Could Khabibs faith bring strong implications in a USA market?

Question I believe is warrented considering the times we live in. I try and envision a fighter bringing at least %30 drawing power ringside to events... hopefully... Then I look at the Conor/Khabib matchup...then I factor in the social tug of war going on  along with the fact UFC has done a magnificent job so far in not engaging in any political or religous debate through its productions.. But could this last? Could this actually force people like Dana to actually reveal themselves in such a light? What would a crowd of %70 Irish catholics look like with say %10 even faithful Muslim fans in an arena once the drunk "chatter" were to begin? Hate to say it but its something I truly think they have considered for awhile now with basic sensitivitys here in the US.... so what do you guys think?

That being said, my aim is not to offense you guys. English is not my native tong so maybe the choice of words are not always adequate.

Just to comeback on Khabib who is the main topic. I just rewatch the post fight interview. I think that it's not very smart from him and as i said before, religion don't have it's place in sport so i can't agree with him. I am just asking myself if it's the fact that he speaks about religion that disturb ppl or the fact that he's muslim. @mikeyg you took Vitor as example, i don't think his speech bother anyone like Romero's one with his John 3:16 written on his little bandana. What are you thoughs on that?

* Edited at 11.25.2016, 9:44 AM ET *

mikeyg, that is why many of the people there are pissed and tired of politicians not listening to them. Same thing happened in this year's US 2016 election.

And THIS gentlemen is what I am talking about.... and what I am beginning to feel is a huge worry for top brass in UFC

To be honest, I don't think many people would even realize it unless the UFC brought it out. Most people associate Islam with the Middle East even though the majority of them are outside of it.

* Edited at 11.25.2016, 6:35 PM ET *

@mikeyg You misinterpreted what i said. I don't agree with the fact that insults is "just a natural consequence of society", it doesn't mean i am against freespeech. Sorry man, but if it's your right for sure, i am not "pro" insulting some groups of population just because you have the right to do so. Constructive humour and satyre is one thing and it's fine, but the right to say whatever you want just push many ppl to bury themselves in communautarism and this is just bad overall, increasing the pit between some communities. The word there that really annoy me is "natural". What is natural to me is embracing new culture and ppl. Sorry to be so optimist (and now i am talking in general right).

The original sentence was : "Muslims shouldn't be scared of insults, it's just a natural consequence of society". You are right, if nothing bother you when you read that , our opinion surely diverges on some points.

If you want to talk about that in depth, we can in private (because i think we are really getting out of scope here)

Or maybe you are just a bigot Mikey

mikey is clearly someone who prefers to be spoon-fed his information than see the big picture, because he's intellectually incapable of doing so. The sheer amount of fallacious reasoning in his posts is frightening, because it's frightening to know that the majority of people think like he does. His bigotry is a product of simpleton reasoning and ethnocentrism, and it's something that he'll have to correct himself.

The issues he's speaking about are so incredibly complicated, and he's an idiot if he actually thinks he understands the entirety of the situation. Furthermore, he peddles information that he can't possibly begin to understand but again, if he's genuinely concerned with finding out the truth then he will make the necessary effort in doing so.

But it's ok because I understand his position since I've been in it before. I was an anti-theist who was vehemently against the idea of religion which I thought to be corrupted, controlling and a one way path to idiocy. Needless to say that my stance has changed completely, and that's mostly because I've realized that we are all substantially stupider than we'd like to think. Socrates' sole claim to knowledge was that he 'knew nothing', and I think that that's the ideal foundation for anyone's search for truth in this corrupt world of ours.




Or maybe mikey's just mad that he's still my ***** and this is just all of his pent-up anger towards me.

EDIT: I wonder if the 5 thumbs downs are because people are actually stupid enough to share mikey's position, or if they just hate me now 'cause I'm Muslim. In any case Allahu Akhbar, and I mean that in every way possible.

* Edited at 11.28.2016, 7:45 PM ET *

"Naaaaawwwwwwww this wouldnt POSSIBLY happen at an event!!"...lmao

@mikeyg

I'm not going to argue with you because I genuinely don't care enough about you seeing my position or not. If you want to genuinely understand it then you'll make the effort in doing so, with your own time and your own energy, and not mine.

You keep mentioning an argument like as if I'm trying to have a debate when I genuinely am not. I don't care about your position and I know that it's impossible for me to argue mine to yours because it's a position that goes against reason itself. Furthermore, you're not even arguing because all you've done is made sensational claims without any proof. You claim to be winning an argument that doesn't exist, by virtue of me 'being a Muslim so I must be a ******* idiot' which by the way, is the proof of your fallacious reasoning.

When I talk about your simpleton reasoning, I look at your tendency to blame the entirety of terrorist acts on the doctrine of Islam when you haven't once mentioned the geopolitical events that are crucial to understanding the rise of rebellious groups. But again, these are things you don't want to think about because the easier way out is to blame religion. There's a 400-page book that systematically condemns terrorism with the use of scripture but you won't read a single page because it's easier to blame Islam.

When I refer to simpleton reasoning, I am talking about that and I'm talking about the separation between the ideals we preach and the methods in which they actualize. Just a simple brief study of history will show that the Western ideals of freedom have either been applied at the expense of others, or haven't been applied at all. I'm working on a degree in Western society, so I'm pretty sure that I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. If you want proof of this, look at western society today, look at government surveillance and look at the systematic corruption at the root of the American economy.



Now call me a liar, but I genuinely was an anti-theist (and not an atheist) and I'm pretty sure there's evidence in my post history on Tapology (you could actually watch me go through the phase that you're currently in. It's hilarious and I'm not talking about anti-theism, I'm talking about your insecurity).

If you're genuinely curious, I was an anti-theist primarily because I saw the effects of religion in the radicalism of the Middle East and I saw the history of Christianity and thought that they were the root of many evils in this world. The lack of empirical proof made it logical to not believe in the existence of some 'invisible man in the sky', and the religious ferocity of believers put me off so much more. They were concerned with mashing their beliefs down my throat, and I hated that because I have always felt that I could make my own decisions for myself, and I don't need anyone to tell me what to do.

I feel like these are (at least partly) the same reasons why you (and everyone else on this forum it seems) identify with anti-theism. Because I've been in your shoes before, I understand your position and it's one that I am completely okay with. You have to understand that because I was an anti-theist for so long, my social circle primarily consists of people who are atheists. Like I mentioned, my field is Western society so you're definitely not the first person who's tried to come at me before.



But while I have been in your shoes you haven't been in mine, so there's no point in trying to shove you into them. Instead I will just remind you that you mikey, will always be my *****.

EDIT: Just to add on that '*****' fact, don't forget that day that I was on the IRC for UFC 205. Everyone saw you trying to be nice to me, but after calling you my ***** for the 10th time you flipped your **** and rage-quit. Don't forget that either, *****.

* Edited at 11.28.2016, 11:23 PM ET *

Mikey my argument is your views are distorted by bigotry making your views biased. My argument is your preconceived views makes it impossible for you to be objective. That you are so blinded by hate you could never look at these issues for actual solutions without generalizing an entire religion. Any information you receive that goes against your preconceived notions are ignored. I know this because you made a claim that 99% of terrorist shout Alluha Akbar before killing civilians yet that vast majority of terrorists aren't even Muslim. 

99% 
Sounds like a completely legit stat. 

99% of legit stats aren't legit.

@bigj




Most terror groups aren't Islamic you say?

Well allow me to burst your ******* bubble.  I have linked right here the 2015 Global Terrorism Index done by the Institute of Economics and Peace; and it is highly considered as the most accurate report for 2015.

To sum up its content in a TL;DR form, here are the following crucial points:

- The Top 5 Terrorists Groups in the world are all Islamic (Boko Haram, ISIL, the Taliban, Al Shabaab, and the Fulani Militants), with Boko Haram being the top terrorism group in the world
- The only Terrorist Group that remotely came close to any of the Islamic terrorist groups in terms of murder rate is the Colombian Communist guerrilla group FARC (who just recently signed a ceasefire treaty with the Colombian government)
- Of the top 10 countries that are plagued by terrorist attacks, the overwhelming majority have an Islamic majority populace (with the two major exceptions being India and Thailand)
- In 9 of the top 10 countries plagued by terrorism, the majority of the attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorist groups (with India being the exception as the Maoist Communist Party of India carried out the majority of India's terrorist attacks)
- From a time span of 2000 to 2015, worldwide terrorism has increase nine fold in terms of the number of deaths, with the largest increase coming in 2013 to 2014 in Nigeria with fatalities rising to 7,512 people (most of which came by the hands of Boko Haram)

Still want to say that most terrorism isn't Islamic?  Radical Islamic Terrorism (as well as terrorism in general) is a global phenomenon.  Just because the bulk of Islamic Terrorism doesn't happen in the West, doesn't mean it doesn't exist you prig.  Boko Haram is leading a scorched earth campaign to flip Nigeria from being a secular state into an Islamic caliphate led by the Northern Nigerian tribes.  The Fulani Militants and Al-Shabaab are slaughtering innocents in Kenya and Somalia all because of Kenya's interference to stop the chaos that is the failed state of Somalia.  In Pakistan, the Teriki Taliban are trying to keep Pakistan in the stone age by bombing schools to prevent children from getting educated. In Yemen, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Houthi Rebels helped contribute to making Yemen a failed state. 

Islamic Terrorism is real and it shows the true barbarity of religion, and of Islam in particular.

* Edited at 11.29.2016, 3:24 AM ET *

And before anyone tries to foolishly argue...



and wants to bring up the most irrelevant argument anyone could use in this sort of deal whenever Islamic terrorism is brought up, let me shoot down the Crusades argument for you right now.  There are more relevant and important events that happened in shaping modern history than the First through Third Crusades. The Crusades of the Middle East, which happened 900 YEARS AGO, formed a failed state Kingdom of Jerusalem that would fall into the hands of the Ayyubids in 1187.  Meanwhile, there were three more crusades that were more significant in shaping geopolitics for years to come.  Those being the Fourth Crusade, the Baltic Crusades by the Teutonic Knights, and the Reconquista.  The Fourth Crusade weakened the Byzantine Empire, prevented them from being able to reclaim Anatolia, and eventually helped lead to the rise of the Turkish Ottoman Caliphate.  The Baltic Crusades led by the Teutonic Knights, in which a group of monastic German noblemen butchered non Christian Poles, Latvians, and Lithuanians, led to the creation of the state of Prussia. Finally, and most importantly, the Reconquista led to the rise of Spain and Portugal and the end of Islamic influence in Western Europe.

More importantly, all you are arguing is a case of moral relativism.  That murder isn't a crime, it is just a justification for other murders, that moral standards are irrelevant and don't exist, and that people should only follow the rules set by those who wield the biggest knife and threaten to kill you. 

To me, that is an abominable way to think.

* Edited at 11.29.2016, 3:06 AM ET *