1) Who are the "radicals?" How do you separate them out? Do you only ban members of the First Church of Radical Islam, Aleppo Diocese? Or do you recognize that the problem isn't "radical islam" it's "radicals" and it always has been? 2) How can you have an entire thousand-word discussion about "Islam" without ackowledging that Shia islam isn't Sunni islam isn't Alawite or Wahabi or Sufi or any other sect? 3) "No one is losing sleep over Jain exremists?" You mean like the ones that assassinated Indira Gandhi? I mean, the buddhists slaughtered muslims in Burma. Ain't nobody immune from teh crazy. So point to the "radical" muslim and tell me why he's a problem. What makes him a "radical." And how you'll single him out without pulling a Sam Harris and arguing that somehow, because they're the other, you don't have to think about this shit.What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter.
Tomato tomahto. I knew sikhs who claimed to be Jains who lived on sikh ashrams, worshipped in sikh temples and lived with sikhs.
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Admittedly, I'm not that well-versed in south asian religions and interfaith relations. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the point you were trying to make. I believe certain people (of any/no religion) has the potential to be radicalised under the right circumstances, usually due to perceived threats or socio-economic factors.