Young Arabs' support for Islamic State sliding: survey

"Washington: Two years after proclaiming a new "caliphate" for Muslims in the Middle East, the Islamic State is seeing a steep slide in support among the young Arab men and women it most wants to attract, a new poll shows.

Overwhelming majorities of Arab teens and young adults now strongly oppose the terrorist group, the survey suggests, with nearly 80 per cent ruling out any possibility of supporting the Islamic State, even if it were to renounce its brutal tactics."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/young-arabs-support-for-islamic-state-sliding-survey-20160412-go4dbd.html#ixzz45cNRa6i

grateful: they wondered where the Muslim scholars are and why they are silent.

Yes, I agree. There is a reason for this. The Jihadi threaten anyone who don't go along with the Laws calling for the death of ALL who aren't Muslim, as written in the Koran. There are many.

grateful: Many in the West have heard Muslim figures in the media disassociating true Islam from the actions of ISIS,

I have only heard one & it was a mild rebuke at that. That person doesn't want to end up being gunned down by one of the faithful. I'm sure. I suspect the reason he hasn't been gunned down is his Statements to the Media are Contrived to lull Australians into a false sense of security.

I have never heard or seen anyone of the Muslim faith stand up & denounce with any sort of real conviction the many, many Imams & Groups, as seen on TV & uTube. The ones training children in Jihad, denigrating women as being nothing more than chattels to be abused as they see fit or calling for the death of anyone who isn't Muslim.

When I see, on TV or uTube many, all Muslim leaders vehemently denouncing these people with any sort of conviction, I may start to believe Islam is a Religion of Peace. Until then, I can not.

Greetings Yuyutsu:
You write: "I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive.
You want to oppose my view? OK, then state an alternate view."

If my intentions were unclear then I am truly eager to dispel whatever confusions may have arisen.
Stated plainly, my view is that religion, like all other constructs of the human intellect, is an imperfect construct. It has ideals that are aspirations entirely beyond the ability of humans to achieve and therein lies its pernicious deceit. Every experience in the life of the individual is assigned a value in religion's hierarchy of values. NOTHING escapes this religious categorisation. By this device also, as a convenient benefit, human's are held separate from the Natural World. Both the hierarchy and the separation pander to the natural conceit of all humans, particularly [1] those with low self-esteem and [2] those chafing under the injustices created by gross inequalities of weath distribution. There is no clear distinction between the two, they overlap and intermingle. Note that I stated "particularly" because natural conceit permeates every stratum of society. The phenomenon of religion thrives under conditions of [1] and [2] and ensures their continuity through doctrine and dogma. Natural conceit, in and of itself, is sufficient force for the other more privileged strata of society to believe that the previously-mentioned ideals and aspirations are not beyond achievement. Healthy and over-developed egoes are more often found in these strata.

I contend therefore that for the history referenced in my previous posts and for the above stated logical and rational reasons, religion and violence are inseparable. No definition of religion anywhere attributes the property of non-violence to it, not even dictionaries compiled by religious organisations. So, even the self-deluded know better than to claim as you do.

Ref your assertion: "I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive." And you presented not one skerrick of evidence in support of your view. Read my lips....ANALOGIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Cont to Yuyutsu:
"....you never even mentioned what, in your view, are they deluded about." They are deluded about much of the natural world , how romanticised and sanitised it has become so we become less fearful of "Nature, red in tooth and claw" [Alfred Lord Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H], so that a vast indifferent Cosmos becomes the habitat of a loving spirit who protects us.

"If you think that I am one of them [an impostor], then by all means I will be grateful if you point my errors so I can correct them and turn to God - this is what good friends do." I confess to being touched by your preparedness to be grateful for guidance Yuyutsu. I hold no remit in spiritual guidance and withdraw from any pretense to such if I implied so. Because I think you are wrong I marshalled a case in support of my view and presented it with forthright argument. I execrate what religion has done to people throughout history, yet the religious consciously choose to ignore the indisputable record and blithely adhere to subservience however embarrassing that choice may be. I fail every time I try to reconcile the choice with common sense or rational reasoning. Yet I am not so hide-bound and self-obsessed that I feel compelled to metaphorically destroy my opponent utterly. Atheists are not like that. I am happy to be a friend but reserve the right to be equally implacable in opposition as I have been here. I'm quoting Galileo here but may not have him word-perfect.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who gave us sense, reason and intellect should expect us to forgo their use."

cont.....

copy to Yuyutsu......At this jucture I'd like to illustrate a point that may be informative by quoting Robert Green Ingersoll.

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."

While I'm uncomfortable with his frequent resort to metaphor, I find much to admire in his sentiments. And the point?
I believe there is just one god less than what you believe. We are both convinced that we are on the correct path to the truth. Because of the chasm between us do you feel hatred toward me, does your conscience compel you to destroy me? I am utterly convinced that neither you nor I feel this way. We can live together and accommodate each other's convictions without it perturbing our daily routines. But in a congregation of the faithful a latent agendum rises to prominence. It has two features [1] A striving to appear to be the most devout in the group which gives rise to [2] A striving to NOT appear to be the least devout in the group. When a congregation is given an opportunity to release pent up emotions aroused by a spirited or a deeply moving sermon voice is given to a mild collective hysteria. Such scenarios are found among the ostentatiously evangelical sects in particular. In medi-eval times the hysteria was fueled by the fact that the christian church held authority over every aspect of peoples'lives and moulded the societies they lived within. Those who rebelled against such tyranny rarely survived religious wrath.
Consolidated religion contains within its own DNA the code for violence. Though my history is essentially of the christian religion, what I have learned of Islam is in concordance with christianity's growth, spread and its iniquitous compulsion to control.

I have amassed sufficient evidence to satisfy my strict criteria for truth. This does not, however, lead me into complacency. It is possible that contrary evidence may emerge, no matter how unlikely that seems.

Dear Pogi,

Religion is no more a construct of the human intellect than light, energy, space, time, etc., existing whether or not humans try to conceptualise it with their imperfect intellect.

Categorising, conceit, hierarchy and violence are natural human traits and the devious human mind can abuse and turn anything, including religion, upside-down to serve those traits (which reminds me of the saying, "Just as King Midas turned everything he touched into gold, so does the mind turn everything it touches into s-h-i-t").

Thus, the history that you mentioned, while correct, is the history of man and his society rather than the history of religion. Within this history, at times violence was present while at other times, religion was present (but it's the former that usually gets the headlines). The agendum and group-dynamics one finds in the congregation of the faithful are the same agendum and group-dynamics one finds in any tight congregation of people.

Religion is defined as any process or practice that brings one closer to God: both the Latin 'Re-ligare' and the Sanskrit 'Yoga' mean "to join/reunite [with God]".

While not in the definition itself, scripture tells us that so long as one engages in violence, they can practically forget about any chance of approaching God.

Contemporary dictionaries define religion differently only because they do not see the full picture, only fragments (and even religious people often fail to see the full picture). For example they observe that religious people often believe in deities. What they fail to understand is that such beliefs are only religious techniques rather than religion itself (nor are they an attempt to describe/understand the natural/physical world). Different religious techniques suit different people, so there are religious people who don't use this particular technique, who hold no particular beliefs - you could perhaps even be one of them, and OTOH, there are people whose belief in deities actually hampers their spiritual progress. It's very individual.

Re Galileo, one should make good use of their reason and intellect - but it has to be a GOOD use, otherwise better not have them.

(continued...)