syrian arrivals in Greece and Italy:

It makes good sense that so many young men are leaving countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: Their demographic is often at greater risk of being coerced into joining fighting groups, or being killed rather than captured by such groups. But the result is that 66.26 percent of adult migrants registered through Italy and Greece over the past year were male, according to the International Organization of Migration.

That imbalance might not sound radical, but it is, especially when you look more closely at who those males are. It’s true that many male migrants hope that, if granted asylum, they will be joined in Europe by their wives and children, who would help balance out national sex ratios. But importantly, more than 20 percent of migrants are minors below the age of 18, and the IOM estimates that more than half of those minors traveling to Europe are traveling as unaccompanied minors—90 percent of whom are males. This heavily male subset is all but guaranteed asylum because of their status as unaccompanied minors, but they get no special dispensation to bring spouses, especially since the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that European Union countries are not required to recognize the legality of child marriages among migrants.

Europe’s Man Problem

It doesn't spin the demographics in quite the same way that you do. It does make sense to me that young men would be fleeing forced conscription in Syria, and also that families would send the young men first to establish a safe place for the women and children to live, and potentially earn money so that the women and children can use an alternative means of getting to Europe that does not involve a dangerous boat ride across the Mediterranean Sea.

While Islam claims to be peaceful and hospitable, one cannot fail to notice that the millions of Muslim refugees (starting with the "Palestinian" refugees fleeing Israel in the late 40's) are NEVER taken in by Islamic countries, and they INVARIABLY seek to settle in Western countries where they are a small minority. Is this because they want to embrace the joys of being German, or French, or British? It does not appear so.

Perhaps it is because of the conflicts between Sunni, Shiite and Sufi. There is considerable harassment of one sect or another in most Muslim countries, perhaps these refugees want to live in a place where they can peacefully practice their beliefs without harassment.

The same happened with the Pilgrims, who experienced persecution in one Christian European country after another, or were refused sanctuary by them, and finally ended up settling in a perceived neutral zone (the American colonies).

In fact, Islam is not a "religion" as that term is understood in Western culture. "Separation of Church and State" is absurd in Islam; Islam is a comprehensive "rule book" for life that demands physical enforcement and hence, the dominance of government (in Islamic countries) by Islam and its leaders. In Iran, for example, every action by the elected political leaders and bodies is subject to being overturned by the chief imam. Even "moderate" Muslims around the world, when speaking truthfully, all support the concept of Sharia law - along with the enforcement that goes with it.

Iran is a theocracy led by religious leaders, and is not representative of other muslim majority countries, which have secular governance. Trying to apply it in that way is not intellectually honest.

Further, who is the higher power to most Catholics? Their secular government, or the pope?

Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. reject Obama's authority as president, and believe that God's values overarch secular governance. Same difference.

There are plenty of Christian fundamentalists who would like to see U.S. law based on biblical principles.

How is that different?

 

[Coyote]

Remember when Dwight Eisenhower made German towns people be paraded thru concentration camps.
I think so called moderate muslims should be paraded thru terror sites so than can actually see what their religion is producing.

They aren't responsible for the actions of extemists. Islam is not a single entity, but includes a variety of different cultures with varying interpretations of Islam. The thought of innocent, ordinary American citizens being forceably paraded anywhere is repugnant and unAmerican in my opinion, in much the same way as the internment of the Japanese was.

 

[Coyote]

Personally, I find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant of many basic Western thoughts. I also think excluding the average Muslim from living in the West to be repugnant. It flies in the face of Western thought. Muslim terrorists are a legitimate threat to the West, being passive about them is not a good solution. It appears some type of compromise in Western values may have to occur in order to deal with the problem. For example, after 9/11 Congress passed the Patriot Act, which in essence suspended parts of the Constitution. I would prefer some solution that is not that extreme, yet still effective. Ideas?

How many have you known?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The only way for this to occur, in my opinion, is to stop making broad generalizations about muslims, while focusing on specific individuals and groups within Islam that display risk factors typical of making the transition to supporting or engaging in terror. I think that we have considerable history at this point for identifying those risk factors, and that it is possible to leave the majority of muslims alone while focusing on the small percentage who will engage in criminal activity. This is exact same approach we take to Christian hate groups, anti-government militia groups, and other kinds of criminal organizations, and it's an approach that we should continue.

I will be honest, I think the U.S. federal law enforcement agencies have actually done an exceptional job with this issue. That's why we have had so few terror attacks here.

What disturbs me is the amount of fear-mongering and flogging of this issue by islamophobes who are politically motivated, and trying to use fear to mobilize the populace.

Do you support killing or jailing those who decide they wish to leave the democratic party? No, of course not. It is mainstream Muslim belief, however, that apostates should be killed or jailed, and countless Islamic countries have such laws on the books.

This sleight of hand where those who wish to defend anything and everything to do with Islam all utilize the same underhanded ruse -- namely, by claiming that objecting to any of the tenets of Islam is an attack on each and every Muslim on the face of the planet -- not only represents a dishonest form of rhetoric, but is evidence of the very sort of unfocused mind as they accuse others.

Women's status under Islamic law is less than a man's. Why can't I object to that without the screams of those calling me a racist by accusing me of insulting each and every Muslim on the planet? Islam does not promote free speech, and Islamic countries have laws on the books outlawing blasphemy. It seems the radical left agrees, as Islam is above reproach. Hatred of homosexuals is almost universal in Islam, and antisemitism is off the charts. Why am I required to keep my mouth shut about it?

Why is Islam the ONLY ideology on the planet that the authoritarian left defends the way it does? It simply does not make sense, especially considering the way it stands in such fierce opposition to every secular humanist value known to man.

People would rather call somebody a racist and pat themselves on the back for doing so than discuss the ideas involved in regards to how people should live.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A "phobia" is an irrational fear. The worldwide Islamic community has demonstrated emphatically that it is a breeding ground for extremism, coupled with distrust, hate, and homicidal sentiments against not only non-Muslims, but Muslims who profess slightly different versions of Islam. It is not irrational for The Western World to take precautions against being victimized, and if some innocent Muslims are inconvenienced or rejected in our attempt to make ourselves safe, that is an acceptable collateral happening. Why are 70% of the Syrian refugees entering Europe young-adult males? It gives one pause.

While Islam claims to be peaceful and hospitable, one cannot fail to notice that the millions of Muslim refugees (starting with the "Palestinian" refugees fleeing Israel in the late 40's) are NEVER taken in by Islamic countries, and they INVARIABLY seek to settle in Western countries where they are a small minority. Is this because they want to embrace the joys of being German, or French, or British? It does not appear so.

In fact, Islam is not a "religion" as that term is understood in Western culture. "Separation of Church and State" is absurd in Islam; Islam is a comprehensive "rule book" for life that demands physical enforcement and hence, the dominance of government (in Islamic countries) by Islam and its leaders. In Iran, for example, every action by the elected political leaders and bodies is subject to being overturned by the chief imam. Even "moderate" Muslims around the world, when speaking truthfully, all support the concept of Sharia law - along with the enforcement that goes with it.

It has been my experience that authoritarian leftists not only know very little about Islam -- especially in the way it operates as a rigid, all-encompassing system that regulates peoples lives down to the iota -- but are so fearful of knowledge that anybody who DOES know something about Islam is automatically assailed.

Ignorance is strength these days.

 

[pillars]

Do you support killing or jailing those who decide they wish to leave the democratic party? No, of course not. It is mainstream Muslim belief, however, that apostates should be killed or jailed, and countless Islamic countries have such laws on the books.

The amount of Islamic countries with these laws can, in fact, be counted. Please do so and report your findings.

This sleight of hand where those who wish to defend anything and everything to do with Islam all utilize the same underhanded ruse -- namely, by claiming that objecting to any of the tenets of Islam is an attack on each and every Muslim on the face of the planet -- not only represents a dishonest form of rhetoric, but is evidence of the very sort of unfocused mind as they accuse others.

I think Islam is a terribly misogynistic religion as practiced in most of the world, and I find it quite intolerant, as well. But, lumping all Muslims as a single entity, or claiming that "countless" islamic countries have these laws (when, in fact, there is a tangible number of countries with these laws) is intellectually dishonest.

Women's status under Islamic law is less than a man's. Why can't I object to that without the screams of those calling me a racist by accusing me of insulting each and every Muslim on the planet? Islam does not promote free speech, and Islamic countries have laws on the books outlawing blasphemy. It seems the radical left agrees, as Islam is above reproach. Hatred of homosexuals is almost universal in Islam, and antisemitism is off the charts. Why am I required to keep my mouth shut about it?

Women's status in Orthodox Judaism is less than a man's. Same with fundamentalist Christianity. Why do you only seem to acknowledge or care about these abuses in Islam?

For the record, I think many sects of Islam need massive reform, and I support developing petroleum alternatives so we can stop pumping money into middle eastern countries with horrific records of human rights violations.

But, I'm not going to generalize about all muslims, because I have many Muslim friends. But, you generically refer to Islam as being these things, when it's not Islam, it's fundamentalist Islam, just like it is fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Judaism.

Why is Islam the ONLY ideology on the planet that the authoritarian left defends the way it does? It simply does not make sense, especially considering the way it stands in such fierce opposition to every secular humanist value known to man.

Why is Islamic fundamentalism the only kind of fundamentalism that is ever attacked by the authoritarian right? It simply does not make sense, especially considering that these religions stand in fierce opposition to gender equality and human rights?

Why is the Authoritarian right ONLY concerned about the rights of women and gays when they reside in muslim-majority countries, but determined to squash gay rights and equal rights and pay for women in the U.S.?

People would rather call somebody a racist and pat themselves on the back for doing so than discuss the ideas involved in regards to how people should live.

At what point do you imagine moving on to more productive discussion?

 

[Coyote]

What gets in the way of a rational dialogue about the problem outlined in the OP (which I'm interpreting as the balance between security and liberty) is that there is a distortion of facts and confusion between fact and opinion.

This thread is about three types of hate, yes three. The first two are in the title, the third will be that which will most likely display itself in the thread. The CDZ rules state the title should not be inflammatory, this title implies two opposing positions exist. I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society. I am hoping we do not get a display of how opposing views on a subject let hate of the opposition get in the way of working together. Much the same as why we have hate blocking a better world outside the CDZ. I hope that is clear and folks can stay on topic.

The threat of terrorism is just the tip of the iceberg, since terrorism is just a means to the end. While only sizable minorities of Muslims support the killing of innocent people in order to spread Islam, a MUCH larger percentage supports the mission, if not the methods, and that is the more pressing issue.

Muslims vary according to the country they live in, and trying to lump them all into one group is disengenius. It's like lumping all Christians around the world into one group, even though there is considerable variation. What is more meaningful is not the religion but the culture in trying to determine levels of support.

Pew surveys are usually considered to be among the best, from a 2013 survey:

The same pattern is played out over and over again, as when Muslim populations grow within liberal countries, they press for more and more autonomy, the younger generations become more radical than the older, and pressure is applied within the Muslim community to place Islam above the country that has allowed them to settle. Those so-called "moderate" Muslims (who are still extremely conservative in attitudes) are called Uncle Toms or the equivalent and small states within a state start to develop. As these grow and spread, all who are not Islamic are harassed and persecuted, political clout grows accordingly, and at a certain point of Islamic concentration, the host community becomes under siege by the Islamists.

Sometimes, when the same memes get repeated frequently, they get taken for fact.

For example, I'm guessing the small "states within a state" refers to the so-called "no go zones" which have spread virally with little regard to fact checking.

Another myth is "as when Muslim populations grow within liberal countries, they press for more and more autonomy, the younger generations become more radical than the older, and pressure is applied within the Muslim community to place Islam above the country that has allowed them to settle."

10 Myths About Muslims in the West

Muslim immigrants in the West hold the same backward views that Muslims do in the Middle East and Pakistan

Actually, Muslims change their cultural views dramatically when they emigrate. For example, 62% of American Muslims say that “a way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights of Palestinians are addressed” - - a rate barely lower than that of average Americans (67%), and vastly ahead of the miniscule response among Middle Eastern Muslims - - for whom between 20% and 40% agreed with that statement. Similarly, 39% of American Muslims and 47% of German Muslims say they tolerate homosexuality, compared to single-figure responses in most Islamic countries – and those rates are rising with each immigrant generation. On these important questions, Muslim immigrants are converging with Western values fast.


​

Another myth, that is used to generate wide-scale fear, is that of population demographics:

Muslims will become a majority in European countries
In fact, we now have several large-scale projections based on population-growth trends and immigration rates which show that the Muslim populations of Europe are growing increasingly slowly and that by the middle of this century - - even if immigration rates are not reduced - - the proportion of Muslims in Europe will probably peak somewhere short of 10% (it is currently around 7%). By that point, Muslims will have family sizes and age profiles not that different from Europe in general.

Immigrants from Muslim countries are going to swamp us
People look at the huge families of many new Muslim immigrants and imagine them multiplying at exponential rates. But this is a bit of an illusion - -as are many of the figures suggesting that Muslim immigrants have fertility rates higher than in their homelands. This is because most new immigrants have most of their children in the years immediately after their arrival. The way we calculate Total Fertility Rate - - the measure of average family size - - is by taking the total number of births a woman has had and extrapolating it across her fertile life. As a result, immigrants appear to have more children than they really do. In reality, the family sizes of Muslim immigrant groups are converging fast with those of average Westerners - - faster, it seems, than either Jewish or Catholic immigrants did in their time. Muslims in France and Germany are now having only 2.2 children per family, barely above the national average. And while Pakistani immigrants in Britain have 3.5 children each, their British-born daughers have only 2.5. Across Europe, the difference between the Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rate has fallen from 0.7 to 0.4, and is headed toward a continent-wide convergence.
​

I think if we are going to meaningfully address immigration, security and any constriction of rights and liberties we need to start with facts not fears.

 

[pillars]

About those apostasy & blasphemy laws....

Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?

We found that laws restricting apostasy and blasphemy are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where 14 of the 20 countries (70%) criminalize blasphemy and 12 of the 20 countries (60%) criminalize apostasy. While apostasy laws exist in only two other regions of the world – Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa – blasphemy laws can be found in all regions, including Europe (in 16% of countries) and the Americas (31%).

So, 14 mostly Muslim countries in the middle east criminalize blasphemy and 12 criminalize apostasy.

In Europe such laws were found in seven out of 45 nations (16%).

These laws criminalize blasphemy--not against Islam, but against Christianity.

In the Americas, 11 out of 35 countries (31%) had blasphemy laws, including the Bahamas, where the publication or sale of blasphemous material can be punished with up to two years imprisonment. The U.S. does not have any federal blasphemy laws, but as of 2012, several U.S. states – including Massachusetts and Michigan – still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books.

Again, in these regions, the laws criminalize blasphemy against Christianity.

Here's another source which looks at this as of 2015:

As of 2012, 33 countries had some form of anti-blasphemy laws in their legal code.[7] Of these, 20 were Muslim-majority nations – Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, the UAE and the Western Sahara. The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 were Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, the Netherlands (abolished in 2014), Nigeria, Poland and Singapore.[7] Blasphemy was treated as a capital crime (death penalty) in many Muslim nations.[6]

Other countries have removed the ban of blasphemy. France did so in 1881 to allow freedom of religion and freedom of the press and blasphemy was abolished or repealed in Sweden in 1970, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, and Iceland in 2015.

Note that the blasphemy laws in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Singapore prohibit/prohibited anti-Christian propaganda.

India's anti-blasphemy laws protect Hindi beliefs.

And, I found this interesting article about Christians in Nigeria, which has anti-blasphemy laws and sharia courts that can administer anti-blasphemy punishments: Christianity in Nigeria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The numbers of Christians in Nigeria has grown from 21.4% in 1953 to 49.3% in 2010.[3]

Since the introduction of Sharia penal law in some of the Northern states, violence towards non-Muslims has increased in the North.[5] In spite of this, a 2015 study estimates some 600,000 believers in Christ are from a Muslim background living in the country.[6]

So, in spite of the anti-blasphemy laws in Nigeria, the number of former muslims who have converted to Christianity has increased substantially.

 

[saveliberty]

Personally, I find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant of many basic Western thoughts. I also think excluding the average Muslim from living in the West to be repugnant. It flies in the face of Western thought. Muslim terrorists are a legitimate threat to the West, being passive about them is not a good solution. It appears some type of compromise in Western values may have to occur in order to deal with the problem. For example, after 9/11 Congress passed the Patriot Act, which in essence suspended parts of the Constitution. I would prefer some solution that is not that extreme, yet still effective. Ideas?

How many have you known?

Probably a lot more than the average USMB poster. I live near one of the largest concentrations of them in the US.

 

[Coyote]

Islamopohobes exhibit their ignorance and bigotry by using xxxxxxxxx terms such as "Muslim terrorism," where acts of terror are committed by individuals, not religions.

I define Islamophobes the same way I define anti-Semites:

A readyness to believe and generate conspiracy theories about that group
broadbrushing an entire group, regardless of differences in belief or individual actions
delegitimizing that group by applying different standards than you do other groups, comparisons to Hitler, etc.
hatred of an entire group because religious identity, not what they've done

 

[Coyote]

Personally, I find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant of many basic Western thoughts. I also think excluding the average Muslim from living in the West to be repugnant. It flies in the face of Western thought. Muslim terrorists are a legitimate threat to the West, being passive about them is not a good solution. It appears some type of compromise in Western values may have to occur in order to deal with the problem. For example, after 9/11 Congress passed the Patriot Act, which in essence suspended parts of the Constitution. I would prefer some solution that is not that extreme, yet still effective. Ideas?

How many have you known?

Probably a lot more than the average USMB poster. I live near one of the largest concentrations of them in the US.

I encounter them frequently through work and find them to be varied in terms of tolerance - a lot seems to depend on where they are from.

 

[pillars]

The most interesting muslims I have contact with are actually black muslims, who vary substantially from sunni or shiite muslims.

 

[L.K.Eder]

About those apostasy & blasphemy laws....

Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?

We found that laws restricting apostasy and blasphemy are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where 14 of the 20 countries (70%) criminalize blasphemy and 12 of the 20 countries (60%) criminalize apostasy. While apostasy laws exist in only two other regions of the world – Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa – blasphemy laws can be found in all regions, including Europe (in 16% of countries) and the Americas (31%).

So, 14 mostly Muslim countries in the middle east criminalize blasphemy and 12 criminalize apostasy.

In Europe such laws were found in seven out of 45 nations (16%).

These laws criminalize blasphemy--not against Islam, but against Christianity.

In the Americas, 11 out of 35 countries (31%) had blasphemy laws, including the Bahamas, where the publication or sale of blasphemous material can be punished with up to two years imprisonment. The U.S. does not have any federal blasphemy laws, but as of 2012, several U.S. states – including Massachusetts and Michigan – still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books.

Again, in these regions, the laws criminalize blasphemy against Christianity.

Here's another source which looks at this as of 2015:

As of 2012, 33 countries had some form of anti-blasphemy laws in their legal code.[7] Of these, 20 were Muslim-majority nations – Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, the UAE and the Western Sahara. The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 were Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, the Netherlands (abolished in 2014), Nigeria, Poland and Singapore.[7] Blasphemy was treated as a capital crime (death penalty) in many Muslim nations.[6]

Other countries have removed the ban of blasphemy. France did so in 1881 to allow freedom of religion and freedom of the press and blasphemy was abolished or repealed in Sweden in 1970, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, and Iceland in 2015.

Note that the blasphemy laws in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Singapore prohibit/prohibited anti-Christian propaganda.

India's anti-blasphemy laws protect Hindi beliefs.

And, I found this interesting article about Christians in Nigeria, which has anti-blasphemy laws and sharia courts that can administer anti-blasphemy punishments: Christianity in Nigeria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The numbers of Christians in Nigeria has grown from 21.4% in 1953 to 49.3% in 2010.[3]

Since the introduction of Sharia penal law in some of the Northern states, violence towards non-Muslims has increased in the North.[5] In spite of this, a 2015 study estimates some 600,000 believers in Christ are from a Muslim background living in the country.[6]

So, in spite of the anti-blasphemy laws in Nigeria, the number of former muslims who have converted to Christianity has increased substantially.

the blasphemy law in germany protects islam as well as christianity.

 

[saveliberty]

Sometimes reviewing history or similar situations helps find an answer. Sometimes it bogs things down with arguments on side issues.

I recognize the phobia when people suggest we kill them all. I see much of the comparative information as excuse making. No one is really offering solutions.

 

[pillars]

I recognize the phobia when people suggest we kill them all. I see much of the comparative information as excuse making. No one is really offering solutions.

The reason I offer comparisons to Christianity, Judaism, etc. is that I feel that we overreact to Islam, and we ignore the parallels to similar Christian behavior.

And there is a solution that is foundational in that comparison: treat both the same. Stop making excuses for fundamentalist Christian abuses, and stop generalizing the abuses of muslim fundamentalists to all of Islam.

Focus on the extremists, and stop the global generalizations about one religion when whackos in other religions do the same things.

 

[pillars]

For the record, I am equally offended by all blasphemy and apostasy laws, which I see as an innate violation of an individual's right to follow the dictates of his or her conscience, and speak freely about these matters.

But let's not pretend that there aren't Christian fundamentalists who wouldn't love to criminalize blasphemy, and places where Christians have done precisely that.