Since a few people are having trouble understanding your point, Baker, allow me to present it in a slightly different way by changing the gist of the above paragraph, after asking the question sans religion.

I got Baker's point, actually. But while it has a grain of truth to it, I don't think it's entirely true. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, for instance, came from Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy country. I'd be willing to bet a few X-Boxes were left behind. And Johnny Walker Lindh didn't come out of the Bronx.

Personal empirical evidence has shown to me that Che Guevara sells better in the suburbs than in the Bronx. In my socialist days, we were hard pressed to get people from the ghettoes in Chicago to attend meetings. We didn't have the same problem in a college with a total enrollment of about 2500.

You don't like to look deeply, though. You like for things to be Democrat vs. Republican, Muslim vs. Christian, Liberal vs. Conservative, Atheist vs. Religion, etc. It makes it easier for you, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Ilk, huh?  Well I have been called worse.  And no, I am not looking for easy answers.  Indeed I find none.  I dont hold all muslims to be terrorists any more than you do.  I hold them accountable for not condeming those among them that are, and even excusing them.  Remember Cat Stevens?  Nice peace loving person he, right?  Yet he supported the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.  So I hold him in equal contempt as Khomeni (sp).

There are a few muslims that have condemned the terrorism, just as there were a few Germans that sought to stop the Holocaust.  And my anger and frustration is not with them, but the other billion that sit silently while the tens of thousands kill and maim in the name of Allah.

And as for my ilk, I did not accuse you of supporting terrorism or even excusing it, just excusing the "silent majority" and blaming us for the sins of our fathers.  That was what I was railing against.  You accuse me of failing to come up with a counterpoint, yet there is none to your argument.  That all religions have had a violent past.  That is not a point, that is a fact.  WOuld you have me take up the counter point that it did not exist?  That is shere stupidity.  However my point is that I am not holding the Jews and Christians of today responsible for the sins of their fathers, and yet your point is since our fathers were bad men, we have no right to condemn the bad men of today.  And that is hardly a strong debating point.

Beware the 3 fingers.

On the other hand, to say that Islam itself is a "violence-inducing ideology masqerading as a religion" goes beyond condemning apathy or pointing out social problems. All that does is focus on, sorry, knee-jerk bias while the real problems fester.

Now, THERE you and I both agree, Baker.

You really equate Islam with Nazism, Brad? You really think the problems present are inseparable from the religion? How do you validate that with your "universally positive" personal experiences with Muslims? Have your interactions with Christians here at JU been "universally positive"? Would you consider some of the fundamentalist stuff that passes for "religion" down in that section laudable? Given that we far more often see hatefulness and intolerance in our personal lives from Christians, would you equate Christians with Nazis? Come on. This is too easy an answer. I would expect it from the usual fearful suspects around here, but not you. Do you think it is just chance that keeps Christians from acting on the mountains of intolerance and violent sentiment in the Bible while SOME Muslims in SOME places do? Or could it be another factor that is just taking advantage of religion?

Yes. I think that the nature of Islamis such that there will always be a much higher than acceptable percentage of people who will use violence to meet their needs.

I do not agree with your argument that comfortable standards of living will change the ideology.

On paper, Communism is a pretty wonderful thing, don't you agree? But there was something in the ideology that caused enough people to believe that force was necessary to convert the masses to it.  I see Islam as being much the same thing. 

Do you think if you lived in Germany in say 1935 that the average Nazi was some blood thirsty ghoul?  Fascism, on paper, isn't monstrous either.  It's all about the percentages.

Are Muslims in UK not living in relative comfort? The ones who committed the bombings in the UK were middleclass kids.

Anyway, my point being is that I think there is something inherently problematic about Islam. I don't agree that it is an issue of fundamentalism per se but rather how the fundamentalists act out.  There are very poor Christians around the world too. They don't run around beheading people, however.

ThinkAloud: You may want to check my earlier blog that contained a survey of Muslims that pointed out that near majorities (and in some places majorities) of them consider murdering civilians in the name of Islam is acceptable in various circumstances.

If Bakerstreet is getting tired of having to make his point, so am I. I am tired of people trying to act like the willingness to kill others in the name of their religion is something only present in a "tiny minority". It's not a tiny minority.  Maybe only a tiny minority actually act on their willingness to murder infidels but a significant percentage of Muslims support it -- by their own admission.

And I get what Bakerstreet is saying about it being an issue of poverty. I simply don't agree. The most I'll grant on that is that material wellness may hinder ones likelyhood on acting out on the desire to murder people in the name of Islam.

"As do I not agree. There is simply no correlation."

You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.

Where is your correlation? If Islam is a hateful, terroristic religion, why doesn't extremism bloom wherever there is Islam? Why does the US need to import terrorists, or other western nations with a large Muslim population?

Even our home grown Islamic terrorists went to these nations to get training or for indoctrination. Muslim extremism is bleeding out of the Middle East, sure. It only becomes a movement where the people are as hopeless as they are in the middle east.

The minority of exceptions prove true in the West. Wealthy wackos in the US have supported terror all over the world. If you want to discuss hateful ideology that folks in comfortable nations talk up without acting on it... well, lol, you see that even here.

So there is your correlation. You may not believe it is causation, but the correlation is vivid. If people in a nation are healthy and happy, the Muslims there are most often peaceful with a relative number of kooks.

How then is the culprit Islam? There are exceptional kooks in every nation with extremism. Kooks aren't the problem, the movement supporting them is.

Draginol: there was something in the ideology that caused enough people to believe that force was necessary to convert the masses to it. I see Islam as being much the same thing.

Now you talking about Islam itself. Very well then.

Show me one instance in which Islam support that. even more: if you like i can show you tens of verses in Qura'an and hundreds of actions by the prophet that not only forbids that but explains that this type of action by itself voids the belief in the religion.

Contrary to your point it is the exact opposite that actually lead to the problems in the muslim world.

You see, one of the tenents of Islam is to "Hold on to your unity and do not disagree too much with each other" and "chose a leader and follow him" and if you disagree with him "do not rebel, just keep advising him". Many Muslim scholars say that these tenents over centuries made people somewhat passive and not willing to stand up strongly against their bad dictatorial leaders.

You need a proof of that? Take Iraq or any other country in the area , why in the world they tolerated Saddam Hussain for soo long and the others still tolerating their own dictators? it is bcause the point i mentioned above. Many of them believe that voilence and changing the system by force is against the religion, which is true. their problem is that not many of them are willing to stand up and speak and get jailed or killed to achieve their freedom. In short, they are not yet willing to pay the price for their freedom. when they reach that point things will change. The foreign powers does not help the situation either by supporting those dictators and that is how the fanatics got into the act.

It is really simple cause and effect. The religion say dont be violent and dont rebel and the dictators are being protected by foreign powers. Most Muslims just gave up, some try to explain to them that they can act in a peaceful way, but that doesnt seem very effective. Then came the fanatics who say, we waited too long, we will act with any thing we can including voilence against everyone in this world which is clearly against the religion. The majority didnt buy that, and rejected the fanatics who found refuge in failed states. and that is where we are now.

It is not poverty, comfort or ignorance it is despair and frustration. It is not an execuse but it is a cause.

Now you see the vecious cycle?

stubbyfinger: The question here would be is there anything in the Koran that makes it easier to for its believers to excuse violence. I think the answer is yes

I fully agree with every point in your statement except this one. Your assumption that the answer to the question is "yes" is not supported by any verse in Qura'an or any action by the Prophet. In fact these two (and only valid references by the way) support the exact opposite. Both clearly say " when in doubt or in disagreement about anything, always chose the less harmful way and don't be aggressors". Fanatics use all kinds of execuse to ignore this order from Allah and His Prophet just like they ignore many many other orders that make them rebels against Islam itself.

I’m not surprised to see one religion try to paint a competing religion in a bad light. There can be only one right?

well, i am surprised. Very surprised in fact.

Islam affirms the unity of the three Abrahamic religions and their origin. Muslims never look at the other two as competing, it looks at them as Part of it. You sure noticed that no matter what the followers of the other two religions say about Islam and its Prophet, you will never find, one, single one main-stream muslim answer the attacks by attacking the Torah or Moses or the Bible or Jesus or any of the other prophets or books. you know why? because doing that Voids the Islam of whoever does that. Muslim always differentiate between the Religion and the Followers. and that is the way it should be.

It is not the same thing of course, but would you blame Einstein and his Special Relativity for the Atomic Bomb?

Of course some people do, but is it really fair or logical to do that?

God clearly made it a major disobediance to kill or harm people but gave everyone the right to defend themselves, by force if necessary (and this exactly the same in the three religions. Islam is not unique in this). If you go and use that to attack people that you just dont like or you disagree with, whose fault is that?

btw... re: the urinating on the Bible thing:

"TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire. The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.

Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing "grave concern" about an "inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims" at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers...

...a letter to all staff on Monday, Mr Doutie wrote: "The school unconditionally apologises for this horrible act as conducted by some illiterate and ignorant students while under the care of EPIC teachers.

"We regard the desecration of the Bible in a very serious light and therefore we have taken serious action against the offenders.

"The Bible is an important book both for non-Muslims and Muslims and should be treated as a holy book by all religions."

Lets get to the point here: Draginol posted about Muslim hatred and referred us to Michele Malkin. Michele Malkin is enthusing about atrocities committed by Muslims but does not get to the point. Her blog is a quasi Muslim bashing ,publicity seeking , big city tone. I have written to her and will report back.

Okay. It's a Muslim bashing blog. Very easy to bash Muslims these days given world events. It doesn't make her points incorrect though.

The problem I have with the framing of debate is when being anti-Islam is somehow equated with racism or something.

It would be like people saying being anti-Communist means being anti-Russian or anti-Nazi being anti-German.

I realize that many people do not agree that Islam is an ideology as well as a religion and that is a point that can be debated. But those who don't agree still have to accept that there are people who do see it as an ideology and therefore are against Islam because of what is done in its name rather than because of some particular bigotry against a race or religion.