What Really Motivates Islamic Religious Radicals? Hint: Not Religion.

"1.3 million Muslims"

I'm sure you meant billion?

Oops, I knew that! Fixed now, thanks Tumbledore!

I sure hope they managed to seperate the radicals and the muslims when it comes to lifestyle, morals, and such...

im from a secular muslim country but live in the us and am SICK of people thinking all muslims are radicals..... we are incredibly different... secular is much much much much much more modernized, can't emphasize the "much" enough

Modernized or not, it pisses me off that Muslims are pretty much forbidden to pray in public, due to that incident at an airport. If that's their thing, let them do it and praise Diversity.

Oh, puhleeeesze....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

http://memritv.org/

Ahh, you have got to love people who write or promote articles that promote hate through religion and/or politics.

It doesen't matter how the "majority" feels if the "minority" holds wielding power OVER the "minority."

It is also always VERY important to understand WHO THE AUTHORS OF THIS BOOK ARE RATHER THAN WHO THEY PROPORT TO BE!

John Esposito has been riding the coat-tails of other's for 30years now. After Edward Said's book "Orientalism" spurned uproar, Esposito made a name for himself by basically disagreeing with Said.

Esposto then became a foreign-affairs analyst for the Near East and South Asia branch of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the state department under Bill Clinton's administration. Esposito's bad advice may have had a great deal to do with the state department's refusal even to look at critical intelligence on Osama bin Laden's activities.

That's right. The same man who is now telling you that Islam poses no threat to you, is the same man who said Islam posed no threat DIRECTLY BEFORE 9-11!

As we All unfortunately now know, he was mistaken then. He is mistaken now as well.

Esposito explains is belief in his previous works that the political program of Islamic fundamentalism is in fact democratic, and that it is only our narrow Western definition of democracy that refuses to see this.

Neatorama readers and posters; do you believe sexually-perverted, oppressive and murderous laws towards women is DEMOCRATIC?!?

Apparently Mr. Esposito does.

ANY WOMAN READING THIS SHOULD REALIZE THAT IN MANY ISLAMIC COUNTRIES YOU WOULD BE CIRCUSIZED AT AGE 13 AND NOT ALLOWED TO DRIVE, EDUCATE YOURSELF, OR SHOW YOURSELF IN PUBLIC WITHOUT AN ACCEPTED "HIJAB."

John Esposito, the author of this book believes these are acceptable, democratically plausible laws.

I will go into less detail on Miss Mogahed, as she is more difficult to dispute due to her few and varied public appearances; upon all of which she hides behind the rhetoric of "Islamic Scholars." (Mahmoud Ahmadinijad happens to be one of those)

Whenever Mogahed does appear in public, she wears a Hijab which covers her whole body, excluding her face. Though this is of course her choice, it also proves her willingness to be subject to a deeply disturbing form of abuse.

Will any woman disagree with me that a Hijab is a form of abuse?

It doesen't matter if she acquiesces to the Hijab, just as if a 16year old agrees to have sex with a 40year old. It is still rape.

Finally, let me emphasize that I have absolutely NO problem with Moslems. None whatsoever.

What I have a problem with, is a man posturing behind fabricated crudentials, and a woman hiding behind her Hijab, telling YOU THE PUBLIC, that there is no threat from Islam throughout the world.

Sure people have invoked 9-11 to prove my point before me. But I have already done that once in this post. I will then rather point to a statisitic that goes far too unoticed:

Since 9-11, there have been 11,693 terror attacks carried out in the name of Radical Islam.

ELEVEN-THOUSAND, SIX-HUNDRED-NINETY-THREE!!!

No threat?

Why don't you ask school-children in Sderot Israel about the threat of rockets falling on their school?

Why don't you ask the average Iraqi or Afghani man about the threat of a suicide-bomber blowing himself up in front of his house?

Why don't you ask the Brit, the Frenchman, the Spaniard, the Dutchman, the Algerian, the Turk, the Indian, the Pakitani, the Bosnian, and countless others about the threat of Radical Islam in their states?

And while your at it, ask the soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan about the risk.

And why not ask the family member of a 9-11 victim about the threat?

No threat?

I'd have to dissagree.

This book has been totally debunked and discredited by acamedics.

The book is funded by Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and the 7% figure is a wild distortion.

See http://sandbox.blog-city.com/dr_esposito_and_the_seven_percent_solution.htm

Hate mongers follow me everywhere I go, even to fun blogs like neatorama.

I won't speak to Zoltan, who doesn't know how to use the word "purport," but I will say, to Henryrama, that the website you linked to has a rabid anti-Muslim slant. So your term "debunked" is inaccurate. You could say that a random, highly biased website has countered the poll and given a rebuttal, but to suggest the poll is trash based on the website you refer to is an example of misinformation.

Feel free to cite any other "acamedics" on this issue, but the one you offered is garbage.

Carry on!

Islam is a backwards religion incompatible with the 21st century. It's also a defective civilization. Either they adapt or they die, that should be the West's only message. And for crying out loud, stop letting them immigrate to Westernized nations!

So what this book says is that only the better-educated, secular, well-off, urban Muslims tend to hate America?

Funny, better-educated, secular, well-off, urban Americans tend to hate America too.

Why don't we just send our loonies and their loonies to go duke it out, and Middle America and Middle Ummah can finally get along. After all, many Muslims don't like Wall Street thieves, DC imperialists, and Hollywood hypocrites - and guess what, we don't like them here in America either.

Regardless of what you think about this survey, there is one thing that I hope people understand: it's not just radical Islam that poses a threat, it's all radical religions that are a threat. I consider radical Judiasm, radical Christianity, and radical Islam all immediate threats to humanity. And as long as I have the strength, I will fight radical Christians from taking over America, lest it become another Saudi Arabia or Israel. It's too late for those countries, they have been taken over by the evil religious fascists and they'll never go back to a moderate level of civility. But it's not too late for us...yet. Fight the threat here at home - fight the radical Christian Republican right wing in America before it's too late.

Violet,
Please read the article and let us know if you find fault with what he says, rather than hurling empty insults such as "rabid" and "garbage". The article seems very reasonable to me. You dismiss the arguments solely because you are not a fan of the speaker, who BTW is extremely well credentialed.

Alex,
You may want to reconsider your promotion and implied endorsement of this book, or at least provide a link to the site I mentioned, or to http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/04/who_does_speak_for_islam/ which details why this book is "a confidence game or fraud".

Zoltan Le Blanzi >>
"IN MANY ISLAMIC COUNTRIES YOU WOULD BE CIRCUSIZED AT AGE 13"

What do you mean? Are they being forced to wear clown make up?

This book is propaganda. You have been fooled.

well said, zoltan. i don't know if i would consider wearing a Hijab abuse.. but i see what point you're trying to make. as an athiest, i think requiring anybody to do anything for a religion could be considered abuse. to take it further, i think ALL religion could be considered abusive. i mean, what is this whole "be good or go to hell" thing anyway? it's the simplest example of oppression in the history of man-kind. it keeps people "in their place" and state heads know how to take advantage of that by maintaining a religious agenda. all president bush had to say in order for us to follow him into the middle east was that we had to get rid of the religious radicals, followed by "god bless america." our response? the air became empregnated with patriotic fist pumps and we were ready to fight a "war on terror." the american people have been abused for the entire duration of the bush administration, and i think it's no worse than requiring women to wear Hijabs in the muslim faith.

Lasse, you beat me to it about the CIRCUSIZED comment. Although I was going to ask if they were forced to grow beards.

In the West, women are supersized at the age of 13.

I think the point is that fundamentalist muslims, as with fundamental christians, ACTUALLY BELIEVE what their books tell them!
They are truly following their faith and anyone who claims to be moderate and the like is just cherry-picking from the holy book/s of their faith.
Islam, as well as Christianity, is fundamentaly exlusive and power hungry. People need to knuckle down and start by reading these books of "love" and "peace" and realise that all they preach is violence and hate towards anyone who disagrees with its preachings.
Word of god my big hairy non-believing butt!

@Patricio & no-god: I was wondering when the "it’s all radical religions that are a threat" comment would come up. When's the last time you saw a Christian, radical or no, strap a vest packed with explosives on a mentally retarded girl & send her into a crowded market, then detonate that vest?

Do you people ever even listen to yourselves? I guess I wouldn't either.

Muhammed was a pig. Jesus was gay. Moses was a pedophile.

That is all.

"It doesen’t matter if she acquiesces to the Hijab, just as if a 16year old agrees to have sex with a 40year old. It is still rape."

Nice way of spitting into the face of every women that actually got raped, asshole!
The Hijab is an article of clothing. Even if I wouldn't want to, wearing it doesn't even come close to getting raped!

Islam is a backwards religion incompatible with the 21st century.

So is Christianity.

"When’s the last time you saw a Christian, radical or no, strap a vest packed with explosives on a mentally retarded girl & send her into a crowded market, then detonate that vest?"

Haven't seen that particular case but I have seen Christians bombing abortion clinics...

First off, I'll just say that women are not circumcised (or circusised!) except maybe in some African nations. They are not required to be, either.

Sure, terrorists *are* a threat, but the thing people need to understand is that what they are doing is not Islam - yes, that's an old argument, but have you read the Quran? No. I haven't read the Bible, so I can't accuse all Christians of being (*insert_something_here*).

Islam isn't the threat - the organizations claiming to do these things in the name of Islam are, and we all know their names, don't we? ;)

Muslims are too divided into sects and minor differences to actually follow the religion and what it teaches. The average Muslim person, I would say as a wild estimate, only follows about 5% of Islam per day.

And as for the radicals that are the real problem, generalizing and condemning Islam as a whole is fuel to the fire. People like that politician from Denmark who made the movie come to mind - can't recall his name... Gert Wilders?

In the original post, I was most interested in reading that the 'radicalized' Muslims approved the attacks for 'political reasons,' that they felt 'humiliated and threatened by the West.' In reading this thread, I also find it very interesting that those who seem to have the most 'radicalized' views against Muslims also seem 'humiliated (by 911) and threatened (by people they don't understand).'
I think Zoltan (and his ideological Twinkies) is missing the point by reiterating that a threat comes from 'Islam.' Any threat comes from scared, xenophobic, politically- and religiously-intolerant people like yourself, not the religion.
Good day to you.

It's always the fringe of any group that gives the whole group a bad name. Radical Muslims that commit violent acts of terror give billions of normal followers of the same faith a bad name. Crazy fringe Christians like Fred Phelps and David Koresh and the FLDS down in Texas make Christianity seem oppressive and nutball. The E.L.F gives environmental activists a bad name. People that blow up abortion clinics give the pro-life movement a bad image. There's extremists on the fringe of every religion and issue. It's a shame that most every group gets judged based on the few attention-getting crazy folks. The majority of people with any religion or view are a whole lot calmer and more rational and less radical than the people that get all the press.

It's a whole lot better story for ratings to cover the handful of muslims that blow up a bus than the billions that just go about their daily lives like we do, just with a different dress code. It's a much better story to cover the Christians that are fighting to have it taught in schools that the earth is only a few thousand years old and the ones that protest at soldier's funerals because gays are somehow the cause of all the world's problems than it is to cover my grandmother who goes to church every sunday and reads her bible before she goes to bed. It's a better story to write about the animal rights activists that throw paint on people than it is to write about the ones that swap brands of shampoo to support not testing on animals. The moderate majority is a boring story. It doesn't make for good journalism. Fringe radicals make headlines.

@Dave

No, I haven't yet seen a Christian repeat the suicide attack using retarded girls yet, but I have seen:

Jews shooting unarmed Arab teens in the head because they feel like it.

Jews running over American citizens with tanks.

Christian terrorists shooting doctors and health care workers because of what the Bible says.

Christian politicians and pundits advocating the forced conversion of non-Christians around the world.

A push in right wing American Christian politics towards the emimination of non-believers.

An evangelical Christian American president, GWB, lying to his citizens to start a war that has ended up not only bankrupting our country, but killing exponentially more people than any hijab-wearing retarded Muslim girl ever could.

Do you get it now, Dave?

Patricio, it was a bulldozer not a tank, the girl walked behind debris out of sight from the driver. The incident was thoroughly investigated by the Israeli Army and the governnment, just like any incident where civilians are hurt. Very different from walking into a wedding, bus or market strapped with a bomb. Well, maybe not for you. I guess those things don't matter when you are trying to make a point.

interesting article and comments!

TiredofWesterners,

Simply put, you are a fool if you believe the IDF's account of the murder of American citizen Rachel Corrie. Several eyewitnesses concurred that Rachel was within eyesight of the IDF bulldozer, standing up on a pile of dirt directly in front of the dozer. Also, the IDF soldier backed over Rachel after he ran her over the first time, in what looked like an attempt to finish her off. But hey, my bad, it was a bulldozer that ran her over, not a tank as I first said. I'm sure that made a lot of difference to her family and to her as her limbs were being smushed by the IDF and as the guts were coming out her mouth courtesy of our fabulous buddies, the Israelis. Funny that you place the lies of the IDF above anything else. I hope you're not an American, because if you are, you need to turn in your passport and emigrate to Israel permanently. Schmuck.

Oh yeah, TiredofWesterners, I forgot one thing...the soldiers were captured on tape smiling and laughing after their bulldozer ran over Corrie twice. Is that what it says to do in the Torah after you take someone's life, accidentally or on purpose? Is this what you hold up to me to show how great the radical Zionists are compared to the radical Muslim? You're all the same, murderers, who think that God is on your side. You have no shame.

For those of you that think that the majority of Muslims embrace fundamentalist views, you really need to look at your words and reflect upon how similar your analysis is to popular perceptions of Jews previous to World War II. For those of you that point of the Qur'an as proof positive that Muslims are terrible people, keep in mind that if most Christians followed the Bible to the letter, they would also subjugate women, condone stoning as a punishment for disobedient children, and accept that genocide is acceptable if your enemies are godless.

Islam makes no more sense than Christianity or Judaism, but this irrational fear of it does nothing but propagate hatred between cultures that do not differ so much in ideals, but in execution. In the same way that antisemitism was promoted through a gross lack of cultural understanding, we won't really recognize how misinformed the western interpretation of Islam is until there is a massacre tragic proportions. Obviously the first publicly condoned instances of torture in our nation's history is not enough to wake us up to the danger of this school of thought.

I think there's an underlying current of hatred that has nothing to do with religious beliefs. This is what fuels terrorists and radical groups, but it is inherent in most people in general.

From an early age, in the most ordinary homes, Muslims are taught that Jews are terrible, and Jews are taught that Muslims are terrible. Christians are taught that Muslims are terrorists, and Muslims are taught that Christians are - what? The agents of Satan or some such stuff.

Whenever a terrorist kills someone, the general Muslim population may not openly approve, but many are thinking "well, it's not like those Jews didn't deserve it for what they did to ..."

And vice versa.

It's the subtle hatred, not the open racism and terrorism, that keeps the flames fanned.

Valerie: http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/

Now what was your point, again?

@ Patricio: "Jews shooting unarmed Arab teens in the head because they feel like it. There are a lot of ugly things going on in the Middle East, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

"Jews running over American citizens with tanks." Referring I presume to Rachel Corrie; I don't know a lot about her case, but I do know that someone does not get run over by a tank or bulldozer without putting themselves in the wrong place and failing to get herself the he11 out of the way. Certainly there are conflicting stories from both sides of the issue; but neither side is without bias, and with their handling of so-called photographic evidence, the ISM hasn't helped their own cause in the least.

"Christian terrorists shooting doctors and health care workers because of what the Bible says." = example of something done by a very small handful of misguided pro-life extremists who share about as much in the way of ideology with the average Christian as you and I apparently share. The big difference between these extremists and the Muslim extremists is that the Muslims are in large part encouraged in their terrorism by their religious leaders, or at least not discouraged. Name for me one notable Christian leader who condones the murder of "doctors and health care workers" in the name of Christianity, or at least one who doesn't condemn it.

"Christian politicians and pundits advocating the forced conversion of non-Christians around the world." Again, how about some citations for these baseless claims?

"A push in right wing American Christian politics towards the emimination of non-believers." ??? What the...? Not sure what to think of this one; "emimination"? Could you possibly mean "elimination"? If so, I call BS on this one too.

"An evangelical Christian American president, GWB, lying to his citizens to start a war that has ended up not only bankrupting our country, but killing exponentially more people than any hijab-wearing retarded Muslim girl ever could." Here you give yourself away as yet another left-wing Bush hater, but one who goes the extra step of equating "Christian" with "unquestioning Bush supporter". That's an assumption that you really shouldn't make, because it is so terribly separated from reality.

You seem to view every Christian as a "radical" when nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of Christians don't want to take over America in the least. We really don't want anything much different than the average secularist wants; to be allowed to live our lives as we see fit in an ordered society without the extreme viewpoints of people who believe differently being forced upon us.

So, yes, Patricio; I do get it, and I think most would agree that I have a much better grasp of reality than you.