Burka ban

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Qs wrote: »

Isn't that a convenient tactic when you say something stupid that you don't want to have to defend.

Oh the irony of that statement is golden.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Could well be the case, though if you buy the argument that there is a large element of coercion involved in the women wearing the burqa in many cases, then it is equally possible that they're not the extremists. I'm for the ban, for reasons I've already outlined, and am surprised that the majority of more moderate Muslims aren't doing more to distance themselves from the extremists and hence isolate them. The intransigence on all sides is worrying.

its the nature of a religion that has embraced a puritanical view of itself. Lets say a third of muslims in Europe state in a survey that Sharia law and values are better than western values most of the other 2/3rds are not going to stand up and say its not, they will just stay silent and either just play mind games with themselves because it will never happen and or don't want any community ostracisation. So as far as I can see the next generation are going to have these puritanical views transmitted as the default. This will only be amplified if there are concentration of Muslims down to a particular street. Any kid growing up in that will be living in cocoon of Islamic culture and its a negative for everyone else.

Cabaal

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

So as far as I can see the next generation are going to have these puritanical views transmitted as the default. This will only be amplified if there are concentration of Muslims down to a particular street. Any kid growing up in that will be living in cocoon of Islamic culture and its a negative for everyone else.

So same thing that Catholics have done then?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

So same thing that Catholics have done then?

Pretty much, in that in the west you get a lot of nominal Muslims among the younger generation who do the bare minimum required of them with regards to religious observance. In many ways, Islam in the west is very much like Catholicism with a time lag of a generation or two.

silverharp

Cabaal wrote: »

So same thing that Catholics have done then?

different circumstances and stickiness.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Pretty much, in that in the west you get a lot of nominal Muslims among the younger generation who do the bare minimum required of them with regards to religious observance. In many ways, Islam in the west is very much like Catholicism with a time lag of a generation or two.

its different though, can you point to any catholic areas in English cities or any European city where catholic migrants will only live? even if you want to talk about somewhere like New York a hundred years ago, its not like Irish and Italians formed some grand alliance or had some distrust of US society, they all fed off a European heritage.
I think your 1 or 2 generations is wildly optimistic.

Cabaal

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

its different though, can you point to any catholic areas in English cities or any European city where catholic migrants will only live? even if you want to talk about somewhere like New York a hundred years ago, its not like Irish and Italians formed some grand alliance or had some distrust of US society, they all fed off a European heritage.

and yet people in New York, USA, UK didn't see the Irish as the same as them. They saw them as different and as such they treated them differently for many many decades, it didn't matter that they had "shared European heritage" one bit.

Seriously, how are you not aware of the above?

UK they had "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs", The USA had common adverts like below:


That advert is from 1865, but there's always the one below from 1914 for something more recent.



As for areas, the Irish did tend to concentrate in one area in numerous citys throughout the USA and even Canada. For example, Toronto still has an area called Cabbagetown which was full of poor Irish from 1840's onward.

So it seems many Irish like to ignore the oppression we experienced in the past and we're just happy to claim other people are different and they should be oppressed and restricted. The great roundabout of hate in our species history,

Cabaal

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

different circumstances and stickiness.

Is it really?
Catholics went in and started their own schools to educate their "own kind", tended to live in the same area's. Were were often hated by the locals, refused jobs and seen in a poor light.

Didn't mix with the local cultures and instead maintained their own, brought their own beliefs into the areas and pushed for them to be represented in the areas for everyone to see (St Patricks day is a good example of this).

There's alot of similarities,

Oh and like Muslims, Catholics also all got labelled as the bad guys...regardless of if they were or not. Any Irish person who frequently traveled to the UK during the troubles will know this and will be aware of the "random security checks" performed on them because they were Irish.

silverharp

Cabaal wrote: »

and yet people in New York, USA, UK didn't see the Irish as the same as them. They saw them as different and as such they treated them differently for many many decades, it didn't matter that they had "shared European heritage" one bit.

Seriously, how are you not aware of the above?

UK they had "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs", The USA had common adverts like below:



As for areas, the Irish did tend to concentrate in one area in numerous citys throughout the USA and even Canada. For example, Toronto still has an area called Cabbagetown which was full of poor Irish from 1840's onward.

So it seems many Irish like to ignore the oppression we experienced in the past and we're just happy to claim other people are different and they should be oppressed and restricted. The great roundabout of hate in our species history,

sure but its current year. the average western society is not systematically suspicious of all outsiders just because they are different. People from India, China, even the Philippines get a fair shake of the stick in the West even though they are not European.

Cabaal

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

sure but its current year. the average western society is not systematically suspicious of all outsiders just because they are different.

Society as a whole, perhaps not.
But people in that society, most certainly are and can be.

We've seen that in this thread for example. People that would rather people are banned from a country so that local racists are not upset.

Outside of this thread we know racism exists and hate exists towards non-Irish people and cultures in this country,

People from India, China, even the Philippines get a fair shake of the stick in the West even though they are not European.

The same cultures that still often concentrate in the one area, just like the Irish did and just like the muslims you're commenting on do?

silverharp

Cabaal wrote: »

Society as a whole, perhaps not.
But people in that society, most certainly are and can be.

We've seen that in this thread for example. People that would rather people are banned from a country so that local racists are not upset.

Outside of this thread we know racism exists and hate exists towards non-Irish people and cultures in this country,

So? there is nothing to be gained by finding the more extreme view as a justification to do nothing. However don't tackle a problem and you may end up with people voting in a more extreme solution then if the middle had tackled it.

Cabaal wrote: »

The same cultures that still often concentrate in the one area, just like the Irish did and just like the muslims you're commenting on do?

relative though, and most other cultures integrate over time. Even take marriage, there is no general perception for example that Chinese cant date or marry Westerners. Whereas I think it would be generally understood that Muslim women don't/cant marry out and Muslim men will only marry out if the woman converts.
the general expectation is that someone comes to Europe, works hard and their kids ought to at least blend into the average not bounce along the bottom. As far as the UK is concerned I doubt the average Brit knew the difference between a Muslim or a Hindu back in the 70's , both were treated equally well or badly depending how you look at it, yet ask opinion today and the perception would be more favourable towards Hindu's because they have integrated better.
the way I look at it, the host country gets a choice in how it wants to shape its society and it has a greater responsibility to its own citizens and their lives then to people who don't currently live there. In terms of Muslims maybe you need to look at something like only allowing secular muslims in if its possible to find out? Maybe its an education thing so only let Muslims in that are graduates so that educational values are likely passed on to the next generation. The current hands tied behind back will only build up pressure and you will end up with a solution you really don't like

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

Maybe its an education thing so only let Muslims in that are graduates so that educational values are likely passed on to the next generation. The current hands tied behind back will only build up pressure and you will end up with a solution you really don't like

This is looking at it from the wrong angle.
The majority of muslims in the world have little knowledge of their religion, most cannot read arabic, have never read the quran (800 million cannot read, especially women).
They take whatever their local imman says as the word of god.
Change the imman and you don't have to worry about radicalisation for the most part.
Salafist mosques need to be strongly monitored and shut down if they are supporting radicalisation. Stopping funding from S.Arabia would be a good move too. Stopping the spread of Islam in prison is another good move.

Now onto education. Those that plan and strategise against the west are not the ignorant masses, they are the educated ones. The tactics in propaganda, media control, image promotion, political manuvouring are all very sophisticated. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were graduates.
So trying to rely that if we only get graduates in, they will be free of radicalisation is to mistake radicalisation with ignorance. It is the opposite.
The more a muslim from a Salafist or wahabbist background learns about their faith the more radical they become.
Luckily there are more variants of Islam than that, although radicalisation is not limited to the two groups I mentioned.
The mindset behind the culture in some of the Islamic areas need to be challenged too. You can have a doctor that still believes in talking ants, flying donkeys with women's heads, and rejects evolutionary theory over belief in adam and eve being made from clay (this mindset is not just Islamic, but that Islam profits from it).
The issue is a form of anti-scepticism, a distrust of anything western, even if it is greek philosophy and an absolute trust in hierarchical religious figures from the culture they are familiar with.

Integration needs to involve prying Muslims away from the attitudes commonly held by the previous culture. Then, and perhaps only then, will you see the reform that Majid Nawaz seeks, where the politics is removed from the theology. A hard process as a faith that is aimed to save mankind from hell, generally requires mankind to convert to it.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

This is looking at it from the wrong angle.
The majority of muslims in the world have little knowledge of their religion, most cannot read arabic, have never read the quran (800 million cannot read, especially women).
They take whatever their local imman says as the word of god.
Change the imman and you don't have to worry about radicalisation for the most part.
Salafist mosques need to be strongly monitored and shut down if they are supporting radicalisation. Stopping funding from S.Arabia would be a good move too. Stopping the spread of Islam in prison is another good move.

you reframed my point though, you are limiting it to radicalisation, if for example a muslim kid is brought up with the idea that they souldnt have western friends , I dont see that as radicalised , just very conservative and probably backed up by a selection of Quranic versus.
in terms of immans one of a bunch of measures would be to ban any imman from coming to Europe or preaching if they have expressed any criminal views, supporting FGM or child marriage as examples.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Now onto education. Those that plan and strategise against the west are not the ignorant masses, they are the educated ones. The tactics in propaganda, media control, image promotion, political manuvouring are all very sophisticated. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were graduates.
So trying to rely that if we only get graduates in, they will be free of radicalisation is to mistake radicalisation with ignorance. It is the opposite.
The more a muslim from a Salafist or wahabbist background learns about their faith the more radical they become.
Luckily there are more variants of Islam than that, although radicalisation is not limited to the two groups I mentioned.
The mindset behind the culture in some of the Islamic areas need to be challenged too. You can have a doctor that still believes in talking ants, flying donkeys with women's heads, and rejects evolutionary theory over belief in adam and eve being made from clay (this mindset is not just Islamic, but that Islam profits from it).
The issue is a form of anti-scepticism, a distrust of anything western, even if it is greek philosophy and an absolute trust in hierarchical religious figures from the culture they are familiar with.

you need smart people to conduct terrorism , thats a given but to steer a large group you also need a mass of poorly educated people that are steerable. Pragmatically only picking graduates would reduce numbers and they might be less inclined to live in the same areas. their kids would grow up having to mix with the locals and it might take the edge off what they are being told at home

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Integration needs to involve prying Muslims away from the attitudes commonly held by the previous culture. Then, and perhaps only then, will you see the reform that Majid Nawaz seeks, where the politics is removed from the theology. A hard process as a faith that is aimed to save mankind from hell, generally requires mankind to convert to it.

sure but its difficult when the politics is in their religious books. at the end of the day Jesus didnt run an Empire

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

sure but its difficult when the politics is in their religious books. at the end of the day Jesus didnt run an Empire

To be fair, Jesus had nothing to do with modern Christianity. Whatever sect that might have had a connection to Jesus was exterminated by the Paulian sect. Paul and the christianity that we have today in the form of Catholicism was part of an empire, the roman empire.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

in terms of immans one of a bunch of measures would be to ban any imman from coming to Europe or preaching if they have expressed any criminal views, supporting FGM or child marriage as examples.

Where do you draw the line? How do you draw that line. The actual acts you refer to are not the core problem. The absolute love of Muhammed is and the adoration of the koran.
Break those then the criminal elements will not pose any problems.
You cannot criminalise loving Mo or the quran however. You can ridicule them to bits to take the mysticism out of their culture.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Pretty much, in that in the west you get a lot of nominal Muslims among the younger generation who do the bare minimum required of them with regards to religious observance. In many ways, Islam in the west is very much like Catholicism with a time lag of a generation or two.

Unfortunately this is not always the case. There have been many examples of fairly laid back Muslim parents who have been shocked to discover their sons and daughters have become radicalised and gone off to Syria to join the Caliphate.
There are also Burqa wearing women now in the UK and France who have opted to become the first generation to wear such garments in Europe, despite the families having lived in Europe for several generations.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

To be fair, Jesus had nothing to do with modern Christianity. Whatever sect that might have had a connection to Jesus was exterminated by the Paulian sect. Paul and the christianity that we have today in the form of Catholicism was part of an empire, the roman empire.

the point is you have a core gospel which isn't framed in terms of running a society. You can certainly use Catholicism or possibly dig through its teachings for political ends but a liberal Catholic has a much easier time of it than poor Maajid Nawaz who will probably go to his grave with the same frustration Einstein had trying to find a unified theory, the latter might be solved quicker :pac:

Where do you draw the line? How do you draw that line. The actual acts you refer to are not the core problem. The absolute love of Muhammed is and the adoration of the koran.
Break those then the criminal elements will not pose any problems.
You cannot criminalise loving Mo or the quran however. You can ridicule them to bits to take the mysticism out of their culture.

Numbers can be controlled so that its not an absolute problem, who cares what 1% of the population get up to right? but the prospect of unreformed Muslims going from 7% to 20% should make even the most liberal person have a squeaky bum moment.
Otherwise the state might need to take the view that kids generally need to be informed that religious beliefs don't generally stand up to scientific evidence so that you weed out Young Earth beliefs in Christians or any idea that the qur'an is a scientific masterpiece and maybe encourage them to go down the Jewish route where they park their extreme beliefs as being of their time or not historical enough to try implement them in the present.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

Numbers can be controlled so that its not an absolute problem, who cares what 1% of the population get up to right? but the prospect of unreformed Muslims going from 7% to 20% should make even the most liberal person have a squeaky bum moment.
Otherwise the state might need to take the view that kids generally need to be informed that religious beliefs don't generally stand up to scientific evidence so that you weed out Young Earth beliefs in Christians or any idea that the qur'an is a scientific masterpiece and maybe encourage them to go down the Jewish route where they park their extreme beliefs as being of their time or not historical enough to try implement them in the present.

Creationism is the symptom, not the cause. The issue is that they REALLY believe in the nonsense around their religion, while also being terrible sceptics.

The CORE texts in Islam are violent. Muhammed was a murderer and worse. The CORE texts say he is the perfect example for all muslims.
Break that and 'creationism' will wilt and the extremist practices will not have a leg to stand on.
I hear and read from muslims the most absurd adoration of Muhammed, even on Boards.ie and similar sites, as well as in person. Including magical claims about nature warping to please him.
THAT is your source for all the problems we have. NOT creationism, NOT FGM, not Jihad. Those are symptoms. The CORE issue is Muhammed.
The quran is similar but at the end of the day, I think Muhammed is the real problem.
Muslims are charged to obey him, follow him, be like him and consider him more important than even life itself. Even if peaceful, due to ignorance about his actual life, this attitude EASILY leads to radicalisation and fundamentalism when faced with a more stringent muslim preacher.

There are tons of scientific evidence that rules the quran and Mo as wrong, much like the bible and jesus, yet muslims and christians still hold strong to many of the teachings that show how wrong they are.
Muslims more so, percentage wise, as their collective culture has not been put under secularism's strainer yet to weed out, by force in many cases, their fundamentalism.
Christians, at least in the west, have been brought forward to at least value science, although the extremely religious still dream of the dark ages as the good old days.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Creationism is the symptom, not the cause. The issue is that they REALLY believe in the nonsense around their religion, while also being terrible sceptics.

The CORE texts in Islam are violent. Muhammed was a murderer and worse. The CORE texts say he is the perfect example for all muslims.
Break that and 'creationism' will wilt and the extremist practices will not have a leg to stand on.
I hear and read from muslims the most absurd adoration of Muhammed, even on Boards.ie and similar sites, as well as in person. Including magical claims about nature warping to please him.
THAT is your source for all the problems we have. NOT creationism, NOT FGM, not Jihad. Those are symptoms. The CORE issue is Muhammed.
The quran is similar but at the end of the day, I think Muhammed is the real problem.
Muslims are charged to obey him, follow him, be like him and consider him more important than even life itself. Even if peaceful, due to ignorance about his actual life, this attitude EASILY leads to radicalisation and fundamentalism when faced with a more stringent muslim preacher.

There are tons of scientific evidence that rules the quran and Mo as wrong, much like the bible and jesus, yet muslims and christians still hold strong to many of the teachings that show how wrong they are.
Muslims more so, percentage wise, as their collective culture has not been put under secularism's strainer yet to weed out, by force in many cases, their fundamentalism.
Christians, at least in the west, have been brought forward to at least value science, although the extremely religious still dream of the dark ages as the good old days.

I fully agree, Mohammed warlord killer, Jesus hippy virgin. You are going to get 2 widely different religions based on the character of the founder coupled with the perceived nature of the deity

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

I fully agree, Mohammed warlord killer, Jesus hippy virgin. You are going to get 2 widely different religions based on the character of the founder coupled with the perceived nature of the deity

I guess they forget to tell that to the crusaders

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

I guess they forget to tell that to the crusaders

the crusades were largely a defensive war and it pales into insignificance compared to how Islam went about things around the Med and in Europe. I think it gets overused in terms of trying to equate Christianity and Islam. Anyway the point is we are dealing with citizens here not religious campaigns by empires

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

the crusades were largely a defensive war and it pales into insignificance compared to how Islam went about things around the Med and in Europe. I think it gets overused in terms of trying to equate Christianity and Islam. Anyway the point is we are dealing with citizens here not religious campaigns by empires

You previous post referred to a point in time at which these religions were founded where the only citizens on the block were Romans. To suggest that Christianity is a kinder religion than Islam today on the basis that Jesus was a hippy is a bit tenuous. If you're in any doubt about this, have a quick look at the Cathar genocide. Also suggesting the crusades were defensive seems rather odd given they were almost entirely fought on foreign soil.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

"The Holy Land" has changed hands so many times it is impossible to say who is foreign there. At various times it has been under Christian, Islamic, and Jewish control. From the crusaders point of view, it was an important part of Christendom. In those days Turkey was a predominantly Christian land called Byzantium, but that whole civilisation was destroyed by Islamic Turks from central asia.
The Byzantine people and culture were systematically eradicated.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

"The Holy Land" has changed hands so many times it is impossible to say who is foreign there. At various times it has been under Christian, Islamic, and Jewish control. From the crusaders point of view, it was an important part of Christendom. In those days Turkey was a predominantly Christian land called Byzantium, but that whole civilisation was destroyed by Islamic Turks from central asia.
The Byzantine people and culture were systematically eradicated.

How many crusaders were born and bred there though! Plenty of empires claimed bits of foreign land as their own.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Islamic states weren't warmongers, just that the Christians were in equal measure. It is also worth remembering that while the crusades were taking place in the medieval world for the west, this was the Islamic golden age with such great scholars as al-Khwarizmi hard at work. It is arguable that during this era the Christianity of the west was considerably more barbaric than the Islam of the near East.

starshine1234

Michael OBrien wrote: »

...
You cannot criminalise loving Mo or the quran however. You can ridicule them to bits to take the mysticism out of their culture.

Nazism is banned. Perhaps Islam should be banned in the same manner. It is possible to criminalise Mo.

I feel people need to realise that Islam is a politicial ideology masquerading as a religion.

We are in full on appeasment mode. We appeased Nazism for a long time. It didn't work. We are now appeasing Islam and I suspect it won't work either.

I fear for the future as I can't conceive of a solution to the violence that occurs in multicultural societies. The only solution is prevention but that seems to be ignored by silly politicians.

The similarity between nazism and islam is the totalitarian nature of both, and the very strong rejection of some minorities.

Michael OBrien

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

starshine1234 wrote: »

Nazism is banned. Perhaps Islam should be banned in the same manner. It is possible to criminalise Mo.

I feel people need to realise that Islam is a politicial ideology masquerading as a religion.

We are in full on appeasment mode. We appeased Nazism for a long time. It didn't work. We are now appeasing Islam and I suspect it won't work either.

I fear for the future as I can't conceive of a solution to the violence that occurs in multicultural societies. The only solution is prevention but that seems to be ignored by silly politicians.

The similarity between nazism and islam is the totalitarian nature of both, and the very strong rejection of some minorities.

You cannot ban a belief system as complicated as Islam and be humane. Its a trade off. I push for resistance against the spread of overt Islam, but the people have been brainwashed so much that they forge their own chains and fight anyone trying to point out that the key is in the lock and they can turn it and free themselves.
Nazism is not dead, it is suppressed. There are plenty of racists that adore Hitler and think he is the greatest leader ever. So while they fester in the dark we can pretend that they are gone. Doing that to religion has been shown to fail. Look at Russia. A failed experiment that now has a christian leader bolstering a christian orthodoxy that actually seeks to imprison atheists for saying online that there is no god.
That worked wonders. Doing the same with Islam is not a good idea.
Limiting its extremism, putting barriers (legally) to restrict its influence politically and socially, and pointing out its flaws and forcing the apologists to work at defending it is a better solution. I have more faith in people generally that if they are given an alternative to despair they will choose it. Religion ultimately is about feeding despair and profiting off it.

starshine1234

I believe that tolerating Islam is appeasement.

By suppressing it but allowing it to continue to exist you are helping it, not hindering it. It can use the suppression to claim unfairness and use the claimed unfairness to gain new adherents.

I agree that people don't agree on how we should proceed, or on how a country like France or Sweden should deal with their serious problems.

I am of the belief that Islam must either be banned, or Europe must convert. I suspect many Europeans don't want to convert.

Incidentally, I have no respect for the western way of living either. Rampant un-necesary consumerism is destroying our societies and our very planet. Global warming is real and has the potential to destroy our civilisations.
Elite rich capatilists are using their huge resources to undermine democracy and to usher in a brave new world of rampant and unfettered capitalism.

Universites and colleges have lost the plot with safe spaces and trigger warnings. They are producing brain dead weeping willies instead of well adjusted adults who can cope with the real world.

But Islam is no better.

looksee

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

starshine1234 wrote: »

I believe that tolerating Islam is appeasement.

By suppressing it but allowing it to continue to exist you are helping it, not hindering it. It can use the suppression to claim unfairness and use the claimed unfairness to gain new adherents.

I agree that people don't agree on how we should proceed, or on how a country like France or Sweden should deal with their serious problems.

I am of the belief that Islam must either be banned, or Europe must convert. I suspect many Europeans don't want to convert.

Incidentally, I have no respect for the western way of living either. Rampant un-necesary consumerism is destroying our societies and our very planet. Global warming is real and has the potential to destroy our civilisations.
Elite rich capatilists are using their huge resources to undermine democracy and to usher in a brave new world of rampant and unfettered capitalism.

Universites and colleges have lost the plot with safe spaces and trigger warnings. They are producing brain dead weeping willies instead of well adjusted adults who can cope with the real world.

But Islam is no better.

You do give the impression you have bought into every conspiracy theory going!

starshine1234

looksee wrote: »

You do give the impression you have bought into every conspiracy theory going!

How so please?

My opinions are based on science, logic and facts. There are no conspiracy theories in anything I say.

Could you explain what you mean please?

Your post seems to contain no content other than denigration.

looksee

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

starshine1234 wrote: »

How so please?

My opinions are based on science, logic and facts. There are no conspiracy theories in anything I say.

Could you explain what you mean please?

Your post seems to contain no content other than denigration.

Even the fact that you suggest my post is denigration, rather than arguing the point, is indicative of what I am saying.

You say that your opinions are based on science, logic and facts; could you then expand on them a bit please? I will agree with you on climate change, though I think it should be dealt with rather than just saying 'the end is nigh'.

I also agree that suppressing Islam would have the opposite effect to that which is intended.

However, this pre-supposes that the option of wiping out, or even suppressing Islam is a runner. Islam as interpreted by the vast majority of Muslims is not really a problem; the problem is with the extremists. Your proposal to wipe out Islam - without any clear indication of how you are proposing it could be done - is simply not practical or desirable.

The Muslim populations of non-Muslim countries could make a bit more effort to denounce the extremists, I think. But this has a very recent parallel in Ireland when for many years of the troubles the ordinary person would be more likely to excuse the IRA with the 'you have to understand the background' / 'the Brits are just as bad' than say 'that was a terrible atrocity, they are not acting on my behalf'. Eventually this did happen but there was the sense that it was somehow non-patriotic to criticise terrorist events.

The fact that you have brought 'rich capitalists' and consumerism (there is a cause and effect there, both ways) university safe spaces (which I do not dispute, but it is just a fad) into the argument gives the 'conspiracy theory' effect. While there is a grain of truth in most of what you are saying, the simplification with no real basis (HOW would you propose to eliminate Islam, and should we eliminate Christianity and other religions on the same basis?) is not helpful.