"It doesn't matter, wherever you find Muslims you also find Islamists"

A fascinating argument.

Wherever you find decent, law-abiding, rational folk you also find violent thugs, criminals, and extremists.

Hinduism is mostly a religion of peace, but there used to be a sect of Hindus known as 'Thuggees' (from whence the term 'thug' is derived). They worshipped Kali, the Hindu goddess of death and destruction. They used to murder people as part of their religious observances, like the Aztecs, Christians and Muslims used to, and like the Muslims and Christians still do. Estimates of their death toll vary widely, but even conservative estimates show them to be the most lethal terrorist group in recorded history.

They were suppressed (violently) by the British Raj, and as direct result have gone the way of the dodo, no more to trouble us again, and are nothing more than an interesting historical footnote.

No doubt there were some agitators at the time who said things like "It doesn't matter, wherever you find Hindus you also find Thuggees", and on that basis advocated for the wholesale elimination of all the funny-looking foreign devils. Thankfully wiser heads prevailed, and so whilst the Thuggees danced the hangman's jig on the gallows, the wider Hindu population was not unduly persecuted.

Maybe that's a bit of shame: if they'd rounded them all up then I might not have to put up with sub-continental telemarketers disturbing my peace and quiet. But what justice would there have been in hanging every Hindu for the crimes of the Thuggees? That would have been more thuggish than the Thuggees.

Criminals should be persecuted, innocent people should not be persecuted. If anybody disagrees with the previous sentence, I'd really like to know exactly what it is you disagree with.

Hi Jonathan Swift.

You claim that Christians and Muslims engage in human sacrifice? Ahhhh, I think that most readers would be looking askance at you for that one.

Your position seems to be, that "Islamism" is a sect of Islam, so we can not hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of this sect. . Your lefty position conforms to the lefty utopian dream that most people are just want to live in peace with their neighbours, and only a few extremists in every society are to blame for human intergroup hostility.

You are wrong for two reasons. The first, is that the term "Islamism" is an invention of loony lefties like good self, who are trying to distance Islam from terrorism. It is exactly like saying that most Ku Klux Klansmen are decent people and only a few "extremists" who are "Kluxxors" make the majority of nice Klansmen look bad. Or that almost all Nazis are nice and decent people, and only a hand full of "Naziists" are the problem. Your position is a clear double standard.

The second, is that like the "Thugees" of old, the ideology of Islam holds that their God orders Muslims to spread Islam by force, and never live in peace with their neighbours. The Koran even orders Muslims to be prepared to fight infidels "who Allah knowest, but whom you knowest not."

We have an internationally recognised religion which orders it's followers to kill, torture, enslave, and maim to advance their religion, and you don't see a problem with that? And when Muslims do just what their religion orders them to do, you sit around making excuses because your humanitarian ideology forbids you to think that all religions are equal, and most people are decent.

Most Muslims may not want to go on Jihad, but they are not going to criticise those who do, because according to their religion, Jihadis and Ghazis (those who have killed a non believer) are the most pious Muslims around. These Muslims (and their families) are the ones who will most certainly get Allah's rewards in the afterlife

Jonathon,

“wherever you find Muslims you also find Islamists"

A better understanding is this: wherever you find Muslims you find people that have no problem with the hate and violence in the Quran or the evil deeds of Mohammad -- and so the ones that attack and kill are called “Islamists” and the ones that make excuses and blame others are called “moderate” Muslims. Either variety will bring pain and suffering, it is just a matter of degree.

Whatever the sins of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Aztecs (?), they pale in comparison to the tidal wave of Muslim violence that is engulfing our world. Worse yet, there is no sign that Muslims or our leaders have learned anything (well except maybe el-Sissi in his recent speech). What we are seeing is a return to the brutal, aggressive Islam of the days of Mohammed.

Innocent people should not be persecuted, but if they support hate, oppression and violence, as all Muslims do, this should be brought to their attention, just like Charlie Hebdo was doing. I have no problem with hurting Muslims’ feelings when the issue is freedom, human rights, peace and equality.

Dane,

You have it exactly right: The problem is the mutual self-reinforcement of a narcissism so deep and so pervasive in our cultural and political elites that they refuse to see the obvious. They are “compassionate” and enlightened so they are better than us, and woe to the leader that dares break ranks. They have tossed all the values that have made Western civilization great (honesty, moral awareness, equality, etc.) and replaced them with spineless, braindead multiculturalism that only knows one answer: If there are problems, then it must be the Western Culture’s fault.

This tragedy in Paris will change nothing. I see no indication that our leaders or Muslims have learned anything

PS: Expedia has a list of terror attacks for every year, but I missed the Aztec ones. I blame the conquistadores.

Jonathon Swift wrote. “Criminals should be persecuted, innocent people should not be persecuted.” and asked what is it that one disagrees with.

Nobody should be persecuted. Persecution is hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs; oppression.

Those suspected of criminality, if reasonable cause for suspicion be established, should be prosecuted in a fair trial and, if found guilty, should be subject to the penalty prescribed by law.

Perhaps Jonathon Swift erred and meant, “Criminals should be prosecuted, innocent people should not be prosecuted.”

In our system those accused of crime are given the presumption of innocence until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore only innocent people are prosecuted. They remain innocent unless found guilty through due process of law.

The meaning of Jonathon Swift’s statement is moot.

However, one can make a case that human hostility is exacerbated by religion.

continued

continued

Recent and current conflicts have often fallen on religious lines. The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims. The conflicts in Israel/Palestine are between Muslims and Jews. The conflicts in Northern Ireland were between Catholic and Protestant. The Holocaust during WW2 was partially the product of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. The conflict in Sri Lanka is between the Buddhist rulers and the Hindu Tamil minority. In the occupied territories of Palestine some of the Jewish settlements contain people who think God is a real estate dealer who has given them the land. In China the Muslim Uighurs and the Buddhist Tibetans have demonstrated, committed violence and immolated themselves in protest against Chinese rule in which the state controls religion.

Conflicts with a religious element may result from religion seeking dominance or government suppressing religion. To lessen conflict due to religion, religion should not use the government to promote religion, and government should regard religion as none of its business regardless of the religious beliefs of citizens of the country.

There can be separation of religion and state in Muslim countries.
In some countries the application of Sharia varies by region.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law contains a map.

Note that some countries with a Muslim majority are not under Sharia at all. Note that only a few countries with a Muslim majority are under Sharia.

I am very concerned with the lack of the separation of religion and state in Australia. I think public schools should be open to all children, should push no religion and have science teaching unaffected by religious beliefs. However, there are chaplains in the public schools. Most of them are fundamentalist Christians provided by Scripture Union and Access Ministries. They would replace the science of evolution by Creationism. Religious chaplains have no place in the public schools.

The chief offender against the separation of religion and state in Australia is Christianity not Islam

However, I think separation of religion and state would help lessen conflict any place.

In a free society no institution should be free from comment or criticism. That includes religion.

See video. Policeman gets shot lays on the pavement with no evidence of blood. Terrorist comes in at point blank range to finish him off and misses. Again no blood and no mark on the pavement due to the miss. Bullets appear to be blanks.
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/mossad-attacks-paris.html

Terrorists flee in their car leaving behind ID for police to find.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts the ex-assistant Secretary to the US Treasury also smells a rat.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-tsarnaevs-trial-qui-bono/