If you missed part one, you can read it here
This exchange ends on a particularly frustrating note, but worry not, there is more coming soon.
How can one not see the links between Islam and Radical Islam? Radical Islam is just Islam followed literally, Islamism is just a fundamentalist, very plausible interpretation of *Islam* being politically imposed on others. All things point to the fact that yes, Islam itself is full of terrible ideas. I stress that using a distinction between Islam and radical Islam is important in terms of strategic communication at *some* times, because it's easier for the message to be absorbed by a larger amount of people if these distinctions are made. It's not to say Islam is lovely and separate from Islamism, or Islamic extremism.
The reference to 'war' as secular extremism is mind-boggling to me, a complete misrepresentation since war isn't actually motivated by 'secularism' in any way...and this lopsided idea that Islamic terrorism must be looked at in terms of geopolitical factors alone, while 'war' must be directly, inaccurately linked to secularism, without considering the geopolitical factors that may have lead to war - is a truly baffling idea to me. What is the end game here? Equating secularism with religious violence? What? Are we trying to say secularism is bad? Despite the evidence that secular countries do far better than non secular ones, especially in terms of human rights for their citizens? What is the purpose of this? I just don't get it...other than trying to comfort those who favour theocracy...
You too can support here
Pt 2 of Interview w/ an Ex-Extremist: Bin Laden was one of my Heroes. http://t.co/UCwKx8U2Vd "@SamHarrisOrg & @RichardDawkins set me free"— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) June 19, 2015