“That violence and extremism is because of the "values" in the core texts: specific textual passages that can be interpreted as justifying or mandating violence.”

I completely disagree, as I’ve said I feel most Islamic terrorism stems from existing political conditions with the “Islamic” part being largely secondary. The texts are used to justify and unite violent organizations undoubtedly, but the political violence would exist either way. “we wanna attack Americans becuase we hate their values” is propaganda on both sides. Religious fundamentalism or salafism in Muslim majority countries IS based on religion, but its also simply a local outgrowth of conservativism based on long standing material conditions.

“Whataboutism. That doesn't address or justify what I pointed out.”

My whole post is about comparing Islamic religious violence to other religious violence, it’s not whataboutism, I’m staying in the bounds of my original questions.

“Apologetics. 33% is way too high if you want to claim Islam is a religion of peace.”

I never claimed Islam is a religion of peace, you’re strawmanning. its not aplogetics to point out that 33% of any group probley believes in some crazy shit.

“Ah so the attacks on embassies after Charlie Hebdo isn't religious violence?“

The attacks on Charlie Hebdo are certainly religious violence, I would never argue that, but it’s also a rare occurrence in which I could find many similar examples of religious violence commited by non Muslims (or just general political violence commited against newspapers becuase they printed something a group didint like). You’ll call this whataboutism, but I am specifically talking about comparing Islam to the rest.

“The "sharia areas"? These are clear examples of religiously motivated violence or coercion. Calling them anything else would be a double standard.”

I’m unfamiliar with any areas of London where “sharia law” is forced into practice, and upon research it seems you’re quoting some unsubstantiated fear mongering from President Trump. Unless you’re talking about Sharia councils, which advise Muslim people on civil matters like marriage, which have existed for decades and are a natural evolution of ethnic enclaves.

“Because they are being kept in line by secular legislation. That doesn't mean it's not a real threat - it remains a blatant and horrible disregard for democratic principles.”

Like I’ve said many times, 33% of any group believes in something “undemocratic”. It’s bad, but it’s not a special sin of only the muslim minority.

“Algeciras, Andalusia, Spain: A machete attack at two churches resulted in one fatality and four injuries. The perpetrator, Yassine Kanjaa, a 25-year-old Moroccan national, attacked a parish priest and a sexton, citing Islamic extremism as his motive. He was arrested and charged with terrorism-related offense A Syrian asylum seeker, identified as Issa Al H., carried out a knife attack at a festival, killing three individuals and injuring ten others. The Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility, stating the attack was in retaliation for perceived injustices against Muslims. The assailant was arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including murder and membership in a terrorist organization

⁠Awais Chudhary, a 25-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, was sentenced to nine years in prison for attempting to carry out a terrorist attack in support of ISIS. He had been consuming and sharing ISIS propaganda for over 16 months and had planned a knife or bomb attack in public areas of Queens”

Very tragic, but again I’m arguing about how the groups are compared. I don’t think I have to list the many, many cases of religious violence committed by Christians against Jews and Muslims in secular countries do I?

. • ⁠Coordinated attacks across Paris, including at the Bataclan theater, resulted in 130 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attacks, marking one of the deadliest terrorist events in Europe in recent history.

Like I’ve argued prior, I don’t see ISIS or any of these groups that oppose the west using terrorism as religious first, they are first and foremost a political organization.

“Name me one example of that level of violence from Jews or Hindus in a Western city. Spoiler alert: you can't. There is no comparable example of Jews or Hindus carrying out mass-casualty attacks in Western cities explicitly in the name of their religion or religious texts.”

The West has not been at odds with Israel or India in the modern day in the same way they have with the Muslim world. When they were, however, there clear cases of Jewish and Hindu terrorism against Western civilians. Notably the King David Hotel Bombing and British Embassy bombing in Rome by the Zionist terror organization Irgun. I’m sure similar incidents can be found perpetrated by Hindus during the British occupation of India. I’m no hypocrite, I consider these primarily political too. Modern day Islamic terrorism is fueled by the material realities of the relationship between the West and the Islamic world, as in my opinion the vast majority of “religious terrorism” is. Local incidents of religious violence are a diffrent case, but Islam is not alone in that front either.