I really have no idea what it means to be a Salafist, but there's something unsettling about an HN debate about whether a particular religion is or isn't fundamentally terroristic.
That's especially true if you are yourself somehow affiliated with the religion, in which case: I'm sorry you find yourself litigating this here.
Whether or not you are, and whether or not these are good faith comments, I think this is a pretty weird place for HN to go.
A lot of this gets into questions of what defines a religion, if a religion even has a definition, or if it's just a contentless cultural virus that people use to interpret their own preconceived notions and practices in a predefined rubric.
Salafism is an easy target because many of its famous adherents are the unsavory sort, and it's "obscure" enough that people can bash it without seeming Islamophobic and even manage to present themselves as a bit cosmopolitan and knowledgeable. But there are definitely many peaceful adherents of it, and many who oppose terrorism within its ranks. You can deduce calls to terrorism from its muddled mess of scriptures and thinkers, but you can also deduce calls to peacemaking. Same as any other religion.
In the end, though, in a world with limited resources, focusing counter-propaganda efforts on Salafist communities seems like a pretty good idea. On the flip side, that almost certainly involves not stigmatizing all Salafists as terrorists.
I've met very many peaceful Salafists. Saying that Salafism or Tablighi Jamaat is a gateway to terrorism is like calling marijuana a gateway drug - the overly literalist and gullible types might gather there but if they're trying harder stuff, that's on them.
Why is that weird? You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts? What would be weird is if that weren't possible for some reason.
> You don't think different religions can be more or less supportive of violence in their foundational texts?
I don't think that's relevant: 1) We can't read the texts except for translations; 2) Within every religion, among experts with great familiarity with the texts, there are a very wide variety of interpretations - so wide they sometimes fight wars over it (e.g., Protestants vs Catholics, Sunnis vs Shia, Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims (all share the Old Testament; Muslims and Christians share the New Testament)), etc. 3) Adherents to religions are usually ignorant of and completely disregard the texts (lay Catholics didn't even read or hear them until the 20th century IIUC), except when convenient. For example, the Ten Commandments, the highest law, requires people to observe the Sabbath. I wonder if that includes posting on Hacker News?
That's especially true if you are yourself somehow affiliated with the religion, in which case: I'm sorry you find yourself litigating this here.
Whether or not you are, and whether or not these are good faith comments, I think this is a pretty weird place for HN to go.