[Pants-of-dog]

If she was wearing a head scarf, she was communicating her thoughts loud and clear: that she is a virtuous woman, while women who don't hide their hair (or worse, wear short sleeves and miniskirts) are sluts - infidel sluts. Right there your have some of your "racism" (sectarianism, to be precise) that gauges the worth of a human being by their religious denomination and the social mores that come with it.

Now, if she buys into the "virtuous woman" shit, do you really think she'll be on board with your left-liberal views about homosexuality, Jews and the Big Satan?

So, as long as we assume certain beliefs on her part, then we now know that she actually believes the exact same thing that ISIS does. Cool.

This also assumes that the vast majority of victims of ISIS also believe the exact same things as ISIS. Cool.

I have no idea why people find it so difficult to believe that religions can have different ideologies. The KKK are Christian, as are the Friends. The former are violent racists, while the latter are pacifists and anti-racists. Now, why is Islam so different? Why does all Muslims supposedly have the same ideology?

[Godstud]

Well put, Mr doggy pants!

You also have some Christians that think it's ok for homosexuals to get married, and others who think they should be imprisoned for simply being homosexual.

The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the "Kill the Gays bill" in the western mainstream media due to death penalty clauses proposed in the original version) was passed by the Parliament of Uganda on 20 December 2013 with life in prison substituted for the death penalty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_An ... _Act,_2014

How Uganda was seduced by anti-gay conservative evangelicals
Critics of the country’s homophobic law blame the views of fundamentalist US Christians
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93593.html

Two ends of the same ideology(don't think that it isn't one).

[GandalfTheGrey]

You really should inform yourselves before you jump on the "I'm so progressive" bandwagon. Ten years ago, almost no Turkish woman wore a head scarf, only the older ones. Now even children wear it. That's the ten years in which Islam remembered its political dimension - what outsiders called "radicalisation." It's not a fashion statement, just like a Swastika isn't.

10 years ago the head scarf was banned from most public arenas in Turkey. Its only the last couple of years Erdogan has managed to allow hijabs in universities.

Believe it or not, the emergence of the headscarf in Turkey is reflective of a more free and democratic society, not creeping radicalisation.

[GandalfTheGrey]

There is only one Muslim belief, and that is laid down in the Quran, which cannot be altered, because it is the word of Allah.

Answer to Rich's claim that its only the leftists who claim there is one "true" Islam

[anasawad]

The best part about this, is that Muslims are in one hand not only the most victims of terrorism but also the main ones to fight it.
While you guys are the ones bolstering the arguments groups like ISIS.

But anyways, don't mind me, keep on the stupidity.

[Donna]

Couldn't you say that of any religion, though? Islam is hardly unique in being split into scores of competing sects.

You can say that about any religion with the exception of Catholicism, which dogmatizes it doctrines and teachings.

It's not even unique in having batshit crazy right wing sects or spawning clerical-reactionary and clerical-fascist movements

I don't think today's Salafi death cult is the same thing as the the right-wing Catholic regimes of XXth century, or the same thing as Narendra Modi and the Hindutva, Eastern Orthodox nationalism, Theravada martial tradition, or Protestant militias in America.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

The best part about this, is that Muslims are in one hand not only the most victims of terrorism but also the main ones to fight it.
While you guys are the ones bolstering the arguments groups like ISIS.

But anyways, don't mind me, keep on the stupidity.

I totally agree with this. The more that people give in to vitriol against Muslims, the more propaganda that ISIS has to work with, and the more MUSLIMS are endangered. The people who get hurt the most by new recruits to ISIS are definitely not Americans, Europeans, or Russians; the West just likes to make everything about them. The people most directly affected are the millions of refugees created by ISIS. And I'm pretty sure Muslims don't want to invade Europe, as they are quite happy living where they live as long as they can live there. It's only since the turmoil caused by ISIS that this refugee crisis has really been amped up, and a lot of it has to do with a decade plus of Islamophobia.

[KlassWar]

You can say that about any religion with the exception of Catholicism, which dogmatizes it doctrines and teachings.

Dogmatizing doctrines and teachings and declaring itself the correct sect is not *at all* unique to the Catholics: Most organized sects in most organized religions do the same... And Catholicism has had its share of splits, from being literally split into rival Papacies to spawning heretic or schismatic sects, which seems to happen at least once per Council.

I don't think today's Salafi death cult is the same thing as the the right-wing Catholic regimes of XXth century, or the same thing as Narendra Modi and the Hindutva, Eastern Orthodox nationalism, Theravada martial tradition, or Protestant militias in America.

National-Catholicism and a typical Islamist movement are eerily similar-unsurprising given that they're textbook cases of clerical fascism. Technically Salafists' goal of a neofeudal and theocratic Caliphate makes them clerical-reactionaries rather than clerical-fascists, but that had its direct Catholic equivalent in, say, Spain's carlistas, who supported theocratic monarchy complete with the actual Inquisition. The atrocities of jihadist terror are similar to those of say, the Ustasha... Genocidal sectarian militias are very much alike.

As for the Dominionist militias... If they had the equivalent of petro-wahhabism propping them up with cash and materiel they'd be literal Christian Taliban.

[QatzelOk]

Of course, the vast majority of Muslims detest all the violence that they endure, and that they (and their religion) get blamed for.

The post-911 media narrative forgets that, as early as 1953, a Muslim nation (Iran) ELECTED a communist. So the West sent in "terrorists" to destroy this capitalism-destroying secular movement, and it was eventually, after much violence, replaced by religious Ayatollahs who embraced capitalism.

Later, Afghanistan was a socialist nation where little girls all went to school. Then, the West (capitalist) sponsored terrorists from all over North Africa to terrorize and destroy the society so that capitalism could reign once again.

Similary, when Israel grew tired of the socialist PLO, it created Hamas to destroy Palestinian socialism.

Moral of the story: Capitalism uses Islamic terrorism and dogma to destroy socialist movements among secular and progressive Muslims.

Why would it be any different today? Do you really think capitalism has had any new tricks up its (sweatshop-made) sleeves in the last century?

[Donna]

Dogmatizing doctrines and teachings and declaring itself the correct sect is not *at all* unique to the Catholics: Most organized sects in most organized religions do the same... And Catholicism has had its share of splits, from being literally split into rival Papacies to spawning heretic or schismatic sects, which seems to happen at least once per Council.

Catholicism invented the entire concept of dogma. This became necessary for Christendom because of what early Christianity was: a lot of divergent and disparate interpretations of a single historical figure. This meant that it eventually became imperative to establish what Christianity wasn't and this is how the Catholic dogmata came into being.

National-Catholicism and a typical Islamist movement are eerily similar-unsurprising given that they're textbook cases of clerical fascism. Technically Salafists' goal of a neofeudal and theocratic Caliphate makes them clerical-reactionaries rather than clerical-fascists, but that had its direct Catholic equivalent in, say, Spain's carlistas, who supported theocratic monarchy complete with the actual Inquisition. The atrocities of jihadist terror are similar to those of say, the Ustasha... Genocidal sectarian militias are very much alike.

Salafism is neither "clerical" (Islam does not have a sacerdotal clergy) nor fascist (Salafism seeks to create a polity other than the nation-state). Even 'reactionary' is potentially inaccurate in situations where Salafism reinforces bourgeois hegemony through minimalistic, anti-traditional and iconoclastic adaptation.