I was careful to not conflate Islam with these extremists. I also provided a link from an Islamic scholar who demonstrates how to reconcile Sharia with more twentieth century values. The Bill Maher link, and the other one about mystical beliefs in Nigeria are there for flavor, but it shows how varied thought can be on any topic.
I don't think it's possible to teach or police the "wrong-headed", or in other words the ones who don't think as you do and attempting to do so would most likely make more war. I also think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, however illogical, unscientific, or backwards we might find it. With the exception of those things that incite violence or cause harms. There are plenty of other examples, but you can look at KKK, or Nazis, or Headhunters if you like.
Where I draw the parallel is that for the extremists, they believe non-Muslims should be put to the sword(and many Muslims who don't agree with them), and all the other 6th century barbarity. In fact, I heard a story the other day about an ISIL fighter who quit them, having had to find the right time to sneak away, and is still in fear for their life. He recounted the many ISIL fighter doubters who were killed by ISIL for questioning their brutal tactics.
The core of Salafist or Wahabi fundamentalism is to reject modernity, and take Islam back to the days of Mohammed, before Islam was altered into a "the religion of peace". I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I'm pretty certain most Madhaahib abhor the extremists as much as we do. If you had read the article on the Pew survey, you'd have understood that in Islamic nations the people fear their own fundamentalists more that any other external threat.
I view myself as mostly a pacifist. Where, for me, the only just cause for war is to otherwise prevent a holocaust. Which, back to Syria, is why I feel we've already failed. The human toll is already too high, and we acted too late. Plus, now we have an extremist insurgency marching on Baghdad, Turkey, Jordan, and of course Israel.
P.S. Also, you thought... "because your analogy of world travel pits hotbed terrorist/civil rights activists areas with Islam agendas versus previous hotbed areas that are no longer as volatile in an attempt to draw attention to how Islam must be the cause for all this anger in the world;" Actually, not in the least. I looked at the State departments guide for which countries in the middle east were safe to travel. At first I was going to compare some middle eastern to western, but that seemed too biased against the middle east. So, indeed, I found that, yes, there are some middle eastern nations where Westerners can travel safely without undo fear of being targeted by extremists (including Tehran, which was a surprise for me).
I would also invite you to read about the Amman Message where 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries of many "creeds" of Islam made a statement seeking to create more common unity within Islam. It would be like the Catholic Pope, and leading protestants from hundreds of denominations getting together to agree to stop bickering about nuances of interpretation.
I don't think it's possible to teach or police the "wrong-headed", or in other words the ones who don't think as you do and attempting to do so would most likely make more war. I also think people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, however illogical, unscientific, or backwards we might find it. With the exception of those things that incite violence or cause harms. There are plenty of other examples, but you can look at KKK, or Nazis, or Headhunters if you like.
Where I draw the parallel is that for the extremists, they believe non-Muslims should be put to the sword(and many Muslims who don't agree with them), and all the other 6th century barbarity. In fact, I heard a story the other day about an ISIL fighter who quit them, having had to find the right time to sneak away, and is still in fear for their life. He recounted the many ISIL fighter doubters who were killed by ISIL for questioning their brutal tactics.
The core of Salafist or Wahabi fundamentalism is to reject modernity, and take Islam back to the days of Mohammed, before Islam was altered into a "the religion of peace". I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I'm pretty certain most Madhaahib abhor the extremists as much as we do. If you had read the article on the Pew survey, you'd have understood that in Islamic nations the people fear their own fundamentalists more that any other external threat.
I view myself as mostly a pacifist. Where, for me, the only just cause for war is to otherwise prevent a holocaust. Which, back to Syria, is why I feel we've already failed. The human toll is already too high, and we acted too late. Plus, now we have an extremist insurgency marching on Baghdad, Turkey, Jordan, and of course Israel.
P.S. Also, you thought... "because your analogy of world travel pits hotbed terrorist/civil rights activists areas with Islam agendas versus previous hotbed areas that are no longer as volatile in an attempt to draw attention to how Islam must be the cause for all this anger in the world;" Actually, not in the least. I looked at the State departments guide for which countries in the middle east were safe to travel. At first I was going to compare some middle eastern to western, but that seemed too biased against the middle east. So, indeed, I found that, yes, there are some middle eastern nations where Westerners can travel safely without undo fear of being targeted by extremists (including Tehran, which was a surprise for me).
I would also invite you to read about the Amman Message where 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries of many "creeds" of Islam made a statement seeking to create more common unity within Islam. It would be like the Catholic Pope, and leading protestants from hundreds of denominations getting together to agree to stop bickering about nuances of interpretation.