You make a good point, and disclaimers certainly have their place. I also think the issue is a reason for more conversation though. Trump and his acolytes get away with their over-generalizations because so many of the people listening to them are ignorant about both their own country’s foreign policy and Islam. In NZ we’re just not as vulnerable these days to his sort of rhetoric, though we have been in the past. We have Winston Peters, but just this morning on Q & A when someone used him as an example the response was something like, “Yeah, but he’s been moaning about immigrants for 40 years,” and thus his comments were largely dismissed. The NZ electorate is fairly knowledgeable in comparison with, for example the US one. Also, politicians are expected to tell the truth and to keep their election promises, and the media is expected to be fair. We’re very lucky.

Heather, I mostly agree, though believe some nuance is required in application. Channeling Paxton, the context is critical to what outcomes actually eventuate. Dawkins says he wouldn’t challenge a believer after the death of a loved one, as while his points would be no less true, in that context they would do only harm.

Now the situation here is not so straightforward as that, but when, after the West has taken part in the deaths of millions of Muslims, a dominant narrative denies this, claiming instead that Islam is the cause of too much violence, often leading to calls for even more discrimination and violence against Muslims, people need to be damn careful they don’t pour petrol on the flames, even when just telling the truth with good intent. As I said once before, if I was publishing content, “I would be tempted to write a standard disclaimer to be displayed at the beginning of each post, stating briefly but clearly that whatever it’s myriad problems, Islam is not the main cause of terrorism and that if the West really wants to reduce violence, it should start by reducing its own. Shouldn’t have to do this, but there are so many right-wing assholes around, and many prominent liberals don’t have enough of a clue either.”

I still think that good advice.

Ok, except that god isn’t “the essential element” here either, even if a big one. Ends have been justifying means without reference to religion for ever.

I wasn’t trying to repeat any further discussions, but rather, perhaps too vaguely, hinting at the general idea of God (how ever defined by the perps) becomes — as in Milgram’s experiments — an enabling authority. In other words, that regardless of motivations, God is the essential element that encourages people to overrule whatever conscience they may have.

I agree we need to concentrate on the things we can change, but I consider that includes supporting people and groups that are doing their best to reform Islam from within. If we continue to pussyfoot around criticizing the bad stuff in Islam we are, in my opinion, passively supporting the Islamists.

I agree that every ‘demographic’ has its share of goodies and baddies, but among the Muslim youth (and a few older ones) in Europe there is a strong sense of disrespect and loathing. Indeed, as you point out, they take advantage of the tolerance: they see it as weakness. They consider European democracy decadent and filthy, they despise it, basically because these societies and their populations are not muslim. Hence fair game for any treatment. And they hate it because these societies are kind of successful.
[Lest that sounds a bit generalising, it obviously is, but this attitude is not exactly fringe either.]
I fully agree with you we should support the voices of enlightenment within Islam, and the ‘apostates’ even more…

Yup, the only question is how. I maintain the only credible way is to concentrate mostly on the many things that contribute to the maintenance of this environment that are in our control and less on those things that depend on others. Not only would it be the most effective approach, but also the moral one, and also the thing that provides the best chance of enabling the desired religious reform.

Yeah – those pics usually come from Britain, though some are from former British colonies like Pakistan and Bangladesh. And there is a reluctance to prosecute them in Britain which has caused a lot of issues. The Rotheram scandal is a direct result of that reluctance and feeds the narrative of parties like UKIP.

Tolerant is good. However, there is a danger that people are so careful to be tolerant that they won’t even let themselves imagine that someone who is different from them might have bad intentions. They tend to assume they’re just being, for example, racist, or don’t want to be seen as having that prejudice. They seem to forget that every demographic has its share of goodies and baddies.

And we’ve also discussed before that understanding Islam has nothing to do with level of fervour. We know from surveys that atheists know more about religion than any Christian demographic.

The initial separation from mainstream society often comes from other issues – economic, social, psychological, political, criminal etc – and then those young men (because it’s usually men, though in France in particular a lot are women) are given a reason to feel important by extremists who take advantage of them. It is extremist Islam (Islamism) that has a theology that calls for the murder or the out-group, including the celebration of death in committing that murder. This must be addressed.

Hopefully, we’re not about to go around the same circle once again, but there is no single “unifying element that transcends borders and makes self-starters to feel connected to ISIS”. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that many who decide to fight for ISIS have little connection to or understanding or Islam and are more motivated by other factors.