Everyone blaming Islam

Not true, Islamic radicalisation derives from hatred and conflict. These Muslims don't wake up one morning thinking "oh **** I should bomb somewhere for islam" . You have no perspective on these people's motives, they do it because conflict and war is what they've lived through. The fact that these conflicts have majorly affected Muslims is a coincidence because Islam spread in these particular locations. If Christianity spread there, we would see Christian terrorists of the same form

So, if a region that was mainly Christian (or religion other than Islam) experienced conflict and political unrest, we should expect to see Christian (or other) terrorist attacks on Western civilian targets in the same way that we see Islamist terror attacks?

You mean like with South America, Central and South Africa, the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Tibet, etc?

The verse has been quoted out of context. I didn't expect you to be so disingenuous.

Joke right? They're averaging like one attack per year, and even then they point is that surely if your bigoted Islam theory were correct , they would be averaging like one attack per day?

Tunisian revolution constitutes to political instability

Nope I didn't because radical Islam is simply the veil that they hide behind. Islam is not the main cause, is there something odd about the stability of Indonesia, india, Morocco, etc, the first of which has the highest Muslim pop in the world and there are very few attacks. Hatred deriving from conflict such as the Tunisian conflict or Middle East conflict radicalised these people, not their loyalty to islam

How is it relevant? You think that these guys, who find a strong justification of violence in the Quran, bother to replace violent verses in their context?

I think a country in conflict is quite a different set of circumstances. But if we are to look at stable states not currently undergoing and having recently undergone war or civil war, there are some worrying statistics that can be observed. For example, if we observe the number of Muslims in each country and look at the number of Muslims from that country who have joined ISIS, we get some rather astonishing figures:

France
1,200 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 5 million
240 ISIS members per million Muslims in France

Belgium
440 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 660,000
667 ISIS members per million Muslims in Belgium

Indonesia
500 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 205 million
2.4 ISIS members per million Muslims in Indonesia

India
18 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 172 million
0.1 ISIS members per million Muslims in India


The problem is that many Western European nations with large Muslim populations are that their Islamic organisations and mosques are largely funded from abroad. However, other countries like Austria have taken method to limit foreign funding which might be worth looking into. The Austrian method would be to limit the funding of any mosques to a single one-off payment, and restricting continuous funding. So mosques can still be funded and built within the UK. The only difference between the current system here and the Austrian system is that we currently permit continuous funding. It is quite evident that we have an issue with radicalism and it is also the case that who funds a mosque or Islamic group has control over what it preaches. So I don't see why it should be controversial to limit the influence of foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups and encouraging the growth of a more British Islam.

I think everyone will agree that these figures above are astounding. I think the major difference is that countries like India and Indonesia already have well developed national Islamic organisations and groups and so there is less room or need for foreign funding and thus Salafi groups struggle more to gain a foothold. For example, the Indonesian Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has some 40 million members. The same is not true in Western nations like France, Belgium and the UK, hence our need to take action against such foreign funding to limit influence of Salafi and Wahhabi groups.

Of course it's relevant. The surrounding verses make it clear that the command to completely annihilate the enemy was given for a specific battle in the 7th century, as opposed to being a prescription for Muslims wherever they come across non-Muslims.

If an Israeli Jew were to use Deuternomy 20 to justify slaughter of Palestinians for example, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe the injunctions therein apply today, would it make sense to condemn the scripture itself, or the fools who misinterpret to propagate their own, nefarious agenda?

The terrorist didn't seem to follow/know much about Islam.....like the vast majority of other so called 'Islamic' terrorists. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html#article-3691895

Stop making Islam a scapegoat

I think a country in conflict is quite a different set of circumstances. But if we are to look at stable states not currently undergoing and having recently undergone war or civil war, there are some worrying statistics that can be observed. For example, if we observe the number of Muslims in each country and look at the number of Muslims from that country who have joined ISIS, we get some rather astonishing figures:

France
1,200 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 5 million
240 ISIS members per million Muslims in France

Belgium
440 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 660,000
667 ISIS members per million Muslims in Belgium

Indonesia
500 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 205 million
2.4 ISIS members per million Muslims in Indonesia

India
18 have joined ISIS
Estimated Muslim population is 172 million
0.1 ISIS members per million Muslims in India


The problem is that many Western European nations with large Muslim populations are that their Islamic organisations and mosques are largely funded from abroad. However, other countries like Austria have taken method to limit foreign funding which might be worth looking into. The Austrian method would be to limit the funding of any mosques to a single one-off payment, and restricting continuous funding. So mosques can still be funded and built within the UK. The only difference between the current system here and the Austrian system is that we currently permit continuous funding. It is quite evident that we have an issue with radicalism and it is also the case that who funds a mosque or Islamic group has control over what it preaches. So I don't see why it should be controversial to limit the influence of foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups and encouraging the growth of a more British Islam.

I think everyone will agree that these figures above are astounding. I think the major difference is that countries like India and Indonesia already have well developed national Islamic organisations and groups and so there is less room or need for foreign funding and thus Salafi groups struggle more to gain a foothold. For example, the Indonesian Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has some 40 million members. The same is not true in Western nations like France, Belgium and the UK, hence our need to take action against such foreign funding to limit influence of Salafi and Wahhabi groups.

Muslims have nothing to apologise for, because the majority of muslims abhor all forms of terrorism.