Thread: The origin of Islamic extremism Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019927
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
I looked for a thread about this but didn’t find one. So apologies if someone else has brought this up.
The coming fifteenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, brings a new round of people talking about the evils of Islamic extremism.
I am fully on board with the overall sentiment. Terrorism is wrong. There is no excuse for it.
What always surprises me, however, is the West’s mystified hand-wringing, as if this is all due to unreasoning hatred, misplaced revenge for the creation of Israel, or some other equally incomprehensible motivation.
Isn’t it obvious that Western culture, whether Christian or secular, represents a potent threat to Islam?
Not that Islam can’t survive in the West. It does well in many Western countries. But almost every aspect of Western culture is an affront to the values and attitudes of the Islamic world.
It is not just that they see us as immoral and atheistic, but that this immorality and secularism is aggressively and continually exported into every country that does business with the West. Everything from fashion to cinema to alcohol and social media are almost unstoppable agents of a lifestyle that is anathema to faithful Muslims.
And that is without even mentioning the political and military interventions that have plagued them for hundreds of years.
Nor is their sense of threat an imaginary one. Islam relies on attitudes to authority, an unquestioning loyalty to Islamic teachings, and lifestyle restrictions, which are unlikely to survive long term exposure to Western ideas.
It is not that I am sympathetic to Islam. While it has some admirable features and produces many very fine people, I think that it is a fatally flawed belief system with some very harmful features.
So I think that the simple formula is that Islam is seriously threatened with extinction in the long run. The recognition of this threat has led to extreme reactionary forms of Islam, as is typical of threatened cultures and belief systems. Reactionary groups attack what they see as the source of the threat, whether internal or external. That is the situation that we observe.
This doesn’t justify any of it. But how can we effectively respond to things that we do not understand?
That is my view of the situation, but I may be in left field. Do others see it this way?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nor is their sense of threat an imaginary one. Islam relies on attitudes to authority, an unquestioning loyalty to Islamic teachings, and lifestyle restrictions, which are unlikely to survive long term exposure to Western ideas.
The same could have been said of Christianity prior to the development of those ideas. And while it's true that the Church is no longer the ultimate power in society that it once was, it still exists. The same will be true of Islam. What we are seeing is the dying pains of Islam as the ultimate power in middle eastern societies.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And while it's true that the Church is no longer the ultimate power in society that it once was, it still exists. The same will be true of Islam. What we are seeing is the dying pains of Islam as the ultimate power in middle eastern societies.
Yes. Nicely put.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What we are seeing is the dying pains of Islam as the ultimate power in middle eastern societies.
What do you mean by this? There are secular governments of various stripes in various Muslim-majority countries. This may anger some extremist groups, but AFAIK there's little sign that Islam is declining as the dominant belief system in the Middle East in the way that Christianity is doing in the West.
Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world and will most likely overtake Christianity before the end of the century. This is largely to do with population growth. The projections don't seem to involve very large numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims leaving the religion.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world and will most likely overtake Christianity before the end of the century. This is largely to do with population growth. The projections don't seem to involve very large numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims leaving the religion.
I don't argue with this.
Does this necessarily conflict with the idea that Western culture challenges Islam and that reactionary Islamic elements feel threatened?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Freddy
I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'Islamic extremism'. For some individuals it may be a deliberate rejection of Westernisation (and that too could be defined in different ways. In most cases it's not a rejection of everything modern.)
However, most of the world's Muslim 'extremists' have no particular connection with the West. Most Muslim 'terrorism' is aimed at other Muslims, many of whom are probably not very Westernised by our standards, although they may have a different theology or lifestyle from their attackers.
The other problem with seeing Islamic extremism or terrorism as a sign of change in the Middle East is that, as we know, there's been warfare among Muslims, and between Muslims and others, for centuries. It's not a sign of anything new in the world.
[ 10. September 2016, 01:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
All good points. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For some individuals it may be a deliberate rejection of Westernisation (and that too could be defined in different ways. In most cases it's not a rejection of everything modern.)
I'm not so much thinking of it as a rejection of Westernization as a feeling of being threatened by the West in any number of ways. Certainly many extremists embrace much about the West.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most Muslim 'terrorism' is aimed at other Muslims, many of whom are probably not very Westernised by our standards, although they may have a different theology or lifestyle from their attackers.
This is an important point. Why would this be?
As you note, there is a long tradition of this kind of struggle.
But I think that another point is that fellow Muslims who are seen as somehow complicit with the Western threat are the most important and common targets.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The other problem with seeing Islamic extremism or terrorism as a sign of change in the Middle East is that, as we know, there's been warfare among Muslims, and between Muslims and others, for centuries. It's not a sign of anything new in the world.
Yes, it's nothing new. But there has always been warfare among Christians as well, and that seems to have subsided somewhat. Of course if Trump is elected that may change...
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The national states in the Islamic world, save perhaps Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan (?others) are not really functioning countries. Those that once did, like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria we have gone about deliberately destabilizing with foolish ideas that we can transplant our societal structures without any social and political development within the populations of these countries. In Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan they have degenerated into warlord fiefdoms where extortion, kidnappings, selling people as slaves and other forms of corrupt gaining of wealth dominate (for the young fighters it sounds like rape-marriages is a motivation). So the people hate their nonfunctional governments, see the external forces of western countries as facilitating "rent seeking" where their resources are exported and the average person doesn't benefit, while the controlling elite do.
So we end up with countries where the populace is alienated from the weak structures of the state (if it even exists any more, like in Iraq and Syria), which operate to serve the powerful elite which is in power. Then along comes a religious ideology which offers a clean-up and something that looks better than what there is. And gives some hope for a better world. Life must really be shit in some of these places if ISIL looks like a better world. And apparently we did it to them.
The blame is pointed at both the west and at the home countries. And more are killed and exploited in the home countries than are in the west. We compound the thing by bombing and starving and sanctioning, which further tells these countries and peoples that we are enemy and we lie when we talk of democracy, fairness and freedom.
A good read about how this works is Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy (Francis Fukuyama), which I finally got through over the summer (was an Xmas present). I found myself persuaded that we haven't understood how we have contributed to the decay and destruction of nascent rule of law, beginnings of democracy, and principles of public good in many of these countries. We also haven't done ourselves any favours by allying with demagoguery like the Saudis.
The alienation that some young people feel in our countries - the home grown terrorists - how is it that they can be so alienated to want to destroy and kill when they are presumably benefitting here? I expect that something like lack of hope and feeling they can never make it underlies it. But there must be other factors.
It started long before September 11 attacks. We've been on this trail for a long time. A Canadian professor, Sunera Thobani said this on October 1st 2001, from her feminist perspective, and I think it probably is an example of the sort of ideas that underlie terrorism against us.
quote:
Today, [our foreign policy] is one of the most dangerous and the most powerful global forces that is unleashing prolific levels of violence all over the world...All of us have seen and felt the dramatic pain of watching the September 11th attacks... But do we feel any pain for the victims of [our] aggression? Two hundred thousand people were killed in the initial war on Iraq. That bombing of Iraq has continued for 10 years now.... [our] foreign policy is soaked in blood.
(edits are mine, I don't think it is fair to name a single country, see link for the original)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
no prophet's explanation seems the most plausible by far.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Yes, no prophet's thoughts impress me, too, but I think there is also a more cultural and ideological struggle going on. Western culture is undermining patriarchy, and that is a problem for the cultures most religions come from, certainly for Islam.
The shorthand for this, and I love crude over simplifications, is that feminism is the biggest thing to have happened in our life times. Its implications lie behind every controversial subject on Ship of Fools, every argument convulsing the church, most of the issues governments are grappling with today (Brexit, Trump, grammar schools, immigration ... corporate taxation, economic stagnation, Internet surveillance and freedom maybe not so much), and are the icon, and perhaps the motive force behind the attack on patriarchy which has so bewildered the Church and is such a threat to Islamic culture.
I'm not aware of any coherent theological debate going on in Islam. I'm not sure it has the resources to respond to this.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think what's missing from this discussion is any reference to the deliberate promotion of radical Wahhabism by the House of Saud. Saudi funded Mosques and Imams are everywhere, propped up by oil wealth flowing from Saudi Arabia. There has been a deliberate strategy to promote this extreme, radically conservative form of Islam. Whether that's out of devotion on the part of the House of Saud or realpolitik thinking that it's a means to extend the soft power of Saudi Arabia in preparation for a post-oil future is a moot point.
It's as if, say, the Free Presbyterians suddenly found themselves with billions of pounds and used it to promote metrical psalms, Catholic hating and strict Sabbatarianism by funding churches and ministers throughout the Christian world. Would any of us think that the resulting success was a reaction to an external threat, or would we simply recognise the impact of money even in the realms of faith?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, no prophet's thoughts impress me, too, but I think there is also a more cultural and ideological struggle going on.
I agree. I think that no prophet has given a great description of how that ideological struggle plays out on the ground.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The shorthand for this, and I love crude over simplifications, is that feminism is the biggest thing to have happened in our life times. Its implications lie behind every controversial subject on Ship of Fools, every argument convulsing the church, most of the issues governments are grappling with today...
That is a fascinating insight.
Are you sure that feminism is the best way to describe it? How about sexual revolution?
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm not aware of any coherent theological debate going on in Islam. I'm not sure it has the resources to respond to this.
The lack of coherent intellectual resources to respond is exactly what I am talking about. The most important response is therefore reactionary hostility.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think what's missing from this discussion is any reference to the deliberate promotion of radical Wahhabism by the House of Saud.
Isn't this deliberate promotion a reactionary response to perceived threats to Islam?
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Would any of us think that the resulting success was a reaction to an external threat, or would we simply recognise the impact of money even in the realms of faith?
The money would not be there if those who are providing it did not see it as a great cause.
I don't want to rule out purely selfish motivations, but it seems as though similar movements in the USA attract wealthy donors through descriptions of threats to the lifeblood of American society.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Freddy said quote:
Are you sure that feminism is the best way to describe it? How about sexual revolution?
I'm not sure what the best description is. The sexual revolution, reproductive rights, equality between the sexes and more generally, a challenge to authority as traditionally wielded by men, what right wingers used to call "cultural Marxism" .. There is an entangled collection of ideas and movements, and an entangled mass of resistance to them. Power and sex and gender and authority and challenge.
I don't think it's an irrelevant side issue that Chelsea Manning whose data leak revealed things about military power that some wanted to keep dark is herself a male to female transgender person, and that her campaign, five years into a thirty five year sentence, is now about how long she may grow her hair.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm not sure what the best description is. The sexual revolution, reproductive rights, equality between the sexes and more generally, a challenge to authority as traditionally wielded by men, what right wingers used to call "cultural Marxism" .. There is an entangled collection of ideas and movements, and an entangled mass of resistance to them. Power and sex and gender and authority and challenge.
Agreed. "Entangled collection" is a good way to put it.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think it's an irrelevant side issue that Chelsea Manning...
Umm. OK.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There has always been warfare among Christians as well [as Muslims], and that seems to have subsided somewhat. Of course if Trump is elected that may change...
True, but so-called Christian involvement hasn't ended. Even without Trump running things the 'Christian world' has done a good job of physically destabilising a range of Muslim countries up to the present time, as no prophet's flag has indicated!
quote:
I think there is also a more cultural and ideological struggle going on. Western culture is undermining patriarchy, and that is a problem for the cultures most religions come from, certainly for Islam.
The shorthand for this, and I love crude over simplifications, is that feminism is the biggest thing to have happened in our life times.
This is an interesting idea. I don't remembering hearing accounts of terrorists using this as an explanation for their actions - and the young Muslim women who've unwisely travelled from Europe to Syria to participate in the struggle with ISIS presumably haven't considered the possibility at all.
The issues of women's liberation, including family planning and education, must be of significant importance in Muslim countries. There is probably a range of 'extremist' responses, which will also be influenced by class and local culture.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn’t it obvious that Western culture, whether Christian or secular, represents a potent threat to Islam?
To the extent that Western culture appears to involve believing in an entitlement to own the entire world, rather than just the bit you currently live in, yes.
But then that represents a potent threat to everything else, not just Islam.
It's arguable that much of the history of "Western culture" over the last several centuries has consisted of surprise that the rest of the world keeps objecting to erasure, and incomprehension as to why other people might not want to fully Westernise.
[ 10. September 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn’t it obvious that Western culture, whether Christian or secular, represents a potent threat to Islam?
To the extent that Western culture appears to involve believing in an entitlement to own the entire world, rather than just the bit you currently live in, yes.
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But then that represents a potent threat to everything else, not just Islam.
You would think. I'm sure that's true.
Yet much of the world seems to be fine with most of it. In any case no other part of the world has reacted as strongly as the Islamic world. Unless of course we count China walling itself off for so many years.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's arguable that much of the history of "Western culture" over the last several centuries has consisted of surprise that the rest of the world keeps objecting to erasure, and incomprehension as to why other people might not want to fully Westernise.
Thanks. That's exactly what I am trying to get at in the OP. Why the incomprehension?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The incomprehension is because Westerners think it self-evident that being Western is wonderful. After all, look at all the shiny things that Westerners have.
And the freedom! Don't forget the freedom.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The incomprehension is because Westerners think it self-evident that being Western is wonderful. After all, look at all the shiny things that Westerners have.
And the freedom! Don't forget the freedom.
Yes, yes. The freedom.
Which is not to say that I am sympathetic to Islamic extremists. But how can we combat them without showing any kind of comprehension of where they are coming from?
Sometimes I think that the best way to counter the threat of these reactionary forces would be to remove every kind of military presence near those countries and instead to do everything possible to bolster their economies.
Our military threat only serves to energize their recruiting efforts. The changing mindset that inevitably comes with economic prosperity, however, is the thing that will most effectively remove the teeth from Islamic fundamentalism.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There is one thing that has struck me about those who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. Namely, that they frequently do not live according to the tenets of Islam.
In the weeks leading up to 9/11 one of the hijackers frequented a bar and went to strip shows. Islam holds both of these activities to be wrong.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sometimes I think that the best way to counter the threat of these reactionary forces would be to remove every kind of military presence near those countries and instead to do everything possible to bolster their economies.
There is a direct correlation between a military presence and suicide bombing, as shown by the work of Professor Robert Pape.
I don't think there's quite the correlation with terrorism more generally. But there is probably some relationship.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by where terrorists don't tend to come from. For example, Iran. A theocratic state. If it was all about being extremely religious West-haters, you would think Iran would be an excellent source of Islamic terrorists.
But, while Iran is generally believed to have provided sponsorship of some groups at various times, you don't find many Iranian terrorists.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sometimes I think that the best way to counter the threat of these reactionary forces would be to remove every kind of military presence near those countries and instead to do everything possible to bolster their economies.
There is a direct correlation between a military presence and suicide bombing, as shown by the work of Professor Robert Pape.
I don't think there's quite the correlation with terrorism more generally. But there is probably some relationship.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by where terrorists don't tend to come from. For example, Iran. A theocratic state. If it was all about being extremely religious West-haters, you would think Iran would be an excellent source of Islamic terrorists.
But, while Iran is generally believed to have provided sponsorship of some groups at various times, you don't find many Iranian terrorists.
This is an excellent point. I think describing jihadism as 'Islamic extremism' is incorrect, since jihadism is as much political as religious.
I wonder if this hampers deradicalization programmes in the West, which seem to focus on the religious aspects?
Other points above are correct, e.g. the reaction to Western intrusion, the role of Saudi Wahhabism, and their rivalry with Iran. Another factor is the role of Arab secularism, which dominated for many years in some countries; thus secularism has been discredited.
Another factor is the ways in which Sunni tribes feel displaced in Iraq and Syria, and have therefore allied both with Al Qaeda and IS.
It's incredibly complex, and not just about 'extreme Islam'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sober Preacher's Kid
In the UK there's an attempt to create formal training courses for imams, particularly to help them tackle the risk of extremism among some of the impressionable young people in their care. And many young Muslims study Islam as part of Religious Studies at school, and even continue their theological studies at university.
But in general, it's probably the case that British Islam is less middle class and intellectual than its Canadian counterpart. Many Muslim immigrants in the UK come from rural communities in places like Pakistan, Bengal, Bangladesh and now Somalia, and don't arrive with a high level of education. Many will move to parts of Britain where Muslims are already a significant presence, due to earlier waves of immigration. And until quite recently, Pakistani parents would often marry their children to cousins, often relatives from back home.
These practices make 'integration' more challenging, although the picture is very mixed.
[ 10. September 2016, 15:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
it's !!! IT'S !!! The horror of it all.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
Pardon?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is one thing that has struck me about those who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. Namely, that they frequently do not live according to the tenets of Islam.
While that was clearly true in the case you mention, I can't believe it is true of the majority. I don't know; but one anecdote doesn't make an argument.
[ 10. September 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
British Universities can't sprout madrassahs?
The University of Toronto saw it as enlightened self-interest. Some of those newer Canadians will surely have a mid-life crisis and wish to enroll in some religious courses. And a public university ought to support them in that.
And if it helps keep the costs down for Christian programmes by sharing the infrastructure costs more widely, everybody wins. (This is why the Catholics are now sharing space with a rabbinical seminary.)
You know, last year somebody torched the mosque here in Peterborough, Ontario. On purpose.
Within hours, the congregation received emergency accommodation in a United Church auditorium. The next day, they made temporary arrangements to hold services at the local synagogue. I know the synagogue president, he would give you the shirt off his back.
Within the week, there were sufficient community funds donated to restore the mosque completely and the imam had to request publicly that no further donations be sent.
Perhaps the problem is not with the muslims but with everyone else.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The book I referenced is the foundation of my understanding.
The missing part of my understanding is how someone, a young person, sits in front of a computer a western country, goes to a mosque, and then gets murderous ideas, either travelling off and joining these terror groups, or getting a weapon, bomb, or vehicle and kills people where he\ she lives. The thought processes and rage necessary are beyond my ken. Is it delusion? How do they get to this?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Yeah. I mean, you'd struggle to think of a major cosmopolitan English city which recently elected a Muslim mayor who had voted for gay marriage when he was an MP. That would never happen.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The book I referenced is the foundation of my understanding.
The missing part of my understanding is how someone, a young person, sits in front of a computer a western country, goes to a mosque, and then gets murderous ideas, either travelling off and joining these terror groups, or getting a weapon, bomb, or vehicle and kills people where he\ she lives. The thought processes and rage necessary are beyond my ken. Is it delusion? How do they get to this?
I don't find it that baffling. There are plenty of alienated young people, in many countries. Add in racial discrimination (as in France against Muslims), and a family ancestry in N. Africa, and an animosity against Western incursions in the ME.
The West kills plenty of people, and then expresses surprise/dismay when people strike back.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are plenty of alienated young people, in many countries. Add in racial discrimination (as in France against Muslims), and a family ancestry in N. Africa, and an animosity against Western incursions in the ME.
Alienation, yes. Young men who feel they have no stake in society, nothing to lose.
I often wonder if simply giving them a stake in society - something to lose - would dramatically reduce the number who are willing to blow themselves up or kill as many of us as possible before getting gunned down. You very rarely hear of a rich suicide bomber. Rich terrorist leaders, yes, but not foot soldiers.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Young men who feel they have no stake in society, nothing to lose.
I often wonder if simply giving them a stake in society - something to lose - would dramatically reduce the number who are willing to blow themselves up or kill as many of us as possible before getting gunned down.
I have been thinking this very thing ever since the Nice attacks.
It's quite counter-intuitive, because it would mean the answer to radicalisation is giving people responsibility. Unfortunately I think this idea is unlikely to gain traction.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Yeah. I mean, you'd struggle to think of a major cosmopolitan English city which recently elected a Muslim mayor who had voted for gay marriage when he was an MP. That would never happen.
Apples and chalk mate.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn’t it obvious that Western culture, whether Christian or secular, represents a potent threat to Islam?
Not that Islam can’t survive in the West. It does well in many Western countries. But almost every aspect of Western culture is an affront to the values and attitudes of the Islamic world.
It is not just that they see us as immoral and atheistic, but that this immorality and secularism is aggressively and continually exported into every country that does business with the West. Everything from fashion to cinema to alcohol and social media are almost unstoppable agents of a lifestyle that is anathema to faithful Muslims.
And that is without even mentioning the political and military interventions that have plagued them for hundreds of years.
Nor is their sense of threat an imaginary one. Islam relies on attitudes to authority, an unquestioning loyalty to Islamic teachings, and lifestyle restrictions, which are unlikely to survive long term exposure to Western ideas.
I think the main problem with this assessment is that it's essentially an argumentum ad Scotsman, defining your case into existence rather than demonstrating it. For example, you seem to be arguing that Keith Ellison and Sadiq Khan aren't really Muslims because they participate in representative democracy (so they miss the "authoritarian" check box), use social media and they usually wear Western fashions.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it's saying that militant Islamism just is Islam. Well, IS would agree with that!
That's why I object to the term 'Islamic extremism'. You have to distinguish Islam, Islamism, militant Islamism, and violent militant Islamism, and then distinguish all the other varieties of Islam, e.g. Sufism.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think the main problem with this assessment is that it's essentially an argumentum ad Scotsman, defining your case into existence rather than demonstrating it. For example, you seem to be arguing that Keith Ellison and Sadiq Khan aren't really Muslims because they participate in representative democracy (so they miss the "authoritarian" check box), use social media and they usually wear Western fashions.
Fair point.
I had never heard of "Argument ad Scotsman." Good one!
Still, just because many things about Western culture are widely seen as an affront to Islamic values, this does not necessarily mean that they will be taken that way by all Muslims, or that those who don't take it that way are not true Muslims.
The question I am trying to answer is the mystified response of Westerners who seem to have no idea why so many in the Islamic world seem to have a negative view of us.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think the main problem with this assessment is that it's essentially an argumentum ad Scotsman, defining your case into existence rather than demonstrating it. For example, you seem to be arguing that Keith Ellison and Sadiq Khan aren't really Muslims because they participate in representative democracy (so they miss the "authoritarian" check box), use social media and they usually wear Western fashions.
Fair point.
I had never heard of "Argument ad Scotsman." Good one!
Still, just because many things about Western culture are widely seen as an affront to Islamic values, this does not necessarily mean that they will be taken that way by all Muslims, or that those who don't take it that way are not true Muslims.
The question I am trying to answer is the mystified response of Westerners who seem to have no idea why so many in the Islamic world seem to have a negative view of us.
Once again, the answer to that would seem to rest on how you define "the Islamic world". Are Keith Ellison and Sadiq Khan part of "the Islamic world"? Neither of them seems to have a notably negative view of "us". How about the late Muhammad Ali? Ali was pretty clear on why he had a negative view of "us".
What's interesting here is the way "Muslim" and "Westerner" are seen as mutually exclusive categories, so that no one who is a Muslim will ever be considered a Westerner.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My best friend was a Sufi, so I suppose he was part of the 'Islamic world'. This is just lazy thinking.
I am mystified why anyone would be puzzled that some people in the Middle East are hostile to the West. They must have missed out history and politics in their education.
[ 10. September 2016, 19:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We had a Canadian lad early 20s, normal Canadian family. No connection to the terror people until he pursued it. This is the stuff I don't get.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's interesting here is the way "Muslim" and "Westerner" are seen as mutually exclusive categories, so that no one who is a Muslim will ever be considered a Westerner.
I fully admit that it is completely wrong, maybe even immoral, to reduce society to these kinds of categories. I'm sure everyone knows that this kind of oversimplification results in just those kinds of absurdities.
Clearly we do it anyway, and I apologize.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My best friend was a Sufi, so I suppose he was part of the 'Islamic world'. This is just lazy thinking.
Yes it is.
I think that the rule is that no individuals that we actually know are part of any "world", nor do any of our lazy and careless generalizations apply to them.
This includes us. I know that I myself do not identify with any of these categories.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am mystified why anyone would be puzzled that some people in the Middle East are hostile to the West. They must have missed out history and politics in their education.
Yes, I find myself frequently shouting at the idiots on the news.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are plenty of alienated young people, in many countries. Add in racial discrimination (as in France against Muslims), and a family ancestry in N. Africa, and an animosity against Western incursions in the ME.
Alienation, yes. Young men who feel they have no stake in society, nothing to lose.
I often wonder if simply giving them a stake in society - something to lose - would dramatically reduce the number who are willing to blow themselves up or kill as many of us as possible before getting gunned down. You very rarely hear of a rich suicide bomber. Rich terrorist leaders, yes, but not foot soldiers.
Look up the "Aarhus model" (named after the 2nd-largest city in Denmark where this is happening) and you will find a place that is giving people a stake in society for exactly this reason.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
British Universities can't sprout madrassahs?
The University of Toronto saw it as enlightened self-interest. [...]
And if it helps keep the costs down for Christian programmes by sharing the infrastructure costs more widely, everybody wins. (This is why the Catholics are now sharing space with a rabbinical seminary.)
[...]
I believe there is university training for Muslim clerics in some cities. (That's what I meant when I referred to official training.) But it's not compulsory.
A lot of imams in the UK are recent immigrants, and they may not have sufficient English or academic skills to do a typical university course. As I say, though, there have been attempts to address these problems.
With regard to Muslims borrowing churches in an emergency, there are some occasions where that's happened. But, TBH with you, in a number of British cities Muslim groups don't need to borrow churches; they buy them.
There are some interfaith engagements. A few weeks ago I went to a church concert which involved live Islamic music as well as a church choir. This sort of thing creates connections, but I don't know if it reduces 'extremism' as such.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
People are talking as though 'Islamic extremism' was one thing. To my mind, there's a difference between 'Let's blow up the West' extremism and 'Lock up your women' extremism, although any individual extremist may participate in both.
E.g. in the film Four Lions, Omar's brother refuses to debate with or be in the same room as a woman, but he also tries to dissuade Omar from blowing stuff up. The positive take is that ultra-strict Muslims aren't terrorists. OTOH, if Omar didn't exist I don't think we would see his brother as the good guy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I believe there is university training for Muslim clerics in some cities. (That's what I meant when I referred to official training.) But it's not compulsory.
Some universities also offer courses for Christian ministers, but they're also not compulsory. A lot of Christian ministers have little, or no, formal training. So, it's not just a mark of Islamic extremism.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re formal training of clergy:
For a while, many years ago, I attended a little charismatic church. Very informal. Maybe 30-40 people, on a good day, in a borrowed/rented space.
Lay pastor, and he was very good. I don't know if he had any formal training; but he could lead the group; discuss God, the Bible, and life; and was a joy to be around.
I sometimes miss that church.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
People are talking as though 'Islamic extremism' was one thing.
Excellent point. Extremism comes in all shapes and sizes - some harmful, some beneficial, most unremarkable.
Nothing is "one thing". Every person is a unique individual. We generalize only to try to get our minds around perceived commonalities.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
After all, look at all the shiny things that Westerners have.
And the freedom! Don't forget the freedom.
Poor Muslims living under theocracies are actually bloody lucky that we are prepared to share with them our Western middle-class experience of how boring prosperity and freedom actually are, and how incapable of producing the true happiness which their quaint, simple and colorful lives offer.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Poor Muslims living under theocracies are actually bloody lucky that we are prepared to share with them our Western middle-class experience of how boring prosperity and freedom actually are, and how incapable of producing the true happiness which their quaint, simple and colorful lives offer.
Forewarned is forearmed. I wonder why no one has made pamphlets to send.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Some universities also offer courses for Christian ministers, but they're also not compulsory. A lot of Christian ministers have little, or no, formal training. So, it's not just a mark of Islamic extremism.
Indeed. I certainly wasn't arguing that any religious group should be obliged to train its clergy in a way that outsiders deem acceptable.
Some sociologists argue that too much academic training in the clergy can become detrimental to church life and vitality, but that's a topic for another another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
People are talking as though 'Islamic extremism' was one thing. To my mind, there's a difference between 'Let's blow up the West' extremism and 'Lock up your women' extremism, although any individual extremist may participate in both.
I agree that 'extremism' is a term that can cover almost anything. I'm assuming that the OP was using the term to mean some kind of terrorism, or perhaps support from terrorism.
If it simply means a strict adherence to religious beliefs and practices, then of course there are Christians who are also very strict - although studies seem to show that Christians generally feel less bound to adhere to particular practices or to hold certain (orthodox) beliefs. Islam is often described as a 'way of life', whereas Christianity is commonly seen as having a more subtle function.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Yeah. I mean, you'd struggle to think of a major cosmopolitan English city which recently elected a Muslim mayor who had voted for gay marriage when he was an MP. That would never happen.
Apples and chalk mate.
Gnomic as always. Care to explain why?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Alienation, yes. Young men who feel they have no stake in society, nothing to lose.
I often wonder if simply giving them a stake in society - something to lose - would dramatically reduce the number who are willing to blow themselves up
Channeling the energies of young males in non-destructive directions is an issue for all human societies. In the pre-civilised state for which we evolved, young males had considerable status as the warriors of the tribe. If we don't need warriors, what's the route to status for young men ?
Western society hasn't entirely solved the problem, but found a partial solution in:
- football
- romance
- a standing army engaged in "police actions" abroad.
Islamic/Arabic culture (and I don't know exactly where the religious ends and the other begins) offers instead the prospect of being a martyr for the faith.
Anyone can find things to be angry about. Television brings us 24-hour coverage of the wrongs (by our lights) that other countries commit.
But whilst a common form of Christianity teaches us to be meek and mild nice people who don't display anger, Islam teaches that infidels are a legitimate target for anger.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My local imam doesn't seem to preach about anger; he seems to go on about Islam being a religion of peace. I guess he's 'not a true Muslim' (along the lines of the Scotsman fallacy).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Russ,
quote:
But whilst a common form of Christianity teaches us to be meek and mild nice people who don't display anger, Islam teaches that infidels are a legitimate target for anger.
This, given its history, is a greater condemnation of Christianity than Islam.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So when Christians were burning people - for about a 1000 years, I think - this wasn't anger, but a purer form of love. Hot, hotter, hottest, is God's love.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So when Christians were burning people - for about a 1000 years, I think - this wasn't anger, but a purer form of love. Hot, hotter, hottest, is God's love.
Yes. Only by burning them alive would they be prepared to burn forever in the afterlife.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Russ,
quote:
But whilst a common form of Christianity teaches us to be meek and mild nice people who don't display anger, Islam teaches that infidels are a legitimate target for anger.
This, given its history, is a greater condemnation of Christianity than Islam.
As I recall it's not so much that we don't display anger - some things we should be angry about if we love and care;it's that we carry on the fight 'not with physical weapons' as Paul put it, and that we keep a watch on our anger so that we don't 'lose it' in various harmful ways.
Ignore the Scotsman - in this kind of discussion that pseudo-argument is being inappropriately applied.
As I've pointed out previously, much of the problem here is that Islam was consciously set up by Muhammad to be a 'state religion' and therefore Muhammad himself saw it as proper to practice war/persecution to set up his Islamic state, to defend it, and to expand it. And that approach is heavily supported in the Quran.
It is true that Muhammad voices aspirations of peace, I think he even thought at first that he would achieve his goals in the Arab state by peaceable means. But once he opted for war 'with physical weapons' and used warfare to take over Mecca and set up his Islamic state, he built into the faith an inherent contradiction which cannot easily be resolved by anyone trying to be faithful to Muslim fundamental teaching.
I suspect Muhammad would have been worried by much of the conduct of the modern 'IS' - but had he been a true prophet he would have realised that such things would follow from his contradictory teaching and acts.
Christianity was set up differently by Jesus and the NT portrays it in a very different and at least on the Christian side peaceable relationship to the surrounding non-Christian state. The subsequent growth of 'Christian states' and their bad consequences is not part of original Christianity but an alien imposition by C4 Roman Emperors. (Not to mention that the history of that form of Christianity is a good demonstration of why Jesus set up something different!!)
Islamic extremism originates from Muhammad's twin errors of founding a 'religious state' and (more or less inevitably) using war and other coercive means on behalf of his faith as a result. Ultimately the only way to deal with it is to point out this error in the faith and persuade people to leave Islam for a truer faith. For some Christians they will only be able to take that option AFTER they have rooted out the 'state church' error from their Christianity.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see why the Scotsman fallacy is inappropriate. My Muslim neighbours and friends are very peaceful people. So does this mean that they are bad Muslims, or in terms of the Scotsman fallacy, 'not true Muslims'? I guess that IS would agree.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Yeah. I mean, you'd struggle to think of a major cosmopolitan English city which recently elected a Muslim mayor who had voted for gay marriage when he was an MP. That would never happen.
Apples and chalk mate.
Gnomic as always. Care to explain why?
You understood exactly what I meant I believe: it's a false comparison between cultures. We have Sadiq Khan, Canada has 'The Dawn Foundation ... a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.'. The biggest mosque in liberal Muslim Keith Vaz' Leicester is Salafist. My excellent devout Sunni neighbour denies that the mosque is Sunni, denouncing them, literally, as extremists. He goes to a Majlis. I have received nothing but neighbourly politeness from the traditionally garbed Muslim lads in the neighbourhood and men going to prayers at the Salafist mosque. I encounter occasional lone liberal Muslims, 1:100 if that. My Kurd barber is one, extremely outspoken and secular with me, critical of his culture and the one he has to swim in here, in which I thankfully established he has to be extremely discreet. I can think of three others I've met, including a Bangladeshi who regards the Hajj as a con and one who nearly became my step-son-in-law.
I look forward to the widow Zubaida plying me with multiple large containers of Asian food for the greater Eid, Al-Adha, starting tomorrow. I shall wear my keffiyeh with pride when I go the the celebrations.
I don't fear for my safety, despite a demented Somali trying to take it from me, but I do for the local Ahmadiyya shopkeeper.
I encounter Islam as a very broad church. Do you know any Muslims?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
I don't see why the Scotsman fallacy is inappropriate.
In previous threads I found the Scotsman fallacy being used inappropriately. My point is that in a religion which has developed over time and shows variation of belief and/or practice there is a genuine need to look at the developments and try to decide which are legitimate developments and which are perhaps going down the wrong track - that is, which are the 'real' form of the faith, and which are a false form of it. This is a very different kind of issue to the kind of prejudice the Scotsman fallacy represents; it needs serious discussion which unfortunately can be derailed by thoughtless references to the 'true Scotsman' line of thought.
Just because someone uses phrases like 'real Christianity' or 'true Islam' does not mean he is guilty of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy; it can mean that he is trying to have a genuine and necessary argument/discussion on which of rival versions of a faith is objectively the true or original version.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The Scotsman fallacy is about purity or essentialism. Thus IS, and other militants, use it about some other Muslims - they are not true Muslims, therefore deserve punishment.
Bizarrely enough, you do find some Westerners also using it, in order to prove that Islam is inherently violent. Well, my Muslim neigbours and friends are not violent - are they therefore not true Muslims?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
The Scotsman fallacy is about purity or essentialism.
As I read it the 'true Scotsman fallacy' is about getting yourself out of an embarrassment which starts with the prejudiced statement "No Scotsman..." and then finds that actually some ethnic Scots do do whatever it is. This is a rather different situation to asking whether, say, Mormonism or Anabaptism (or possibly something else) is the 'true' form of Christianity.
As regards Islam's 'inherent violence' I think the point is as I stated it - that Muhammad built into the religion conflicting aspirations to peace on the one hand and a religious state with the wars etc. to defend/expand it on the other hand.
Had Muhammad personally in his lifetime remained clearly peaceable throughout, then a situation might have developed akin to that in Christianity where the war and violence was brought in later and could be fairly straightforwardly argued to not be the true or original teaching. But it is hard to argue against the 'inherent violence' when the warfare, the persecution of dissenters, and the 'religious state' in the first place clearly goes back to the founding prophet and to what he gave out as the supposed Word of God.
I think Muhammad intended that Islamic warfare etc should be on lines similar to the Western concept of 'Just War'. I've studied that enough to realise that in reality that can be a very 'slippery' concept, and we have a millennium-and-a-half of the false 'state religion' form of Christianity, from Constantine/Theodosius down to the likes of Ian Paisley, to show how easy it is even in the name of Jesus to justify all kinds of horrors as supposedly 'Just War'. Christians are supposed to follow Jesus' and Paul's teaching that the warfare of the faith is without physical weapons.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Steve L,
Your post in rely to me merely furthers my point. If Chriatianity is about Peace and Islam violence, then Christians have fucked up more. And for the vast majority of their existence. You also ignore the OT. And, unless Christians completely repudiate the OT, you need to interpret. You know, like the peaceful Muslims do.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
lilBuddha, exactly, Islam was born of Christianity's catastrophic institutionalized failure.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam is becoming the dominant religious belief system in the old West too. There's no sign of it's decline in Europe anywhere and it will be far more effective at proselytizing than Christianity. You can only marry in. The availability of alcohol, female nudity, gambling, tobacco, dogs, representational art in Leicester doesn't affect The Ahmeds At Number 7 for 3 generations at all in their devotions.
What's to understand?
Nonsense.
Junior Ahmed's cousin in Toronto is off to the Dawn Foundation in Toronto, which the the Toronto School of Theology's effort to create an imam program. (It is a public university after all).
The Dawn Foundation runs a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.
That's nice dear. New West. Doesn't happen here.
Yeah. I mean, you'd struggle to think of a major cosmopolitan English city which recently elected a Muslim mayor who had voted for gay marriage when he was an MP. That would never happen.
Apples and chalk mate.
Gnomic as always. Care to explain why?
You understood exactly what I meant I believe: it's a false comparison between cultures. We have Sadiq Khan, Canada has 'The Dawn Foundation ... a nice, middle of the road Canadian-sensitive and aware program, it is NOT those koran thumpers from Saudi Arabia.'. The biggest mosque in liberal Muslim Keith Vaz' Leicester is Salafist. My excellent devout Sunni neighbour denies that the mosque is Sunni, denouncing them, literally, as extremists. He goes to a Majlis. I have received nothing but neighbourly politeness from the traditionally garbed Muslim lads in the neighbourhood and men going to prayers at the Salafist mosque. I encounter occasional lone liberal Muslims, 1:100 if that. My Kurd barber is one, extremely outspoken and secular with me, critical of his culture and the one he has to swim in here, in which I thankfully established he has to be extremely discreet. I can think of three others I've met, including a Bangladeshi who regards the Hajj as a con and one who nearly became my step-son-in-law.
I look forward to the widow Zubaida plying me with multiple large containers of Asian food for the greater Eid, Al-Adha, starting tomorrow. I shall wear my keffiyeh with pride when I go the the celebrations.
I don't fear for my safety, despite a demented Somali trying to take it from me, but I do for the local Ahmadiyya shopkeeper.
I encounter Islam as a very broad church. Do you know any Muslims?
Ironically, in the leafy shires the two who immediately spring to mind are married to Christians. Probably not representative. The plural of anecdote, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I agree with you about the broad church thing. So I'm not convinced that 3rd generation Muslims hold the same views as 1st generation Muslims. There's an ongoing debate with some Muslims reacting against western society and some being influenced by it. How that ends I don't know but Muslim liberality, such as it is, is as much a relevant datum as Muslim illiberality.
Oh, and don't ever claim that I am pretending to misunderstand you. When I think you are wrong, as you often are
I'll say as much without dancing around the issue.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan: I'm not convinced that 3rd generation Muslims hold the same views as 1st generation Muslims.
In fact, some research suggests that younger British Muslims are often more religiously radical than their parents.
The ones who earn enough to move to the leafy shires and mix largely with non-Muslims are obviously reflecting a different development. They may also come from a different ethnic and cultural background. (Some groups have a tendency to be more secular, or to develop a secular identity, more quickly than others.) In any case, since they live and mix in a very different environment from the people we're mostly discussing on this thread, they're not present to influence the others.
Famous British Muslims are a special case. The influence of Sadiq Khan will be interesting to follow, since the vast majority of British Muslims, like him, are of Pakistani heritage.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Poor Muslims living under theocracies are actually bloody lucky that we are prepared to share with them our Western middle-class experience of how boring prosperity and freedom actually are, and how incapable of producing the true happiness which their quaint, simple and colorful lives offer.
Forewarned is forearmed. I wonder why no one has made pamphlets to send.
Great idea.
They need to be alerted to the fact that any yearnings for prosperity and freedom which they might experience represent a pernicious "false consciousness" induced by CIA/Mossad propaganda.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
After all, look at all the shiny things that Westerners have.
And the freedom! Don't forget the freedom.
Poor Muslims living under theocracies are actually bloody lucky that we are prepared to share with them our Western middle-class experience of how boring prosperity and freedom actually are, and how incapable of producing the true happiness which their quaint, simple and colorful lives offer.
Sigh. I supposed I asked for that false dichotomy.
What I'm actually trying to target is the behaviour sometimes exhibited that material goods and individual "freedom" are the be-all and end-all, a kind of trump card and therefore the kind of thing no-one could possibly say no to.
I'm not against either of those things. What I am against is constantly telling everybody that they can't possibly be happy unless they maximise those things. That's exactly what advertising companies do, and the whole point is to put us on a never-ending quest to acquire more and more things and more and more personal autonomy on utterly trivial things.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Since Iran was used as an example earlier it's worth reflecting that one of the West's most significant interventions was to overthrow a democratically elected Iranian President, colluding with and putting the murderous and torturing Shah Reza in power until the revolution. Another significant intervention was to arm Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and provide satellite imagery to allow Iraq to target chemical weapons on Iranian troops and significant targets in Iranian territory.
It's interesting that we sometimes find ourselves as struggling to communicate the benefits of Western freedom and democracy to Muslims, it might be our illustrative actions that deserves greatest attention in this communication gulf.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
The Scotsman fallacy is about purity or essentialism.
As I read it the 'true Scotsman fallacy' is about getting yourself out of an embarrassment which starts with the prejudiced statement "No Scotsman..." and then finds that actually some ethnic Scots do do whatever it is.
Actually it's about artificially defining your categories to deliberately exclude cases which disprove whatever point is being made. For instance, despite the fact that Sadiq Khan and Keith Ellison claim to be Muslims, some will argue that they can't really be Muslims because they haven't tried to establish a religious government or engaged in the violence which is inherent in their faith (as helpfully pointed out by non-Muslims who know better than they do). In other words, all Muslims are violent theocrats because anyone who isn't a violent theocrat cannot, by definition, be a Muslim. They don't count or are a "special case".
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Poor Muslims living under theocracies are actually bloody lucky that we are prepared to share with them our Western middle-class experience of how boring prosperity and freedom actually are, and how incapable of producing the true happiness which their quaint, simple and colorful lives offer.
Unleash the freedom bombs! So generous!
And I understand that some Iraqis were a bit miffed at this generous sharing of Western technology. No pleasing some people, I guess.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
originally by Croesos;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[qb] by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
The Scotsman fallacy is about purity or essentialism.
As I read it the 'true Scotsman fallacy' is about getting yourself out of an embarrassment which starts with the prejudiced statement "No Scotsman..." and then finds that actually some ethnic Scots do do whatever it is.
Actually it's about artificially defining your categories to deliberately exclude cases which disprove whatever point is being made. For instance, despite the fact that Sadiq Khan and Keith Ellison claim to be Muslims, some will argue that they can't really be Muslims because they haven't tried to establish a religious government or engaged in the violence which is inherent in their faith (as helpfully pointed out by non-Muslims who know better than they do). In other words, all Muslims are violent theocrats because anyone who isn't a violent theocrat cannot, by definition, be a Muslim. They don't count or are a "special case".
Steve Langton's response ;
(having slightly slipped in applying the UBB while editing out Croesos' comments on someone else's post)
Agreed; but the key phrase there is "artificially defining your categories". What I've been objecting to is applying the Scotsman fallacy in the situation where there is not so much an 'artificial defining of categories' but a real case of there being variant views of/within the religion and a serious need to examine both sides and determine where the truth might be.
I understand the sarcasm registered in your comment about "...as helpfully pointed out by non-Muslims who know better than they (the Muslims) do...." But the problem here is precisely that the Muslims are disagreeing among themselves about who is a true Muslim, and because it's affecting us outsiders we need - and have a totally valid reason and 'locus standi' in the matter - to examine the situation and discuss it and try to determine what the truth is. In that situation bringing in the 'true Scotsman fallacy' is wildly inappropriate - the situation is not about artificially defined categories, but a very real dispute even in Islam about what is 'true Islam'.
And I should point out that I'm NOT saying "all Muslims are violent theocrats because anyone who isn't a violent theocrat cannot, by definition, be a Muslim". To me, the question of who is a 'true Muslim' is verging on irrelevant because the fundamental problem is that Islam is as a whole false anyway. As I pointed out, it contains from the very beginning, from Muhammad himself and the book that he claimed to be God's word, the conflicted ideas which Muslims themselves have conspicuously failed to reconcile.
Those ideas are
1)Yes an aspiration to peace and I think an original belief on Muhammad's part that he would be able to attain his goals peaceably; but also, and undermining that aspiration
2) that Islam should be a state religion, and
3) that it can be appropriate to use warfare with real weapons in the name of Islam and on behalf of the Islamic state, and
4) that it can be appropriate to persecute even to death the 'heretics' who disagree with the prophet.
Those ideas demonstrably go back to the foundation of Islam, to the actions as well as the teaching of Muhammad and are clearly conflicted and contradictory ideas. And further, they are clearly a backwards step from the different peaceable way set up by Jesus, clearly showing that Muhammad was a false prophet in claiming to 'improve' Christianity.
In this case there are NO 'true Muslims' (and so no valid application of the Scotsman stuff) - just people dealing in different ways with the confused and conflicted ideas Muhammad left behind him. And the only true resolution is to recognise Islam as a false religion and abandon it - staying within Islam can only keep the tension of those conflicting ideas going.
Had Muhammad and the Quran expressed ONLY the peaceable version there would be a different situation; unfortunately the Islamic state, the warfare, and the persecuting dissent bits do go back to Muhammad and the Quran and have effectively equal authority with the 'peace' bits; indeed arguably just by existing and conflicting with the aspiration to peace, have in a way almost slightly more authority.
Two minor points - remind me, Croesos, what your basic standpoint is; Christian, atheist, what? And I note the Ship is thanking me for actually using the preview function because only about six Shipmates do use it. Maybe more of you should use it.....
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And I should point out that I'm NOT saying "all Muslims are violent theocrats because anyone who isn't a violent theocrat cannot, by definition, be a Muslim". To me, the question of who is a 'true Muslim' is verging on irrelevant because the fundamental problem is that Islam is as a whole false anyway. . . .
. . . In this case there are NO 'true Muslims' (and so no valid application of the Scotsman stuff) - just people dealing in different ways with the confused and conflicted ideas Muhammad left behind him.
And just like that, problem solved! There's no such thing as "Islamic extremism", so we don't need to worry about its alleged origins.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Two minor points - remind me, Croesos, what your basic standpoint is; Christian, atheist, what? And I note the Ship is thanking me for actually using the preview function because only about six Shipmates do use it. Maybe more of you should use it.....
I think my profile says "Atheist", but maybe you could use your previewing skills to check that for me. It's been a while.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
And just like that, problem solved! There's no such thing as "Islamic extremism", so we don't need to worry about its alleged origins.
Are you being obtuse and illogical on purpose?? Of course there is Islam and there is 'Islamic extremism' and it's going to take a lot of sorting out. And in case you hadn't noticed, what I've been posting is of direct relevance to understanding the origins of the extremism and how it might be better (and less violently) combated.
Sorry, should have thought of checking your profile; partly the absent-minded-professory side of Asperger at work, partly I don't think I'd ever thought of checking anybody's profile - if I can do it I'll have to remember it in future. Thanks.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To me, the question of who is a 'true Muslim' is verging on irrelevant because the fundamental problem is that Islam is as a whole false anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Are you being obtuse and illogical on purpose?? Of course there is Islam and there is 'Islamic extremism' and it's going to take a lot of sorting out. And in case you hadn't noticed, what I've been posting is of direct relevance to understanding the origins of the extremism and how it might be better (and less violently) combated.
So your posts are "of direct relevance" to a "question . . . verging on irrelevant"? And it's going to take a lot to sort out this irrelevancy?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To me, the question of who is a 'true Muslim' is verging on irrelevant because the fundamental problem is that Islam is as a whole false anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Are you being obtuse and illogical on purpose?? Of course there is Islam and there is 'Islamic extremism' and it's going to take a lot of sorting out. And in case you hadn't noticed, what I've been posting is of direct relevance to understanding the origins of the extremism and how it might be better (and less violently) combated.
So your posts are "of direct relevance" to a "question . . . verging on irrelevant"? And it's going to take a lot to sort out this irrelevancy?
me too!!!!
It may take longer to sort out your illogicality here than to sort out the problems relating to Islam....
The question which 'verges on irrelevancy' is NOT the issue of the origins of Islamic extremism, or indeed other questions about the rather obvious reality of Islam existing. The question which 'verges on irrelevancy' is the artificial 'true Scotsman' type question about there being 'true Islam'. There is little point asking who is a 'true Muslim' when as I say, Islam is false and founded on a deep contradiction. Different Muslims in different situations respond to that contradiction in different ways and with different emphases.
Many in the West, sharing Western prosperity and seeing the value of our up-till-now pluralism, have emphasised the peace side. Muslims in other countries with all kinds of problems have sought the answer in jihad and in fighting back against the West and its colonialism and exploitation and the arrogance of our politicians like Bush and Blair. I suspect that many of those go further than Muhammad might have approved; but by choosing the 'Islamic state' option and the necessary war he laid the foundations of the extremism himself.
The 'true Muslim' business is 'verging on irrelevant'. Recognising the falsity of Islam and the internal conflictedness of its teaching is very relevant to sorting out the problems Muhammad left behind him and the effect they are having on our lives now.
While as an atheist you can afford to snipe at both parties, for Christians a very important part of combating Islam will be recognising that certain late (C4 CE) additions to Christianity are not legitimate developments of the original teaching but actually contradict Jesus' and the apostles' teaching and have had bad consequences. Those false doctrines are essentially similar to the faults/contradictions I pointed out in Islam, that is, the state religion and violence in the name thereof. Christians who uphold those doctrines, even if in somewhat attenuated forms these days, are a problem in opposing Islamic extremism because they are too close to the faults of Islam themselves, and simultaneously provoke the Muslim extremists and justify the Islamic version of their faulty ideas.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The Scotsman fallacy doesn't assert that there is a true Scotsman, or in fact, true Islam, but is a critique of that.
The classic example at the moment occurs when Muslims talk about peaceful Islam, and critics say that that's not true Islam. Ironically, this includes both terrorist groups such as IS, and Western Islamophobes.
[ 12. September 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I see. So the fact that Islam is so obviously wrong is so clear to Steve Langton that this means he doesn't really need to determine which are the True Muslims, because it is all fake, y'see? But he does anyway. And, wadderyouknow, the only person in a position to tell who is, in fact, a true Muslim is the aforementioned Steve Langton.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
And just like that, problem solved! There's no such thing as "Islamic extremism", so we don't need to worry about its alleged origins.
Are you being obtuse and illogical on purpose?? Of course there is Islam and there is 'Islamic extremism' and it's going to take a lot of sorting out.
I don't know. One is characterised by praying five times a day, attending mosque on Fridays, not drinking alcohol or eating pork, fasting for a month each year and going on a Hajj. The other, in addition to these, is part of the largest active terrorist organisation.
How is that difficult to sort out? Applied intelligence is needed, not critiques of this faith against that.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Didn't we have this discussion in another thread a few months back?
Posted by Zogwarg (# 13040) on
:
Some French Muslim Scholar had a very interesting perspective after the nice attacks.
As others have pointed in this thread, or indeed at large, those who act out as terrorist aren't exactly 'devout'.
His point was basically turning around redemption. Like the wide popular support is theorized to have come from Pope Urban's promise of "of rewards in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking"; the engagement of young western Muslims might be a warped way of trying to make amends with their life.
His message in particular was calling for the muslim community not to reject those who are 'unfit'. To not give them no way back in the community, but through extremist gates (If the extremists are the only ones who will open them the door)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unleash the freedom bombs!
You're preaching to the choir.
I opposed the Iraq War for a number of reasons, including the absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, or possessed WMD.
Also, like some other leaders of repulsive regimes (Mubarak, Qaddafi, Assad), Hussein was Muslim but not Islamist, and therefore constituted some sort of bulwark against greater evils such as ISIS.
Believe it or not, it is possible to oppose the Iraq War and simultaneously oppose the trivialisation of many Muslims' desire for freedom by those who have enjoyed the luxury of being able to take it for granted all their lives.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Didn't we have this discussion in another thread a few months back?
Yes, and it polarised on the "Are Muslims inherently terrorists?" question then too. I'm not sure there's much else too be said.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zogwarg:
To not give them no way back in the community, but through extremist gates (If the extremists are the only ones who will open them the door)
(Trying to untangle the negatives...) You mean that salafist mosques, say, could be a point of entry for violent extremists into a gradually less and less violent muslim community?
[ 12. September 2016, 21:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I see. So the fact that Islam is so obviously wrong is so clear to Steve Langton that this means he doesn't really need to determine which are the True Muslims, because it is all fake, y'see? But he does anyway. And, wadderyouknow, the only person in a position to tell who is, in fact, a true Muslim is the aforementioned Steve Langton.
Actually I've been desperately trying to get away from the 'true Muslim' thing because it is indeed an irrelevant and distracting argument. The fact remains, however, that right back to Muhammad and the Quran Islam teaches the idea of an Islamic state, a kind of state Muhammad was willing to use war to establish and actually did use war to establish. Therefore Muslims are likely to believe that an Islamic state is an Allah-ordained goal to try and establish, and that war is a legitimate way to do it.
Islam does have teaching about peace; it also has that other conflicting teaching which undermines the peace aspiration. Being rude about me will not change that fact; ignoring that fact could get a lot of people killed.
Do you really believe Islam is 'true'? Oh BTW my word was not 'fake' because I believe Muhammad was at least sincere however misguided; but he was misguided and Islam is a false/untrue religion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course there is Islam and there is 'Islamic extremism' and it's going to take a lot of sorting out.
As has been observed, I think you are taking us on a wild goose chase here.
I think a much better distinction is one between religious practice and violent extremism.
This has a number of advantages.
It gets around fruitless debates on the consistency or otherwise of Islam or any other religion.
It avoids the nastiest forms of identity politics.
It has a tangible, measurable component - violence.
It recognises that not all forms of extremism are, on the face of it, religious.
I think Islamic terrorism is just a convenient hook on which much violent extremism is currently being hung. Violent extremism and its causes - not least populist politics of any stripe - would be a more constructive and less confusing target to tackle than whatever "Islamic extremism" might mean.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
I don't know. One is characterised by praying five times a day, attending mosque on Fridays, not drinking alcohol or eating pork, fasting for a month each year and going on a Hajj. The other, in addition to these, is part of the largest active terrorist organisation. How is that difficult to sort out? Applied intelligence is needed, not critiques of this faith against that.
I wasn't actually contrasting 'Islam' and 'Islamic extremism' - I was just pointing out, in reaction to a rather illogical misinterpretation by Croesos of an earlier post from me, that Islam is a real thing, and Islamic extremism is a real thing. Croesos in turn was apparently busier trying to 'twit' me than to actually answer serious questions.
Would someone mind explaining to me - instead of just without explanation insisting I'm wrong - why you all think I'm wrong in reporting the historic FACT, confirmed by many sources including the Quran itself and the introduction to what was until recently the most popular English translation of the Quran (Pickthall's) - that Muhammad set up an Islamic state, taught such a thing as an ideal, and both taught and actually fought a war to establish such a state. And that since that is the foundation teaching of Islam and the example of Islam's revered prophet, we would be at least foolish to disregard that in our attempts to understand Islam.
My point in contrasting the two faiths is that, contrary to something mr cheesy tried to insist on in probably the thread chris stiles refers to, Christianity and Islam are considerably related, since Islam claims to follow on from the Judeo-Christian tradition and regards Jesus, under the name Isa, as one of Islam's prophets - while, putting it mildly, getting Jesus wrong in all kinds of ways.
One of the ways Islam gets Jesus wrong is that where Muhammad set up that Islamic state, Jesus set up his 'Kingdom' in a very different way which, if trusted and followed, is emphatically peaceable on the Christian side, involving such ideas as that
"Jesus' kingdom is not of this world"
"Our warfare is not with physical weapons"
That Christians are to live as 'resident aliens' - citizens of the kingdom of God living peaceably among their un- and other-believing neighbours
That Christians far from fighting for their faith and bossing everyone else around, are NOT to be 'allotriepiskopoi' (managers/bossyboots in other peoples' affairs...
And many more. All of which Muhammad essentially rejected when defining the Islamic relationship to the world, in favour of bringing back the ideas of a religious state and war on its behalf....
And I think it is reasonable to point out that whereas original from Jesus' mouth Christianity does reject the Christian state idea, in Islam the Islamic state idea is built in (it is not simply that "Islam is 'inherently violent'" so much as that in whatever religion, the religious state idea is ultimately coercive. Even Buddhists have fought wars for 'Buddhist states').
Christianity has not (contrary to a misrepresentation I once saw by a real expert on peace and religion by name of Nick Griffin) become more peaceful over the years due to the nice influences of the world upon it. It has become peaceable by the re-asserting of its original teaching against the false ideas imposed by the Roman Empire 400 years after Jesus. Islam doesn't easily have that option, precisely because Muhammad started it off by rejecting that part of the Christian way and doing the Islamic state and warfare thing himself personally, and leaving a claimed 'word of God' which supported him in that. Islam going peaceful pretty much involves logically deciding that Muhammad was a false prophet - a proposition which will obviously be popular among Muslims....
And note that I'm not denying that there are other important factors in the Islamic extremism business - like Western attitudes, the effects of our colonialism in Muslim states, the bad example of the descendants of the Roman imperial church and of the crusaders,to name but a few.
Note also - just in case you missed earlier statements in this thread - that I'm NOT denying Islam's/Muhammad's aspirations to peace; but I am pointing out that those aspirations are severely compromised by those other aspects of Muhammad's teaching and example.
Now please, how about seriously explaining why I'm supposed to be so wrong....??
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Just in case it isn't clear -
My post there is not a response to the one above it from Eutychus; I spent some considerable time writing it and after posting it found that while I was composing it, Eutychus had posted his effort.
On a quick reading, I think Eutychus is confusing things considerably.... Sorry, but what about just for one the obvious question about 'religious practice' including the violence of 'holy war'?
Sure extremism has other roots, including for some English nationalism. And for many Muslims, it seems Arab nationalism. Nationalism combined with the teaching of a religious state is a toxic combination.
And BTW my critique is much wider than just Islam....
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Note also - just in case you missed earlier statements in this thread - that I'm NOT denying Islam's/Muhammad's aspirations to peace; but I am pointing out that those aspirations are severely compromised by those other aspects of Muhammad's teaching and example.
Now please, how about seriously explaining why I'm supposed to be so wrong....??
Floggers of Deceased Equines often point to Jesus saying he wasn't changing the OT. That means all the nasty and violent things God is written to have commissioned are still on and Christianity is not a religion of peace.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On a quick reading, I think Eutychus is confusing things considerably.... Sorry, but what about just for one the obvious question about 'religious practice' including the violence of 'holy war'?
The obvious answer is that you prosecute violent extremism regardless of religious practice, and leave alone religious practice that isn't violent.
Whereas the current trend is to conflate a certain kind of religious practice with violent extremism, which seems to me to do little good except to the vote share of far-right parties.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...for Christians a very important part of combating Islam will be recognising that certain late (C4 CE) additions to Christianity are not legitimate developments of the original teaching but actually contradict Jesus' and the apostles' teaching and have had bad consequences. Those false doctrines are essentially similar to the faults/contradictions I pointed out in Islam, that is, the state religion and violence in the name thereof.
So to summarize the true Christians are the pacifist anabaptists (a tiny proportion of all Christians) and the true Muslims are the Wahhabi terrorists (a tiny proportion of all Muslims). Therefore true Christians are peaceful and true Muslims are violent terrorists.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Steve, the problem is that you don't seem to allow people to behave in ways that you think their sacred texts shouldn't allow them to behave.
It might seem logical to believe that reading the Torah, the Koran or the Mahabharata would inevitably lead to violence, and yet there are obvious examples of people who embraced those texts and were pacifist.
I don't understand how Gandhi got pacifism from the Gita, but how can I argue that he didn't when he said that he did?
And please stop using Aspergers as an excuse; this has nothing to do with you being Apsie and everything to do with the fact that you refuse to accept what other religious people say about themselves simply because you don't understand them.
It's boring pal. I'd no more want to hear your opinions on Islam than hear you describe how you think microbiologists are incorrect in their taxonomic descriptions of yeasts. Because, frankly, it is boring to hear you mouth off about things that you don't understand.
Some intelligent Muslims read the Koran and see it pointing them to peace. You don't have to like that, but it is a fact.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And anyway, even if it was possible to show without question that Islam was a fake (which is impossible, but anyway) and it was possible to show without question that Islam was by definition only interested in state-building and violence (which is also fairly obviously impossible, but anyway) - why would you want to do that when a massive proportion of Muslims clearly believe in a warped version of their fake religion which means that they work hard, pay taxes, pray at the mosque and live in peace?
What's your problem here? You think they're suddenly going to wake up and realise one day that this peaceful religion they've been following all this time is actually only real if they go Wahabbi?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
true Christians are peaceful and true Muslims are violent terrorists.
It could be argued that that is, mutatis mutandis, a not unreasonable summary.
There is not a single verse in the NT which requires or condones the use of violence to protect or propagate Christianity.
There are, on the contrary, both a considerable number of verses in the Koran which support religious violence, and a substantial body of exegesis prioritising them.
There are no doubt some Muslims who genuinely believe that the Koran does not support religious violence under any circumstances, but they are a minority.
The majority do not practise what they believe their religion requires for a number of reasons - laziness, cowardice, ambition for comfortable prosperity, or sheer human decency.
In other words, they are good people not because they are "really" non-Muslims (the true Scotsman fallacy), but because they are bad Muslims.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There are no doubt some Muslims who genuinely believe that the Koran does not support religious violence under any circumstances, but they are a minority.
I dare say that there are very few of any religion who wouldn't support religious violence under any circumstances but it is clearly wrong to believe that only a minority of Muslims believe that they should be fighting a jihad including the killing of innocent people.
One does not have to believe that violence is always wrong under any circumstances to not be a terrorist blowing up a plane. Obviously.
quote:
The majority do not practise what they believe their religion requires for a number of reasons - laziness, cowardice, ambition for comfortable prosperity, or sheer human decency.
Well it is certainly true that there are many different individual Muslims with a good deal of different opinions about their religion. Obviously.
But to then make the connection that those who do not do religious violence do not do it because they are lazy or otherwise deficient.. well that's just plain wrong. You need to go and talk to a few more Muslims.
quote:
In other words, they are good people not because they are "really" non-Muslims (the true Scotsman fallacy), but because they are bad Muslims.
Bullshit. A Muslim is not "bad" just because they don't behave in the way that you've ordained they should behave. Because you're not the arbiter of how they should behave to be true to their religion.
I mean, really.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Kaplan Corday;
quote:
In other words, they are good people not because they are "really" non-Muslims (the true Scotsman fallacy), but because they are bad Muslims.
Please shoot that Scotsman and get him out of the argument (which will not entail any violence because he isn't real in the first place)!!!!
As I'm getting fed up of explaining, the Scotsman is simply irrelevant to real world arguments where a religion has developed in different ways and there is a very real and practical non-fallacious need to check out the variants and work out which are legitimate developments and which are mistaken.
No, the 'good people' in Islam are not 'bad Muslims'. The problem is as I outlined it - Islam contains conflicted and contradictory ideas and people resolve that tension in various ways, emphasising one aspect or the other of the contradiction. You find a similar tension among 'Constantinian' Christians who attempt to reconcile Jesus' teaching of peaceable 'resident alien' living with the other ideas of 'Christian states' and the warfare and internal legal coercion necessary to such a state.
The difference, which should answer some of the surrounding points as well, is that in Christianity those ideas are a late alien import imposed on Christianity some 350 years after Jesus; so it is possible to go back beyond those bad ideas to a better original Christianity as taught in the NT. In Islam, Muhammad by his actions and through the Quran built that contradiction into Islam from its very beginning and provides no remotely easy way to resolve it.
(And as I pointed out, because Muhammad makes Jesus - or a rather dubious version of him - part of the Islamic faith, Christians are fully entitled to examine and query Islam's truth-claims)
mr cheesy - please explain why I should accept that kind of scorn from someone who once asked on another thread "What is the relevance of 'state Islam' to IS?" A clue - what does IS stand for...?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The obvious answer is that you prosecute violent extremism regardless of religious practice, and leave alone religious practice that isn't violent.
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state. It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with. And one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy - please explain why I should accept that kind of scorn from someone who once asked on another thread "What is the relevance of 'state Islam' to IS?" A clue - what does IS stand for...?
The group calls itself Islamic State. That doesn't mean that it is the only way to run an Islamic State nor does it mean that all Muslims believe in the Islam as the state religion.
It isn't scorn, it is just exasperation at an individual who only has a hammer and therefore thinks that every problem is a nail.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Floggers of Deceased Equines often point to Jesus saying he wasn't changing the OT. That means all the nasty and violent things God is written to have commissioned are still on and Christianity is not a religion of peace.
Despite which Jesus effectively scrapped the whole of OT ritual and made the Temple redundant.
It is true that Jesus didn't 'change' the OT and it is indeed still the Word of God. It is also true that Jesus 'fulfilled' the OT and brought the things in the OT to their goal. How that applies to DH subjects I'll discuss there; in this case, Jesus brings about a shift from a preparatory stage focussed on one nation, Israel, operating as an ordinary nation in many ways, to a new concept (albeit prefigured and foretold in the OT) of God's people being those 'born again' in personal faith who do not form a conventional earthly nation.
Jesus' "holy nation" is depicted in the NT as living peaceably among their non-Christian neighbours somewhat as 'resident aliens' and needing and practising a different kind of 'warfare' without physical weapons.
lilBuddha, you appear to be making what is commonly thought of as a 'Fundamentalist' error of reading the Bible 'flat' and not allowing for the teaching to progress and develop.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state.
I'm glad about that, because that's exactly where I find myself. What standpoint are you attempting to argue from? quote:
It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with.
Who is the "we" here, exactly? And what tools are you suggesting "we" use to help us understand? How is your approach more "useful"? quote:
And one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
The OP was framed in terms of Islam versus Western culture. Please explain how a "distinctively Christian view", whatever that is, might address this.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy
quote:
The group calls itself Islamic State. That doesn't mean that it is the only way to run an Islamic State nor does it mean that all Muslims believe in the Islam as the state religion.
I agree with the first part of your sentence - as you should have read in my earlier posts, I recognise that Muhammad would probably be worried by some aspects of IS. But the general idea of 'state Islam' and where it originates in Muhammad's teaching is definitely relevant to IS and how we deal with it.
Our local churches are currently dealing with many refugees from various Islamic states - it's a struggle these days to find many such states that would satisfy you as being democratic etc. And the few you might just about approve seem currently to be under attack from those who want something more like Muhammad's own version.
Rephrasing the end of your sentence slightly to "nor does it mean that all Muslims believe in Islam being a state and ultimately global religion with the world being run as Muhammad ran Mecca" I'd have to say that I don't see how they'd disbelieve that and still claim to be following Muhammad's teaching - I think they'd find a lot of Muslims considering them heretical and indeed to be persecuted as such.
Muhammad taught and practised Islam as a state religion - who am I to question his teaching about the nature of his own religion - though I'm certainly prepared to question whether that religion is actually the truth about our world.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I agree with the first part of your sentence - as you should have read in my earlier posts, I recognise that Muhammad would probably be worried by some aspects of IS. But the general idea of 'state Islam' and where it originates in Muhammad's teaching is definitely relevant to IS and how we deal with it.
Why is it?
There are people who believe that the bible teaches that they're special and that the need to drink poison and play with snakes to show that they're indeed God's elect.
Is it more important to examine the verse they've chosen to take as a mantra or the tradition that has developed? Is the problem the text or the people?
quote:
Our local churches are currently dealing with many refugees from various Islamic states - it's a struggle these days to find many such states that would satisfy you as being democratic etc. And the few you might just about approve seem currently to be under attack from those who want something more like Muhammad's own version.
I would agree that many Islamic states are bad. But that's not really in question here. The question is whether Islamic states are always, without question bad because there is something stinky about the whole idea of Islam.
And then the second question is whether Islam obliges Muslims to create Islamic states.
I just don't accept that you are in any kind of position to answer those questions.
quote:
Rephrasing the end of your sentence slightly to "nor does it mean that all Muslims believe in Islam being a state and ultimately global religion with the world being run as Muhammad ran Mecca" I'd have to say that I don't see how they'd disbelieve that and still claim to be following Muhammad's teaching - I think they'd find a lot of Muslims considering them heretical and indeed to be persecuted as such.
Right, exactly. You "don't see how" because you are totally ignorant about what Muslims actually believe. I'm glad we're agreeing on that point.
quote:
Muhammad taught and practised Islam as a state religion - who am I to question his teaching about the nature of his own religion - though I'm certainly prepared to question whether that religion is actually the truth about our world.
God help us all.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The majority do not practise what they believe their religion requires for a number of reasons - laziness, cowardice, ambition for comfortable prosperity, or sheer human decency.
How do you know this? If it seems an obvious, non-evidence-requiring conclusion to you then maybe that is a bit circular.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state.
I'm glad about that, because that's exactly where I find myself. What standpoint are you attempting to argue from? quote:
It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with.
Who is the "we" here, exactly? And what tools are you suggesting "we" use to help us understand? How is your approach more "useful"? quote:
And one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
The OP was framed in terms of Islam versus Western culture. Please explain how a "distinctively Christian view", whatever that is, might address this.
Quick responses before going to an appointment this afternoon;
1) quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state.
I'm glad about that, because that's exactly where I find myself. What standpoint are you attempting to argue from?
I also live in a secular state (well, just about with a few rags of an Anglican establishment still confusing things). However,I am not myself secular and I have opinions on the matter in areas where the secular pluralist state is properly neutral. I and other Christians can and should be understanding Islam in Christian terms and offering Christian answers.
from Eutychus
quote:
from SL quote:
It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with.
Who is the "we" here, exactly? And what tools are you suggesting "we" use to help us understand? How is your approach more "useful"?
[/qb]"We" is pretty much everybody in the West, I think. Deciding as a practical matter which acts we will prosecute doesn't do much towards analysing and understanding where the problem came from in the first place. The 'tools' Christians should use should basically be a Christian understanding explained as required to both Muslims and non-Muslims. The aim would be to convert Muslims, by peaceable persuasion, to an unambiguously peaceable Christianity which would surely be a quite useful result.
by Eutychus;
quote:
from SLAnd one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
The OP was framed in terms of Islam versus Western culture. Please explain how a "distinctively Christian view", whatever that is, might address this. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well apart from anything else, one of the big problems in the situation is the past history of 'Christendom' - I suspect that even your much more secular France is regarded by most Muslims as a 'Christian country', let alone England which still has a formally established Christian church and a ruler who Muslims can interpret as roughly eqquivalent to a Muslim 'Caliph'. One way a Christian view could address the situation would be by finally clearing that up and separating church and state. Another way is simply by showing Muslims a different way to relate religion and state - a way which unfortunately is considerably compromised in the ideas of the RCC, Orthodox, Anglicans and some other groups.
Sorry, my UBB use still isn't perfect but I think the end result is comprehensible!
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
My difficulty with this whole debacle is the term "Islamic Extremism". Perhaps I spend too much time pondering semantics, and I'm minded to say something along the lines of "there's no such thing as Islamic Extremism; only extremists who are Muslims" but that's crap and I know it's crap. Clearly there is such a thing as Islamic Extremism. That being so, the following ideas ambled through my "mind" (such as it is):
1. Of course there are Islamic Extremists, just as there are Christian Extremists and, from what I see in the world, Buddhist Extremists and Hindu Extremists etc.
2. Is their being Muslim fundamental to their extremism? Clearly it is, since their "arguments" (if expressed at all) are all framed in Islam but...
3. Islam calls itself a religion of peace and there is much in history to back up that assertion. There have been as many times (if not more times) when Islamic states were far more tolerant and peaceful than Christian states.
My point (if I have one, rather than just a series of vague ideas running around my mind in search of argument upon which to attach themselves) is that the origin of "Islamic Extremism" is the same as the "Origin of Islam". Some Muslims have always been "extremists" (the Prophet himself was pretty extreme in some regards after all) and some Muslims have always been "not extremists". The battles within Islam have always been as "extreme" as the battles with those outside Islam, so the history of Islam is a history of "extremism" as much as it's a history of moderation.
In-fighting and forcing your faith on others; is that an "Islamic Extremist" idea or is it equally a summary of the history of Christianity? Is it that the origin of "Islamic Extremism" (see - still inverted commas because it's a phrase with which I'm still not entirely comfortable!) lies in Islam itself (in which case it's no different to any other religion in claiming to be peaceful but not being peaceful)? Or is that the origin of "Islamic Extremism" lies in Islam being practised and interpreted by human beings, who are notoriously bad at interpreting and practising religions as they were intended to be practised (in which case it's no different to any other religion in claiming to be peaceful but not being peaceful)?
My tendency (I suspect) is not to damn "Islamic Terrorism" because it's "Islamic Terrorism" but to damn "Terrorism" because it's performed by human beings and human beings are fundamentally flawed. (I think) I believe not that any religion is intrinsically evil but that religions are practised by human beings. And human beings are, essentially, heartless bastards. Which is why so many of us need religion to teach us how not to be heartless bastards. But so many of us ignore that teaching. And end up making "ours" a religion of heartless bastardry.
(I hate terrorism almost as much as I hate ungrammatical, incomplete clauses.)
Essentially, I think I'm saying Islam has always been a religion that was peaceful and tolerant whilst never being a religion that was peaceful or tolerant, because (like all religions) it has always involved some wankers who don't understand it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However,I am not myself secular and I have opinions on the matter in areas where the secular pluralist state is properly neutral.
That's as maybe, but I don't get the feeling people are looking for a theological discussion here. The Koran clearly has within it elements that lend themselves to violence, as does the Bible, whatever you or I might say about the NT superseding the OT.
I don't think the question framed in the OP "what gives rise to Islamic extremism today" is usefully addressed in theological terms.
quote:
I and other Christians can and should be understanding Islam in Christian terms
I think that's where you go wrong. You need to start by understanding Islam on its own terms. Many people have pointed out that you appear bent on imposing your view of how muslims should think on Islam. I certainly think your views on muslims' view of the Koran are a projection of your views on Scripture more than anything inherent in Islam.
quote:
"We" is pretty much everybody in the West, I think.
Then why are you so insistent on approaching this from a specifically Christian point of view? It's almost as if you believe in a state religion...
quote:
The 'tools' Christians should use should basically be a Christian understanding explained as required to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
The first step to that is to agree on a "Christian understanding" before pontificating about everyone else. I might sympathise with your Anabpatist leanings, but I don't think you're going to build a consensus by ignoring other forms of Christianity be they contemporary or historic. quote:
The aim would be to convert Muslims, by peaceable persuasion, to an unambiguously peaceable Christianity which would surely be a quite useful result.
I can't help wondering how many religious wars started off allegedly underpinned by such intentions.
quote:
'Christendom'
Not again
quote:
One way a Christian view could address the situation would be by finally clearing that up and separating church and state. Another way is simply by showing Muslims a different way to relate religion and state - a way which unfortunately is considerably compromised in the ideas of the RCC, Orthodox, Anglicans and some other groups.
So in summary, your plan is:
Step 1: get all Christians to agree to anabaptism
Step 2: confine all Christian testimony to Muslims to your idea of "sorted-out" Christianity
Step 3: REVIVAL.
I think Step 1 needs some working on.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
When bombs went off in tourist areas in the South of Thailand a month or so ago I was confused to see a Thai security official rushing out a statement that they had ruled out terrorism. It seemed pretty much by definition an act of terror.
Then I realised what they meant - they meant to imply that it was the "red shirt" or some other purely political group rather than Muslims. It seems remarkable that the definition of terrorism is gradually shifting to mean Muslim involvement rather than good honest political motives for blowing people up.
[ 13. September 2016, 13:36: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
My tendency (I suspect) is not to damn "Islamic Terrorism" because it's "Islamic Terrorism" but to damn "Terrorism" because it's performed by human beings and human beings are fundamentally flawed.
Hence the usefulness of the Council of Europe's distinction between "religious practice" and "violent extremism".
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
When bombs went off in tourist areas in the South of Thailand a month or so ago I was confused to see a Thai security official rushing out a statement that they had ruled out terrorism. It seemed pretty much by definition an act of terror.
Then I realised what they meant - they meant to imply that it was the "red shirt" or some other purely political group rather than Muslims. It seems remarkable that the definition of terrorism is gradually shifting to mean Muslim involvement rather than good honest political motives for blowing people up.
As it happens I walked past the exact location of one of those bombs a few weeks prior to the event, and have been looking into the politics of Thailand for other reasons.
My half-informed guess is that the official statement was entirely wrong. And my half-informed opinion is that these comments reflect a specifically Thai political malaise rather than a general trend with regard to descriptors of terrorism.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Hence the usefulness of the Council of Europe's distinction between "religious practice" and "violent extremism".
Yes, I do apologise; I slipped from "Extremism" to "Terrorism" and I didn't mean to do so; I meant "extremism" rather than "terrorism". Although the former might well include the latter, I was trying to focus on "extremism in general" rather than "violent extremism in particular"!
Sorry.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
by Steve Langton
quote:
I and other Christians can and should be understanding Islam in Christian terms
I think that's where you go wrong. You need to start by understanding Islam on its own terms. Many people have pointed out that you appear bent on imposing your view of how muslims should think on Islam. I certainly think your views on muslims' view of the Koran are a projection of your views on Scripture more than anything inherent in Islam.
Sort of fair comment. But in attempting to understand Islam on its own terms, I find pretty much universal agreement that Muhammad did in fact after some initial havering fight a war to set up an Islamic state - it's not an easy thing to ignore! Nor is it easy to ignore that the major Islamic heresy/split is not theological but apparently over who should have succeeded Muhammad as 'king' (whatever the official word used) of that Islamic state.
Likewise Muhammad does involve Jesus/Isa in his teachings.
And while Muhammad treats the Judeo-Christian scriptures as a whole in ways I wouldn't consider treating the OT, he does appear at the same time to expect something of a fundamentalist approach to the Quran. OK, there probably are varying approaches to the Quran - but I feel pretty safe in usually taking a moderately literal approach and it's not easy to see any way round the combination of Muhammad actually fighting in the real world to set up an Islamic state, and the Quran basically supporting what he did there.
I'm having to move now and pack up the computer; back later after I get home....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The answer to all of the above is that you should be seeing what muslim scholars who have some sort of following and recognition in muslim circles have to say about these things, instead of second-guessing from an outsider's perspective.
I realise this is difficult, because as I have got to know them I've realised muslims make evangelicals look positively united and well-coordinated...
[ 13. September 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I realise this is difficult, because as I have got to know them I've realised muslims make evangelicals look positively united and well-coordinated...
You do also realise that the disunity you're experiencing is because the Muslims have the difficulty of having to deal with exactly the contradiction and conflicted ideas that I've identified - with the added problem that they have to believe that it's the word of God...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
None of which shifts me from my conviction that the right way to address this is to tackle violent extremism as violent extremism wherever it manifests itself and not target, or seek to "sort out", religious practice.
Whilst sharing the gospel as and when we can, as we would with anyone. Yesterday I gave a Bible to a muslim inmate who engaged me in a lively exegesis of Jesus' words "I have more things to say to you that you cannot bear for now". I hope that counts...
(regular readers will not be surprised that I also directed him to 2 Cor 3. He objected that "that was Paul speaking, not Jesus". I wish I could have directed him to the ongoing Kerygmania debate...)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I realise this is difficult, because as I have got to know them I've realised muslims make evangelicals look positively united and well-coordinated...
Absolutely, and as soon as you widen the frame to include non-evangelicals the picture becomes much more similar, and when you include non-western voices even more similar.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You do also realise that the disunity you're experiencing is because the Muslims have the difficulty of having to deal with exactly the contradiction and conflicted ideas that I've identified - with the added problem that they have to believe that it's the word of God...
Whereas once Christians drop the belief that the Bible is the word of God it does wonders for their unity.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon;
quote:
Whereas once Christians drop the belief that the Bible is the word of God it does wonders for their unity.
You made me smile there (though that's not as rare as Gamaliel sometimes good-naturedly pretends). In my days at Uni I was of course in the evangelical Christian Union - and the simple fact is we had considerable unity across Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Baptists, Brethren, Charismatics of all kinds, lots of people from independent congregations, Lutherans and others from abroad - and even some Catholics and Greek Orthodox.
Of the other groups the RCs were quite strong and I even went to some meetings - the night they watched Ian Paisley in an Oxford debate, for instance. Surprisingly I first came across the 'Good News' NT there rather than in the CU; and the Chaplain secured me a copy of Ronald Knox's interesting translation. They weren't yet much into ecumenism...
The others had been in the Student Christian Movement - but before my time that had become pretty moribund and the 'others' were now mainly in separate denominational societies - Angsoc, Methsoc, CongPresSoc, and Baptist. They had the 'Liberals' and in the case of Angsoc the Anglo-Catholics as well. They talked a lot about unity, but in practice didn't do it much, because being basically the non-Bible-believers they had little to be united around, and in fact tended to defeat unity by hanging on very hard to their denominational distinctives.
I'm not sure how far this was true of other Unis...
As far as I can tell this is broadly still the case nationally; apart from the CongPres group ending up as the URC (the small Presbyterians in England being swallowed up by the bigger Congregational group), they're all still disunited, while my experience of evangelicalism is that we're still pretty much together and cooperate widely.
Hmmm!?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The bridge joke must have passed you by, not to mention lots of experience.
From my outside perspective, I think muslim disunity is like evangelical disunity in that it's mostly to do with big fish in small ponds seeking to wield (or at least hold on to) their power amidst underlying distrust masked by superficial unity. Doctrinal grounds are mostly pretexts for much more realpolitik differences, such as control of funds and ownership of real estate.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The Muslim student's union at my University looked very united to me. They had a great time putting on events for the Eids and supported each other fasting.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
No, the 'bridge joke' has not passed me by - I've even blogged on a related topic.
And I don't by any means suppose my experiences are the only possibility. It still remains the case that in general evangelicals are united on a great deal more than non-evangelicals. And that includes even when we have a few differences that do make working together difficult. For others generally the common ground tends to be too little and the denominational differences too important.
Islam's differences - I still find it remarkable that the big one, the Sunni/Shia split, is about the succession to Muhammad even though all possible lines of descent have almost certainly died out - that's a very different way of thinking to Christianity....
Back to the main point, I think....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The point is that it's impossible, and indeed pointless, if not counterproductive, to address "Islamic extremism" as a coherent whole, because you are not dealing with a coherent whole or anything like one, however much you think you are.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
lilBuddha, you appear to be making what is commonly thought of as a 'Fundamentalist' error of reading the Bible 'flat' and not allowing for the teaching to progress and develop.
Which is exactly what you are doing with Islam.
The "preparatory stage" rhetoric is rubbish unless your God is massively incompetent, inconsistent and capricious. We are talking infanticide, filicide and genocide. How the Hell does any of that prepare a nation for Jesus.
That Christians have to rationalise or readjust should give them a less prejudiced understanding of Islam.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The point is that it's impossible, and indeed pointless, if not counterproductive, to address "Islamic extremism" as a coherent whole, because you are not dealing with a coherent whole or anything like one, however much you think you are.
Of course it's incoherent; like between Muhammmad and now there has been some 1400 years of history and not just a single history for all of Islam but different histories in different countries to create the pressures that make people 'extremists' now. The point I've been making is actually one of the few coherent bits going right back to the foundation. All the different parts of modern extremism link in those ideas going back to Muhammad's acts and example and the support of those acts in the Quran.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
lilBuddha, you appear to be making what is commonly thought of as a 'Fundamentalist' error of reading the Bible 'flat' and not allowing for the teaching to progress and develop.
Which is exactly what you are doing with Islam.
The "preparatory stage" rhetoric is rubbish unless your God is massively incompetent, inconsistent and capricious. We are talking infanticide, filicide and genocide. How the Hell does any of that prepare a nation for Jesus.
That Christians have to rationalise or readjust should give them a less prejudiced understanding of Islam.
I somehow don't think I'd be very popular if I derailed this thread into a fully detailed Christian theodicy at enormous length!
The important bit here is that Jesus did in fact set up his church, according to the NT, on a very different basis to the Islamic religious state approach; and when that teaching of Jesus is followed, Christians do not behave like Islamic extremists. And a key part of Jesus' teaching is to separate his 'kingdom' from the surrounding 'world' and its armies, police, freedom fighters etc.
Muhammad as I've pointed out claims to be following on from the Judeo-Christian tradition - but he rather emphatically rejects that part of it, so far as he knew it. Ironically he follows the later Roman Imperial Church which had gone wrong on this point in ways responsible for pretty much every bad thing you complain of in Christianity.
I do in fact have considerable sympathy for Muhammad in that he had such a bad example from misguided and essentially heretical Christians; but I'd also point out that he'd impress me a lot more if he had followed/reinstated Jesus' peaceable version rather than following the later error - that is one of the things which convinces me he was not a true prophet.
quote:
unless your God is massively incompetent, inconsistent and capricious.
Actually I tend to see it more that humans are massively incompetent, inconsistent and capricious, requiring God himself to act quite drastically in healing our affairs. As for
quote:
How the Hell does any of that prepare a nation for Jesus?
In the way that world typically was, these things at least achieved that Israel survived to be able to learn what was necessary for the nation to provide the background for Jesus' act of salvation to be understood and effective; it's actually surprisingly hard to think of other ways of doing that which don't either make God unacceptably directly coercive, or end up with even more massacres by the other nations involved.
You should also bear in mind that When God takes responsibility for these things he also takes responsibility for bringing good from the situation, and unlike us, he has the power to do that not only in this world but beyond it.
'filicide' - I think I know what you're referring to, but please confirm it so I can respond with certainty rather than guesswork.
But as I say, I don't want to derail this thread into Christian theodicy.
Compared to the Christian Scripture BTW, the Quran is rather 'flat', revealed through one person in only a few years; and where the Quran deals with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures it both 'flattens' them and repeatedly contradicts them.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
All the different parts of modern extremism link in those ideas going back to Muhammad's acts and example and the support of those acts in the Quran.
Which is only true if you believe that there is only one possible way to interpret those bits of the Quaran and Muhammed's actions. A lot of Muslims do not agree with your interpretation of either.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question is whether Islamic states are always, without question bad because there is something stinky about the whole idea of Islam.
The argument that there is something rotten in the legacy of Mohammed is the argument that the bad Muslims - the jihadists - seem to be following the published writings of Mohammed more closely or more literally or more obviously than the good Muslims - the prayerful modest hard-working self-controlled charitable good-neighbourly Muslims who live honourable lives within the religious and cultural tradition they have inherited.
If there were two groups of self-proclaimed Wesleyans, and the dishonest murderous bunch seemed to be following the precepts in Wesley's writings more closely than the abstemious and community-minded bunch, would we not conclude that Wesley was a bad egg, despite the lived testimony of the latter group ?
That they were good people despite him rather than because of him ?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If there were two groups of self-proclaimed Wesleyans, and the dishonest murderous bunch seemed to be following the precepts in Wesley's writings more closely than the abstemious and community-minded bunch, would we not conclude that Wesley was a bad egg, despite the lived testimony of the latter group ?
I'm sure some would declare them to be following Wesley's precepts more closely, but who is to say that is correct? It looks a pretty subjective judgement and there is a lot of that about.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I dare say that there are very few of any religion who wouldn't support religious violence under any circumstances but it is clearly wrong to believe that only a minority of Muslims believe that they should be fighting a jihad including the killing of innocent people.
One does not have to believe that violence is always wrong under any circumstances to not be a terrorist blowing up a plane. Obviously.
Obviously you have misread what I wrote and totally confused the issue.
I mean really.
quote:
Well it is certainly true that there are many different individual Muslims with a good deal of different opinions about their religion.
But to then make the connection that those who do not do religious violence do not do it because they are lazy or otherwise deficient.. well that's just plain wrong.
The issue is not Muslims' different opinions about Islam (such as Sunni/Shiite) but about the different responses by Muslims to the near consensus among them that it enjoins religious violence.
Surveys of Muslims (admittedly of those living in the West) reveal a significant proportion who admire terrorists but do not emulate them - hence the very reasonable conjecture as to the reasons for this anomaly, such as laziness, cowardice etc.
quote:
You need to go and talk to a few more Muslims.
It is on the basis of the relationships I have had with Muslims both here in Australia and during years working in India that I included the factor "basic human decency" as a prohibitory factor.
quote:
A Muslim is not "bad" just because they don't behave in the way that you've ordained they should behave. Because you're not the arbiter of how they should behave to be true to their religion.
It has nothing to do with what you or I or any other outsider "arbitrates" or "ordains".
If a Muslim fails to live up to what they understand the Koran to be teaching, then by their own criteria they are bad Muslims.
[ 13. September 2016, 23:45: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
All the different parts of modern extremism link in those ideas going back to Muhammad's acts and example and the support of those acts in the Quran.
Which is only true if you believe that there is only one possible way to interpret those bits of the Quaran and Muhammed's actions. A lot of Muslims do not agree with your interpretation of either.
I'm getting a little fed up (and to be fair Chris you're coming in for some annoyance originating with others here, I think you're mostly OK) with people who just tell me that "there are other interpretations" or that others "do not agree with me" as if somehow that in itself answered my points fully and made me wrong.
I seriously want to know what other interpretations there are, why there is disagreement, etc.
Having said that, how many ways are there to reasonably interpret Muhammad leading an army against Mecca - and without evidence, how can I know if there's an explanation that credibly supports the idea of a 'peaceable' Muhammad and his faith?
I think I'm being perfectly reasonable taking a fairly obvious understanding of the situation or words, especially when so far everything else I can find out suggests in this case that the majority of Muslims do have similar views. And do note that I am in fact accepting that there is teaching of peace. It's just that until someone actually produces better evidence, the logical interpretation seems to be contradiction in Muhammad's teaching. That is Muhammad didn't himself properly reconcile the twin notions of peaceableness and having an Islamic state for which he personally fought.
As i say - please prove me wrong, don't just tell me vaguely there are 'other opinions'.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Russ;
quote:
The argument that there is something rotten in the legacy of Mohammed is the argument that the bad Muslims - the jihadists - seem to be following the published writings of Mohammed more closely or more literally or more obviously than the good Muslims - the prayerful modest hard-working self-controlled charitable good-neighbourly Muslims who live honourable lives within the religious and cultural tradition they have inherited
The argument from me is not so much that some are following more closely than others, but that the writings/teaching/example are themselves confused and incoherent. had Muhammad ONLY taught the peace stuff, there'd be no problem, or at any rate only a problem of the non-peaceful obviously disobeying. But both sides are there in the teaching, aspirations of peace but undermined in practice by the other teaching and example of the Islamic state and the wars to support it. And to make matters worse, while claiming association with Jesus, Muhammad decidedly goes backwards from a better way taught by Jesus....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Islamic extremism stems from ... CONSTANTINE!
Now going to read Steve's post to see if I'm right.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Surveys of Muslims (admittedly of those living in the West) reveal a significant proportion who admire terrorists but do not emulate them
Quite possibly explained by the well-known proposition that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
What is a "terrorist", after all? Were the French Resistance terrorists? I suspect the German or German-backed authorities of the time would have labelled them as such if that was the terminology at the time. Violence for political ends, yep.
The only thing I can think of that might successfully distinguish "terrorists" is the nature of the targets.
[ 14. September 2016, 01:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Surveys of Muslims (admittedly of those living in the West) reveal a significant proportion who admire terrorists but do not emulate them - hence the very reasonable conjecture as to the reasons for this anomaly, such as laziness, cowardice etc.
And a lot of Westerners are all for bombing the heck out of most of the Middle East. Except Israel that is. But that's OK, 'cos they are all terrorists
(I'd like to see the source of these surveys: we've had a few in Britain published by the right-wing tabloids and in numerous cases corrected or refuted entirely.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only thing I can think of that might successfully distinguish "terrorists" is the nature of the targets.
Or sheer point of view. Our friends are freedom fighters. Our enemies are terrorists.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Quite possibly explained by the well-known proposition that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Not a "well-known proposition" but a lazy, banal and amoral cliche that gets trotted out with a mindless alacrity and predictability that puts Pavlov's dogs to shame.
quote:
What is a "terrorist", after all? Were the French Resistance terrorists?
You are being disingenuous.
Anyone who claims to be incapable of distinguishing ISIS from the French Resistance is lying.
I am calling your bluff.
quote:
Violence for political ends, yep.
"Violence for political ends" was what the Allies were engaged in during WWII - armed violence to overthrow the Nazi political system.
Indistinguishable from the violence perpetrated by the Nazis, yep?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Kaplan, I'm not remotely being disingenuous. I honestly don't know a proper definition of what makes someone a "terrorist", and it's something that's bothered me for a long time.
However much my gut reaction might be that ISIS is not the same thing as the French Resistance or a war of independence, I find it very difficult indeed to articulate a principled explanation of what the differences are. In other words, an explanation that doesn't fall back on subjective notions of "we like you" and "we don't like you", or on the fact that the winners/those in power get to write the history books.
And that bothers the hell out of me. Bothering me almost as much is an assertion of how obvious it all is, and how I must be being disingenuous. If it's all so clear to you how to distinguish them, then please, go ahead and do it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are being disingenuous.
Anyone who claims to be incapable of distinguishing ISIS from the French Resistance is lying.
Not exactly By earlier French definitions they would most definitely be.
But terrorist is subjective. If ISIS were able to hold a state together for long enough, then there would be no functional difference between their attacks and war.
Israel considers Palestinian attacks terrorism, but they are as accurately, if not more so, described as fighting for their freedom and against oppression.
The American Indians used terror tactics, but they were fighting to keep their freedom.
The IRA used terror tactics, but they were fighting against oppression.
The borders are not firm and they are subjective.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The better categorization is right and wrong. The idea that a political determination (i.e. terrorist vs freedom fighter vs insurgent vs state at war) determines morality and is worth getting exercised over is unhelpful.
The ANC were terrorists in the anti-apartheid struggle. They had a strong moral case.
ISIS are at war in Syria. They have zero moral case.
The US went to war in Iraq. This was a bad idea.
The French Resistance were an insurgency. They had a strong moral case versus an occupying army.
In each of these sentence pairs the first is a political categorization that might be arguable but even if it is tells us nothing about morality. The second sentence is even more contentious but, if we agreed it was accurate, tells us something useful about the morality of the action.
My conclusion is that there are a) simple rules one can apply regarding legality and politics which tell us little of value, and b) more contentious categorizations with no simple rules but which might be worth arguing over. But a) and b) don't overlap.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
ISIS are at war in Syria. They have zero moral case.
There are a considerable number of other groups fighting against the Syrian government. The West is generally sympathetic to them. Do they have a moral case?
Russia supports the Syrian government, and has no such quandaries to wrestle with. Recently, Vladimir Putin said to the Australian Prime Minister: "I'm fighting for the legitimate Government of Syria. Who are you fighting for?"
And when Russia first got involved, saying why yes, we'll help you attack those nasty terrorists, we quickly discovered that Russia was interested not only in tacking those nasty ISIS terrorists, but also the other rebel groups that Western powers quite liked, actually.
Whatever it is that makes ISIS into terrorists, I don't think "fighting in Syria" is a sufficient explanation.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
orfeo--
(Slight tangent.)
Does Australia consider itself to be part of the West? Does the West consider Australia a part? Oz obviously has Western roots (plus indigenous).
Thx.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever it is that makes ISIS into terrorists, I don't think "fighting in Syria" is a sufficient explanation.
I think you've completely misread my post. I can't see how you think I'm arguing that at all.
The point about my paired sentences was not that one can conclude the second from the first, but actually the opposite - to illustrate that the first had pretty much no bearing on the second.
[ 14. September 2016, 08:51: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Quite possibly explained by the well-known proposition that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Not a "well-known proposition" but a lazy, banal and amoral cliche that gets trotted out with a mindless alacrity and predictability that puts Pavlov's dogs to shame.
...or it's a view that takes into account different perspectives.
--Were the American revolutionaries traitors to England? Were the people in America who stayed loyal to England traitors to America?
--Israel and Palestine: Who's wrong, or worse, or terrorists?
--My usual example is American abolitionist John Brown (Wikipedia). Liberator? Terrorist? Instrument of God? Mentally ill?
I *don't* think ISIS falls into this paradox. I think they're nihilistic.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever it is that makes ISIS into terrorists, I don't think "fighting in Syria" is a sufficient explanation.
I think you've completely misread my post. I can't see how you think I'm arguing that at all.
The point about my paired sentences was not that one can conclude the second from the first, but actually the opposite - to illustrate that the first had pretty much no bearing on the second.
Yes, okay, on rereading your post I might not have taken it all in, and certainly YOU might think that I hadn't read it properly based on what I wrote, but...
The problem still remains in this form: what exactly is it about ISIS that gives them zero moral case?
Because the Muslims answering survey questions that indicate some kind of sympathy with "terrorists" of whatever description are presumably doing it because they DO think whoever they sympathise with (not necessarily ISIS) has some kind of moral case.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--
(Slight tangent.)
Does Australia consider itself to be part of the West? Does the West consider Australia a part? Oz obviously has Western roots (plus indigenous).
Thx.
Yes, I would say so. We wouldn't let a silly thing like our geographic location get in the way.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I seriously want to know what other interpretations there are, why there is disagreement, etc.
Well, yes. Of course you do. But if you have access to a computer, you also have access to enough information to inform yourself as to how wrong you are and how other people saying "but there are other interpretations" are really saying "how can you not know there are other interpretations?"
For example, how many Sufi suicide bombers have you read about?
Seriously: if you don't know about the difference between Sunni and Shia and Sufi and Yazidi and Druze, or Arab and Persian and Berber, then you need to do that asap. This is a starting point. It's not your end point.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem still remains in this form: what exactly is it about ISIS that gives them zero moral case?
Yes, this is a difficult question to answer. I think partly it must be about intention. We know that IS is interested in creating an intense form of theocracy built on violence.
But one has to wonder whether that is a whole lot different to building a democracy built on violence. They execute people in the street, we do it from a distance with drones. They're murderous zealots, we are nuclear-bomb-dropping democrats.
And, perhaps more importantly, what is the critical difference between the disgusting Saudi regime and IS? One is our friend-and-ally, the other is a nation run by fundamentalist fruitcakes.
quote:
Because the Muslims answering survey questions that indicate some kind of sympathy with "terrorists" of whatever description are presumably doing it because they DO think whoever they sympathise with (not necessarily ISIS) has some kind of moral case.
See, I think this does depend on what is the question being asked of young Muslims, particularly in the West. There may indeed be a difference between "support" of the idea that there is something worth fighting for in the name of - or under the banner of - Islam on the one hand and wholehearted support for the whole IS package on the other.
I'm not sure that's so much different to asking a Christian if they supported the Christian south in the war in Sudan. If they know only a little about it, they might instinctively say yes, Christians were oppressed by the murderous regime in the North of Sudan, they had a right to organise and fight for freedom.
If they know a bit more they might say no, the things that the South Sudanese got up to were disgusting and that cannot ever be supported, even whilst agreeing that the North was oppressive to Christians, etcetera.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem still remains in this form: what exactly is it about ISIS that gives them zero moral case?
Burning people alive on camera, use of children in executions, total denial of human rights within their controlled territory. Yes the problem still remains, my point was to decouple that problem from the label of terrorism.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because the Muslims answering survey questions that indicate some kind of sympathy with "terrorists" of whatever description are presumably doing it because they DO think whoever they sympathise with (not necessarily ISIS) has some kind of moral case.
Your wording noted, I would expect that most Muslims would very rarely express any sympathy with ISIS. Of course some few people will think they have a moral case, as do some for Hitler. Morality is very arguable.
I have found some UK resident Muslims to express some sympathy for those committing terrorist acts in the Palestinian cause (but not ISIS), which indicates that the origin of that sympathy lies as much in politics as it does in religion. (Either way I would expect most to believe that killing the innocent is wrong, aside from expressing some sympathy in the cause).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Islamic extremism stems from ... CONSTANTINE!
Now going to read Steve's post to see if I'm right.
Made me smile!
I don't think Islamic extremism 'stems from Constantine' in any simple way. More it is another example of the bad way of linking religion and state which goes back beyond Constantine as well. The relationship with Constantine lies in (at least) two areas
1) When Muhammad came along, it was about 200 years after Constantine so the primary Christian example to influence him was the actually-not-so-Christian state church. The Quran includes at least one chapter related to a military operation against the Byzantines, ie Constantine's successors.
On the one hand this makes it understandable that Muhammad made the choices he did, and we Christians need to accept the past role of Christians in this (though also noting that this wasn't Christianity as Jesus taught it). On the other hand, I feel that if Muhammad had been a true prophet and really, as he claimed, correcting and improving Christianity, I'd be a lot more impressed by him if he had gone back to Jesus' position on religion/state relations instead of following the 'Constantinian' example which makes war and violence in the name of the faith pretty much inevitable....
2) The other aspect is that Islam has been much affected by the military opposition of 'Christendom' especially in the Crusades - which in a sense I think IS still see themselves as fighting - but also in European colonisation of Muslim countries all over the world. Christians need to be concerned about that and recognise the part of Christendom in forming Muslim thinking.
I think it was Eutychus who reacted to a mention of 'Christendom' with 'not again' or words to that effect - but seriously, in this case the involvement of Christendom as an opponent of Islam and forming their attitudes to the 'Christian' West is pretty undeniable.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I seriously want to know what other interpretations there are, why there is disagreement, etc.
Well, yes. Of course you do. But if you have access to a computer, you also have access to enough information to inform yourself as to how wrong you are and how other people saying "but there are other interpretations" are really saying "how can you not know there are other interpretations?"
For example, how many Sufi suicide bombers have you read about?
Seriously: if you don't know about the difference between Sunni and Shia and Sufi and Yazidi and Druze, or Arab and Persian and Berber, then you need to do that asap. This is a starting point. It's not your end point.
You are I think a bit exaggerating my position. I do indeed have a computer and I do use it. I just used it to check that my memory about Sufism was right and that actually they were more likely to be victims of suicide bombers than perpetrators. And because I have studied the stuff quite a bit, seems I was right....
I also used it to follow your link; being well into Christian non-conformity I was not too surprised by the variety of Islamic sects it revealed. But it also of course revealed that most of these are very minor and not very significant to the current discussion. The majority Sunni/Shia seem to be essentially teaching what I am critiquing.
It's not so much a case of "how can (I) not know there are other interpretations?" I'm well aware of there being other interpretations!!!! After all I rather much belong to what many would see as an 'other interpretation' of Christianity myself! My objection was to people who, instead of producing solid issues to discuss, just make airy vague comments about 'other interpretations' and act as if merely by saying that they've somehow proved me wrong. Such an approach is not a legitimate argument.
I know there are variants of Islam which teach peace - so far I've yet to come across such a variant which convinces me they've a sufficient argument to counter the rather obvious and fundamental historic fact of Muhammad's own choice to establish an Islamic state and fight wars to establish and maintain it, or to counter the obvious interpretation of the Quran texts which support Muhammad doing so.
It's not just "Are there other interpretations?" - it's also are they in fact credible interpretations or questionably stretched and strained interpretations. Merely that they exist doesn't make them right or even serious.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You are I think a bit exaggerating my position. I do indeed have a computer and I do use it. I just used it to check that my memory about Sufism was right and that actually they were more likely to be victims of suicide bombers than perpetrators. And because I have studied the stuff quite a bit, seems I was right....
I also used it to follow your link; being well into Christian non-conformity I was not too surprised by the variety of Islamic sects it revealed. But it also of course revealed that most of these are very minor and not very significant to the current discussion. The majority Sunni/Shia seem to be essentially teaching what I am critiquing.
Right, so all those other Muslims don't count for the purposes of your argument. How convenient.
quote:
It's not so much a case of "how can (I) not know there are other interpretations?" I'm well aware of there being other interpretations!!!! After all I rather much belong to what many would see as an 'other interpretation' of Christianity myself! My objection was to people who, instead of producing solid issues to discuss, just make airy vague comments about 'other interpretations' and act as if merely by saying that they've somehow proved me wrong. Such an approach is not a legitimate argument.
I know there are variants of Islam which teach peace - so far I've yet to come across such a variant which convinces me they've a sufficient argument to counter the rather obvious and fundamental historic fact of Muhammad's own choice to establish an Islamic state and fight wars to establish and maintain it, or to counter the obvious interpretation of the Quran texts which support Muhammad doing so.
I suspect almost every other person on this board is bored of trying to persuade you that the things you believe are not objective facts but just opinions you've derived from a limited exposure to Islam and Islamic teaching.
Even the points you make above are disputed by scholars.
From the Oxford Islamic Studies website:
quote:
Although the original Islamic sources (the Qurʿān and the ḥadīths) have very little to say on matters of government and the state, the first issue to confront the Muslim community immediately after the death of its formative leader, the Prophet Muḥammad, in 632 CE was in fact the problem of government and how to select a successor, khalīfah (caliph), to the Prophet. From the start, therefore, Muslims had to innovate and to improvise with regard to the form and nature of government.
Islam is indeed a religion of collective morals, but it contains little that is specifically political—that is, the original Islamic sources rarely convey much on how to form states, run governments, and manage organizations. If the rulers of the historical Islamic states were also spiritual leaders of their communities, this was not because Islam required the imām (religious leader) to be also a political ruler, but because—on the contrary—Islam had spread in regions where the modes of production tended to be control-based and where the state had always played a crucial economic and social role. The “monopoly” of a certain religion had always been one of the state 's usual instruments for ensuring ideological hegemony, and the historical Islamic state was heir to this tradition.
etc and so on
So there is at least one scholar who thinks your obvious conclusions are utter bunk.
quote:
It's not just "Are there other interpretations?" - it's also are they in fact credible interpretations or questionably stretched and strained interpretations. Merely that they exist doesn't make them right or even serious.
Just because you've thought of them doesn't make them "right or even serious" either.
[ 14. September 2016, 10:50: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And, wadderyouknow, here is another scholar who argues that Islam should be separated from the state:
quote:
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naʿim argues that the coercive enforcement of shariʿa by the state betrays the Qurʿan’s insistence on voluntary acceptance of Islam. Just as the state should be secure from the misuse of religious authority, shariʿa should be freed from the control of the state. State policies or legislation must be based on civic reasons accessible to citizens of all religions. Showing that throughout the history of Islam, Islam and the state have normally been separate, An-Naʿim maintains that ideas of human rights and citizenship are more consistent with Islamic principles than with claims of a supposedly Islamic state to enforce shariʿa. In fact, he suggests, the very idea of an “Islamic state” is based on European ideas of state and law, and not shariʿa or the Islamic tradition.
link to book blurb
[ 14. September 2016, 10:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I also used it to follow your link; being well into Christian non-conformity I was not too surprised by the variety of Islamic sects it revealed. But it also of course revealed that most of these are very minor and not very significant to the current discussion. The majority Sunni/Shia seem to be essentially teaching what I am critiquing.
The problem is that even 'Sunni' and 'Shia' are blanket terms that are about as useful a descriptive label as 'Orthodox', there are numerous schools within each form of the faith. For a number of reasons (including geo-politics) the more conservative forms have gained ascendance in the post-War era, which has tended to lead to a narrowing of the dialogue over exactly how the actions of Muhammed should be contextualised.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My objection was to people who, instead of producing solid issues to discuss, just make airy vague comments about 'other interpretations' and act as if merely by saying that they've somehow proved me wrong. Such an approach is not a legitimate argument.
The number of experts on Islamic jurisprudence on a Christian website is going to be low, so most of us don't know enough to directly refute you.
On the other hand, we do know enough to know that we don't know; and we also seem to know as much as you do. That strongly implies that if we don't know enough, you don't know enough either.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I also used it to follow your link; being well into Christian non-conformity I was not too surprised by the variety of Islamic sects it revealed. But it also of course revealed that most of these are very minor and not very significant to the current discussion. The majority Sunni/Shia seem to be essentially teaching what I am critiquing.
Which also can't be lumped into a single (or even two) "teaching". A Sunni from Turkey likely believes in a very different form of Islam than a Saudi Sunni. You might as well be talking about the teachings of "Protestantism". Yes, there are some commonalities but the differences are more notable, particularly to the practitioners of different Protestant sects.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
The other problem of labeling as 'extremist' anyone using the state to pursue an agenda is essentially defining all governments as 'extremist'. (e.g. the U.S. Army is a bunch of American extremists because of their willingness to use violence at the behest of their state.) I'm doubtful such a broad definition is all that useful.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Islamic extremism stems from ... CONSTANTINE!
Now going to read Steve's post to see if I'm right.
Made me smile!
I don't think Islamic extremism 'stems from Constantine' in any simple way. More it is another example of the bad way of linking religion and state which goes back beyond Constantine as well. The relationship with Constantine lies in (at least) two areas
1) When Muhammad came along, it was about 200 years after Constantine so the primary Christian example to influence him was the actually-not-so-Christian state church. The Quran includes at least one chapter related to a military operation against the Byzantines, ie Constantine's successors.
On the one hand this makes it understandable that Muhammad made the choices he did, and we Christians need to accept the past role of Christians in this (though also noting that this wasn't Christianity as Jesus taught it). On the other hand, I feel that if Muhammad had been a true prophet and really, as he claimed, correcting and improving Christianity, I'd be a lot more impressed by him if he had gone back to Jesus' position on religion/state relations instead of following the 'Constantinian' example which makes war and violence in the name of the faith pretty much inevitable....
2) The other aspect is that Islam has been much affected by the military opposition of 'Christendom' especially in the Crusades - which in a sense I think IS still see themselves as fighting - but also in European colonisation of Muslim countries all over the world. Christians need to be concerned about that and recognise the part of Christendom in forming Muslim thinking.
I think it was Eutychus who reacted to a mention of 'Christendom' with 'not again' or words to that effect - but seriously, in this case the involvement of Christendom as an opponent of Islam and forming their attitudes to the 'Christian' West is pretty undeniable.
Can't disagree at all Steve! Islam formed in reaction to the catastrophic failure to institutionalize Jesus.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The obvious answer is that you prosecute violent extremism regardless of religious practice, and leave alone religious practice that isn't violent.
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state. It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with. And one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
If your response to violence emerging from, among other things, religious difference is to announce that everybody must convert to Anabaptism forthwith, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Worth pointing out also that Islamism is not simply religious, but also political. Therefore you have to calculate the political forces at work in the rise of AQ and IS.
These include - the sidelining of the Sunni tribes, as Iran exerts more influence; the failure of a previous generation of secular leaders, who tended to persecute Islamists; anti-Western feelings, produced partly by invasion, bombing, and so on; the appeal to alienated youth around the world.
In other words, taking it back to the Qu'ran is too simplistic, and leaves out a huge amount of stuff. It's like blaming the IRA on the Reformation.
In fact, deradicalization will be a catastrophe if it simply talks about religion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And yes, echoes of previous colonization.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Were the American revolutionaries traitors to England?
Yes. Clearly and objectively yes.
quote:
Were the people in America who stayed loyal to England traitors to America?
No. Also clearly and objectively.
The American Revolution is a poor example in what I think you are trying to demonstrate.
The Americans were not subjugated.
It was not a populist revolt.
Britain showed willingness to work with the colonists.
It is a good example of how interest blinds.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Worth pointing out also that Islamism is not simply religious, but also political. Therefore you have to calculate the political forces at work in the rise of AQ and IS.
And those have roots in the way the West has dealt with the Middle East since WWI.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Worth pointing out also that Islamism is not simply religious, but also political. Therefore you have to calculate the political forces at work in the rise of AQ and IS.
And those have roots in the way the West has dealt with the Middle East since WWI.
That's part of it. You can also factor in the insane rule of the secularists, who imprisoned, tortured and executed Islamists, and also the rise of Iran, which is tilting the Middle East off its old axis. Oh, the West helped in that, of course.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Worth pointing out also that Islamism is not simply religious, but also political. Therefore you have to calculate the political forces at work in the rise of AQ and IS.
And those have roots in the way the West has dealt with the Middle East since WWI.
Way before that: The Roman Republic occupied much of the Eastern Mediterranean a century before Christ was born. Some people just don't remember that "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" is a sound strategy and that they aren't in a game of Risk(tm). In the Battle of Carrhae (near the Turkey/Syria border, of all places) Rome suffered one of its worst defeats.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You could write a history of AQ and IS simply from the point of view of the Sunni tribes, feeling very threatened by the rise of Iran, and the Shia militias, also Hezbollah.
But in Iraq, they were convinced to turn against AQ, and in fact, defeated them.
I would think that one of the big problems in Syria, if there is a cease-fire, is how to placate the tribes and sheikhs, and give them some security and political standing. Otherwise, there will be another IS.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Roman Republic occupied much of the Eastern Mediterranean a century before Christ was born.
And 7 centuries before Mohammed when Arabs were an obscure small tribe. It was the Achaemenid Persians and Parthians that were the trouble then, the former Zorastrians and the latter probably some mix of Zorastrian, Greek cult and other stuff. While modern Iranians might see some some continuity with the Sasanian empire I don't think the Achaemenids or Parthians would get much of a look-in and it was all pre-Islamic.
All those empires gave as good as they got to the Romans, if ancient history was a guide then Iranians would be nursing grievances against Mongolians more than anyone, although perhaps the Arabs would come a close second but there are more recent events to cement that hatred.
It was the Americans that were most recently unhelpful in colluding with the brutally repressive last Shah, which created the environment for the Iranian revolution.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, if you were a conspiratorist, you could argue that Western intelligence is in the pay of Iran. They espoused the 1953 coup, and helped the Shah, thus leading to the radicalization of much of Iran. Then they invaded Iraq, Iran's chief opponent, helped Iraq into a state of collapse, result! The Quds rule.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Except there was the bit before the invasion of Iraq where they helped Saddam out with satellite imagery of Iranian targets that he could drop chemical weapons on.
It's a funny accident that Iran is Shia. I think the story is that although there were both Sunni and Shia overlords of pre/peri-Islamic Iran the Shia appealed more to the local population and it stuck.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a funny accident that Iran is Shia. I think the story is that although there were both Sunni and Shia overlords of pre/peri-Islamic Iran the Shia appealed more to the local population and it stuck.
My recollection is that as a territory conquered by the Arabs becoming Shia allowed them to be Islamic, whilst differentiating them from the (generally) Sunni Arabs.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
My recollection is that as a territory conquered by the Arabs becoming Shia allowed them to be Islamic, whilst differentiating them from the (generally) Sunni Arabs.
Checking with the source of all knowledge: Persia was Sunni until the Safavid dynasty, who had previously been a Sunni religious order but gradually became a Shia group, conquered/ reunified it in about 1501 under Ismail I.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
My recollection is that as a territory conquered by the Arabs becoming Shia allowed them to be Islamic, whilst differentiating them from the (generally) Sunni Arabs.
Checking with the source of all knowledge: Persia was Sunni until the Safavid dynasty, who had previously been a Sunni religious order but gradually became a Shia group, conquered/ reunified it in about 1501 under Ismail I.
With all due respect to your good lady wife/ Orac/ Wikipedia (delete as appropriate) I think that there were ebbs and flows and that the Iranians/ Persians were always attracted to Islamic 'heterodoxy'. This is a good account of the complexities involved.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
quote:
Even the points you make above are disputed by scholars. From the Oxford Islamic Studies website: quote: Although the original Islamic sources (the Qurʿān and the ḥadīths) have very little to say on matters of government and the state, the first issue to confront the Muslim community immediately after the death of its formative leader, the Prophet Muḥammad, in 632 CE was in fact the problem of government and how to select a successor, khalīfah (caliph), to the Prophet. From the start, therefore, Muslims had to innovate and to improvise with regard to the form and nature of government. Islam is indeed a religion of collective morals, but it contains little that is specifically political—that is, the original Islamic sources rarely convey much on how to form states, run governments, and manage organizations. If the rulers of the historical Islamic states were also spiritual leaders of their communities, this was not because Islam required the imām (religious leader) to be also a political ruler, but because—on the contrary—Islam had spread in regions where the modes of production tended to be control-based and where the state had always played a crucial economic and social role. The “monopoly” of a certain religion had always been one of the state 's usual instruments for ensuring ideological hegemony, and the historical Islamic state was heir to this tradition. etc and so on
So there is at least one scholar who thinks your obvious conclusions are utter bunk.
Actually no, there is one scholar saying pretty much what I said myself. Just he's spelling out some of the complexities which I avoided to make the basic point.
During Muhammad's life you had a de facto Islamic state which didn't need a great deal of formalised 'politics' because of the living presence of the prophet and the revelations of the Quran to guide things. A somewhat similar though not identical situation existed in the early days of Mormonism and its prophet Joseph Smith.... But you certainly had the basic realities of an Islamic state established by war and continuing to use warfare to establish and defend itself.
After Muhammad's death and his removal as a unifying factor, there was a need to formalise and also a risk - almost a certainty - that there was likely to be division if people had different opinions of where Muhammad would have wanted things to go next, and/or if they had different opinions about the succession - as unfortunately they did.
And yes of course there would be lots of improvisation to keep that de facto Islamic state going. This was to be expected - it's the regular dynamics of such a situation.
And that brings us to the last sentence
quote:
The “monopoly” of a certain religion had always been one of the state 's usual instruments for ensuring ideological hegemony, and the historical Islamic state was heir to this tradition.
A near perfect statement of 'Constantinianism'! Indeed that is basically what the whole business is about, from long before Constantine down through Henry VIII and so on, and in all manner of other religions besides Christianity.
And unfortunately by his steps of establishing, albeit at first somewhat informally, a standard style state with warfare etc., and by not establishing the kind of alternative view of state-and-religion relationships found in the NT, Muhammad had pretty much guaranteed that the state he founded would simply fall into that 'tradition'.
Why do you think this makes my views "utter bunk"??
It essentially is my view just from a slightly different viewpoint!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
Worth pointing out also that Islamism is not simply religious, but also political.
Why is that somehow "utter bunk" when I say it?? (sorry quetzalcoatl - I know you weren't responsible for that one...). Or simply, this is what I've been saying all along - that from Muhammad's setting up an Islamic state rather than a different relation between his religion and the surrounding world, Islam IS political and you need to consider that to deal with the problems we currently face.
Also by q;
quote:
In other words, taking it back to the Qu'ran is too simplistic, and leaves out a huge amount of stuff. It's like blaming the IRA on the Reformation.
I never said there were no other factors; there very much are - but the basic situation Muhammad set up, and the Quran's support of it, are still an extremely important part of the mix.
And while the IRA are not to be directly blamed on the Reformation, it is certainly true that the religious split added a great deal of heat to the other issues of an Ireland colonised and oppressed by England/Great Britain. And that heat has persisted to the present so far as I've been keeping an eye on NI, and is not yet attenuated enough for safety.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The obvious answer is that you prosecute violent extremism regardless of religious practice, and leave alone religious practice that isn't violent.
That is a good secular answer for a pluralist state. It's pretty useless in helping us to understand where the violence came from and how we can prevent it arising to begin with. And one of the lacks in your whole response there is any significant distinctively Christian view....
If your response to violence emerging from, among other things, religious difference is to announce that everybody must convert to Anabaptism forthwith, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
If you think about it, everyone converting to Anabaptism forthwith would be quite a good solution - no more war or persecution!!
But I'm not that simplistic or that optimistic. But Christians realising a bit quicker than is currently the case that they do have from Jesus a better way to do religion/state relationships would surely be helpful. And presenting Islam (and the West!) with a different example must surely be better than leaving Islam still confronting what looks to them like the 'Christendom' that used to 'crusade' against them, and too much of the West tending to confirm that view of it....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And, wadderyouknow, here is another scholar who argues that Islam should be separated from the state:
quote:
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naʿim argues that the coercive enforcement of shariʿa by the state betrays the Qurʿan’s insistence on voluntary acceptance of Islam. Just as the state should be secure from the misuse of religious authority, shariʿa should be freed from the control of the state. State policies or legislation must be based on civic reasons accessible to citizens of all religions. Showing that throughout the history of Islam, Islam and the state have normally been separate, An-Naʿim maintains that ideas of human rights and citizenship are more consistent with Islamic principles than with claims of a supposedly Islamic state to enforce shariʿa. In fact, he suggests, the very idea of an “Islamic state” is based on European ideas of state and law, and not shariʿa or the Islamic tradition.
link to book blurb
Now that's more like it!! And having just checked there's a Kindle edition, can't wait to add it to my stock and read it. I will be particularly interested in how he treats the issue that;
quote:
the coercive enforcement of shariʿa by the state betrays the Qurʿan’s insistence on voluntary acceptance of Islam.
My current view is that basically yes, there is the teaching in the Quran of how there should be no coercion. The problem is, on the face of it, Muhammad robbed that aspect of most of its force by his own actions in (sorry about the repetition) setting up an Islamic 'kingdom of this world' state and using warfare and execution of opponents on behalf of that state. We will see....
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The problem is, on the face of it...
The problem is indeed on the face of it. You have a superficial view of Islam and what you have written about your superficial view probably far outstrips the word count of what you've read Muslims saying about their Islam. Go read and listen, then form a view.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
With all due respect to your good lady wife/ Orac/ Wikipedia (delete as appropriate) I think that there were ebbs and flows and that the Iranians/ Persians were always attracted to Islamic 'heterodoxy'. This is a good account of the complexities involved.
With all due additional respect I'm more with Orac on this. That review really put me off with the sentence quote:
In contrast to Zoroastrianism, Islam did not regard women as the property of men
Also I don't think attraction to heterodoxy really sounds convincing given that for the first few hundred years I don't think it's clear who was going to be regarded as orthodox. The split was very early and orthodox depends on the winners, who weren't established at that point.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The problem is, on the face of it...
The problem is indeed on the face of it. You have a superficial view of Islam and what you have written about your superficial view probably far outstrips the word count of what you've read Muslims saying about their Islam. Go read and listen, then form a view.
Given how voraciously a hyperlexic Aspie like me can read, that sounds unlikely. You will note that having been pointed to a book with a promising different view, I'm about to spend my money on it and read it (and I'm wondering whether the person who found the book will actually be doing that himself, or whether it just served his purposes to use the blurb to get at me....)
I simply expressed the reasonable opinion that given Muhammad's rather indisputable acts, the author will have set himself quite a task. I actually hope he succeeds; but I'm not holding my breath.....
Are you, mdijon, seriously disputing that Muhammad set up an Islamic state and fought wars on its behalf? Is anyone else on the Ship seriously disputing that? If so, evidence please - but there will need to be a lot of it to disprove just the Muslim sources I've read - e.g., English convert Pickthall's intro to his English translation of the Quran.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I, mdijon, am seriously disputing that that's a profoundly inferential point in a coherent argument.
Tell me about your great reading of Islamic scholars again when you've got beyond the "about to buy" stage.
[ 15. September 2016, 10:34: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually no, there is one scholar saying pretty much what I said myself. Just he's spelling out some of the complexities which I avoided to make the basic point.
Bullshit. You said that there was only one possible way to understand Muhammad and that was in terms of Constantinian-style state-building. That link is clearly making the argument that the state-building was clearly influenced by the Koran and Hadith, but as they don't actually say very much about it that there was a whole load of improvising going on from the earliest days.
That is absolutely not what you said at any point and in fact the absolute opposite of what you said, namely that there was only one way to read the Koran and only one way to understand Muhammad.
You are clearly unable to understand that there is another way to conceive of Islamic legal history as it relates to the understanding of Islamic theology and you seem singularly unable to distinguish cause from effect and vice versa.
quote:
During Muhammad's life you had a de facto Islamic state which didn't need a great deal of formalised 'politics' because of the living presence of the prophet and the revelations of the Quran to guide things. A somewhat similar though not identical situation existed in the early days of Mormonism and its prophet Joseph Smith.... But you certainly had the basic realities of an Islamic state established by war and continuing to use warfare to establish and defend itself.
That is very clearly not what the link says at all. Indeed it makes it very clear that Islamic state building after Muhammad involved a lot of creative interpretation of the scriptures and was influenced by a lot of other stuff.
As it says:
quote:
Given the limited nature of political stipulations in the Qurʿān and the ḥadīths, Muslims have had to borrow and to improvise in developing their political systems. These systems, however, have been inspired by sharīʿah (Islamic law), as represented in the Qurʿān and the sunnah; by Arabian tribal traditions; and by the political heritage of the lands Muslims conquered, especially the Persian and Byzantine traditions.
You keep stating that it is a fact that there is only one way to read Muhammad and then when I show you that scholars say that the Islamic states were the way they were due to a range of factors (ie not just a "plain" reading of the Koran) you then change the argument saying that is what you said all along.
The fact is that Muhammad's words in the Koran were open to a whole load of interpretations with regard to violence - leading some to say that it is a religion of peace and others to go down the route of extreme violence.
You are the one saying that violence is the only possible reasonable reading of the Koran, I've provided you with an overview of the wide variety of views on the subject and showing how the basics in the Koran have been interpreted in different ways. Views that you've previously claimed are not "right or even serious".
ISTM that this link, on its own, shows that you're talking utter bollocks and that there are clearly serious views which disagree profoundly with your understanding of the Koran, and that you're in absolutely no position to pronounce what is right or wrong on the subject.
quote:
Why do you think this makes my views "utter bunk"??
It essentially is my view just from a slightly different viewpoint!
You could only make that statement if you'd not actually bothered to read the hundreds of closely argued words I've provided for you to consider. Written by experts on the subject.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The problem is indeed on the face of it. You have a superficial view of Islam and what you have written about your superficial view probably far outstrips the word count of what you've read Muslims saying about their Islam. Go read and listen, then form a view.
Given how voraciously a hyperlexic Aspie like me can read, that sounds unlikely.
I'm sorry, are you saying here that you cannot possibly have a superficial view on something because you have Aspergers and read books?
If you seriously think that then ISTM that you are foolish.
quote:
You will note that having been pointed to a book with a promising different view, I'm about to spend my money on it and read it (and I'm wondering whether the person who found the book will actually be doing that himself, or whether it just served his purposes to use the blurb to get at me....)
My friend, (a) I have met lots of Muslims and I know for certain that Islamic Jurisprudence is complex (b) I know for a fact that many Muslims practice non-violence (c) I know many intelligent Muslims take opposing views on many things, including how to interpret the Koran and (d) I know - far more than you appear to - that there is an enormous amount about Islam that I don't know and therefore I would be extremely cautious about claiming things about it that a short google search can prove are categorically untrue.
[ 15. September 2016, 11:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It is laughable to argue that one knows anything about Islamic anything, on the basis of having read some books. Far better, in my opinion, to live among Muslims, talk with them, interact with them, find out how they view peace and war. Even then, you would still have a partial view. Islam is not monolithic, but then is any religion?
Islamist extremism has many 'origins', and to ascribe it to just one, is a kind of intellectual suicide.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
You keep stating that it is a fact that there is only one way to read Muhammad and then when I show you that scholars say that the Islamic states were the way they were due to a range of factors (ie not just a "plain" reading of the Koran) you then change the argument saying that is what you said all along.
The fact is that Muhammad's words in the Koran were open to a whole load of interpretations with regard to violence - leading some to say that it is a religion of peace and others to go down the route of extreme violence.
You are the one saying that violence is the only possible reasonable reading of the Koran,
1) There are only so many ways you can 'read' a man who raises an army to conquer the city of his birth and make it for all practical purposes an "Islamic state". And does/orders/leads a lot of military actions on the way. And to call that 'peaceable' is a considerable stretch of the English language or any other....
2) Not because I've actually changed my views but because I realised there had been a bit of ambiguity in the statement earlier, I have made clear in the current thread that while I know of, knew of, and fully recognise Muhammad's aspirations to peace, I also think that he undermined that by his practical activity in being a war leader establishing/aiming-at an Islamic state in real terms (as in, describing it otherwise is hair-splitting - in everyday terms it is an 'Islamic state'). Or as someone else recently put it;
quote:
The fact is that Muhammad's words in the Koran were open to a whole load of interpretations with regard to violence
That is, Muhammad's teaching is conflicted and contradictory. Again if you read back upthread you will find me stating that in words which pretty much paraphrase the words of mr cheesy's which I just quoted. I also pointed out quite reasonably that because of this ambiguity (again using mr cheesy's words);
quote:
leading some to say that it is a religion of peace and others to go down the route of extreme violence.
Precisely because Muhammad puts both angles and so presents an incoherent view, and because he himself clearly did the 'Islamic state' and the war on its behalf thing himself, it is at least unsurprising that the majority of Muslims through history seem to have chosen the warfare option and too many have "(gone) down the route of extreme violence".
I am not
quote:
the one saying that violence is the only possible reasonable reading of the Koran
I AM the one saying that the conflicted and contradictory readings pretty much guarantee that the violent route will be followed, especially given the rather indisputable action of establishing an Islamic state which (the religious state thing) also causes violence when foisted on the essentially truly peaceable Christian and Buddhist teachings.
As regards;
quote:
scholars say that the Islamic states were the way they were due to a range of factors
Again what's your problem? The basic factor they quote is precisely the one at the root in a different context of the 'Christian' states; and they may be saying that Muhammad's state didn't quite constitute initially a certain kind of state, but as I say it clearly was a 'state or an intended state' in everyday terms. As I said, there are only so many ways you can read a guy raising an army to conquer his home city and set himself up as ruler....
I have not 'changed my argument'; you introduced a scholar using a slightly different technical approach to what he regards as a state, and I recast my point to put it in his terms. That scholar is still as far as I can see agreeing that Muhammad ended up ruling Mecca by force, which is the key point rather than hair-splitting about when it became a 'state'.
quote:
...the Islamic states were the way they were due to a range of factors (ie not just a "plain" reading of the Koran)...
You're slightly mixing cause and effect here. Yes, Muhammad will have set up his Islamic state due to a range of factors including some naivety on his part about the likely consequences of setting up such a state. And yes, further factors will have caused the continuance of what he started. The point remains that he did as a historical fact set up an Islamic state in every way that matters for the current thread, and via the 'plain reading' of the Quran (which you seem to agree with me was in real terms Muhammad's words) purported to have God's support for what he did - a FACT on which the later rulers built.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because Muhammad puts both angles and so presents an incoherent view, and because he himself clearly did the 'Islamic state' and the war on its behalf thing himself, it is at least unsurprising that the majority of Muslims through history seem to have chosen the warfare option and too many have "(gone) down the route of extreme violence".
That is utter rubbish. The "majority of Muslims throughout history" have not "chosen the warfare route".
quote:
I AM the one saying that the conflicted and contradictory readings pretty much guarantee that the violent route will be followed, especially given the rather indisputable action of establishing an Islamic state which (the religious state thing) also causes violence when foisted on the essentially truly peaceable Christian and Buddhist teachings.
No, they don't "guarantee that the violent route will be followed" as the long list of different opinions as to how to apply the Koran shows. You're just talking shit.
quote:
You're slightly mixing cause and effect here. Yes, Muhammad will have set up his Islamic state due to a range of factors including some naivety on his part about the likely consequences of setting up such a state. And yes, further factors will have caused the continuance of what he started. The point remains that he did as a historical fact set up an Islamic state in every way that matters for the current thread, and via the 'plain reading' of the Quran (which you seem to agree with me was in real terms Muhammad's words) purported to have God's support for what he did - a FACT on which the later rulers built.
I'm saying nothing of the kind and would not presume to agree with you about something that you clearly know absolutely jack shit about.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because Muhammad puts both angles and so presents an incoherent view, and because he himself clearly did the 'Islamic state' and the war on its behalf thing himself, it is at least unsurprising that the majority of Muslims through history seem to have chosen the warfare option and too many have "(gone) down the route of extreme violence".
Could you clarify something for me? What's the distinction between "extreme violence" and the ordinary kind violence typically associated with states? I'm kind of working from a Weberian understanding of the state as inherently violent, so the distinction seems useful.
For example, if we compare the initial Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in 638 and its re-taking by Muslim forces during the Second Crusade (both negotiated surrenders after a siege, with no exceptional atrocities afterwards) with the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christian forces of the First Crusade (city taken by storm, followed by a series of massacres considered excessive even by the standards of Mediæval warfare), most people would class the last as much more "extreme" than either of the first two. How do you arrive at the opposite conclusion?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because Muhammad puts both angles and so presents an incoherent view, and because he himself clearly did the 'Islamic state' and the war on its behalf thing himself, it is at least unsurprising that the majority of Muslims through history seem to have chosen the warfare option and too many have "(gone) down the route of extreme violence".
Could you clarify something for me? What's the distinction between "extreme violence" and the ordinary kind violence typically associated with states? I'm kind of working from a Weberian understanding of the state as inherently violent, so the distinction seems useful.
For example, if we compare the initial Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in 638 and its re-taking by Muslim forces during the Second Crusade (both negotiated surrenders after a siege, with no exceptional atrocities afterwards) with the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christian forces of the First Crusade (city taken by storm, followed by a series of massacres considered excessive even by the standards of Mediæval warfare), most people would class the last as much more "extreme" than either of the first two. How do you arrive at the opposite conclusion?
Actually as an Anabaptist I pretty much agree with you about the violence of states.
In this case I was quoting somebody else in a context where much was being made of the difference (though nominal as I see it) between what Islamic states mostly do and what organisations like IS do. I was thinking in terms of the contrast perhaps between a relatively civilised Western 'Just War' concept and the comparatively extreme stuff we see from IS. But as you should know from other posts on threads we've both been on, I regard 'Just War' as a bit illusory anyway!
The Jerusalem massacre was indeed particularly bad; and a strong example of why Christians should follow Jesus on religion/state relations rather than the idea that you can have a religious state such as stages 'crusades'.
But yes, I was being a bit loose there....
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You know, this getting caught up in ancient, founding history of Islam (and would be for any other religion) as setting up the current violence done in the name of Islam is wrong. This is about misuse of religion to provide something to identify with, in the context of destroyed for failed states, where national identification and even ethnic identification isn't possible.
You can misuse football team loyalty and have extreme behaviour. Just because Islam is the identified uniting force behind the extremism doesn't mean that it is the root cause. You need to look at the actual roots of the thing, which is no real hope, disintegrated countries and states, corrupt leadership, and yes, our direct contribution to the destruction of nascent nations, alliance with despots for economic gain and exploitation of their resources. Mohammed's wars of conquest have about as much to do with this as Paul's journeys in Acts have to do with the founding America (which in the opinion of some of my ancestors was founded by terrorists who burnt their farm, shot a few of them, and made them flee).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually as an Anabaptist I pretty much agree with you about the violence of states.
In this case I was quoting somebody else in a context where much was being made of the difference (though nominal as I see it) between what Islamic states mostly do and what organisations like IS do.
Why specifically Islamic states? Is the Russian bombing campaign in Syria (to pick one example) notably less extreme than the Syrian government's own bombing campaign (conducted with Russian support)?
And I'm still not clear on what you're arguing regarding the proper role Christians and the state. Is it that Christians should never concern themselves with the doings of the governments under which they live, even in democratic systems where such is expected of them? Or is it that if everyone adopts your particular form of Christianity there will be a "withering away of the state" (that sounds vaguely familiar) to be followed by some anarcho-utopian paradise? Considering the persistence of the state compared with other forms of human organization, this seems a bit naïve.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
That is utter rubbish. The "majority of Muslims throughout history" have not "chosen the warfare route".
Not suggesting the majority of Muslims throughout history have constantly been at actual war; just that they have accepted the basic idea implied by Muhammad's actual practice of war, and the Islamic state which like most states does depend on the possibility of war.
also by mr cheesy;
quote:
No, they don't "guarantee that the violent route will be followed" as the long list of different opinions as to how to apply the Koran shows. You're just talking shit.
We're back to that non-argument about all the 'different opinions/interpretations'. It's still a non-argument so how can I realistically respond? Can you give me a concrete example of a credible not obviously strained argument which explains how to get round the facts of Muhammad's own violent actions?
quote:
I'm saying nothing of the kind and would not presume to agree with you about something that you clearly know absolutely jack shit about.
That seems to refer to my comment that you appear to agree with me that the Quran was Muhammad's words. I based that comment on your own reference to "Muhammad's words in the Koran".
Assuming I'm right what you're referring to, whose words do you then think the Quran is?
For info, my opinion is Muhammad's words and opinions in fact, but sincerely believed by him to be God's words.
And I note that you don't seem to be responding to the rest of that paragraph which is in the present context perhaps more important, being about the historical facts of Muhammad's actions, than the opinion of either of us on the origins of the Quran
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually as an Anabaptist I pretty much agree with you about the violence of states.
Then you do not get it. It is not state or religion, but people. If the world were naught but Anabaptist anarchists, there would be war, rape, murder, etc. Religion is sometime the excuse, but people are the cause.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I, mdijon, am seriously disputing that that's a profoundly inferential point in a coherent argument.
Tell me about your great reading of Islamic scholars again when you've got beyond the "about to buy" stage.
1) No 'great reading of Islamic scholars' - just simply literally quite a bit more such reading than you were implying. And I submit, BTW, a great deal more reading than one Muhammad seems to have given the NT before (a) producing a seriously distorted version of Jesus, and (b) completely ignoring Jesus' much better ideas on religion/state relations. Which in turn doesn't give me much confidence in either Muhammad or a Quran which appears to reflect that ignorance of Jesus....
2) As regards;
quote:
I, mdijon, am seriously disputing that that's a profoundly inferential point in a coherent argument.
WOW!
I ask a simple question and I get that instead of an actual answer. OK, I'm not necessarily expecting a simple yes or no, but what would be so wrong in you either
1) Affirming that you don't believe Muhammad essentially established an Islamic state by warfare; and perhaps explaining why in that denial you would apparently be disagreeing with not far short of the whole world....
2) Affirming that you do in fact believe Muhammad established a de facto Islamic state by de facto warfare as pretty much everyone else believes; and
3) Regardless of what exact kind of logical argument you think I'm making, explaining why those acts by Muhammad are apparently to you irrelevant to the problems the world now faces from the religion he founded; I think most ordinary people would think this issue quite important, especially as the violent extremist Muslims are essentially quoting the example of that conduct to justify their violent acts....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually as an Anabaptist I pretty much agree with you about the violence of states.
Then you do not get it. It is not state or religion, but people. If the world were naught but Anabaptist anarchists, there would be war, rape, murder, etc. Religion is sometime the excuse, but people are the cause.
No, actually I do very much get it. It's part of the whole "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" thing that indeed people do all the war, rape, murder etc. I know perfectly well that states are not strictly persons (though they often are nominally so for legal convenience).
I was responding in a limited context to Croesos and in the terms of the question he asked it seemed proper to agree with him about the violence of states in general. I could expand on it considerably to make clear how I think the states as structures and the people in the states interact. Basically the way people set up states creates certain particular temptations to particular sins which by the size and power of states can have very wide-reaching and drastic effects compared to most acts by individuals without state power to employ and the state as a kind of idol to inspire its citizens.
Nor would I deny that religions have their problems, including Anabaptism. The problems that arise when religion and state are linked are however particularly toxic; while correspondingly, separation of religion and state generally means that when religious people do go wrong, the effects are more limited.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually as an Anabaptist I pretty much agree with you about the violence of states.
In this case I was quoting somebody else in a context where much was being made of the difference (though nominal as I see it) between what Islamic states mostly do and what organisations like IS do.
Why specifically Islamic states? Is the Russian bombing campaign in Syria (to pick one example) notably less extreme than the Syrian government's own bombing campaign (conducted with Russian support)?
In this case, context again - the discussion was about the difference between different manifestations of Islam. I actually did originally leave out the word 'Islamic' there but realised that I'd be widening a bit beyond the original context. Anabaptist pacifism isn't exactly happy about any war. Syria is a mess; the only distinction I can see is that Russia may be trying a bit harder to appear civilised than the Syrian government itself.
quote:
And I'm still not clear on what you're arguing regarding the proper role Christians and the state. Is it that Christians should never concern themselves with the doings of the governments under which they live, even in democratic systems where such is expected of them? Or is it that if everyone adopts your particular form of Christianity there will be a "withering away of the state" (that sounds vaguely familiar) to be followed by some anarcho-utopian paradise? Considering the persistence of the state compared with other forms of human organization, this seems a bit naïve.
I don't want to derail this thread into Anabaptism - or no more than is really necessary anyway. But I think if you look at what worries people about even the 'better' Islamic states and Sharia law, I don't want Christianity to be like that and perceived that way. And I don't want Muslims to be looking at 'Christian countries' and seeing a 'crusading' enemy.
And to be honest right now I've run out of concentration to go further, and to be sure I'm putting the case at its best. I'll come back to it tomorrow.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Just an update; have now got and started to read the "Islam and the Secular State" book.
It is good; it is within inches of sounding like it was written by an Anabaptist.... So much of it is what I agree with that I'm having difficulty understanding why mr cheesy recommended it to me as supposedly reading someone with a different view... mind you it's early days yet, things may change.
My other first reaction is just "Why didn't God reveal this to Muhammad?" I mean, it was hardly a big secret; God had already revealed it through Jesus, even if those pesky Constantinians had managed to mess it up; surely he would have 're-revealed' it to the ultimate prophet, Muhammad, to put right the things that the Constantinians got wrong....
And then, of course, Muhammad wouldn't have made that stupid mistake of gathering an army and conquering Mecca, so that later Islam followed that example and became violent and coercive....
I await with interest how the author reconciles what he's written so far with Muhammad's acts and the Quran which supported those acts....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
A further update on my reading of the "Islam and the Secular State" book....
After that promising beginning, the author goes off into issues of interpretation. And for now it seems to be a bit hazier where he's actually going with that. For now I'm reading on, but thinking I may have to come back and reread to be sure I'm analysing his arguments correctly. It also seems to me that he has a primarily Islamic audience in mind and has, for instance set up a feedback forum which probably wouldn't benefit from Christian input right now. But I'm ploughing on and we'll see where it leads...
Croesos, I've not forgotten your queries in your last post but I have been a bit busy; I'm also in a bit of a PM discussion with a Host about some of the issues as they affect gay concerns. I don't want to give you a quick answer that might just add to confusion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why specifically Islamic states? Is the Russian bombing campaign in Syria (to pick one example) notably less extreme than the Syrian government's own bombing campaign (conducted with Russian support)?
In this case, context again - the discussion was about the difference between different manifestations of Islam. I actually did originally leave out the word 'Islamic' there but realised that I'd be widening a bit beyond the original context. Anabaptist pacifism isn't exactly happy about any war. Syria is a mess; the only distinction I can see is that Russia may be trying a bit harder to appear civilised than the Syrian government itself.
Your opposition seems to be to the state generally, so we're talking not just about war but also the other forms of state use of violence. This includes most of the ways modern societies discourage or punish internal bad actors. Abolishing the state would create all kinds of problems, none of which you seem to have any realistic solutions to.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
This - from that PM conversation I mentioned - is perhaps a starting point in answering that; the italics is an addition to the original PM...
quote:
Also briefly – and I could expound this at greater length of course – the Anabaptist view in general is not about “How we would run the state”, and we basically don't want to. It's more about how we live as yes “God's holy people”, but with a status in this world almost of 'resident aliens'; it's how we live, peaceably if we can (but 'turning the other cheek' rather than fighting back if the state won't let us live peaceably), among a 'world' (and I may not interpret that quite as you expect) which is likely often to be hostile, and how we do good for our neighbours as much as possible, which certainly includes sharing our views, but should include a fairly conscious effort not to be what Peter calls 'allotriepiskopoi', which roughly translates as “bossy-boots in other people's business”.
What I'm against is not 'the state' but the 'State Church/Christian country' business. I actually do believe Christians can potentially be considerably involved in the state.
BUT in current circumstances I think there's also a bit of a need to 'back off' and put 'clear water' between what we should do now/in-future, and the past where (in the West and its colonies) the state was nominally run by Christians. In the short term this may mean less engagement with the state while we build some credibility for the idea that we don't want to return to the old 'Christian country' way or anything that resembles Islam and 'Sharia'.
I expect states to go on till Judgement Day. I'm trying to change the relationships between state and church back to the NT model.
(Sorry about the long sentences - I read too much Paul!)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I expect states to go on till Judgement Day. I'm trying to change the relationships between state and church back to the NT model.
If I recall correctly, the New Testament featured a government (more than one, actually) with a non-Christian state church that alternated between indifference and hostility towards Christians. If that's your goal, IS would seem to fit the bill pretty well.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
If that's your goal,
No, it's not my 'goal' - just the realities of living a 'born again' life in a world of unbelievers who we are NOT supposed to kill for their enmity or coerce into conforming to us!
And whatever time it is where you are, it's late here - I'm packing in for the night....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why specifically Islamic states? Is the Russian bombing campaign in Syria (to pick one example) notably less extreme than the Syrian government's own bombing campaign (conducted with Russian support)?
In this case, context again - the discussion was about the difference between different manifestations of Islam. I actually did originally leave out the word 'Islamic' there but realised that I'd be widening a bit beyond the original context. Anabaptist pacifism isn't exactly happy about any war. Syria is a mess; the only distinction I can see is that Russia may be trying a bit harder to appear civilised than the Syrian government itself.
Your opposition seems to be to the state generally, so we're talking not just about war but also the other forms of state use of violence. This includes most of the ways modern societies discourage or punish internal bad actors. Abolishing the state would create all kinds of problems, none of which you seem to have any realistic solutions to.
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet. Leavening it, softening it, making up for its economically necessary starkness, filling in the gaps with charity, opposing abuse of power beyond the utilitarian is. We are utterly dependent on the state, there is no alternative, how can we repay, serve accordingly?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin60;
quote:
We are utterly dependent on the state,
I think I'd say we are utterly dependent on God. God deals in the world explicitly via his people, less obviously 'providentially' through the world's own institutions. We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves, that he is also providentially ruling/overruling the state to bring good out of it, including to bring good even out of its evil acts.
And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Steve, do you believe in a police force? Do you believe that schoolchildren should be compulsorily educated - a requirement in English law going back to 1870?
If you do believe in the law and that this needs enforcing, then how is that possible without a police force?
If you don't believe in a police force as a form of government violence (or at least implied violence), how are you suggesting to enforce the idea that all children should get educated?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Martin60;
quote:
We are utterly dependent on the state,
I think I'd say we are utterly dependent on God.
Ultimately, existentially, but as citizens, people, social organisms we are utterly dependent on human structures, organization and relationships for everything including the quality of the air we breathe.
quote:
God deals in the world explicitly via his people,
Aye, as St. Theresa of Avila apparently said.
quote:
less obviously 'providentially' through the world's own institutions.
Aye, the universe freely increases in the quality of its organization.
quote:
We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,
Indeed we must never abuse our power, no matter how high we are in the apparatus of state, the organization, disposition of society.
quote:
that he is also providentially ruling/overruling the state to bring good out of it, including to bring good even out of its evil acts.
That's not a claim that has any meaning for me.
quote:
And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.
We are the world.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Martin60;
quote:
We are utterly dependent on the state,
I think I'd say we are utterly dependent on God. God deals in the world explicitly via his people, less obviously 'providentially' through the world's own institutions. We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves, that he is also providentially ruling/overruling the state to bring good out of it, including to bring good even out of its evil acts.
And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.
So, keeping out of the way and not engaging in 'the world' in any way whatsoever other than to preach at people and warn them of the judgement to come constitutes 'doing good' does it?
Good luck with that.
I'm sure you don't advocate some kind of monastic withdrawal on the part of all believers but I'm afraid I've always found it hard to follow what you are actually advocating - beyond separation of church and state (which is something a lot of Anglicans, Orthodox and other so-called Constantinian Christians also believe in, believe it or not).
You've never clearly articulated on these boards what it means in practice to be 'in the world but not of it' other than to point the finger at churches and Christians you don't agree with - be it those who have 'quasi-magical' rites as you see it or those who haven't sufficiently separated themselves into the kind of purity you imagine Baptist/Anabaptist churches to have over and against everyone else.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still waiting for a clear articulation of that. I suspect I'll be waiting for some time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So, keeping out of the way and not engaging in 'the world' in any way whatsoever other than to preach at people and warn them of the judgement to come constitutes 'doing good' does it?
No. That has never been what I've said and I've said more than enough that you should know better. Bear in mind that to a large extent where I'm suggesting 'disengagement' it is where there has been unChristian engagement which needs to be sorted out before we can easily get more positive again.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My point though is that you don't seem able to articulate what that 'disengagement' involves other than in purely negative terms.
I've seen plenty of posts where you've outlined what you think Christians shouldn't be doing but very few where you've outlined what they should be doing instead.
Other than being Anabaptists.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've seen plenty of posts where you've outlined what you think Christians shouldn't be doing but very few where you've outlined what they should be doing instead.
That might be because most of 'what they should be doing' is not some exotic 'instead' but just ordinary everyday life but with a significantly different Christian attitude. Because the Constantinians have added something questionable to what we do, of course dealing with it concentrates on getting rid of the unnecessary extras rather than on the ordinary which is largely in common - you know, the 'Mere Christianity' stuff.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
sufficiently separated themselves into the kind of purity you imagine Baptist/Anabaptist churches to have over and against everyone else.
I'm not arguing for the kind of negative legalistic purity that one sees in groups like the Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren or the more extreme Amish. On most things that should be ordinary Christianity and not so legalistic; I'm arguing for the one big 'purity' issue of really separating from the state, where the wrong answer has done so much damage; and yes, maybe initially over-separating to be clear ourselves and make clear to the world that we don't want to go back to the improperly domineering 'Christian country' past.
You in effect are the one (or the main one of a few) who keep trying to foist a more extreme position here on me than I'm actually stating.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You in effect are the one (or the main one of a few) who keep trying to foist a more extreme position here on me than I'm actually stating.
You're the one who brought up "negative legalistic purity," not Gamaliel. You're foisting your presupposition of what Gamaliel is saying onto him, and calling what he is doing "foisting." Freud would call that "projection."
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, the universe freely increases in the quality of its organization.
nice one!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,
Where exactly did he say that? Do you have chapter and verse? "Thou shalt not be bossy-boots." I'm guessing this is the result of some interpretation from passages that not everybody interprets in the "Anabaptist" fashion.
quote:
Martin:
quote:
Steve: And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.
We are the world.
The urge to sing here is nearly overwhelming.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've seen plenty of posts where you've outlined what you think Christians shouldn't be doing but very few where you've outlined what they should be doing instead.
That might be because most of 'what they should be doing' is not some exotic 'instead' but just ordinary everyday life but with a significantly different Christian attitude. Because the Constantinians have added something questionable to what we do, of course dealing with it concentrates on getting rid of the unnecessary extras rather than on the ordinary which is largely in common - you know, the 'Mere Christianity' stuff.
...except I'm not sure we can ever get to "Mere Christianity". There are always interpretations, perspectives, misunderstandings, and disagreements involved--not to mention personal and cultural baggage. Even separatist and/or conservative Anabaptists have
the Ordnung rules.
[ 20. September 2016, 03:07: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye he did mousethief. We're still trying to be joined up about that and the Prince of Passive Resistance two thousand years later. Our failure to do so created Islam. Or may be it would have arisen if we hadn't become the state? But at least it couldn't blame us.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You in effect are the one (or the main one of a few) who keep trying to foist a more extreme position here on me than I'm actually stating.
You're the one who brought up "negative legalistic purity," not Gamaliel. You're foisting your presupposition of what Gamaliel is saying onto him, and calling what he is doing "foisting." Freud would call that "projection."
Actually although Gamaliel didn't use the exact words "negative legalistic purity", he has said many things implying that I do think/act similarly to groups like the Amish and Exclusive Brethren, and that I'm about stuff that could fairly be described as "negative legalistic purity". Indeed I don't think Gamaliel would object much to me so summarising it! I don't think I'm 'projecting' it onto him. And he's been rather persistent in that approach even when I've gone out of my way to deny/refute such an interpretation of my words.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, the universe freely increases in the quality of its organization.
nice one!
Also nice one, Martin! But no direct comment right now....
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,
Where exactly did he say that? Do you have chapter and verse? "Thou shalt not be bossy-boots." I'm guessing this is the result of some interpretation from passages that not everybody interprets in the "Anabaptist" fashion.
As it happens I do have 'chapter and verse'.
quote:
12 Beloved, think it not strange at the fiery suffering among you that is coming to try you, as if a strange thing were happening to you, 13 but, according as ye have fellowship with the sufferings of the Christ, rejoice ye, that also in the revelation of his glory ye may rejoice--exulting; 14 if ye be reproached in the name of Christ--happy are ye, because the Spirit of glory and of God upon you doth rest; in regard, indeed, to them, he is evil-spoken of, and in regard to you, he is glorified; 15 for let none of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evil-doer, or as an *inspector into other men's matters*; 16 and if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; and let him glorify God in this respect 1 Peter 4:12-16 (YLT)
The word I translated as 'bossy-boots (in other people's affairs)' is rendered in YLT as "an inspector into other men's matters" (italicised and starred above to pick it out in the long quote), and in the original is the single Greek word 'allotriepiskopoi' which breaks down into
'allos' - other (people)
'-tria' -the business of... and
'episkopoi' - literally 'overseers/managers' - basically the same word as 'bishop' which in NT times had not acquired its modern English exclusively ecclesiastical meaning.
The word is often translated as 'meddlers in other people's affairs' or similar. I think my rendering as 'bossy-boots' is a fair paraphrase to convey the idea of 'managing/running' things.
I think the 'meddlers' version rather weakens the original because of course once you've accepted the dodgy Constantinian idea you have a church and 'bishops/episkopoi' who are constantly running/managing other people's affairs in the 'Christian' state; indeed the bishops of a Constantinian church have effectively become 'allotriepiskopoi' contrary to Peter's teaching! Thus in such a church a translation/interpretation is needed which seems to imply something less, and more individualistic, than that state church meddling, whereas reading Peter in full context implies NOT having a state church in the first place.
And can we please drop the silly pretence that I supposedly "don't believe in interpretation" - of course I do, as is quite directly implied by the Tyndale quote. It's just that I'm straightforward about it, and as above more than happy to explain my reasons so others can follow me and if they see fit disagree and give their reasons. What I don't do is either go all Jacques Derrida and similar acting as if all interpretations are equally credible, or go all papal suggesting I or my church has some infallible authority that makes my interpretation special rather than ordinary interpretation (I'll probably have to come back to this in another post - enough now for this one)
quote:
quote:
Martin:
quote:
Steve: And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.
We are the world.
The urge to sing here is nearly overwhelming.
Except that the Bible says that in an important sense Christians, while emphatically 'in the world' are also supposed to be 'not of the world', but rather to be God's people showing 'the (God-rejecting) world' a different and better way. We can discuss exactly what that means, but it's definitely there in scripture, even in the words of Jesus hiumself and puts a significant qualification to what Martin says there... even though I agree he's got a valid point in some senses.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.
And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul. But given the length of this so far, I'll come back to that in a separate post. You should perhaps check out my blog 'stevesfreechurchblog' - I'll go and do some UBB practice in the near future on how to give you a direct link to it.
(having broken up MT's post to respond to bits of it separately, I hope it's clear that the bits in the 'quotes' above which aren't me or Martin are MT's own bits. I'm shortly going to have to leave where I am at the moment and I can't think of a UBB fix I can do in time)
[I think that's sorted out the quotes ...]
[ 20. September 2016, 15:19: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.
And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.
I don't think mt meant to do that at all, and I expect Martin60 was taking a kind of two kingdoms approach to supporting the state monopoly on violence.
[ 20. September 2016, 15:03: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I don't do is either go all Jacques Derrida and similar acting as if all interpretations are equally credible, or go all papal suggesting I or my church has some infallible authority that makes my interpretation special.
Nor do most of, perhaps all, the rest of us here.
[ 20. September 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As I've said before, 'Derrida? He's got Foucault to do with it ...'
But old gags aside, I'm certainly not accusing Steve Langton of advocating Amish style withdrawal from the world nor some kind of Exclusive Brethren extremism.
But beyond church-state separation and not having these nasty interfering Bishops (whoever they might be), I'm not sure what he actually is advocating.
The closest he's come to providing any kind of manifesto, as it were, is to suggest that we all pursue some kind of 'Mere Christianity' approach.
Which is fine by me, but so far we've had no indication of what this means in practice other than we shouldn't get involved in the nasty, tainted State in any way whatsover - which is difficult to envisage as being practically possible in a modern, developed society.
If we're a teacher, a civil servant, an NHS employer or a whole host of other things then it's the State that will pay our salaries.
So far as I can see Steve Langton is suggesting:
You can be a teacher but not a magistrate or policeman.
You can do all manner of things as long as it doesn't make you a busy-body in some way. Which would immediately rule out any number of roles that involve regulation in some form or other - be it the DVLC, Trading Standards or being a School Inspector ... well, actually, come to think of it ...
I'm teasing to some extent but I am trying to make a serious point. The constant harping back to the excesses of Erastian forms of church-state relations doesn't help us a great deal.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.
And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.
I don't think mt meant to do that at all, and I expect Martin60 was taking a kind of two kingdoms approach to supporting the state monopoly on violence.
I actually rather suspected mt wouldn't mean quite that - but there are rather too many, including among mt's Orthodox brethren, who do take it that way. And I wanted to kind of face him with that and make him clarify his position further. As I said almost immediately, I was running out of time where I was. The slightly provocative response in the meantime seemed appropriate compared to saying nothing - maybe I misjudged that a bit.
As this is pretty relevant - by contrast - to the Islamic extremism issue I'll try and expand later what I think Paul did mean; which would not be quite what mt suggested, or seemed to suggest.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I don't do is either go all Jacques Derrida and similar acting as if all interpretations are equally credible, or go all papal suggesting I or my church has some infallible authority that makes my interpretation special.
Nor do most of, perhaps all, the rest of us here.
And I wasn't saying so; but I've recently faced quite a few people on the Ship who do seem to be 'going all Jacques Derrida' by blethering abstractly about 'other interpretations' and the like as if merely saying there are other interpretations in itself proved me wrong or narrow-minded,and others who've been all to happy to scornfully insinuate I'm going 'papal'.
I'm guessing a Baptist with enough sense to be also a Trainfan will appreciate that I'm just trying as I said upthread to do rather ordinary interpretation and explain myself as much as possible so others can follow and agree with or correct my reasoning. What I'm objecting to is this uninformative business of not coming up with a better reasoning or interpretation but just going abstractly "There are other interpretations". And though I hope such people aren't common on the Ship, I seem to have run into a few, and others who seem a bit close for comfort to that attitude.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
what this means in practice other than we shouldn't get involved in the nasty, tainted State in any way whatsoever - which is difficult to envisage as being practically possible in a modern, developed society
Again, not what I've been saying. I'm saying the Church should not itself be entangled with the state and that individually Christians need to be careful when the state is directly involved - and especially not to be trying to run the state....
You're right, it's difficult to avoid involvement altogether, and I think those who try it have gone a bit astray. Partly it's a matter of avoiding the 'allotriepiskopos' thing, partly the limiting point is "We must obey God rather than man" - when you really can't carry on 'obeying man' without yourself positively disobeying God, you back out, perhaps protest (peaceably).
What you DON'T do is the attitude seen in Ian Paisley's commentary on Romans, and which clearly a lot of people in NI take, that at that point you are entitled to fight back 'with physical weapons' till you get the state to accept you. E.g., when the police stop your Protestant band parading you throw bricks and bottles at them. No, the correct route is to remain 'subject to' the state as per Romans 13, and therefore accept any resulting penalties the state dishes out, from losing your job to being thrown to the lions.
Mt, please note; that reference to the " nasty, tainted State" is one of many which caused me to protest about having ideas of "negative legalistic purity" being attributed to me....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
If we're a teacher, a civil servant, an NHS employer or a whole host of other things then it's the State that will pay our salaries. So far as I can see Steve Langton is suggesting: You can be a teacher but not a magistrate or policeman. You can do all manner of things as long as it doesn't make you a busy-body in some way. Which would immediately rule out any number of roles that involve regulation in some form or other - be it the DVLC, Trading Standards or being a School Inspector ... well, actually, come to think of it ... [Big Grin]
One of the reasons I go 'light' in this area is that if you think about it, this can be very different in different states; different in say Nazi Germany compared to most modern democracies, for example. I'm trying to lay down the initial principles, not to tell you where your personal "must obey God rather than man" must come.
From the examples Gamaliel gives, Yes, in most democracies I wouldn't see a problem in being a teacher in a state school; but one teaching job I wouldn't take would be RE, because I don't think that's the state's business. I also think that 'church schools' should in fact be private rather than entangled in the state, with the risk that the state, 'paying the piper', may end up calling unacceptable tunes.
Police - On the whole I think not even in a democracy; I'll hopefully get back to the 'state violence' thing again, but one of my main reasons here is that I see the Church's job as being in 'preventative medicine', socially speaking, and in a role akin to Christian Peacemaker Teams in a warzone. Street Pastors work with the Police to quite an extent - but it is part of their value that they are clearly a distinct 'rescue service' rather than a moral enforcement service.
I think a lot of the same might apply to 'magistrates' - but if a Church friend felt led to that kind of role, I would be advising caution rather than outright "You mustn't". Even in our democracy there are some trends that might change that.
Should be noted, BTW, that in reading older texts you need to be aware that until quite recently 'magistrate' was not just a word for a local low-level judge, but meant anybody of 'high level' in society up to and including kings and emperors. The Anabaptist 'Schleitheim Confession' uses it in that wider sense.
On the others, I think the point is not things that involve regulation in general, but what is being regulated and by what rules. "Obeying God rather than man" is not likely to be a regular issue for workers in the DVLC, for instance. As I pointed out above, the 'busy body' business is actually rather specific; it's effectively about the "Because God is on my/our side I'm/we're entitled to boss you around" kind of idea. In the DVLC you are doing a neutral kind of job which nobody can realistically object about normally, and there are usually no religious implications where you can be seen as an inappropriately religious 'bossy-boots'.
Different jobs in different societies you assess on a case-by-case basis.
I think being a soldier is a very clear NO-NO! And more rather than less so in a supposedly Christian state where Jesus gets explicitly involved in the state's acts. Christians ought to witness strongly against that.
Having said that, I wouldn't confront a recently converted soldier with a kind of 'fatwa' that he must leave the army immediately or be excommunicated. I think the appropriate thing is to give him space - and importantly information - to think the thing through for himself in light of his new Christian status; while also warning him that he's in a position where even in our democracy that "We must obey God rather than man" might come up sooner rather than later.
And I don't think I could advise a new convert to carry on in Hitler's SS except in terms of protesting against it....
Sorry, got to do something else now till later, possibly tomorrow...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.
And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.
Given that state use of violence is the underlying mechanism for the rule of law, I suspect the confusion comes from your lack of understanding of the Weberian state.
And we don't need to go all the way to Nazi Germany for an example. Segregated Alabama will do just as nicely. We have an example of alleged "Christians" demonstrating to get the state to intervene on their behalf using the power of the law (and the implication of force behind the law). According to Steve Langton's reasoning, this kind of action is impermissible for real, true Christians. In other words, those who wrote "A Call for Unity" were acting within Christian principles, while their more famous respondent was behaving heretically.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
From the examples Gamaliel gives, Yes, in most democracies I wouldn't see a problem in being a teacher in a state school; but one teaching job I wouldn't take would be RE, because I don't think that's the state's business. I also think that 'church schools' should in fact be private rather than entangled in the state, with the risk that the state, 'paying the piper', may end up calling unacceptable tunes.
Police - On the whole I think not even in a democracy; I'll hopefully get back to the 'state violence' thing again, but one of my main reasons here is that I see the Church's job as being in 'preventative medicine', socially speaking, and in a role akin to Christian Peacemaker Teams in a warzone. Street Pastors work with the Police to quite an extent - but it is part of their value that they are clearly a distinct 'rescue service' rather than a moral enforcement service.
So... you are free to access state funded education and the protection of state-violence viz a vis the police, you're just not prepared to get involved.
That seems rather a contradictory way - if you had the strength of your convictions, you'd refuse to co-operate with the education system and the police, surely.
quote:
I think a lot of the same might apply to 'magistrates' - but if a Church friend felt led to that kind of role, I would be advising caution rather than outright "You mustn't". Even in our democracy there are some trends that might change that.
Please unpack that. Why might you be telling someone else that they mustn't do something that you rely on as part of the justice system?
What is wrong with being a magistrate? Are you saying your perfect government system wouldn't have judges and magistrates?
quote:
Should be noted, BTW, that in reading older texts you need to be aware that until quite recently 'magistrate' was not just a word for a local low-level judge, but meant anybody of 'high level' in society up to and including kings and emperors. The Anabaptist 'Schleitheim Confession' uses it in that wider sense.
Not really sure what that has to do with anything. Surely it is less about their status in society as "kings and emperors" and more to do with their status in the law system as purveyors of justice.
quote:
On the others, I think the point is not things that involve regulation in general, but what is being regulated and by what rules. "Obeying God rather than man" is not likely to be a regular issue for workers in the DVLC, for instance. As I pointed out above, the 'busy body' business is actually rather specific; it's effectively about the "Because God is on my/our side I'm/we're entitled to boss you around" kind of idea. In the DVLC you are doing a neutral kind of job which nobody can realistically object about normally, and there are usually no religious implications where you can be seen as an inappropriately religious 'bossy-boots'.
OK but on some level the civil servant is in a power position over others, right?
quote:
Different jobs in different societies you assess on a case-by-case basis.
I think being a soldier is a very clear NO-NO! And more rather than less so in a supposedly Christian state where Jesus gets explicitly involved in the state's acts. Christians ought to witness strongly against that.
Oh ok then. So I can take it that if your town was flooded you'll be refusing any help from the evil military? If you're in a conflict situation, you'll not stand behind the blue helmets of any UN force as they protect you from murdering crowds? You'll refuse to accept food distributed by the military of any complexion whilst starving?
quote:
Having said that, I wouldn't confront a recently converted soldier with a kind of 'fatwa' that he must leave the army immediately or be excommunicated. I think the appropriate thing is to give him space - and importantly information - to think the thing through for himself in light of his new Christian status; while also warning him that he's in a position where even in our democracy that "We must obey God rather than man" might come up sooner rather than later.
Thank goodness for that.
quote:
And I don't think I could advise a new convert to carry on in Hitler's SS except in terms of protesting against it....
Sorry, got to do something else now till later, possibly tomorrow...
Hopefully it doesn't involve the government, the military, the justice system or the DVLA, otherwise you might be a practising hypocrite.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.
That's not entirely fair. Various anabaptists have resisted the state and gone their own way.
But many had the courage of their convictions to understand that they couldn't accept the protection of the state whilst at the same time loudly protesting about how ungodly it was - and so went their own way. Unusually to an ignominious death in the desert in South America or to their own communes in North America.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.
NO!
Actually what you're describing sounds more like the position of those who issued that "A Call for Unity" that Croesos referred to in the post preceding yours. Broadly I interpret that situation in the Southern USA as Christians taking just about every attitude but the Anabaptist one, though with Martin Luther King probably closest.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
Given that state use of violence is the underlying mechanism for the rule of law, I suspect the confusion comes from your lack of understanding of the Weberian state.
Actually on a quick glance at Wiki, the 'Weberian state' sounds like a pretty good definition of the state as 'the world' practices it.
Anabaptists are not trying to set up anything remotely similar, but to establish Jesus' 'kingdom not of this world' as a global people of God who precisely rely on a different and ultimately actually more powerful power than the state has.
One implication of this is that if/when the Church does become entangled in the Weberian state and tries to use that kind of localised political power for its goals, it becomes compromised and weakened because it is no longer relying fully on God, indeed is in varying degrees disobeying God and following goals he disapproves of in ways he disapproves of.
One of the ambivalences of the situation for Anabaptists is that we find ourselves dealing not with a straightforward 'World/Church' dualism but also with a third body of a 'world-entangled' church which basically we also need to separate from. And that's on the one hand a difficult dance, on the other hand it's a dance we shouldn't be having to do because the serious Christians should join us in obeying God, and the 'nominal' Christianity created by that world-entangled church, of people who think they're Christian by birth in a so-called 'Christian country' basically shouldn't exist (and before any idiot says it, even in jest, that is NOT, of course, a call for extermination).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One of the ambivalences of the situation for Anabaptists is that we find ourselves dealing not with a straightforward 'World/Church' dualism but also with a third body of a 'world-entangled' church which basically we also need to separate from. And that's on the one hand a difficult dance, on the other hand it's a dance we shouldn't be having to do because the serious Christians should join us in obeying God, and the 'nominal' Christianity created by that world-entangled church, of people who think they're Christian by birth in a so-called 'Christian country' basically shouldn't exist (and before any idiot says it, even in jest, that is NOT, of course, a call for extermination).
OK, but you're not untangling yourself from "the world", you seem to be relatively randomly deciding that some bits are worth using (but not participating in) and other bits are not. In fact you're just picking-and-choosing which bits of the world are convenient for you to make us of. Just like everyone else.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
mr cheesy; Anabaptists are not objecting to 'the state' per se - we accept it as part of the world we live in, and occasionally we find ourselves having to oppose it in the interests of 'obeying God rather than man'; and in most of those cases you'd probably agree with us. Some states we find much more difficult to live in/with than others.
What we do very much object to is the dubious creation of the so-called 'Christian state' which confuses the whole issue for everybody.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy; Anabaptists are not objecting to 'the state' per se - we accept it as part of the world we live in, and occasionally we find ourselves having to oppose it in the interests of 'obeying God rather than man'; and in most of those cases you'd probably agree with us. Some states we find much more difficult to live in/with than others.
OK, so why aren't you objecting to the state? That makes no sense - first you're complaining that various activities are taking the rightful place of God, then you're saying that that's ok when it is convenient for you to be ok.
Some anabaptists complain about the police as a thing. Why aren't you? Why is it OK to call the police to get justice but not OK to be a policeman?
quote:
What we do very much object to is the dubious creation of the so-called 'Christian state' which confuses the whole issue for everybody.
It seems to me that you're just confused.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
quote:
quote: by Steve Langton;
Should be noted, BTW, that in reading older texts you need to be aware that until quite recently 'magistrate' was not just a word for a local low-level judge, but meant anybody of 'high level' in society up to and including kings and emperors. The Anabaptist 'Schleitheim Confession' uses it in that wider sense.
Not really sure what that has to do with anything. Surely it is less about their status in society as "kings and emperors" and more to do with their status in the law system as purveyors of justice.
OK, minor detail - literally 'magistrate' comes from roots which mean, approximately 'great' and 'stratum/level'. It's actual usage is of rulers of varying degrees, in other words people with power from the top dogs like kings and emperors down to their delegates like the local judges for whom we now use the term magistrates. They ruled - whether they purveyed justice or tyranny might be a different matter!
I simply wanted to make the point that if you read older works on this topic - eg., in the 17thC Puritan-era discussions - you might be confused if you think 'magistrate' only has its limited modern English meaning.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
OK, but you're not untangling yourself from "the world", you seem to be relatively randomly deciding that some bits are worth using (but not participating in) and other bits are not. In fact you're just picking-and-choosing which bits of the world are convenient for you to make us of. Just like everyone else.
Two different questions going on here
Q1; Should the church be institutionally entangled in the state in such a way that the state can be regarded as a 'Christian country'? This can actually range all the way from a national establishment like the CofE to the kind of thing you see in the US 'Religious Right'.
A: NO.
Q2; And having hopefully not too far in the future got rid of that, how do Christians live in the state?
A; Well for starters it's likely to depend on which state. It's not so much we 'pick and choose what we like', it's that we have this ultimate limiting point of 'obeying God rather than man'. If we are allowed, we should overall benefit the state. Unlike many others who disagree with their state for various reasons, the state should not have to fear violent rebellion by the Christians, even though there may not be absolute obedience to whatever the state wants.
Bear in mind that when Christians have conned themselves into believing it's OK to be in armies, it's not a big step to the kind of thing seen in Ian Paisley on Romans 13, of getting a Christian army together to effectively take over the state. Are you sure you'd approve of that?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Two different questions going on here
Q1; Should the church be institutionally entangled in the state in such a way that the state can be regarded as a 'Christian country'? This can actually range all the way from a national establishment like the CofE to the kind of thing you see in the US 'Religious Right'.
A: NO.
I've not asked that question, and as far as I can see it doesn't matter anyway. If I was to parachute you into an imaginary country which had all of the same civil structures as the UK but none of the religious historical baggage, I think you're saying you'd still not participate in certain things. Indeed it seems that you lack of participation is nothing to do with the religious heritage of the country. Am I wrong in that?
quote:
Q2; And having hopefully not too far in the future got rid of that, how do Christians live in the state?
A; Well for starters it's likely to depend on which state. It's not so much we 'pick and choose what we like', it's that we have this ultimate limiting point of 'obeying God rather than man'. If we are allowed, we should overall benefit the state. Unlike many others who disagree with their state for various reasons, the state should not have to fear violent rebellion by the Christians, even though there may not be absolute obedience to whatever the state wants.
OK, let's assume we're talking about the state we both live in, the UK. It is a state that has no religious establishment, where there is no suggestion that there is anything favourable given to one religion over any other. How then is your idealised Christian to live?
You've already stated that morally they can't join the army or police or (I think) be a magistrate. How are you making those determinants?
And why should you benefit from any of them if you are not prepared to participate in them?
quote:
Bear in mind that when Christians have conned themselves into believing it's OK to be in armies, it's not a big step to the kind of thing seen in Ian Paisley on Romans 13, of getting a Christian army together to effectively take over the state. Are you sure you'd approve of that?
That seems to me to be fairly obviously irrelevant. If you like, let's imagine that the country no longer has a military and has forsworn fighting foreign wars.
So now being in the military is off the table. How are you now determining which parts of the state Christians can participate in and which are morally objectionable?
It seems to me that you're just making it up, I have to say. Because you never actually answer a direct question about it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
ISTM that many more Muslims throughout history have stayed and participated fully in secular societies than those of Anabaptist heritage - who tend to sit in the corner in a huff or alternatively piss off to their own little enclaves where they can manage their own affairs without the inconvenience of the state.
[ 21. September 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Just a thought, it has struck me that the kind of Anabaptism that Steve seems to advocate is rather parasitic, because it can only exist in a kind of apophatic contradistinction to the nasty old state-churches he disparages.
I'd agree with Mr cheesy that many Anabaptists have maintained an heroic witness against injustice and bravely taken a stance on their principles.
I'm not knocking any of that.
What I do find wearing, though, is this insistence that everyone else is somehow inevitably bound to turn into either Ivan The Terrible or Ian Paisley ...
As I've said on another thread, as an American, Mousethief doesn't believe in church-state linkage in the UK sense or Russian sense ... But all we hear from Steve is how Mousethief's 'fellow Orthodox' do - as if to be Orthodox or Anglican or RC is synonymous with belief in a conjoined Church and State.
US RCs and Episcopalians probably don't generally believe in a conjoined Church and State either, although some individuals among them might - such as those US 'Piskies who make a big deal of the Monarchy (I've come across a few online).
It's not that I don't think Steve isn't raising some valid points, simply that he's offering half-baked airy-fairy solutions that aren't at all grounded in the real world.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.
NO!
Actually what you're describing sounds more like the position of those who issued that "A Call for Unity" that Croesos referred to in the post preceding yours. Broadly I interpret that situation in the Southern USA as Christians taking just about every attitude but the Anabaptist one, though with Martin Luther King probably closest.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One implication of this is that if/when the Church does become entangled in the Weberian state and tries to use that kind of localised political power for its goals, it becomes compromised and weakened because it is no longer relying fully on God, indeed is in varying degrees disobeying God and following goals he disapproves of in ways he disapproves of.
Surely it's the other way around, isn't it? Dr. King was trying to influence the state to change its policies towards those he felt were more in line with the will of God: ending racial segregation and promoting just and equal treatment of all citizens by the state. In other words, he "trie[d] to use that kind of localised political power for [his] goals". Working for just treatment by the state seems like exactly the kind of 'worldly' interference you oppose, plus Dr. King and his followers weren't "relying fully on God" but were instead relying on their own actions and hoping to create a world where the state could be relied on to be just (or at least more just than Alabama in 1963).
The "Eight Alabama Clergymen", on the other hand, seem a lot closer to your Anabaptist ideal. They do express a hope that Alabama treat its negro citizens more justly (which is bad, from an Anabaptist point of view as you've explained it), but they also counsel against actually doing anything practical to bring that about, which seems to be exactly in line with your "relying fully on God" principle.
[ 21. September 2016, 19:53: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not that I don't think Steve isn't raising some valid points, simply that he's offering half-baked airy-fairy solutions that aren't at all grounded in the real world.
That seems to be the entire point of this kind of otherworldly theology: the rejection of the idea that anything happening in (of) the world is any concern of the faithful.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
the UK. It is a state that has no religious establishment,
That's nearly as unreal as asking, as you also did, what is the relevance of state Islam to IS - indeed maybe more so, given that you live in England and would have to be severely mentally or physically challenged to have failed to notice the Church of England, by law established. OK, a considerably attenuated establishment, but enough to be little use and a big problem....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That's nearly as unreal as asking, as you also did, what is the relevance of state Islam to IS - indeed maybe more so, given that you live in England and would have to be severely mentally or physically challenged to have failed to notice the Church of England, by law established. OK, a considerably attenuated establishment, but enough to be little use and a big problem....
Point of information: I don't live in England.
Please answer the question. If there was no established church, no history of constantinian Christianity, would you still refuse to engage with the state in the ways you've said above?
I appreciate that this isn't the situation, but I'm asking you whether the problem you have with the magistrates and/or police is to do with the Constantinian issue (which would be pretty hard for me to fathom) or some other reason.
Or to put it another way, if I was to give you space to create a new state, would you have it as a secular state with police, magistrates etc enforcing a law to allow people to do things you don't agree with? If so, what space for God?
[ 21. September 2016, 21:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
The "Eight Alabama Clergymen", on the other hand, seem a lot closer to your Anabaptist ideal. They do express a hope that Alabama treat its negro citizens more justly (which is bad, from an Anabaptist point of view as you've explained it), but they also counsel against actually doing anything practical to bring that about, which seems to be exactly in line with your "relying fully on God" principle.
The situation is mixed; but I'd have been following the line of a clergyman I've heard of who preached racial equality till his church was clear of all those who refused the message - down I think to about four people - but then things changed and the church is now thriving on people who were willing to accept the message. Racists should not have been able to find a church in Alabama that accepted them. And those denominations should I hope have resolutely refused to follow segregation laws even if it meant they ended up writing to Luther King from the next door jail cell - but did they?
There is plenty that can be done in Anabaptist terms - and MLK did in fact do a lot of it. His position was also mixed and went too far in places. As in Nazi Germany, it's a case of if everybody who called themselves 'Christian' had believed and followed the Biblical teaching the local government would have had little real power.
Without being there to know every detail I can't comment in detail.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is plenty that can be done in Anabaptist terms - and MLK did in fact do a lot of it. His position was also mixed and went too far in places. As in Nazi Germany, it's a case of if everybody who called themselves 'Christian' had believed and followed the Biblical teaching the local government would have had little real power.
Without being there to know every detail I can't comment in detail.
MLK clearly believed in the state otherwise his appeal for a historic change to the dud cheque given to black people by the USA's (this "great nation") founders would be rather pointless, don't you think?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
More to the point, perhaps, MLK didn't seek to change the hearts of those in Alabama and elsewhere, he sought to get the rights he believed the state owed black people.
It is hard to imagine anything further from an anabaptist position. MLK believed the state was worthy of change and would bring freedom top-down to black people who had been excluded. The historic anabaptists believed that the state was corrupted and that instead they should believe in God.
And, of course, the latter approach had a lot going for it in certain circumstances. That just wasn't how MLK saw his circumstances.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Point of information: I don't live in England.
Sorry - mea definitely culpa. I was so distracted by wondering what a 'banglican' was that I missed your actual Welsh location.
However, you can still hardly claim you haven't noticed the existence of ' the Church of England by law established' in England, and sadly the disestablishment in Wales doesn't loom large on the world scene. For instance while UK soldiers are fighting IS, I don't think Welsh disestablishment will make much difference to their assessment of the UK as a "Christian" and "crusading" enemy to be fought to the death....
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Please answer the question. If there was no established church, no history of Constantinian Christianity, would you still refuse to engage with the state in the ways you've said above?
To a large extent, yes - depending on what was being offered instead of nominal Christianity in the particular state. However in such a case the situation would be very much clearer all round than where we have a three-way situation involving a distorted form of Christianity as well.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To a large extent, yes - depending on what was being offered instead of nominal Christianity in the particular state. However in such a case the situation would be very much clearer all round than where we have a three-way situation involving a distorted form of Christianity as well.
Yes you would refuse to engage or yes you would engage?
Please try to write clearly. I'm not here talking about Christianity - nominal or otherwise - I'm trying to understand what your problem is with the state, and you keep bringing it back to Christianity, which I've already removed as part of the thought exercise.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
More red herrings. There are Muslims fighting ISIS as well as Welsh lads.
Would ISIS stop attacking people if the CofE were disestablished tomorrow?
No, of course they wouldn't.
The level of unreality around your overly pietistic and other-worldly theology is spectacular.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
More red herrings. There are Muslims fighting ISIS as well as Welsh lads.
As far as I can tell most of those fighting ISIS are Muslims and most of those who are the victims of ISIS are Muslims too. If ISIS are fighting against Christendom they are going a very odd way about it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Steve Langton, MLK went TOO FAR?! How? Where? When?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
And why should you benefit from any of them if you are not prepared to participate in them? quote:
Bear in mind that when Christians have conned themselves into believing it's OK to be in armies, it's not a big step to the kind of thing seen in Ian Paisley on Romans 13, of getting a Christian army together to effectively take over the state. Are you sure you'd approve of that?
That seems to me to be fairly obviously irrelevant. If you like, let's imagine that the country no longer has a military and has forsworn fighting foreign wars.
Given the chances of that latter proposition, except in a case like post-1945 Japan where a war loser has been forced to unwillingly disarm, I think it fair to treat that as Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, not a real question.
Back to my original very relevant point; in the real world countries have or would like to have armies - how do Christians approach that?
If our approach is that it's OK to be in the army - and kill people,remember - it's pretty much only a matter of time before you start thinking "If I can use the army or in general 'warfare with physical weapons', on behalf of the worldly state, why can't/shouldn't I use it for the more important cause of God?" And soon, like Paisley, you're looking for ways round texts that might conflict with it...
If our approach is instead to say definitely it's not OK to fight for God's cause - or not with physical weapons anyway - then it's a great deal harder to go from that to the idea that nevertheless I might kill for the much lesser cause of the state. And I personally can't see how I'd do it....
That's not irrelevant. And bear in mind you're probably making the cosy assumption that the guy who decides to fight for God won't be coming for you - actually he very likely would, unless your sect is very close to his.
There are other issues. Have you heard of the 'modest proposal' that "The Christians of the world shall not kill one another". At first glance it sounds rather selfish (though in reality it's a 'make-you-think' rather than an absolute rule anyway). But think hard - there are Christians in Baghdad - do I want any part in Bush's 'shock and awe' stuff if my Christian brethren might be among the collateral damage? And so on.... Even if interpreted 'selfishly' it would rule out my participation in pretty much any European war and others involving supposedly 'Christian' countries. As for the non-Christians, I'll post again (and possibly keep posting till you pay attention...) Gower's poems about the Crusades - and he was BTW a contemporary of Chaucer to whom this was a very immediate issue...
quote:
I prei you tell me nay or yee,
To passe over the grete See
To were and sle the Sarazin
Is that the law?
Reply;
… Sone myn,
To preche and soffre for the feith,
That have I herd the gospell seith,
But forto sle, that heire I noght.
Modern version
…. I pray you tell me yes or no; to pass over the great sea to war against and slay the Saracen – is that lawful?
Reply; …..My son, to preach the faith and suffer for it, that I have heard the gospel says; but to slay for the gospel, I hear nothing in it of that.
Second Poem
To slen and feihten ous bidde
Hem whom thei scholde, as the bok seith, Converten unto Christes feith.
But hierof have I gret mervaile,
Hou thei wol bidde me travaile;
A Sarazin if I sle schal,
I sle the Soule forth withal,
And that was nevere Christes lore.
Modern version ….
They bid us fight and slay those who they should, according to the Bible, convert to faith in Jesus. And it seems to me something to marvel at, how they tell me to work in such a way; for if I slay a Saracen, I shall also slay his soul (because he will die ‘unsaved’ -SL) – and that was never Christ’s teaching.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To a large extent, yes - depending on what was being offered instead of nominal Christianity in the particular state. However in such a case the situation would be very much clearer all round than where we have a three-way situation involving a distorted form of Christianity as well.
Yes you would refuse to engage or yes you would engage?
Please try to write clearly. I'm not here talking about Christianity - nominal or otherwise - I'm trying to understand what your problem is with the state, and you keep bringing it back to Christianity, which I've already removed as part of the thought exercise.
I've already pointed out that in different states you will run into that 'obey God rather than men' in different areas and at different stages. In some states it would be fine to be a teacher in a state school - in others it would be pretty much impossible. There's no simple answer except to point out the 'obey God rather than men' principle, that when obeying man forces disobedience to God, back out of it. And there will be cases when Christians have different judgement when exactly they've reached that point and I have to respect them even if I also ask "Are you sure?".
The 'problem' is simply that the state is the godless world and likely to not necessarily be sympathetic, and likely to present you with occasional pitfalls in obeying God.
That's why it's an extra problem when the state isn't the godless world but the confused body of a supposedly 'Christian' state with a mix of the Christian and unChristian, godly and ungodly-but-in-the-name-of-God; including that because it's more or less on the side of the war and persecution business, the supposedly 'Christian' state may be persecuting the Christians who stand against it....
The 'Christian state' is one of the biggest and worst sources of Christian disunity in all kinds of ways, starting simply with the big issue that the 'Christian state' isn't meant to happen in the first place.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
When you get a chance, would you please address what I said here? Particularly about the Ordnung.
Thanks.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've already pointed out that in different states you will run into that 'obey God rather than men' in different areas and at different stages. In some states it would be fine to be a teacher in a state school - in others it would be pretty much impossible. There's no simple answer except to point out the 'obey God rather than men' principle, that when obeying man forces disobedience to God, back out of it. And there will be cases when Christians have different judgement when exactly they've reached that point and I have to respect them even if I also ask "Are you sure?".
You are still not answering the questions I've posed. I'm interesting in how you are determining which operations of the the state are acceptable for Christians to be involved in and which are not.
At present you've still not explained your reasoning and still not explained how the state would function in your idealised non-Constantinian future. Kindly address these points.
quote:
The 'problem' is simply that the state is the godless world and likely to not necessarily be sympathetic, and likely to present you with occasional pitfalls in obeying God.
OK, so I can take it from this that if I was to allow you to create your own state, it would be a godly one? You wouldn't have independent secular authorities like police and law courts?
quote:
That's why it's an extra problem when the state isn't the godless world but the confused body of a supposedly 'Christian' state with a mix of the Christian and unChristian, godly and ungodly-but-in-the-name-of-God; including that because it's more or less on the side of the war and persecution business, the supposedly 'Christian' state may be persecuting the Christians who stand against it....
The 'Christian state' is one of the biggest and worst sources of Christian disunity in all kinds of ways, starting simply with the big issue that the 'Christian state' isn't meant to happen in the first place.
Yeah, you've said that multiple times. We get it. What we don't get, and in my experience of you we never get, is any conception of what the thing would look like if the current system change to be like the one you hope and pray for.
I suggest to you that a future state where you got your way would be one of compulsion, where there were no police or law courts and where people were not free to behave and believe things you disagree with.
Which sounds uncomfortably like IS.
[ 22. September 2016, 06:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If our approach is that it's OK to be in the army - and kill people,remember - it's pretty much only a matter of time before you start thinking "If I can use the army or in general 'warfare with physical weapons', on behalf of the worldly state, why can't/shouldn't I use it for the more important cause of God?"
I don't think that's an obvious progression at all. Although I am basically a pacifist and do find it hard to understand how Christians can be in the armed forces (or work for armaments companies), nevertheless I am sure very few of those folk in a country such as Britain have made the leap to think they are fighting for God.
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Anyway, to return to the topic we're supposed to be discussing:
To what extent do we believe that Islamic extremism is a logical consequence of a dominant secular/free (in concept if not always in actuality) paradigm?
Consider these (overly simplified) steps;
1. Accepting and secular society seeks to treat all belief systems fairly.
2. This allows space for fundamentalist (in the sense of hardline) conservative beliefs to develop without impediment by the state
3. The freedoms provided by the internet allow for the exchange and nurturing of those ideas
4. Both of which tend to harden the already hardline and push some to even greater extremes.
5. Until, ironically, the most hardline seek an idealised religious country where they can practice their religion-of-compulsion in opposition to the very ideals of acceptance and freedom which allowed them to develop in the first place.
Maybe extremists are just what you get for having freedom. Maybe they're not a failure, they're a mark of success. Maybe a liberal democracy which didn't enrage the most angry of critics isn't actually doing a very good job.
Of course, this paradigm doesn't help the countries where the craziest extremists hide out. The fact that so many of IS came from western countries is of course a tragedy mostly felt by the people of Syria.
[ 22. September 2016, 07:01: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
I certainly think there was something of public religious ritual about both WW1 and WW2 even though some agonised about fighting. Most baptist churches have some kind of memorial to the war dead. I think it isn't a stretch to say that Remembrance as a thing has become a form of civic religion.
That said, I think we've come to the point where the ritual (of remembering the war dead) has come full-circle, to the extent that we're now repeating the liturgy without believing any of the underlying residual religion behind it.
And I don't think it is just Anglicans who are participating in that form of civic religion - although it has to be said that I've not been in a Remembrance Day service in a baptist church for many years.
It is hard to imagine what non-military people would think they were doing if they were called up for WW3 (of course, that kind of warfare is really unlikely to imagine from our position in Western Europe today), but I think the main urge is likely to be to protect the nation and there might well be some residual notion that one was fighting for largely undefined Western and Christian values.
Of course, I think it might also be very hard in a post-Vietnam Western world to see how a whole country could be mobilised for war. I'm not sure that's ever going to happen again.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm not going to comment as I don't want to send this thread off onto a tangent - except to say, "I agree".
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--
When you get a chance, would you please address what I said here? Particularly about the Ordnung.
Thanks.
Sorry GK; I did intend to respond to that one. I hope you'll understand that in a situation where I've been rather on my own here with stuff being thrown at me from several often contradictory directions I've not been able to keep up with it all. I'll copy your post off now into my 'SoFdrafts' file so I've got it readily accessible, and work on it. To avoid tangents on the thread your response may be a PM.
The Ordnung is largely an Amish practice; or at any rate, its Mennonite equivalent is much less strict. It is essentially the practical rules developed by the community for living together. In the UK we have the interesting situation that Mennonites have effectively recognised that not all the (small-t) traditions developed in different circumstances and under persecution are actually a necessary part of Christianity and rather than set up 'clone' Mennonite churches have set up a Centre - currently in Birmingham - which works with the UK's homegrown 'Anabaptist Network' to make the best and most universally relevant of Anabaptist ideas available to all who might be interested. That is the situation I work in after initially independently rediscovering Anabaptist ideas.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If our approach is that it's OK to be in the army - and kill people,remember - it's pretty much only a matter of time before you start thinking "If I can use the army or in general 'warfare with physical weapons', on behalf of the worldly state, why can't/shouldn't I use it for the more important cause of God?"
I don't think that's an obvious progression at all. Although I am basically a pacifist and do find it hard to understand how Christians can be in the armed forces (or work for armaments companies), nevertheless I am sure very few of those folk in a country such as Britain have made the leap to think they are fighting for God.
Yes; I accept that they might have done in the past - some of the pronouncements made by British religious figures in 1914 were quite horrific, for example; and some Christians agonised over taking up arms in WW2 and ultimately decided that it was the lesser of two evils. But I can't see folk thinking in the way you suggest in today's secular society - Established Church or not (and, by the way, I hate "civic religion").
You've slightly misunderstood my point, I think. it's not that those who are involved in armies will automatically think their country is fighting for God. It's the logic that having accepted 'physical weapons warfare' at all, in a non-Christian state, the anomalies of killing for a not always 'godly' worldly state can lead to a line of thinking that it's better to fight for God, rather than to re-thinking the fighting at all bit.
I was trying to outline how we got where we are, in effect. And point out that in that process, accepting fighting for the state has had the risk of turning into it being OK to fight for God as well, whereas if you strongly DON'T fight for God you are at least considerably more likely to think fighting acceptable in the state's lesser causes.
And bringing it back to Islam, it seems fairly clear - and AFAICS, especially if you have a Quran in approximate order of composition, rather than as it usually is - that Muhammad did have aspirations to peace and initially thought he could achieve his goals peaceably.
But he did ALSO in exile set his followers up in a de facto Islamic state, rather than in a non-conformist 'free church' situation, and that led to a state of war between Mecca and that new state in which Muhammad went down the slippery slope via 'self-defence' to the point where he attacked and conquered Mecca, and his new de facto Islamic state remained in a warfare posture after his death.
We - and other Shipmates have been right, Muslims as well - are still suffering the consequences of that confused progress in Muhammad's ideas. And the Christian response needs to be to be more biblical ourselves and set Muslims and the world a better example, including repentance of the centuries of state churches and the warfare they brought.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Steve Langton, MLK went TOO FAR?! How? Where? When?
When are you going to put MLK right then Steve?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
I was trying to outline how we got where we are, in effect. And point out that in that process, accepting fighting for the state has had the risk of turning into it being OK to fight for God as well, whereas if you strongly DON'T fight for God you are at least considerably more likely to think fighting acceptable in the state's lesser causes.
Oops! That should of course have been
quote:
...considerably LESS likely to think fighting acceptable...
I think I had in mind alternative versions one of which was 'more likely to think fighting UNacceptable' and somehow the wrong version actually got typed...
Sorry...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Steve Langton, MLK went TOO FAR?! How? Where? When?
When are you going to put MLK right then Steve?
Where did he go wrong Steve?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At the risk of setting up even more tangents, how could Mohammed, whether he was peaceful or otherwise, have set up some kind of 'non-conformist' option?
He was setting up some kind of community. In those days that inevitably meant something all-encompassing. He wasn't within the Roman Empire in its pagan days where religious tolerance generally prevailed, unless you refused to say prayers to the Emporer.
Likewise, when Christian missionaries arrived in Kent r Northumbria, what other strategy was open to them other than to influence the court and work out from there? Same with 18th century missionaries in the Pacific. They had to get the king and tribal elders n board before they could preach to the people.
We can't project 16th and 17th century _non-conformist' values and practices back into the 7th century.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Maybe extremists are just what you get for having freedom.
Extreme beliefs, maybe; but actual fighting? That arises when the beliefs are put into practice and cause real-world problems. And if the belief is that you should have your beliefs enshrined in a state which necessarily discriminates against other beliefs, the fighting is likely to happen sooner rather than later. IS is not just a vague reaction to our freedom - it is a consequence of Muhammad having set up his new faith as a state religion, and having himself engaged in warfare for it.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
To what extent do we believe that Islamic extremism is a logical consequence of a dominant secular/free (in concept if not always in actuality) paradigm?
To a certain extent modern Islamic extremism is perfectly intelligible in terms of Muslim history. The first Muslims conquered large parts of the world and settled down and established governments. In time the governments were viewed as corrupt and were overthrown by other Muslims seeking renewal of the original vision. This is not something that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood or Ibn Wahab or Khomeini. Modern Islamic extremists define themselves against the modern west because of the western presence in Islamic societies and the Islamic presence in the west which, in turn, defines the nature of the contest. But the whole "let's overthrow the government and establish a proper Islamic regime" thing is a recurring theme in the history of the Muslim world.
There is probably a distinction to be made between Islam and Christianity between the existence of a sphere which exists somewhere between being legitimate and being a necessary evil (depending upon which Christian and at which point in time you are talking about) which we may loosely call secular, a belief in natural law and a belief in conscience which I think does explain some differences between the way the Islamic world and the west have developed. But then there is also the way in which modernity has been experienced as a foreign import and the failure of secular governments in the Islamic world to do very much for their people or to provide the sort of military triumphs which will sometimes serve as a substitute. In eastern Europe it used to be joked that communism was the longest and hardest road to capitalism. I suspect that Islamism will turn out to be the longest and hardest road towards secularism. Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down and at conventions of atheists and secularists the heirs of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will be saying "steady on old chap, there's no need to overdo it", when their guests from the erstwhile Muslim world make speeches on the evils of religion.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
He was setting up some kind of community. In those days that inevitably meant something all-encompassing. He wasn't within the Roman Empire in its pagan days where religious tolerance generally prevailed, unless you refused to say prayers to the Emperor.
Well Jesus did set up a non-conformist option - and yes, the risk was martyrdom and the early Christians took that risk to keep Jesus' teaching, and the kind of 'kingdom' they established in his name, clear.
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
We've discussed the Pacific situation in our local Anabaptist group. We've yet to come up with a clear solution; but again, most of the missionaries were coming from a 'state church' or at least 'Christian country' situation and maybe didn't really consider alternatives. Even Baptists (as distinct from Anabaptists) could be a bit ambiguous in that area.
And may I remind you that Anabaptism is basically 1st Century original Christian ideas - not the 16thC-17thC ideas which were developed in a state church situation and in cases like Cromwell were to say the least ambivalent....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Extreme beliefs, maybe; but actual fighting? That arises when the beliefs are put into practice and cause real-world problems. And if the belief is that you should have your beliefs enshrined in a state which necessarily discriminates against other beliefs, the fighting is likely to happen sooner rather than later. IS is not just a vague reaction to our freedom - it is a consequence of Muhammad having set up his new faith as a state religion, and having himself engaged in warfare for it.
A consequence possibly, but not the only consequence as people keep telling you. If you follow M you don't automatically get to IS.
Also - if you are setting up a small religious state (and, of course that's exactly what the anabaptists did several times) and you are attacked from the outside, what options do you have?
You can flee to a safer space. Or you can defend your nation.
The latter is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
What on earth do you mean? How can Christians coming into a pagan country be entering a State Church situation?
Let's be honest: a lot of us here are getting totally fed up with you (a) banging on, at length, about this point to the exclusion of all others and (b) saying that we don't (or even refuse to) understand you. People such as myself are actually pretty sympathetic to your position; but we don't want it to become the central theme of every debate.
[ 22. September 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And may I remind you that Anabaptism is basically 1st Century original Christian ideas - not the 16thC-17thC ideas which were developed in a state church situation and in cases like Cromwell were to say the least ambivalent....
Things that come out of your head are not necessarily the truth, Steve Langton. Just because you said it does not mean everyone - or anyone else - here accepts it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We've discussed the Pacific situation in our local Anabaptist group. We've yet to come up with a clear solution; but again, most of the missionaries were coming from a 'state church' or at least 'Christian country' situation and maybe didn't really consider alternatives. Even Baptists (as distinct from Anabaptists) could be a bit ambiguous in that area.
I think we've hit peak Steve Langton.
It is hard to imagine a small pacific island run on Steve's Anabaptist lines. The Mennonites didn't manage it in the Pacific or in South America.
Incidentally, the latter was rather attractive to German Nazis fleeing the post-WW2 chaos. I guess they weren't proper anabaptists - just fascist racists who happened to be in an anabaptist tradition.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity had in fact engaged in non-conformist style mission to the Saxons - but by that time there was already a 'state church' situation which kind of unnaturally overrode that.
What on earth do you mean? How can Christians coming into a pagan country be entering a State Church situation?
Let's be honest: a lot of us here are getting totally fed up with you (a) banging on, at length, about this point to the exclusion of all others and (b) saying that we don't (or even refuse to) understand you. People such as myself are actually pretty sympathetic to your position; but we don't want it to become the central theme of every debate.
No, the missionaries to paganism were obviously NOT 'entering a State Church situation'. Though they were entering a situation which effectively had a different pagan 'state religion'. The point is that by Saxon times there was already a 'state church' situation outside Britain/England in the Roman Empire which effectively took over the mission in a state church way.
Sorry I assumed that would be understood.
Unfortunately the effects of 'Constantinianism' once you've got it are pervasive and affect many areas of Christian practice. But whatever you may think of my views elsewhere it seems to me that it requires a considerable proverbial ostrich act to ignore its relevance to discussing another state religion which claims to be derived partly from Christianity and unfortunately copied the Constantinian form rather than Jesus' original - or at least, because of the Roman church, Islam went the state religion way in ignorance of Jesus' better alternative.
Comparable 'Christian extremism' like the Crusades and Inquisition was based on a state church situation and could not have happened without that situation; ditto the Islamic equivalent. 'Elephant in the room'?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Elephant in the room'?
Hahahahahha
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Incidentally, the latter was rather attractive to German Nazis fleeing the post-WW2 chaos. I guess they weren't proper anabaptists - just fascist racists who happened to be in an anabaptist tradition.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
"Elephant in the room"
Google check produced this;
quote:
Elephant in the room or Elephant in the living room is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
Looks to me that the phrase exactly fits what I'm talking about.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
Thanks for your reply.
You don't need to PM me. My point was just that even Anabaptists have their own interpretations and traditions. And I suspect that, at least for the Amish, Old-Order Mennonites, and Hutterites (I think they're Anabaptist), many of the traditions are Traditions.
Nobody's got mere Christianity, objectively. They may well have their understanding of it. Kind of like Queen Elizabeth I said, that all that matters is "Christ and Him crucified; all the rest are trifles". But which things are the trifles? One person's mere Christianity may simply be doing good works, because at least that much is clear. Someone else might consider an Orthodox service part of mere Christianity, because it contains the essence of the whole thing. For someone else, it might involve memorizing the King James Bible, and learning Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to understand every nuance. Etc.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Looks to me that the phrase exactly fits what I'm talking about.
Given the volume of your posts on the topic, I don't think it can be claimed to be any kind of elephant in this room. If anything it is an animal who has rather overstayed its welcome.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
Anabaptists, or hiding out as Anabaptists?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Anabaptists, or hiding out as Anabaptists?
Actual Mennonites holding actual Nazi views. Google it if you don't believe me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What, you haven't heard of the Mennonite Nazis in Paraguay and Canada?
You surprise me.
I was aware that Mennonites in Germany had supported Hitler; partly this was because Germany (pre-Hitler) had provided them refuge from communist persecution in Russia, and Hitler was big on anti-communism. Partly like many in the West, eg the UK's Edward VIII, they didn't realise the full evil. Indeed many in Germany didn't realise the full picture and AIUI the reality of the extermination camps was concealed even from many Germans. Mennonites were far from alone in mis-estimating Hitler.
The situation was complex - but Mennonites outside Germany were disapproving, to say the least. The German group were NOT typical Mennonites and indeed went against many fundamental Mennonite ideas. If anything they are a lesson in why the more usual Anabaptist ideas are really important.
I wasn't aware of the element of those Nazi supporters in the South American migration, as opposed to many including Hutterites who had to flee Germany because of their Anabaptist beliefs which despite or perhaps because of their pacifism was seen as quite threatening by the Nazis. My concern is with the important basic beliefs, not just because they are Anabaptist but because they are biblical and therefore the Christian ideal.
And that is definitely a tangent to the issue of 'state religion or would-be state religion as relevant to Islamic extremism'.... So can we get back to that
quote:
obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
or at least you don't want to discuss it for reasons you haven't yet made clear....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
I'd been looking for a way to nudge things back away from the current tangent, without having to get all official and heavy handed. You just gave me an easy way in.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And that is definitely a tangent to the issue of 'state religion or would-be state religion as relevant to Islamic extremism'.... So can we get back to that
quote:
obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.
or at least you don't want to discuss it for reasons you haven't yet made clear....
Riiiight, yes I'm obviously the cause of the tangent. No you're right I don't really want to discuss it with you any more, given that the only thing you seem to want to discuss is your own understanding of Constantinism.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Steve--
Thanks for your reply.
You don't need to PM me. My point was just that even Anabaptists have their own interpretations and traditions. And I suspect that, at least for the Amish, Old-Order Mennonites, and Hutterites (I think they're Anabaptist), many of the traditions are Traditions.
Nobody's got mere Christianity, objectively. They may well have their understanding of it. Kind of like Queen Elizabeth I said, that all that matters is "Christ and Him crucified; all the rest are trifles". But which things are the trifles? One person's mere Christianity may simply be doing good works, because at least that much is clear. Someone else might consider an Orthodox service part of mere Christianity, because it contains the essence of the whole thing. For someone else, it might involve memorizing the King James Bible, and learning Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to understand every nuance. Etc.
From that I probably do still need to PM you further; but I won't if you positively refuse. In original context 'Mere Christianity' is the huge mass of common ground between denominations, as opposed to the things they differ on. It was so conceived by Baxter at the time of the ECW and CS Lewis picked it up as the title of his book
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic,
It looks to me that you're actually going back on-topic.
Irony, old bean.
I'd been looking for a way to nudge things back away from the current tangent, without having to get all official and heavy handed. You just gave me an easy way in.
God knows what any Muslim lurkers will think of this thread. Christian imperialism?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
Could you express an opinion on my suggestion that a lot of the trouble is precisely the concept of an 'Islamic state' that can fight/be-fought-for, as opposed to a plural democracy with religions operating as 'free churches' (and yes I know Islam doesn't have churches - I just mean following that model)?
And that if so it's important in understanding the situation that Muhammad seems to have quite consciously set Islam up on the 'state church' rather than 'free church' model?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to go off-topic, but it struck me that the Sunni tribes in Syria have a massive political vacuum in their midst. Revolting against the Assad regime has provoked massive violence against them, while IS offer a barbaric alternative.
Yes, this is a good point. It also seems quite telling to me that so many have sort refuge in Europe. Which suggests that they're more inclined to head towards liberal democracy of some kind than into the arms of extremists.
Of course, the whole scene in the wider Middle East is highly fractured and complicated. There are many militias and strongmen and powers, so it isn't just one religious minority or majority against another.
quote:
Where is the political leadership, which will enable them to steer a course between the two barbarisms? Possibly, they need a mini-state of their own, or a self-determining province of some kind.
Well, see, the problem with this is that small states don't really work in that part of the Middle East. The best example of this we have is the sub-state of Kurdistan, which is (arguably) a haven for a minority. But that's indirectly caused a whole lot of other trouble for other Kurds in the region, particularly when the Turks want to see - at least some of - them as terrorists against their state. Where there are princely states in the ME, they tend to be authoritarian in nature, and it appears that there isn't much hankering after that form of government from the throngs of people who have refugee-d north rather than south and east.
quote:
But perhaps things have gone too far now, for any talk of mini-states. Some journalists are predicting 10 more years of war, partly because of its proxy nature.
That wouldn't surprise me. Libya is essentially in a state of perceptual war, Iraq is a basketcase, Iran is fighting a war of words with Israel, Jordan is stretched and barely holding togther, Lebanon is looking East and is worried about how it might affect them. Turkey is getting stuck into Syria largely because they're worried about Kurdish instability in Turkey.
Any or all of these could turn into a Syria-style hot war at any moment.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
From that I probably do still need to PM you further; but I won't if you positively refuse. In original context 'Mere Christianity' is the huge mass of common ground between denominations, as opposed to the things they differ on. It was so conceived by Baxter at the time of the ECW and CS Lewis picked it up as the title of his book
I *do* positively refuse, though I prefer "politely decline".
I want to contain this topic here, rather than having it spill over into my inbox.
I know the concept of mere Christianity, from CS Lewis and elsewhere. But even the common ground is full disagreement. E.g., what is Communion/Eucharist; is Hell real, and who's going there; did God inspire the Bible, and if so, how; is Jesus God; works vs. grace...ad infinitum.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@Callan
I like it but Islam is forever. Like Western materialism.
No cultural institution has lasted ten thousand years, so there is hope, but I suspect Islam could. I went to a Salafist mosque for the first time yesterday. It was a very powerful experience. Moving, sublime, mysterious, male, beautiful, austere, respectful. I yearn for that kind of belonging.
I cannot see any emotionally intelligent (Richard Dawkins continues to fail miserably by calling pious SCIS rapists 'scum'), inclusive development in culture, especially media, that could ever embrace and elevate the masses from materialism and Islam. Apart from emergent Christianity of course.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Callan
I like it but Islam is forever. Like Western materialism.
No cultural institution has lasted ten thousand years, so there is hope, but I suspect Islam could. I went to a Salafist mosque for the first time yesterday. It was a very powerful experience. Moving, sublime, mysterious, male, beautiful, austere, respectful. I yearn for that kind of belonging.
I cannot see any emotionally intelligent (Richard Dawkins continues to fail miserably by calling pious SCIS rapists 'scum'), inclusive development in culture, especially media, that could ever embrace and elevate the masses from materialism and Islam. Apart from emergent Christianity of course.
Not convinced. A lot of western discourse about Islam tends to view it as this rather scary immutable religion which will carry on inspiring the faithful when the proverbial visitor from New Zealand sits down to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's. But the thing with religions is that they exist, primarily, inside people's heads. (The debated issue, of course, being the extent to which they live in peoples heads and live in the mind of God.) The other idea that exists in peoples heads is that governments exist to make their lives better. That sets up a tension. Given the frankly inadequate nature of government in the Middle East there is a kind of plausibility, for ignorant and desperate people, that an Islamic regime can solve their problems. But once the Islamic regime gets power, it then has the responsibility of solving those problems. At which point, disillusionment sets in. You or I may not live to see it but, eventually, the wall will come down and great will be the fall thereof.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suspect that Islam will become more 'interiorised' over time, which is what has happened with Christianity too, over time, for all Steve's protestations that his version is THE NT model ...
Mohammed wasn't capable of working with a 'Free church' or, rather, 'Free mosque's model as that didn't exist.
The Celtic Church wasn't a 'Free church' model either. It'd been part of the overall Western Church until Roman administration ceased in the early 5th century. It differed from 'continental' Christianity only insofar as it had a monastic rather than an episcopal structure. The monks still cultivated the favour of tribal rulers. When St Aidan and St Cuthbert went to Northumberland, what did they do? They settled on Lindisfarne. Which is where? Within sight of the royal court at Bamburgh.
Sure, St Aidan is said to have given away his horse to a poor man and they were certainly 'counter-cultural'. But they couldn't operate without the say-so of the Northumbrian court any more than Augustine of Canterbury could operate without the acquiescence of the King of Kent.
That's how things worked back then. Why would it be any different in 7th century Medina than 7th century Mercia or 7th century Madrid or 7th century anywhere else.
You can no more criticise Mohammed or St Aidan or St Cuthbert or St Augustine of Canterbury for acting in a 7th century way than you can criticise any of us for acting in a 21st century one.
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
If Steve believes there was some kind of 'Free church' expression in these islands in the 7th century he clearly has no understanding of how tribal and 'heroic 'societies' actually operated.
Of course the Church operated despite that - or through that - the leaven in the lump.
But to expect 7th century Muslims or Christians to act like radical reformation Anabaptists is completely anachronistic.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
That's kind of the inherent contradiction of Steve's position. For the conditions necessary for his utopia to exist (rule of law, relative peace, etc.) there needs to exist a rather large infrastructure (the state, or a state-like entity) exactly contrary to the desired outcome.
Or to look at it from an economic perspective, it would seem to be a classic free rider problem.
[ 22. September 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
1) Fair enough GK. Perhaps when this thread winds down a bit somebody could start a thread on the 'Mere Christianity' idea.
2) Gamaliel;
quote:
Mohammed wasn't capable of working with a 'Free church' or, rather, 'Free mosque's model as that didn't exist.
A 'free church' model did in fact exist in the NT, Gamaliel, and in the early centuries till it was gradually eroded in the 4th Century. You find quite a few mentions of it in early writings outside the NT as well. It is true that by the 7th Century Muhammad didn't have ready access to it because the Roman Imperial Church didn't follow it and he seems not to have had much access to wider documents.
You missed my point upthread, I think, that IF Muhammad had been a true prophet in the Judeo-Christian tradition you'd have thought God would have used him to re-affirm Jesus' model rather than lead him in the direction of an Islamic state, and rather than give him in the Quran a word essentially affirming the State religion model and contradicting that previous word given through Jesus.
By G;
quote:
The Celtic Church wasn't a 'Free church' model either. It'd been part of the overall Western Church until Roman administration ceased in the early 5th century.
No, by the 5th Century the Church was already in State Church mode across the Roman Empire. And so yes it did tend to missionise in a state church mode. But there would also have been just ordinary Christians doing old style 'gossiping the gospel' into these areas as traders and travellers. If anything the awareness of Christianity as the official religion of 'the enemy' might have been a barrier to pagan acceptance in Britannia, Caledonia, Hibernia etc. and the free church view might have done better.
By G;
quote:
That's how things worked back then. Why would it be any different in 7th century Medina than 7th century Mercia or 7th century Madrid or 7th century anywhere else?
By the 7th Century, sadly yes - but even then, why not go back to the original even if it got you into trouble with the Empire? And I repeat, if Muhammad got that one wrong he certainly wasn't a true prophet of the God of Jesus...
by G;
quote:
Even if any of these guys wanted to act in what Steve takes to be THE NT way, they couldn't have done because the conditions for them to do so didn't actually exist.
Actually in that sense the conditions didn't exist in NT times either - but the apostles trusted that a Jesus who could rise from the dead could also get his message through despite the adverse conditions. Essentially like the apostles, the 7th century Christians could have done it if they'd tried.
quote:
But to expect 7th century Muslims or Christians to act like radical reformation Anabaptists is completely anachronistic.
Of course they wouldn't act exactly like radical Reformation Anabaptists because the situation was more than a bit different. The later Anabaptists had to react against a centuries-more-deeply-entrenched RCC and against a Reformation that had wimped out - consciously in Luther's case, I understand - from following the Bible as far as the Anabaptists had.
But would it really not have worked if the 7thC Christians had gone back and tried the earlier model? Things weren't so different from the 3rdC - they wouldn't have been all that 'anachronistic', and they'd have been more faithful to the gospel and the style of church Jesus intended.
And again, you're back to the one that IF Muhammad was a true prophet, he surely would have followed Jesus' model rather than do as he actually did. He didn't follow a 'free church' model not because it was impossible but because he wasn't a true prophet....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Good glad we've got that sorted out: anyone reading this and considering becoming a Muslim! Desist! The Langton has spoken!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Here's a suggestion: how about we talk about this topic without anyone mentioning about Constantine or that Islam is a fake religion?
I think we might have done those tangents now, be nice to discuss the other, y'know, things that this was supposed to be about.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
mr cheesy, cool it or take it to Hell. Hosts are watching and will intervene as they deem necessary.
/hosting
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
But would it really not have worked if the 7thC Christians had gone back and tried the earlier model? Things weren't so different from the 3rdC - they wouldn't have been all that 'anachronistic', and they'd have been more faithful to the gospel and the style of church Jesus intended.
Have you not heard of a book called: "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire"?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve, the existence of a state-church by the 5th century didn't prevent anyone 'gossipping the Gospel' any more than the existence of state-churches prevents that today.
You cannot project your own idealised Anabaptist model back into church history. Sure, you'll find parallels but you won't find your idealised model in its entirety.
One could argue that for all the downsides of a state-church it does at least create conditions where 'gossipping the gospel' takes place. Ideally, if not in practice. There's the famous quip about visitors to Byzantium being asked by their barber or the bloke feeding their horse or pouring out their bathwater where they stood on various technical aspects of the Trinity and so on - the point of this clearly exaggerated and hyperbolic story being that theological discourse had become part of everyday life.
Now, like Baptist Trainman, I've got a lot of sympathy with your point of view. I have less sympathy with the way you express it and even less with what I take to be an unhistorical projecting back of your own views into cultures and settings that were very different from our own.
The Apostles were initially part of a movement within Judaism which burst its bounds and gathered Gentile converts. The Roman Empire was generally very tolerant of different religions and simply absorbed regional deities into its canon. It found itself facing a problem with Judaism as its principled monotheism didn't fit so easily into that mould. It also found itself with a problem with Judaism's offspring religion, Christianity. Hence the persecutions and martyrdoms.
Islam developed in a different place and time. Consequently, it went in a somewhat different direction - for all manner of reasons.
I'm not acting as an apologist for Islamist nor Mohammed, simply pointing out the context and the differences. I'm not saying anything about whether Mohammed was a prophet or anything of that kind - that's not the issue I'm addressing.
The origins of Islamic extremism - or Islamic anything else - are many, varied and complex. Would it have developed any differently if it had emerged in the 2nd or 3rd centuries rather than the 7th? We have no way of telling. That can only remain speculation.
As it is, it developed in the Arabian desert in the 7th century. As such, we can expect it to demonstrate characteristics commensurate with that. And yes, we can see that it does.
I'm not advocating Mohammed as a subsequent Prophet shedding further light on the Judeo-Christian revelation or anything of that kind.
Nor am I advocating a return to 7th century Byzantine practice or 5th century Anglo-Saxon ways of doing things.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Callan. Disillusionment with Islam hasn't set in anywhere for 1400 years. In all the failed Islamic states and regimes and all the robust ones; Turkey, Indonesia and everything in between; Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Turkic/Turkestan states of the former Soviet Union, most are becoming more conservative and Islam shows no sign of losing anyone's hearts and minds.
Why should it?
How can it 'interiorize' other than as part of the cycle?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That assumes that all Muslims are becoming more conservative. There are plenty of 'nominal' Muslims even in the both conservative settings - same as there are plenty of nominal Christians even in the US Bible-belt.
I wouldn't expect all of Islam to 'interiorise' but suspect there's more interiorisation going on than might appearat first sight.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Many moons ago I had to write an essay on "Fundamentalism" for my MA. The thesis I took is one that still seems to hold a lot of water: that Fundamentalisms (which may include extremism) take hold where specific groups feel threatened in some way and worry they are losing influence.
Perhaps - as in American conservative Christianity - it's where a "safe" religious consensus is being challenged by a broad range of other religions and atheism. Perhaps - as I think is happening in some sectors of British Islam - it takes place where young people fear that their identity is being subsumed into a broader and possibly more secular culture.
That's not the whole picture of course; Isis is trying to recreate an idealised past Caliphate which is probably unrealisable in today's world - yet that too is a conscious attempt to "turn the clock back" and "restore the past". What's interesting is how it (and al-Qaeda too) are using expressly modern methods to achieve their aim.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm sure Saudi oil money has a disproportionate influence. That will end this century. Even so, I believe the potential interiorization, even in Europe, is massively overstated. Islam is powerfully cohesive, communal, relational here in Leicester and therefore in London, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford, the Ribble valley, Manchester. And France. And Germany. And Sweden.
Succeeding generations have become more conservative.
As David Pawson enviously noted, it is a man's religion.
It can only be embraced.
[ 22. September 2016, 22:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Good glad we've got that sorted out: anyone reading this and considering becoming a Muslim! Desist! The Langton has spoken!
NO - the logic of the situation has spoken to anybody who can be bothered to work it out. 'The Langton' doesn't think of his pronouncements in the kind of way you suggest at all. One of the problems of Islam is that it is NOT, as I seem to recall you once suggested, mr cheesy, a completely different religion. It claims to be in the Judeo-Christian tradition and a major inconsistency such as I've pointed out, in going backwards to the religious state idea rather than re-affirming the better ideas from Jesus, puts a serious question on that claim and so on Muhammad's claim to be a true prophet of the Judeo-Christian God.
I mean, it's not as if yourself have that strong a belief in the Christian state thing, surely??
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
that Islam is a fake religion?
NOT what I said and if you trace back up you'll find the post where I made a quite critical distinction.
I am NOT saying Islam is a 'fake' religion - that would imply deliberate fraud on Muhammad's part and I believe he was in fact sincere.
I AM saying that Islam is an *untrue* religion, despite Muhammad's best intentions. And part of the evidence for that untruth is the failure on this issue of setting the religion up as a state religion rather than on the better 'free church' model set forth by the Muslim prophet Isa in the Injil.
This situation is quite inflammatory enough without you misrepresenting that rather important point.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Also - if you are setting up a small religious state (and, of course that's exactly what the anabaptists did several times) and you are attacked from the outside, what options do you have?
You can flee to a safer space.
Or you can defend your nation.
The latter is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Yes, during the ferment of the Reformation, with all kinds of experiments being tried, some people with 'Anabaptist/'rebaptising' views did attempt the setting up of 'small religious states', the most famous being that at Munster in N Germany and some 'satellites' of the same group such as the town of 'Oldcastle' (can't remember the Dutch and haven't got the book readily accessible) where according to some accounts Peter Simons, brother of Menno, was killed influencing Menno's turn to pacifism.
There was also the pre-Reformation case of the Waldensians in the Franco-Swiss-Italian border area, who didn't set up a formal state as far as I know, but did respond militarily to a military attack by RCC forces. It's an interesting case study which tends to confirm that such a response was a mistake and did in the long run more harm than good.
There may have been other examples, but after Munster mainstream Anabaptism rejected the idea of 'religious states' in favour of the "'free church' within an ordinary worldly state" option.
It can be a problem of some Mennonites and particularly Amish that they set up a community which is virtually a 'state within a state' - not only 'not of this world' but rather too far out of it as well, rather than 'in the world' as Jesus told us to be. In some justification, this seems to have been partly a response to persecution by other supposed Christians who should have known better.
Such Anabaptist communities were not, however, 'states' in Croesos' 'Weberian' sense of having an army etc. Therefore if attacked, their options are martyrdom or fleeing to a safer place. Pacifist beliefs preclude the option of defending what isn't fully a state anyway.
From a worldly viewpoint, 'defend(ing) your nation' is 'not an unreasonable thing to do'. For Christians aiming to imitate Jesus who was willing to suffer an unjust death, that is an entirely unreasonable option - see I Peter among several other relevant NT texts.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Steve, your views on the wrongs of State religion are well known. However, I doubt that you can expect other Shipmates to readily accept that State involvement is firm evidence of Islam being untrue, for exactly the same reasons that other Shipmates don't readily accept that State involvement in Christianity is firm evidence of Christianity having lost its way.
I have to say I find your position on that creates a logical problem. Are leaders of secular states allowed to be personally religious? Is it okay so long as that doesn't "affect" their leadership?... But how could it not? Someone's beliefs affect their behaviour and policy, and their "religious" beliefs wouldn't be any different from various other beliefs that are about morality and ethics but don't get slapped with the label "religious".
I'm thinking about this partly because I recently came across a novel argument where a person tried to say that because the Australian Constitution forbids laws imposing religious requirements, and because most opposition to same-sex marriage is religious, members of Parliament with religious beliefs ought not have a vote on same-sex marriage.
The argument is rubbish and has several problems, but I confess that it reminded me of your concerns. I'm not saying that your views on this are rubbish, however I do find they create problems.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by orfeo;
quote:
Steve, your views on the wrongs of State religion are well known. However, I doubt that you can expect other Shipmates to readily accept that State involvement is firm evidence of Islam being untrue, for exactly the same reasons that other Shipmates don't readily accept that State involvement in Christianity is firm evidence of Christianity having lost its way.
I'm not 'just' saying that 'State involvement (in itself) is firm evidence of Islam being untrue'.
I'm making an argument based on the relationship Muhammad claimed between his new religion and the Judeo-Christian tradition, including his recognition of Jesus/Isa as a Muslim prophet.
Sticking for the moment to the idea of a straightforward more-or-less-'totalitarian' state religion, (and ignoring other lesser forms of relationship between state and Christianity which I'd find a problem but others might not), I don't think there's much doubt that Jesus rejected that kind of solution for his followers - and AIUI, most of the people arguing with me on the Ship would also reject such an outright state religion, and would think they were not following Jesus if they tried to set up such a thing.
If we are agreed that such a religion/state solution is wrong, then we are facing a situation where the Judeo-Christian tradition developed through Jesus to a solution of a plural and religiously neutral society rather than a 'Christian State' -
...And then along comes Muhammad, purporting to continue and supposedly if anything improve that Judeo-Christian tradition, and claiming to do so not just on grounds of rationality but by a claim to direct prophecy from God, and producing in the Quran a purported direct word from the same God as in the Judeo-Christian tradition... and yet he reverses the better way of doing things given through Jesus, and goes back to the idea - and the practice - of a religious state established by warfare....
How credible is it that God goes backwards in that way? And if it's not credible, then nor is Muhammad as a true prophet of the God he claimed to be a prophet of.
If Muhammad had set up a 'completely different religion' NOT claiming a connection to the Judeo-Christian tradition, but following another God, then that other God might well have instructed such a religious state situation (and we might well query whether that God was worthy of belief on rational grounds).
But because Muhammad claims continuity with the Judeo-Christian tradition, this discontionity with Jesus puts a serious question on his claim.
Briefly on other points you raise because I'm hoping to deal in more detail tomorrow with similar concerns raised by others, and possibly create a new thread to do so;
1) As regards 'State involvement in Christianity' (and vice-versa) my basic case is that there should not be a 'Christian State' or as Jesus put it, a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus, in which Christianity is either THE state religion with others forbidden, or the 'specially privileged' religion in the state with others allowed but discriminated against. Running the state is not a Christian job - our job is to live 'in the world' as peaceable 'resident aliens'.
2) The position of other religious leaders in the state is kind of not Christians' business, as I see it. We just have to live with whatever the state chooses in that; we don't - or shouldn't - want the job, God has given us a different job.
3) Since 'running the state' is not a Christian goal, the state is quite free to permit 'same-sex marriage' - further discussion on that point and its implications to DH, of course.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Early Islam also had the concept of the "People of the Book", which meant that Muslim rule did not involve forcing Jews and Christians to become Muslim.
Having said that, I would probably agree with you that Jewish and Muslim thought on these things is somewhat different from Christian thought.
I still have a problem with the notion that running the State is not a Christian job. Why was Paul preaching to the leaders of the State, then? Do you expect a State leader who converts to Christianity to quit their job?
[ 23. September 2016, 01:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Surely Christians being involved in running the state is different to Christians trying to run a theocratic state and imposing their views and values on everyone else?
Being involved in society goes further than being directly involved in the mechanics of government, of course. No man is an island.
Coming back to Mohammed and whether or not his claims to be a prophet continuing the Judeo-Christian tradition are legitimate. I'd have thought, from a traditional Christian point of view, that would be evaluated by the extent to which he worked within the framework of the received Christian tradition which recognises One God in Three Persons - Father, Son as Holy Spirit - and the Prophet Isa as none other than God Incarnate.
The ins and outs of whether he 'failed' to establish a 'Free church' model is another issue again.
I'm not saying that church/state relations aren't problematic. Of course they are. But I don't see how Steve Langton's wooly and poorly thought-through views on how Christians are to engage with the state, the 'polis' actually helps us here.
All it does is reveal a false dichotomy in his approach whereby the only ultimate arbiter on these issues become his own interpretation of the Anabaptist tradition - which he insists is the only possible conclusion anyone can reach through the plain-meaning of scripture approach he fondly imagines himself to be under taking.
Which is why he continually fails to articulate any clear indication of what such a thing should look like other than that we shouldn't be police officers or soldiers or hold any form of government or magisterial office - which is not something that can be demonstrated by a so-called plain reading of scripture.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is quite a blunt argument that just comes down to "Islam is violent because Muhammed was wrong and therefore Islam is against the truth".
For one thing, plenty of people believe things I think are wrong and yet still manage to function at a high level. For another, I've met a lot of Muslims and I think Islam is often quite beautiful. I don't have to accept the claims of their religion to believe them when they say that it is peaceful.
As I said way back at the beginning of this discussion, there are plenty of examples of pacifists who seem (to me) to have come at it from odd directions. To me, the Gita seems to be nothing about peace and yet it was the basis of Gandhi's pacifism. And given that he explains in minute detail about how he got to peace from within his religious sect, we've got a choice: either we believe him although we don't understand it, or we disbelieve him and insist that our understanding of his religion is better than his.
Several pages further on in this discussion we're no further forward in my opinion.
Steve Langton is still insisting that there is something about Muhammed and Islam which makes it a state-building religion. And of course, it is true that some read their religion in that way.
But those who don't are not wrong. That's the point of fallacy in your argument, Steve. And continually saying that the reason is because it is false or fake is not answering the question of which of the two options are authentic Islam.
I reject this project of somehow imagining that we can look back at the original documents and then divide people into those who are faithful to the original vision of the religion and those who are not.
Because religions are not like that. They're constantly being reinvented, renewed, reunderstood. And it is possible for a person to be part of a fully peaceful religion which has grown out of something that looks violent.
Even if it could be said that Islam was a [b[death cult[/b] from the earliest days which it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination that is no help in understanding which out of Wahhabism and Sufiism represent true Islam (which is a contradictory thing to say anyway if you believe you can paint it all as false).
Your project is a doomed one, Steve Langton. Walking around the world determining who is and who is not authentically living their own religion is a pointless exercise.
It reminds me of that guy in Hitchhiker who was condemned to fly around the universe, finds a particular person on his clipboard, gets out and goes up to them saying "Arthur Dent? You're an utter arse. A total unmitigated failure" and then goes back into the spaceship and flies away.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Steve Langton
Islam is a completely real, utterly true religion by all criteria, just like all others.
Christianity as believed and practiced by anyone is no more real and true by any criterion.
[ 23. September 2016, 08:48: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First thing before I catch up probably later this evening on various recent posts;
I've trawled back upthread and it seems to me I've collected responses which fall into two broad categories - with some mixed between the two.
One is basically attacks on 'Anabaptism' which in themselves are irrelevant to the thread topic, and are wasting a lot of space on the thread just for people to vent spleen at something they don't seem to understand anyway.
The others actually are related more directly to either the thread topic or aspects of Christianity which may throw useful light thereon, but can be stated and I hope appreciated with no need to 'go the whole Anabaptist hog'.
What I'm proposing to do is to divide those two off. Here I will deal with the Islam-relevant things and the ideas which should offer a wide range of Christians a different perspective on that, without, as I say, requiring them to go that whole Anabaptist hog - though maybe a little further than they currently go.
The other stuff I will collect from what's already been posted, and when (if ever!) this thread eases off a bit I'll try and post those issues on a thread purely about Anabaptism and related matters. Perhaps in the meantime others could make a similar distinction in what they post here themselves or save for that other thread when I get round to it.
I hope Hosts/Admin and other Shipmates will find that a reasonable course.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy; his summary of my views -
quote:
"Islam is violent because Muhammad was wrong and therefore Islam is against the truth"
No, slightly - actually much - more subtle than that.
Muhammad was sincere but he was wrong. One of the ways he was wrong is that he ignored/rejected the teaching of Jesus on how God wants his people to relate to the state, and produced instead, and very much acted on, a different view.
IF Muhammad had come up with the state religion thing as part of a whole new religion, then you'd argue the case just on the merits of what Muhammmad taught - and maybe, though it wouldn't be a good thing exactly, it might turn out that Muhammad had a real God behind him who really did want religious states for the faith delivered through Muhammad.
Unfortunately for his credibility, Muhammad came up with this idea as part of a religion which claimed to follow from and even supposedly improve the Judeo-Christian tradition. Which means he ends up with the walloping contradiction of portraying God as wanting something which, through Jesus, God had already rejected. And I do hope you're not going to try and argue that a religious state enforced by an army is a better solution than the 'free church/plural society' option implied by Jesus' teaching.....
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I imagine that Christian heaven is like this thread, interminable, very boring, and full of endless circles and cul de sacs. Of course, I could be wrong. But how would I know?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, slightly - actually much - more subtle than that.
Really. I'm fascinated to learn your complex and multi-layered argument then.
quote:
Muhammad was sincere but he was wrong. One of the ways he was wrong is that he ignored/rejected the teaching of Jesus on how God wants his people to relate to the state, and produced instead, and very much acted on, a different view.
OK but Muslims don't believe the New Testament is accurate or authoritative. So arguing that the Koran says something different to the NT is stating the obvious. They don't believe the NT accurately reflects the teaching of Jesus.
So that's 0/1 in the subtlety stakes; Islam is wrong because everyone knows that it disagrees with Jesus.
quote:
IF Muhammad had come up with the state religion thing as part of a whole new religion, then you'd argue the case just on the merits of what Muhammmad taught - and maybe, though it wouldn't be a good thing exactly, it might turn out that Muhammad had a real God behind him who really did want religious states for the faith delivered through Muhammad.
That doesn't matter, though, does it Steve. A lot of people believe that he was the ultimate prophet and was more in-tune with God than anyone else that had been before.
So that's 0/2 in the subtlety sakes: Muhammed said some things I don't agree with therefore he was wrong.
quote:
Unfortunately for his credibility, Muhammad came up with this idea as part of a religion which claimed to follow from and even supposedly improve the Judeo-Christian tradition. Which means he ends up with the walloping contradiction of portraying God as wanting something which, through Jesus, God had already rejected.
Again, only if you accept the Christian understanding, which Muslims obviously don't - otherwise they wouldn't be Muslims, they'd be Christians.
So that's not very subtle either 0/3: Islam is wrong because it disagrees with my understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition
0 + 0 + 0 = 0
quote:
And I do hope you're not going to try and argue that a religious state enforced by an army is a better solution than the 'free church/plural society' option implied by Jesus' teaching.....
You do realise that there are other people on this website who do not accept that you have the correct understanding of Jesus' teachings, right?
And you must realise that this has nothing to do with this topic, right?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I imagine that Christian heaven is like this thread, interminable, very boring, and full of endless circles and cul de sacs.
No, that's the Maze at Hampton Court.
Or Bank Underground station.
Of course, those places may be "heaven" to you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think, Steve, that it's not so much a matter of people rejecting or attacking Anabaptism so much as your insistence that the Anabaptist approach - or something akin to it - was available to 6th century monks or 7th century Muslims or whoever else simply because it accords with your particular interpretation of the NT.
I'm saying that the kind of approach you are advocating couldn't have applied to Mohammed or to St Aidan or St Augustine or whoever else back then because the conditions for it did not exist.
You seem to assume that all people had to do was read the NT and it would all have been obvious.
That's not how these things work.
As for your speculation that the Picts or ancient Britons might have been resistant to the Christian message because it was associated with a colonial oppressor - well that has to remain purely speculative - by the time Christianity made headway in these islands they'd largely become Romanised or at least accustomed to having Romanised societies on their doorstep.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that you ditch your Anabaptism, simply to recognise that it is one among a number of ways to approach and understand these things.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think, Steve, that it's not so much a matter of people rejecting or attacking Anabaptism so much as your insistence that the Anabaptist approach - or something akin to it - was available to 6th century monks or 7th century Muslims or whoever else simply because it accords with your particular interpretation of the NT.
So prove my interpretation of the NT wrong - you may find that a great deal harder than you think. If I am right, then clearly an 'Anabaptist approach - or something akin to it' was potentially available, just had been obscured by the Imperial hijack of the faith.
quote:
I am saying that the kind of approach you are advocating couldn't have applied to Mohammed or to St Aidan or St Augustine or whoever else back then because the conditions for it did not exist.
The conditions existed or didn't just as much as they had for the apostles, so why wouldn't they apply in the 7thC??
quote:
You seem to assume that all people had to do was read the NT and it would all have been obvious.
That's not how these things work.
OK, it's a sinful world, people make mistakes. It's important to correct the mistakes, not just let them go on forever.
quote:
As for your speculation that the Picts or ancient Britons might have been resistant to the Christian message because it was associated with a colonial oppressor - well that has to remain purely speculative - by the time Christianity made headway in these islands they'd largely become Romanised or at least accustomed to having Romanised societies on their doorstep.
Being pedantic, situations like the Arthur story - even if you consider much of it legend - show that yes, the Romano-British had been nominally Christianised by the Roman Empire by the time of the Saxon invasions. And that's rather the point - the invading Saxons in dealing with Christianity were dealing with the religion of an enemy fighting fiercely to keep them out of Britannia and willing to kill Saxons to achieve that. Which is a good reason for them to regard the religion as suspect - as I said.
Christianity, a 'kingdom not of this world' is not meant to take worldly sides like that, but to be a third way.
The Picts were outside the Roman Empire and a slightly different situation.
(and just to be clear - we're not talking Malory's late medieval fairy-tale Arthur there, we're talking about the REAL Dark Age resistance to the Saxons, whether or not it was led by an actual Arthur)
quote:
I'm not suggesting for a moment that you ditch your Anabaptism, simply to recognise that it is one among a number of ways to approach and understand these things.
So we're back again to that vague evidence-less assertion that there are a lot of different opinions/interpretations which have to somehow all be considered equally valid.
Well to quote a guy called Gamaliel a few months back, "They can't all be true". And caring which are true and so might be truly useful is likely to be really helpful in dealing with the topic of this thread.
Either show that these 'other interpretations' have logical substance, or just shut up about them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by orfeo;
quote:
Early Islam also had the concept of the "People of the Book", which meant that Muslim rule did not involve forcing Jews and Christians to become Muslim.
Modern Islam still has that concept; the problems are
1) The practical application tends to be that Jews and Christians are basically only accepted as second-class citizens in an Islamic state.
2)This pretty much becomes a dead letter when the 'Christians' and Jews in question are actually engaged in war against Muslim countries, or colonising Muslim countries, supporting enemies of Islamic countries, or any of several similar possibilities. Which has pretty much been the case throughout my lifetime, especially in relation to Israel and Western support thereof.
Even Christians and Jews trying to live peaceably in a Muslim state then become suspect as likely allies of the 'Crusaders' and subject to such things as forced circumcision.
The 'Islamic state' still creates problems in such areas, just by being an Islamic state.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Steve Langton, I'm just going to re-iterate something I just posted in Dead Horses. That is, to avoid extensive posts on the subject of the relationship between the church and state, especially where it's not directly relevant.
The parallels between the "Christian state" (as existed at the time Islam was founded) and the "Islamic state" has given you some leeway to pursue that subject here. But, there is only so much leeway that we'll give as posts move further from the original subject.
You do not need to respond to every post if, by so doing, you move even further from the subject of Islamic extremism.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I've said on another thread, as an American, Mousethief doesn't believe in church-state linkage in the UK sense or Russian sense ... But all we hear from Steve is how Mousethief's 'fellow Orthodox' do - as if to be Orthodox or Anglican or RC is synonymous with belief in a conjoined Church and State.
Actually when this has come up, Steve's complaint about me has quite consistently been that I don't oppose the church-state liaison for the right reasons. I'm against it for wicked, secular, modern reasons, rather than because of the One Right Reading of the Bible as brought to you by, and named after, the Anabaptists.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Early Islam also had the concept of the "People of the Book", which meant that Muslim rule did not involve forcing Jews and Christians to become Muslim.
The sense that I get from talking to Muslims is that they're often confused about why people remain Christians when it seems obvious to them that Muhammed's testimony is the final and witness superseding all the others.
If that is any refection of the way earlier generations thought, I wonder if in the early days there was a level of co-existence because those early Muslims expected all the Christians to give up all that Jesus stuff and do things the right way really quickly.
I also get the impression that many Christian groups who have interacted with Islam throughout the centuries have had a view that the End Times were imminent, and I'm not sure that Muslims had the same way of thinking.
Perhaps as the two parallel-but-different ways of thinking developed and matured as it became clearer that (a) Christianity was deep rooted and wasn't going to be dislodged by someone with a new-and-better revelation (as Muslims see it) and (b) the Christian End-Times didn't arrive.
Then, at some point, coercion became common - if not the norm - and it took a reinterpretation from both sides to accept that it wasn't the way.
Today, it seems to me, that there is a difference between the way that extreme Muslims and extreme Christians behave. The former seem to often see themselves as lone warriors acting as the hand of the deity's justice on the unbeliever - whereby any action is justified because they're acting in the name of Allah-the-just.
Maybe something about the way that God is depicted and understood by extreme Christians (in today's era) means that they're less likely to see themselves personally as a Samsonite tool of justice.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
If that is any refection of the way earlier generations thought, I wonder if in the early days there was a level of co-existence because those early Muslims expected all the Christians to give up all that Jesus stuff and do things the right way really quickly.
You are probably right there. I've said similar things myself, though it's an issue that I've perhaps dealt with more often 'ashore' than Shipboard.
In terms of assessing how people were thinking at the time, as things developed, it's also related to the way Muhammad himself clearly originally thought/intended that he would achieve his goals peaceably, but when that hope was disappointed slipped into establishing his Islamic state by force after all.
I'm told, and so far as I've checked it myself it seems to be the case, that this development is particularly clear if you have an edition of the Quran in (as far as it can be ascertained) chronological order of revelation rather than the modern order of the Suras.
Note significantly that what orfeo is talking about is the toleration ideally extended to Christians and Jews in an Islamic state; and Muhammad's/the Quran's teaching about this effectively presumes such a state.
As regards the effects of 'End-times' ideas, I don't think this would affect early interactions with Islam much. But AIUI the regular (though not only) interpretation of the Millennium in that era was not the 'pre-Millennial' idea of Jesus coming to instate the earthly Millennium, but rather a view that the Millennium represented an era on earth which would end with Jesus coming back.
The actual 1000CE date doesn't seem to have created the stir some people think it did. But for many people the Millennium was effectively thought to have started with the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, and for literal-minded interpreters (who didn't realise that pretty much every number in Revelation is symbolic) the approach of the 1300s, the 1000 years anniversary of the Christian Empire, stirred things up a bit, with an expectation that the Millennium would end with a very literal Armageddon. That would influence attitudes to the Crusades and other contact with Islam at that period.
This is one of those things that doesn't often come right out on the surface, and has been downplayed in modern Christian thinking because of the predominance nowadays of pre-Millennial thinking, but if you dig around a bit it was clearly there not too far under the medieval surface. It seems to have been one of the less obvious pressures behind the Reformation, for instance - the realisation that the medieval RCC hadn't been a very satisfactory Millennial kingdom, and/or that the state the RCC had ended up in might represent pre-Armageddon apostasy.
But while an interesting idea to follow up elsewhere, I don't think it's all that relevant to the Islamic extremism. A tangent as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, Mousethief is broadly right in how I see his views - but if I've understood Alan Cresswell rightly, I'm not supposed to discuss that here. I'll be happy to discuss it on a more appropriate thread.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards the effects of 'End-times' ideas, I don't think this would affect early interactions with Islam much. But AIUI the regular (though not only) interpretation of the Millennium in that era was not the 'pre-Millennial' idea of Jesus coming to instate the earthly Millennium, but rather a view that the Millennium represented an era on earth which would end with Jesus coming back.
Sorry if I don't take you as a reliable source as to the way Christians related to Muslims.
Pope Innocent III wrote in 1213:
quote:
"Although [Muhammad’s] treachery has prevailed up to the present day, we nevertheless put our trust in the Lord who has already given us a sign that good is to come, that the end of this beast is approaching, whose number, according to the Revelation of St John, will end in 666 years, of
which already nearly 600 have passed.”
source
quote:
But while an interesting idea to follow up elsewhere, I don't think it's all that relevant to the Islamic extremism. A tangent as far as I'm concerned.
Well, again, that's not really a measure of what or isn't relevant. I think the differences in Islamic and Christian understandings of Eschatology are very relevant to the context of how the different religions and adherrents related to each other down the years. If you don't that's fine, don't contribute.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Pope Innocent III wrote in 1213: quote:
"Although [Muhammad’s] treachery has prevailed up to the present day, we nevertheless put our trust in the Lord who has already given us a sign that good is to come, that the end of this beast is approaching, whose number, according to the Revelation of St John, will end in 666 years, of which already nearly 600 have passed.”
Now there's a twist I'd not come across before. One for the Biblical Inerrancy/Interpretation thread?
Just in case you haven't been paying attention, I don't exactly accept the Pope as having any special authority as a biblical interpreter, and this one is an example of why I don't.
Looks like the Pope was looking for a biblical justification for his at a deeper level biblically unjustifiable call to Crusade, and latched on to the fact that Islam was about 600 years old to make a somewhat unconventional interpretation of the Beast in Revelation as Islam and an even more unconventional interpretation that the 'number of the Beast', the notorious '666', was a literal reference to the number of years the Islamic Beast would last.
A neat bit of propaganda, but doesn't stand up to close investigation, also doesn't stand up as an interpretation of prophecy since Islam is still with us over 600 more years later. It might stand as evidence of Papal Fallibility....
Many more biblical-minded Christians would regard both the Pope and Islam as representatives of what the Beast 'stands for' by virtue of both being deeply involved in the religious state concept....
Otherwise, though a tangent anyway, I don't think eschatology would affect 7thC relations with Muslims all that much; but I do find hints that by the time of the Crusades the then common interpretation of the Millennium might affect things.
However, your reference here if anything emphasises my point - Christians who didn't do state churches wouldn't have been 'Crusading' but looking for other ways to deal with Islam (akin to what St Francis at least tried in 1219). And an Islam which didn't do state Islam would have been an entirely different kind of problem that wouldn't have needed to be 'crusaded' against.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Now there's a twist I'd not come across before. One for the Biblical Inerrancy/Interpretation thread?
Just in case you haven't been paying attention, I don't exactly accept the Pope as having any special authority as a biblical interpreter, and this one is an example of why I don't.
I wasn't asking whether you took (any) Pope as authoritative. I was researching and discussing how Christians viewed Muslims, and like-it-or-not the Pope's words had a lot of influence on a lot of Christians at that time.
I'm not claiming that it is a particularly useful interpretation, I'm stating that it was widely held.
Strangely enough, you weren't there, so you didn't.
There is also some interesting stuff I've been reading from the from the 7th century (unhelpfully called Pseudo Methodius) which apparently was influential with Christians at the time and shows something about how (at least some of) the Christians at the time understood the emerging Islamic religion.
quote:
Looks like the Pope...
<snipped irrelevant stuff>
Nobody is asking for your interpretation. That's entirely irrelevant as to how Christians in the 7th or 11th century understood Muslims.
quote:
Many more biblical-minded Christians would regard both the Pope and Islam as representatives of what the Beast 'stands for' by virtue of both being deeply involved in the religious state concept....
What, you know for a fact that Christians interacting with the early Islamic adherrents understood the bible in that way, do you?
No you don't. Two posts above you claimed it was irrelevant and didn't know anything about it.
quote:
Otherwise, though a tangent anyway, I don't think eschatology would affect 7thC relations with Muslims all that much; but I do find hints that by the time of the Crusades the then common interpretation of the Millennium might affect things.
Again, you seem to just be repeating the same thing as fact without actually giving any reasons for it. Why is it a "tangent" and what basis do you have for saying that it didn't affect "relations very much"?
If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but just repeating what you've already said (and you've already admitted your ignorance of) without any additional information or evidence is not a debate. I think you are wrong.
quote:
However, your reference here if anything emphasises my point - Christians who didn't do state churches wouldn't have been 'Crusading' but looking for other ways to deal with Islam (akin to what St Francis at least tried in 1219). And an Islam which didn't do state Islam would have been an entirely different kind of problem that wouldn't have needed to be 'crusaded' against.
Right, and now you have to find writings from the period which showed Christians who "didn't do state churches" and thus related to Islam in a completely different way.
That's how we do debate: we provide evidence and then discuss it, usually with other contrasting or supporting evidence.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
quote:
: Many more biblical-minded Christians would regard both the Pope and Islam as representatives of what the Beast 'stands for' by virtue of both being deeply involved in the religious state concept....
What, you know for a fact that Christians interacting with the early Islamic adherents understood the bible in that way, do you?
No, but I know, and you should know if you're going to parade eschatology all over the place, that many Protestants later interpreted the Papacy as the Beast, and those who saw the state church tyranny as a key part of that Bestiality would regard Islam as an example of the same principle. That's what I was referring to there.
also by mr cheesy;
quote:
Right, and now you have to find writings from the period which showed Christians who "didn't do state churches" and thus related to Islam in a completely different way.
That would be quite tricky to find a lot of, because "Christians who 'didn't do state churches'" were mostly hiding from persecution by the Christians ("Christians"?) who did. But as a significant example which you obviously overlooked when I quoted it earlier, how about the attitude expressed by John Gower, a contemporary of Chaucer and thus of the Crusades. Please don't make me have to waste everybody else's time by quoting it in full again.
A quick dive into Wikipedia suggests that Pseudo-Methodius if anything confirms much of my thinking. An apocalypse with a Roman Emperor as a messianic saviour figure???
by mr cheesy;
quote:
I wasn't asking whether you took (any) Pope as authoritative. I was researching and discussing how Christians viewed Muslims, and like-it-or-not the Pope's words had a lot of influence on a lot of Christians at that time. I'm not claiming that it is a particularly useful interpretation, I'm stating that it was widely held.
I'm sure such words from a Pope were widely influential. But there's also surely an issue of whether they deserved to be and whether they were anything like a valid interpretation. And they didn't and they weren't, respectively.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, but I know, and you should know if you're going to parade eschatology all over the place, that many Protestants later interpreted the Papacy as the Beast, and those who saw the state church tyranny as a key part of that Bestiality would regard Islam as an example of the same principle. That's what I was referring to there.
Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with a discussion of why Muslims were not always violent to Christians.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with a discussion of why Muslims were not always violent to Christians.
You mean apart from how surprising it is that Muslims failed to be constantly violent when faced with that kind of treatment by the Popes?
There were a variety of reasons why Muslims were not constantly violent, including the rather banal that sometimes both sides hit a deadlock and war-weariness set in.
But I'm not saying Muslims were always violent to Christians. I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that Muhammad left behind him a confusion in which a clear aspiration to peace and hope for peace were undermined by his decision, supported by the Quran whatever you think of its origins, to establish a de facto Islamic state with a de facto Islamic army to conquer the home city which had exiled him.
That confusion leaves a conflicted religion in which the same dynamics are at work which produced Crusades, Inquisitions, and the 'Wars of Religion' in a Christian context. That is the fundamental origin of Islamic extremism, individual examples of which are then triggered subsequently by other more geographically and temporally local factors. And you'd have saved us all a lot of time if you'd accepted that from square one instead of attacking things I wasn't saying anyway. Or even just attacked what I was saying instead of what I wasn't.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I'm not saying Muslims were always violent to Christians. I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that Muhammad left behind him a confusion in which a clear aspiration to peace and hope for peace were undermined by his decision, supported by the Quran whatever you think of its origins, to establish a de facto Islamic state with a de facto Islamic army to conquer the home city which had exiled him.
And I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking about as you are no kind of expert on the subject. Large numbers of Muslims deny this point, including Islamic scholars - some of which I've pointed to on this thread.
quote:
That confusion leaves a conflicted religion in which the same dynamics are at work which produced Crusades, Inquisitions, and the 'Wars of Religion' in a Christian context. That is the fundamental origin of Islamic extremism, individual examples of which are then triggered subsequently by other more geographically and temporally local factors. And you'd have saved us all a lot of time if you'd accepted that from square one instead of attacking things I wasn't saying anyway. Or even just attacked what I was saying instead of what I wasn't.
No, you don't get to tell me that I must just accept things you say. I don't. I think you're talking total shite. That you think you know Islam better than Muslims. That you believe you are better than Islamic scholars. That you believe you have a magic key to understanding that evades those who are most closely engaged with the subject.
The only confusion here is the one where you try to explain things that happened many centuries ago with a paradigm that didn't even exist 5 centuries ago.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Large numbers of Muslims deny this point, including Islamic scholars - some of which I've pointed to on this thread.
Quite possible; but how does that counter the rather evident historic fact that Muhammad simply DID use military force to set up an Islamic state de facto with the aid of an Islamic army using very emphatically what Paul would have called 'worldly weapons', and which state continued to engage in warfare?
Are you really denying that happened at all?? And do you really not understand that it is because that happened that groups like IS and Al Qaeda try to set up Islamic states and/or make existing ones stricter?
As I've said, I am reading the book you suggested to me - so far the author has failed to come up with anything to refute that.... I'll carry on, but the way things have developed so far I'm not optimistic.
And you underrate the significance of the fact that Jesus, who Muhammad regarded as a prophet even while misrepresenting him, had offered 600 years earlier a better way to do religion and state which Muhammad drove the 7thC equivalent of a tank through.
So for starters, clarify which bit you are disputing of what the vast majority - including Muslims - consider to be a historic fact. Or what obscure 'spin' you are trying to put on it....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Steve can you really not see that we've already had this discussion in this thread?
Muslims are not Christians and do not accept the premise that the New Testament is an accurate record of Jesus. And the fact that the book is not persuading you is not relevant to the question of whether there are ways to understand Muhammed other than the way you understand the Koran.
I don't need to persuade you of the view of this guy or anyone else because I'm not advocating for his position, just trying to show you that there are experts - and actually a large number of Muslims - who do not agree with your characterisation of their faith.
I really don't care whether you accept his thesis or not. It is simply a fact that there are Muslims who do not believe Islam and the Koran mandates them to set up Islamic states. You just have to deal with that reality.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
I really don't care whether you accept his thesis or not. It is simply a fact that there are Muslims who do not believe Islam and the Koran mandates them to set up Islamic states. You just have to deal with that reality.
I believe you about the existence of those Muslims. But there still remains an issue about whether they have a legitimate and logical interpretation of Islam or whether they are interpreting the original religion wrongly. If they are wrong, then their mere existence won't do anything to cure the problem of Islamic extremism. And the extremism can always come back by showing itself to be the authentic version.
Merely saying such Muslims exist doesn't prove they're getting it right.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I believe you about the existence of those Muslims.
Hurrah. Thank you Jesus.
quote:
But there still remains an issue about whether they have a legitimate and logical interpretation of Islam or whether they are interpreting the original religion wrongly. If they are wrong, then their mere existence won't do anything to cure the problem of Islamic extremism. And the extremism can always come back by showing itself to be the authentic version.
Nope, that issue doesn't remain because it doesn't matter. If a large proportion of Muslims believe one thing, it makes bugger all difference if you think it is legitimate or illegitimate. Self-evidently what matters is what they believe their faith tells them to do not what you believe their faith should be telling them what to do.
quote:
Merely saying such Muslims exist doesn't prove they're getting it right.
That's your problem right there; it doesn't actually matter whether "they're getting it right or not" - what matters is how they process and live their own faith.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, that issue doesn't remain because it doesn't matter. If a large proportion of Muslims believe one thing, it makes bugger all difference if you think it is legitimate or illegitimate. Self-evidently what matters is what they believe their faith tells them to do not what you believe their faith should be telling them what to do.
I think what Steve is saying is similar to what I've seen other conservative commentators say; namely that the 'early islam' was characterised by conquest and violence, and so Islam is always likely to revert conquest and violence. The problem with that argument - of course - is that it assumes that a textual-literalistic impulse will always prove to be the strongest - which perhaps says more about those putting forward the argument than about Islam.
The problem can be highlighted by applying the same logic to other religions; in which case Judaism is to be characterised by the most literalistic reading of the Torah, and Hinduism by the most literalistic reading of the four Vedas.
Secondly; he ignores the extent to which a particular reading becomes attractive because of a set of historical contingencies. In the modern-era, suicide bombing wasn't invented by Islamic Terrorists, even if they subsequently found justification for it - so it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that there was something inherent within the text itself that led to it.
Broadly speaking; the last few decades of violence have been the story of very culturally conservative readings of Islam being driven by petrodollars and modernist handlings of the text. It's ironic that the most conservative Islamicists would probably agree with Steve's characterisation about who the 'true' Muslims were.
[ 26. September 2016, 12:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well yes, that's the danger - it contributes to a form of "red scare" which implies that there is something intrinsically violent about Islam and therefore we should all be scared of Muslims.
That's a category error. Sincere and devout Muslims are not [i]all[/] violent supporters of IS. There is nothing about Islam which renders those who "understand it correctly" into violent automitons. The idea is bonkers.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I believe you about the existence of those Muslims. But there still remains an issue about whether they have a legitimate and logical interpretation of Islam or whether they are interpreting the original religion wrongly. If they are wrong, then their mere existence won't do anything to cure the problem of Islamic extremism. And the extremism can always come back by showing itself to be the authentic version.
This isn't at all clear, and there are plenty of fairly obvious counter-examples. The most obvious and familiar to Westerners is Rabbinic Judaism. Jews themselves accept that the Judaism they practice today is a latter-day adaptation of the faith (or as those like Steve Langdon would call it, an "inauthentic version"). Despite the fact that they've adapted prayer and ritual to substitute for the temple sacrificial system only a few outsiders would consider it to be "fake Judaism", because most religions are considered authentic based on the sincerity of their believers (in other word, by faith), not some historical textual analysis.
In other words, if it's so easy for extremism to make a comeback, why has rabbinic Judaism been the most common form of Judaism for nearly two millennia?
It's also notable that very few people complain about the inherent extremism of Jews because of the warfare depicted in their scriptures or scriptural advocacy of a state religion.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
I think what Steve is saying is similar to what I've seen other conservative commentators say; namely that the 'early islam' was characterised by conquest and violence, and so Islam is always likely to revert conquest and violence. The problem with that argument - of course - is that it assumes that a textual-literalistic impulse will always prove to be the strongest - which perhaps says more about those putting forward the argument than about Islam.
Up to a point I am saying that; but I'm seeing other factors as well, particularly in the relationship between Islam and Christianity whereby Islam does, despite mr cheesy's constant efforts to dismiss it, claim to be derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Allah to be "the God of Abraham and (for Arabs) Ishmael" with Jesus/Isa recognised as a Muslim prophet even if we think the Islamic picture of Jesus is distorted.
As I've pointed out, Jesus taught a different view of religion and state. He could have, or at any rate could have tried, to do something similar to Muhammad, and set up a Christian state starting with Israel and himself as a conventional Messianic King - and he didn't, and in various ways outlined an alternative more suited to spreading a worldwide religion of personal faith (being 'born again'). His followers can be seen in documents up till c300CE clearly following that option. I haven't my library handy where I am now, but a quick Wiki search suggests the Epistle to Diognetus as one example.
So one clear point is that anyone who accepts Christianity can straightforwardly follow the argument that if Muhammad went backwards from what Jesus taught, to set up his version as a religious state, then that's another reason why Muhammad was a false prophet.
Sub-issues;
1) Of course Christians who don't accept that 'no Christian state' version can't use or benefit from that argument, or use it to help enquirers, or whatever. They're also going to have problems with atheists and such whose objections to Christianity are more about the doings of state churches than about the basic theology.
2) Of course, as mr cheesy points out, Muslims will not accept that argument directly - and BTW, mr cheesy, that's another thing I've known and taken account of for decades. I still think there is something in the argument that can be used apologetically in dealing with Muslims.
Broadening that point a bit, I don't think it's easy to 'interpret' Islam as peaceable. The problem is that it's not that Muhammad merely wrote something down, or (allegedly) received it in the Quran, and now centuries later we have to decide how to interpret it in a new situation. Rather, we are faced with something which Muhammad very much concretely DID in his lifetime, and claimed divine authority to do, and I don't know many, Muslim or otherwise, who dispute he did it, and that act and the accompanying approval of it in the Quran makes it very difficult indeed to argue for a peaceable interpretation of Islam as a whole.
Sorry, have to pack up and go now; may be back later tonight, certainly tomorrow afternoon....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Good glad we've got that sorted out: anyone reading this and considering becoming a Muslim! Desist! The Langton has spoken!
NO - the logic of the situation has spoken to anybody who can be bothered to work it out. 'The Langton' doesn't think of his pronouncements in the kind of way you suggest at all.
How much will you give me for this beautiful piece of irony, ladies and gentlemen? Who will start the bidding at €100? One hundred Euros for this beautiful bit of contemporary irony. I see one hundred. Do I see two? Two hundred? I see one fifty. Do I see one seventy-five?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Will you take quatloos?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Will you take quatloos?
What's the exchange rate?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Ahem. Time to return to the subject of Islamic extremism.
Alan
[stand in Purgatory host]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Up to a point I am saying that; but I'm seeing other factors as well, particularly in the relationship between Islam and Christianity whereby Islam does, despite mr cheesy's constant efforts to dismiss it, claim to be derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Allah to be "the God of Abraham and (for Arabs) Ishmael" with Jesus/Isa recognised as a Muslim prophet even if we think the Islamic picture of Jesus is distorted.
Why does this have anything to do with extremism?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Up to a point I am saying that; but I'm seeing other factors as well, particularly in the relationship between Islam and Christianity whereby Islam does, despite mr cheesy's constant efforts to dismiss it, claim to be derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Allah to be "the God of Abraham and (for Arabs) Ishmael" with Jesus/Isa recognised as a Muslim prophet even if we think the Islamic picture of Jesus is distorted.
Why does this have anything to do with extremism?
Partly that was just by way of intro to the points I then went on to make. But also the fact is that Islam is quite consciously presented by Muhammad and the Quran as being in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is therefore not a wholly separate and independent religion to be discussed in isolation, and contrasting Christianity's approach to these issues with Islam's approach may help understanding.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the fact is that Islam is quite consciously presented by Muhammad and the Quran as being in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is presented as that. But, Islam does not accept the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, considering them to be corrupt and unreliable. The Quran does include some narratives about people in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, but generally the stories presented are significantly different. There follows, ISTM, two logical positions to take:
1) The Islamic claim that the Quran is the divinely given, uncorrupted, true account. It follows that both Judaism and Christianity are wrong on several points of theology and, therefore, discussions of whether Christianity teaches that the Kingdom of God is of this world are irrelevant - because Christians are working from a corrupted source. The only relevant starting point is what the Quran says.
2) The Judeo-Christian view, which is that the Quran is a corrupted version of our tradition. In which case there might be a valid discussion about what form of Judaism and Christianity Muhammed was exposed to - was he working from an orthodox or heretical form of the Judeo-Christian tradition? And, how he modified the traditions to suit his own ends in founding a new religion. Of course, you're going to get nowhere trying to discuss nature of Islam with muslims on this basis - it will simply be rejected out of hand.
quote:
It is therefore not a wholly separate and independent religion to be discussed in isolation, and contrasting Christianity's approach to these issues with Islam's approach may help understanding.
Both of these points result in basically concluding that the foundation of Islam introduced something profoundly new into the world. And, that either declared the Judeo-Christian tradition corrupt, or was a corruption of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Either way, ISTM, there's a sufficient discontinuity that it's better to consider Islam on it's own terms, effectively as a wholly separate and independent religion.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Of course, you're going to get nowhere trying to discuss nature of Islam with muslims on this basis - it will simply be rejected out of hand.
This is where I'm not so sure. I've yet to finish the book mr cheesy put me on to, but what I'm reading seems to be a Muslim who is thoroughly unhappy with the traditional Muslim state set-up, sees all the rational reasons for doing it a different way, and is trying to re-interpret Islam to fit with what he sees as rational. I've yet to read far enough to find out how he does that, or thinks he does that, but I think there is a chink there which can be opened up to challenge Islam itself, via the dilemma this Muslim faces.
And the challenge I think can only work on the understanding that Christianity's rejection of the religious state goes back to Jesus and is part of the teaching of Isa in Islamic terms; and there is traction simply in the fact that this isn't one of the traditional arguments between the two faiths and can come fresh.
It won't work on the terms 'liberal' theologians often present, where they don't recognise the teaching in the NT itself and see it rather as something we clever modern humans have developed as an improvement to the Bible - Muslims would meet that one by saying the 'liberals' were simply being unfaithful to their own scriptures.
But if you can point to something which the Muslim is seeing as a rationally better way and is struggling a bit to reconcile it with original Islam, and you can say "Ah, but this was already part of Christianity even if some later went astray about it...." You then have that question of "This is a good idea - why after giving it to Jesus and his followers, did God not re-affirm it to the greater prophet Muhammad?" Why did Muhammad end up establishing precisely the military power kingdom of this world that through Jesus God had already rejected 600 years earlier??
Something along those lines, which I'm still working on the detail of....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Of course, you're going to get nowhere trying to discuss nature of Islam with muslims on this basis - it will simply be rejected out of hand.
This is where I'm not so sure. I've yet to finish the book mr cheesy put me on to, but what I'm reading seems to be a Muslim who is thoroughly unhappy with the traditional Muslim state set-up, sees all the rational reasons for doing it a different way, and is trying to re-interpret Islam to fit with what he sees as rational. I've yet to read far enough to find out how he does that, or thinks he does that, but I think there is a chink there which can be opened up to challenge Islam itself, via the dilemma this Muslim faces.
And the challenge I think can only work on the understanding that Christianity's rejection of the religious state goes back to Jesus and is part of the teaching of Isa in Islamic terms; and there is traction simply in the fact that this isn't one of the traditional arguments between the two faiths and can come fresh.
I think the key there is "part of the teaching of Isa in Islamic terms". If the NT teaching which suggests that the Kingdom can never legitimately be expressed as a nation state exists within Islam (ie: those sayings of Jesus are recorded as sayings of Isa within Islamic scriptures) then, sure, the challenge to the concept of an Islamic State can come from within Islam, on entirely Islamic terms - it doesn't need reference to Christian Scripture. If those sayings of Jesus are flatly contradicted by Islamic Scripture then no amount of appeal to Christian Scripture is going to have any headway at all.
The interesting position is if the relevant sayings of Jesus are not in the Islamic scriptures, and are not contradicted by Islamic tradition. Then, I suppose, it might be possible for Islamic scholars to appeal to the Christian Scriptures as an imperfect authority for the teaching of Isa, and build upon that.
But, since I have no idea which of those three options is the case, I'm not in any position to comment on what Islamic scholars may think on the subject.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Alan, if people really just aren't going to listen, there's no point anyway. I take a bit of an attitude on that one of get the truth out there and leave God to bring the right people to it.
But I think this is a case where there is a potential audience, created in reaction to the extremists, of people who are both unhappy with the effects of 'state Islam' AND struggling to find a credible alternative within Islam to meet that dissatisfaction. We can offer them an external alternative.
And I also think it's a bit of a logical weakness that after clearly claiming the God of Abraham and Jesus as his God - Muhammad needs to claim the older Scriptures are corrupted - and yet it's the supposedly corrupt scriptures that contain the better way???
And in end, the question is in that contrast - a God who gives a really good way through Jesus and the apostles to spread a religion non-coercively, voluntarily; and then 600 years later changes his mind and tells Muhammad to go back to the essentially coercive state religion where in many ways the state is something of a barrier to preaching and hearing the word' and the 'conversion through force' questionable.....
What I'm saying is confront Islam with that kind of thing, ask the question which is the better way, the most 'God like'? Of course to do it, some Christian repentance and change will be needed as well....
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And in end, the question is in that contrast - a God who gives a really good way through Jesus and the apostles to spread a religion non-coercively, voluntarily; and then 600 years later changes his mind and tells Muhammad to go back to the essentially coercive state religion where in many ways the state is something of a barrier to preaching and hearing the word' and the 'conversion through force' questionable.....
This analysis seems to fail rather spectacularly on two points.
First, most Muslims are able to read the Quran without going on Christian-murdering sprees. If the text is as horrific and corrupting as you claim, drawing any who believes it to extremism and violence, this shouldn't be the case.
Second, most of the groups we consider Islamic extremists today are carrying out their extremism outside the state. Al Qæda, for example, seems to reject the formal structures of the state in favor of a loosely connected network of semi-independent cells. If using an official state religion is necessary for a group to be considered Islamic extremists, then al Qæda are not Islamic extremists. Furthermore, some extremist groups seem to become less extreme in their tactics when they actually assume a more state-like character. Hamas would seem to be an example of this, tempering their rhetoric and actions when they got into the social services game. (Assuming Hamas is better classified as "Islamic extremists" and not a nationalist insurgency by Muslims.) ISIS seems to be the exception rather than the rule with their efforts to form a territorial state.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I'm saying is confront Islam with that kind of thing, ask the question which is the better way, the most 'God like'? Of course to do it, some Christian repentance and change will be needed as well....
Seems a bit circular and dependent on what you think God is like. Neither Jesus nor Allah is very much like Odin, so I guess both Christianity and Islam are false since neither god is very Odin-like.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the fact is that Islam is quite consciously presented by Muhammad and the Quran as being in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is therefore not a wholly separate and independent religion
Seems to me that you're using that historical fact to try to give Christianity some sort of authority within a Muslim worldview. As some sort of older form of Islam which might form a baseline from which a well-meaning Muslim might validly critique present-day Islam.
And ISTM religion doesn't work like that. The reformed version accepts only the bits of the older version which agree. That's what it means to be a believer in the reformed version.
You're projecting onto Islam some of your own Protestant understanding of the relationship between text and interpretation...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And in end, the question is in that contrast - a God who gives a really good way through Jesus and the apostles to spread a religion non-coercively, voluntarily; and then 600 years later changes his mind and tells Muhammad to go back to the essentially coercive state religion where in many ways the state is something of a barrier to preaching and hearing the word' and the 'conversion through force' questionable.....
But Muslims believe that the NT is inacurate so there is no contradiction.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And in end, the question is in that contrast - a God who gives a really good way through Jesus and the apostles to spread a religion non-coercively, voluntarily; and then 600 years later changes his mind and tells Muhammad to go back to the essentially coercive state religion where in many ways the state is something of a barrier to preaching and hearing the word' and the 'conversion through force' questionable.....
But Muslims believe that the NT is inacurate so there is no contradiction.
Literally LOL. I was going to write a longer break down of how SL's statement was faulty, but this simple retort will do.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
The division within Islam is really the extent to which one can use Mohammed as a precedent for one's actions. If you look at ISIS, for example, the whole thing is a rather macabre attempt to re-enact the early days of the Umma. Muslims who deplore that sort of thing would tend to say that given that Mohammed was in a situation where non-Muslim Arabs would have killed him had they been able to he was justified in defending and extending his territory by force but it doesn't follow that, say, the Mayor of London would be justified in converting the city to the One True Faith by the sword. This is, as I understand it, a perfectly legitimate argument within Islam. The Prophet had, off the top of my head, something like a dozen wives, the Sunna confines believers to four and blamelessly Orthodox Muslims maintain that the dictum to treat all four equally is, essentially, a fairly broad hint that monogamy is the best way. Mohammed's many marriages are seen as an exception forced upon him by the need to make tribal alliances.
Something similar, btw, is how most Christians approach slavery. St. Paul saw it as a fact of life. We do not. If pressed we would probably say something about how St. Paul lived in the Roman Empire where slavery was the basis of much of the economy and where rebellious slaves were punished severely and, therefore, there was a sound prudential ground for his attitude but nothing he said precluded Wilberforce and the abolitionists from denouncing it as a crime later on.
If the entire Islamic world woke up tomorrow and collectively decided that they had been barking up the wrong tree and wanted to embrace Anabaptism, this would be a Result, on all sorts of levels. But, realistically, this is pretty unlikely.
So the question is, how do we empower Muslims like Sadiq Khan against the sort of people who think that ISIS is a good idea? Or to put it another way, how do we strengthen our allies and weaken our enemies? I am by no means averse to evangelism in principle but it does strike me that we might need a few other options as backup here.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
A bit ago, I asked mr cheesy to clarify his views about what looks to me and most people to be the historic fact that Muhammad set up an Islamic state by military force. He's been rather persistently evading that answer.
It has been increasingly occurring to me that there's another question he needs to answer - or perhaps realise that the answer he's already got should be affecting his views differently to what's currently going on.
The question is
quote:
"Do you, mr cheesy personally believe that Muhammad is a real prophet of God, and that we are therefore obligated to believe that he can't have made any mistakes, and interpret his acts and teaching accordingly whatever the appearances?
Or is it your personal belief that he was in fact an ordinary bloke, who may have sincerely believed he was a prophet, but in fact was just as likely as the next man to come up with a mix of good and bad ideas, stuff which may be interesting and exciting but can also be flawed and confused and lead to bad results that he didn't realise or foresee?
Indeed, if he was mistaken in believing he was a prophet, isn't he if anything more than average likely to have come up with confused ideas?
As I'm reading the evidence so far provided, and I think it's a legitimate reading, yes there are a lot of modern Muslims who have seen the flaws in Muhammad's position and in the Islamic state (and religious states in general) idea. And the problem is, they're attempting to interpret the situation without quite yet being willing to accept that the problems they're seeing are simply because Muhammad wasn't a true prophet, but an ordinary guy who got things wrong and left things confused....
(BTW, to avoid confusion, the above is not a 'quote' as such; I simply used the quote function to set off my question clearly from the surrounding bits)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question is
quote:
"Do you, mr cheesy personally believe that Muhammad is a real prophet of God, and that we are therefore obligated to believe that he can't have made any mistakes, and interpret his acts and teaching accordingly whatever the appearances?
Or is it your personal belief that he was in fact an ordinary bloke, who may have sincerely believed he was a prophet, but in fact was just as likely as the next man to come up with a mix of good and bad ideas, stuff which may be interesting and exciting but can also be flawed and confused and lead to bad results that he didn't realise or foresee?
Which, to me, seems to be addressing the wrong person. The question is about what Muslims think about Muhammed - and the answer to that would be that for the vast majority of Muslims IME there would be no doubt that Muhammed is a true prophet, indeed The Prophet. Whether that means he didn't make mistakes is probably a different question, and one over which I would expect there to be some disagreement within Islam. I see nothing logically problematic with a belief that Muhammed faithfully and accurately recorded and passed on the message he received from Allah, but that in other aspects of his life he didn't always get it right, made mistakes, and took a less than perfect course of action - or even, the best possible course of action in the circumstances he faced but that that was still imperfect.
So, to the case in point, from my limited knowledge of Islam I don't think there is a divine command recorded that tells Muhammed to create an army and spread Islam by force of arms (ie: no equivalent of the instructions from Yahweh to Joshua to conquer and ethnically cleanse Canaan). So, therefore, a perfectly reasonably valid argument could be made that Muhammed acted in a politically expedient manner in using force of arms to establish Islam, and that either this was the best (but imperfect) approach in the circumstances or that he was actually wrong to do so. In both cases, this would mean that his actions do not automatically mean that force of arms is justified in other circumstances. But, whether that argument is one that works within the traditions of Islam is something you would need to find out from Islamic scholars.
But, if we look at Christian tradition, we take the narratives in Joshua and (even within an 'Evangelical' framework of considering the Bible to be infallible) interpret them to state that Joshua was mistaken or that the ethnic cleansing of Canaan was a special situation which demanded extra-ordinary action, so that only a very small minority of Christians would use these stories to say "and, therefore, we are commanded by God to commit genocide".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A bit ago, I asked mr cheesy to clarify his views about what looks to me and most people to be the historic fact that Muhammad set up an Islamic state by military force. He's been rather persistently evading that answer.
No, I've answered it several times: it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is how Muslims perceive their own religion.
quote:
"Do you, mr cheesy personally believe that Muhammad is a real prophet of God, and that we are therefore obligated to believe that he can't have made any mistakes, and interpret his acts and teaching accordingly whatever the appearances?
No, I am not a Muslim. But that's irrelevant as to why Muslims become extremists.
quote:
Or is it your personal belief that he was in fact an ordinary bloke, who may have sincerely believed he was a prophet, but in fact was just as likely as the next man to come up with a mix of good and bad ideas, stuff which may be interesting and exciting but can also be flawed and confused and lead to bad results that he didn't realise or foresee?
What I think of Muhammed is utterly irrelevant as to this question.
quote:
Indeed, if he was mistaken in believing he was a prophet, isn't he if anything more than average likely to have come up with confused ideas?
What I think of Muhammed is utterly irrelevant as to this question.
quote:
As I'm reading the evidence so far provided, and I think it's a legitimate reading, yes there are a lot of modern Muslims who have seen the flaws in Muhammad's position and in the Islamic state (and religious states in general) idea. And the problem is, they're attempting to interpret the situation without quite yet being willing to accept that the problems they're seeing are simply because Muhammad wasn't a true prophet, but an ordinary guy who got things wrong and left things confused....
What I think of Muhammed is utterly irrelevant as to this question.
The point you are consistently failing to grasp is that it isn't up to people outside of Islam to tell Muslims how they should behave or to try to determine which are "true" interpretations of the Koran.
I'm not playing any more, Langton.
[ 29. September 2016, 11:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
The point you are consistently failing to grasp is that it isn't up to people outside of Islam to tell Muslims how they should behave or to try to determine which are "true" interpretations of the Koran.
The point you are very persistently failing to grasp is that a large area of the Quran, and Islamic teaching generally, tries to claim that Islam is a successor of the Judeo-Christian tradition while very persistently telling Jews and Christians how to behave, and not just telling us how we should interpret our scriptures but actually insisting that if they don't agree with Muhammad our Scriptures are 'corrupt'. Islam both hijacks our traditions and denigrates them at the same time. We, Christians and Jews, have EVERY RIGHT to defend our faith against that Islamic criticism, and to criticise, comment, question, and tell them our views in response. If he didn't want that criticism Muhammad shouldn't have involved our faith in his. By dragging our faith into his he gave us EVERY RIGHT to criticise. End of!!
On top of which it is simply a general principle applicable to any and all religions that if a religion seeks to missionise people, that is, tries to convert them to the faith, then they necessarily open up their teachings to examination by the intended converts who in turn have again EVERY RIGHT to tell the missionising religion their opinions of it, criticise, comment, etc. When the intended converts are the whole world, the whole world gets the right to criticise. End of!!
And that goes double if not more for a religion when large numbers of its adherents are not just missionising in terms of voluntary acceptance, but are actually trying to impose their beliefs by force. The idea that the religion can be immune from criticism in such a situation is simply intolerable. End of!!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If he didn't want that criticism Muhammad shouldn't have involved our faith in his. By dragging our faith into his he gave us EVERY RIGHT to criticise. End of!!
No one is saying that Islam is immune from criticism, neither its texts or its praxis.
However, your general thrust is to continually confuse 'ought' with 'is' (where you get to define 'ought').
Just because you think you have the one true interpretation of the Quran and the life of Mohammed, doesn't mean that a significant number of Muslim will agree with you [and apart from anything else your arguments ignore the ways in which people interpret their own faith - in fact it even ignores the ways in which you interpret your own faith - witness your tap dancing around what involvement in the state should consist of].
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
No one is saying that Islam is immune from criticism, neither its texts or its praxis.
The word of God-Emperor Langdon I, on the other hand, is immune from not only criticism but any comment at all. Note the Imperial "End of!!" precluding any further discussion. You can tell that God-Emperor Landon I is speaking ex cathedra because of the two exclamation points.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The word of God-Emperor Langdon I,
Crœsos, you know that's over the line in Purgatory, and are quite capable of producing arguments without personal insults. Kindly desist from the latter outside Hell.
/hosting
[ 30. September 2016, 04:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Ok, counting Alan's guest host post, that makes three host posts in three pages.
General reminder: y'all have three choices: engage on this thread in a Purgatorial fashion, back away from this thread until you can think of a Purgatorial response, or engage with gusto on the lovely Hell thread provided for you earlier in the week. Stop the personal stuff.
Kelly Alves
Admin.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point you are very persistently failing to grasp is that a large area of the Quran, and Islamic teaching generally, tries to claim that Islam is a successor of the Judeo-Christian tradition while very persistently telling Jews and Christians how to behave, and not just telling us how we should interpret our scriptures but actually insisting that if they don't agree with Muhammad our Scriptures are 'corrupt'. Islam both hijacks our traditions and denigrates them at the same time. We, Christians and Jews, have EVERY RIGHT to defend our faith against that Islamic criticism, and to criticise, comment, question, and tell them our views in response.
That's an extremely naive view.
Nobody is talking about rights, it is simply about facts; there is no point in trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do about their own religion. Particularly when the thing you think you know better is that their religion, if properly followed, would make them violent psychopaths.
And, once again, it is absolutely nothing about what I think of their religion. I could waste time trying to persuade Mormons that ultimately their religion is going to lead them to becoming sex-pests - but the simple facts of how Mormons live shows that they're no more prone to sexual crimes than anyone else.
There are plenty of religions I consider to be on some kind of scale between bollocks and utter bollocks. Of those, Islam at least should be respected for offering millions of adherents a way to live in peace. Continually shouting about your fixation with how everyone else is ultimately invested in state religious violence isn't an argument worth wasting any more time on.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Right....
I've a quite detailed response to chris which I think he will find reasonable but which I think should not go on the thread, certainly not at the present time.
Croesos, it is rather the point of my general position that I NEVER speak 'ex cathedra', and it might help us all if people would remember that. Indeed didn't I recently make exactly that point to you in the Biblical inerrancy thread? But if you actually read the principles I enunciated above, you will realise that they are elementary principles that the Ship pretty much depends on - the notion, for example, that any religion which seeks to convert people necessarily exposes itself to having its beliefs examined and critiqued by the potential converts. The "!!" was about my belief that those points were common ground for the vast majority of posters on the Ship, not about thinking they're my "Don't you dare argue" ideas. Do you really disagree with what I said there?
mr cheesy, I have simply not been saying about Islam many of the things you suggest. Read me more carefully, please.
Hosts, Admin, I tried but this was a tricky one to respond to....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy, I have simply not been saying about Islam many of the things you suggest. Read me more carefully, please.
I'm afraid you did say that Muslims who were legitimately following Muhammed would be looking to set up a violent Islamic state:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I've pointed out previously, much of the problem here is that Islam was consciously set up by Muhammad to be a 'state religion' and therefore Muhammad himself saw it as proper to practice war/persecution to set up his Islamic state, to defend it, and to expand it. And that approach is heavily supported in the Quran.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My point is that in a religion which has developed over time and shows variation of belief and/or practice there is a genuine need to look at the developments and try to decide which are legitimate developments and which are perhaps going down the wrong track - that is, which are the 'real' form of the faith, and which are a false form of it.
You said that there was a true and legitimate development which was the true track of Muhammed and that was the violent Muslim state. You said that.
In fact you've said that multiple times in this thread.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Read me more carefully, please.
Hosts, Admin, I tried but this was a tricky one to respond to....
Steve Langton, you have been granted considerable leeway in your posting in a gracious attempt by the powers that be to keep you onside.
That is not to be taken as a free pass. I am not an Admin, but I think it's safe to say you are well into "extra mile" territory.
Ordering how other posters should behave is entirely unacceptable, not to mention extremely rude.
Moreover, we take an extremely dim view of running amok and then "apologising" pre-emptively. Your posts are your responsibility and you have plenty of time to engage your brain before posting. In other words, you have no excuse. You always have the option of not replying, or of allowing yourself more time.
Apologies, especially pseudo-apologies, are not mandatory. Conforming to the spirit of our Ten Commandments is, if you want to keep off the Admins' radar.
/hosting
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Steve, you can use the damn Hell thread to scold people, too. Knock it off.
Kelly Alves
Admin
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Ridiculous as it may be to enter this thread in the midst of all this kerfuffle: In 1977 I went to Eid in Georgetown, Guyana. The neighbours across the street took me with them, it's a bit of a blurr. I hadn't a clue about it. Wonderful. Happy people who had welcomed me. They worship God too. I didn't find much to object too. It was sort of a Christmas in Sept. I experienced it as surrounded by a loving bunch of kind people.
There may be extremists. I didn't notice any in 1977, and I don't notice any here today either, when they open up the hockey arena for an overflow crowd (that's real hockey on ice). I only notice people who extremes kindness, joy and love.
The extremists are a different species. Probably mutant.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Transferred from that Hell thread, so may be a little disconnected till I add some of the other stuff I've been preparing; following from Sioni Sais saying;
quote:
If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?
that kind of thing is simply not what I'm saying.
As above, I'm saying that IF your religion, like Anabaptist Christianity, DOESN'T do the 'religious state' thing it will not fight wars in the name of the religion, not persecute in the name of the religion (beyond the reasonable situation where any voluntary group says "If you really won't keep our rules please leave"), nor rebel against the state in the name of the religion, and if they do feel it necessary to disobey the state in the interests of obeying God first, they will still be subject to the state by accepting martyrdom for their disobedience rather than fight back with guns etc.
IF your religion DOES accept the idea of running a religious state or being privileged in the state above others, then that adds a whole new set of reasons for wars and rebellions and persecutions, wars for other reasons can be exacerbated by that 'God is on our side attitude' and so on. And in various situations of pressure, either the religious state or those trying to establish such a thing are liable to be tempted to go to extremes, and fall into that temptation. As an example elsewhere of such things, see the post-Constantine era of Christendom with its Crusades, Inquisitions, and atrocities like the Crusader massacre in Jerusalem.
All I'm saying is that
1)Islam is not exempt/immune from the dynamics that produce such conduct, and
2) Islam compared to Christianity has the slight problem that Muhammad's own acts in originally setting up an Islamic state by force in Mecca produces a considerable weight FOR the view that Islam is inherently on the 'religious state' side of that divide and therefore liable from time to time to (a) the pretty much inevitable wars and rebellions that ethos provokes, and (b) lapses into extremism such as seen in ISIS/Al Qaeda/etc.
In this sense, that setting up of an Islamic state by Muhammad, and the support for that in the Quranic Scripture, is the ultimate root of Islamic extremism which is then set off from time to time, as in the present, by responses to more immediate circumstances and pressures....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As above, I'm saying that IF your religion, like Anabaptist Christianity, DOESN'T do the 'religious state' thing it will not fight wars in the name of the religion, not persecute in the name of the religion (beyond the reasonable situation where any voluntary group says "If you really won't keep our rules please leave"), nor rebel against the state in the name of the religion, and if they do feel it necessary to disobey the state in the interests of obeying God first, they will still be subject to the state by accepting martyrdom for their disobedience rather than fight back with guns etc.
IF your religion DOES accept the idea of running a religious state or being privileged in the state above others, then that adds a whole new set of reasons for wars and rebellions and persecutions, wars for other reasons can be exacerbated by that 'God is on our side attitude' and so on.
OK but this is an unfair comparison because you are taking one expression of Christianity - anabaptism - saying it is the authentic version of Christianity and then using as a contrast against the whole of Islam.
One could self-evidently reply that anabaptism does not represent anything other than an recent aberration within Protestant Christianity; that one can only compare the whole of Islam with the whole of Christianity; or that in fact the "true" essence of Islam is a peaceful non-state sect.
However you dress it up, you are still engaged in a process of using your own definitions of what is the truth of Christianity and Islam and unfairly comparing the one with the other.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Or you can argue that there is no true essence of anything, and what people usually mean by this is their own view. I am very wary now of people telling me what the truth of something is.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
OK but this is an unfair comparison because you are taking one expression of Christianity - anabaptism - saying it is the authentic version of Christianity and then using as a contrast against the whole of Islam.
One could self-evidently reply that anabaptism does not represent anything other than an recent aberration within Protestant Christianity; that one can only compare the whole of Islam with the whole of Christianity; or that in fact the "true" essence of Islam is a peaceful non-state sect.
However you dress it up, you are still engaged in a process of using your own definitions of what is the truth of Christianity and Islam and unfairly comparing the one with the other.
I take it from the 'OK' that you are agreeing with my basic point that the religious state (or notion of it, desire to set up such a thing,etc.) does have that effect of adding religious war/rebellion/persecution/etc., to the other more general coerciveness of Croesos' "Weberian state" which operates as the 'local monopoly of force'.
I'm saving fuller examination of the idea of Anabaptism as the truest expression of Christianity for a separate thread on Anabaptism I hope to start.
But it is rather the point here that both religions (and other religions probably do it too) have over the centuries developed variations which are so diverse that it is pretty clear they can't all represent the original founding intention, and therefore may be seriously defective in representing the intentions of the God they worship.
And please do remember that in theory Islam and Christianity worship the SAME God so from a Christian viewpoint Islam is in effect a variant and possibly heretical form of Christianity, a situation which very much entitles Christians to compare the two faiths and ask awkward questions of the newcomer.
Where there are such variations within a religion it is both useful and necessary to explore which may be the 'true' version. I mean, when one version says "No fighting and we're willing to be martyrs", and the other says "We have a duty to fight wars for our faith and burn heretics at the stake" - which is the authentic version of the faith is rather important, and can't be trivially sorted out by the other common Shipboard tactic of declaring it to be just a matter of "There are other opinions" and implicitly or explicitly everybody's opinions are of equal value. Clearly, whichever is true, those alternatives are not a matter for indifference.
And such are the variations within Islam and within Christianity that it is logically impractical to compare "the whole of" one faith with "the whole of" the other. It may not be possible to establish every detail of the 'true original'; but I'd submit it is possible to establish broad outlines for a workable comparison.
quote:
One could self-evidently reply that anabaptism does not represent anything other than an recent aberration within Protestant Christianity
I guess one could reply that - but is it absolutely 'self-evident'? Protestant Christianity itself claims to be a 'Reformation' - an attempt to return to the original compared to an RC church which Protestants consider to have gone off the rails more than a bit. The Anabaptist claim is simply to have seen a further area that needed reforming for consistency with the Protestant biblical ideal, namely the idea of a 'Christian state' and the problems that entails - like the 'Wars of Religion' that followed the Reformation in Europe. Is that really an aberration, or a truer insight into the NT teaching?
And I'm a bit puzzled by your seeing that as an aberration because unless I grievously misunderstood one of your earlier posts, you don't believe in the 'Christian state' idea yourself.
I've run out of time for now; but the point is that it is a legitimate matter to explore whether
quote:
the "true" essence of Islam is a peaceful non-state sect.
And the main piece of evidence on that still appears to be what most people accept as the historical fact that Muhammad fought a war to set up an Islamic state.... EVIDENCE to the contrary please....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I take it from the 'OK' that you are agreeing with my basic point that the religious state (or notion of it, desire to set up such a thing,etc.) does have that effect of adding religious war/rebellion/persecution/etc., to the other more general coerciveness of Croesos' "Weberian state" which operates as the 'local monopoly of force'.
Don't, I said no such thing. I was simply trying to engage with you on the ridiculous and superficial level at which you put your point.
quote:
I'm saving fuller examination of the idea of Anabaptism as the truest expression of Christianity for a separate thread on Anabaptism I hope to start.
Ookay then.
quote:
But it is rather the point here that both religions (and other religions probably do it too) have over the centuries developed variations which are so diverse that it is pretty clear they can't all represent the original founding intention, and therefore may be seriously defective in representing the intentions of the God they worship.
No, what is rather the point is that people have interpreted their faith(s) in wildly different ways, and thus the whole project of seeking to find the "original founding intention" is a fools errand.
quote:
And please do remember that in theory Islam and Christianity worship the SAME God so from a Christian viewpoint Islam is in effect a variant and possibly heretical form of Christianity, a situation which very much entitles Christians to compare the two faiths and ask awkward questions of the newcomer.
But you're not asking awkward questions, you're the person who walks into a French bar and attempts to engage in a discussion of French grammar based on your knowledge of the superiority of English. That's not "asking awkward questions", that's a stubborn refusal to even begin to engage with the thing on its own terms.
quote:
Where there are such variations within a religion it is both useful and necessary to explore which may be the 'true' version. I mean, when one version says "No fighting and we're willing to be martyrs", and the other says "We have a duty to fight wars for our faith and burn heretics at the stake" - which is the authentic version of the faith is rather important, and can't be trivially sorted out by the other common Shipboard tactic of declaring it to be just a matter of "There are other opinions" and implicitly or explicitly everybody's opinions are of equal value. Clearly, whichever is true, those alternatives are not a matter for indifference.
Nope and nope. Utter drivel. And pretty dangerous drivel at that, if your conclusion is that your projection of a state-building violent Islam is the only real and authentic one.
quote:
And such are the variations within Islam and within Christianity that it is logically impractical to compare "the whole of" one faith with "the whole of" the other. It may not be possible to establish every detail of the 'true original'; but I'd submit it is possible to establish broad outlines for a workable comparison.
But who are you to make that assessment and why should anyone care what you think?
On that basis, an Orthodox might say that they have the "authentic Christianity" and hence that is the thing to be compared to Islam. Or alternatively a Shi'ite might say that this is authentic Islam and that the whole totality of Christianity should be only compared to that.
quote:
I guess one could reply that - but is it absolutely 'self-evident'? Protestant Christianity itself claims to be a 'Reformation' - an attempt to return to the original compared to an RC church which Protestants consider to have gone off the rails more than a bit. The Anabaptist claim is simply to have seen a further area that needed reforming for consistency with the Protestant biblical ideal, namely the idea of a 'Christian state' and the problems that entails - like the 'Wars of Religion' that followed the Reformation in Europe. Is that really an aberration, or a truer insight into the NT teaching?
I don't think you have any tools to educate anyone on this point - other than your repeated claims of knowledge. I reject your claims. So what now?
quote:
And I'm a bit puzzled by your seeing that as an aberration because unless I grievously misunderstood one of your earlier posts, you don't believe in the 'Christian state' idea yourself.
See and there you go again. Of course I must be in favour of anabaptists because I have previously said something about the Christian state.
It is this constant faulty arithmetic approach - which conveniently rubs out all possible complexity with a sweeping "you know this must be true" stuff which makes it impossible to engage with you.
quote:
I've run out of time for now; but the point is that it is a legitimate matter to explore whether
quote:
the "true" essence of Islam is a peaceful non-state sect.
And the main piece of evidence on that still appears to be what most people accept as the historical fact that Muhammad fought a war to set up an Islamic state.... EVIDENCE to the contrary please....
I don't need evidence, because I'm not engaging with you on this point. As I've stated over and over and over again, it makes no difference what I think. And what does matter is what Muslims think, and there is plenty of evidence that large numbers of Muslims do not interpret their faith in that way.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As above, I'm saying that IF your religion, like Anabaptist Christianity, DOESN'T do the 'religious state' thing it will not fight wars in the name of the religion, not persecute in the name of the religion (beyond the reasonable situation where any voluntary group says "If you really won't keep our rules please leave"), nor rebel against the state in the name of the religion, and if they do feel it necessary to disobey the state in the interests of obeying God first, they will still be subject to the state by accepting martyrdom for their disobedience rather than fight back with guns etc.
This seems to rest on the erroneous assumption that persecution only ever arises at the hands of the state. I'm sure as Rhineland Jews were massacred by peasant mobs caught up in the religious fervor surrounding the First Crusade their last thoughts were "Well, at least this isn't state sanctioned violence, otherwise we might feel somewhat persecuted!"
I've already commented on the somewhat demented mindset the doesn't consider al Qæda to be "extremists" because they reject action through a formal, territorial state.
The other main problem with your analysis is that most Islamic extremists aren't medieval throwbacks but modern phenomena who, at best, are cosplaying the early Caliphate. As such, Protestant-style hyperlegalistic analysis and proof-texting of Islamic scripture and early history is a completely wrong-headed approach.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And please do remember that in theory Islam and Christianity worship the SAME God so from a Christian viewpoint Islam is in effect a variant and possibly heretical form of Christianity, a situation which very much entitles Christians to compare the two faiths and ask awkward questions of the newcomer.
As Jews are entitled to ask of Christians?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Golden Key;
quote:
As Jews are entitled to ask of Christians?
Definitely!!!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
This seems to rest on the erroneous assumption that persecution only ever arises at the hands of the state.
Didn't say that. In the case of Christians observing the 'NO Christian state' idea they would also be following the 'warfare not with fleshly weapons' teaching of Paul, and the notion in Peter that Christians are not only not to murder but not even be that 'allotriepiskopoi' thing.
The Rhineland situation at that time would I think reflect people under the mistaken idea that the state they lived in should be 'Christian' so that there was no place for Jews - that is, it seems to be private vigilante action by people nevertheless taking the 'Christian state' line.
What I've written includes such ideas, as well as simply violence by the state - just as one example, the idea of people trying to change their state into a Christian state. I hadn't gone into such detail as to cover people trying to make their religious state even stricter, as IS seems to be doing in states that were already Islamic - but I certainly covered the general idea of violence by non-state forces.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I take it from the 'OK' that you are agreeing with my basic point <snip>
That's as erroneous as taking a person who starts a sentence with "Right" to be meaning s/he thinks your last utterance was true. It's just a verbal tick.
quote:
I'm saving fuller examination of the idea of Anabaptism as the truest expression of Christianity for a separate thread on Anabaptism I hope to start.
Well we've already had that thread 20 times in the form of underlayment and tangents on other threads. But okay.
quote:
But it is rather the point here that both religions (and other religions probably do it too) have over the centuries developed variations which are so diverse that it is pretty clear they can't all represent the original founding intention,
Unless the founding intention was to create a foundation for diverse variations. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.
quote:
and therefore may be seriously defective in representing the intentions of the God they worship.
I sense a "One True Church" theme arising.
quote:
And please do remember that in theory Islam and Christianity worship the SAME God so from a Christian viewpoint Islam is in effect a variant and possibly heretical form of Christianity, a situation which very much entitles Christians to compare the two faiths and ask awkward questions of the newcomer.
Then that would doubly apply to Judaism, which existed for some good while before the newcomer Christianity showed up. The question is, whose questions have any bite, and why? Does age always imply correctness? Islam asks questions of Christianity, on the basis of a reformation of Christianity, not on the basis of being the elder of the two.
For that matter, the original Churches can ask similar questions of the Protestant upstarts, and especially the braggadocious Anabaptists.
quote:
Where there are such variations within a religion it is both useful and necessary to explore which may be the 'true' version. I mean, when one version says "No fighting and we're willing to be martyrs", and the other says "We have a duty to fight wars for our faith and burn heretics at the stake" - which is the authentic version of the faith is rather important, and can't be trivially sorted out by the other common Shipboard tactic of declaring it to be just a matter of "There are other opinions" and implicitly or explicitly everybody's opinions are of equal value. Clearly, whichever is true, those alternatives are not a matter for indifference.
That's one polarity one can discuss when comparing and contrasting religious movements. There are many others. Certain subspecies of Buddhism are pacifist. Does that make them right, and Christianity wrong? Pacifism is not the only, and not necessarily the most important, criterion when seeking the True Church.
quote:
And such are the variations within Islam and within Christianity that it is logically impractical to compare "the whole of" one faith with "the whole of" the other. It may not be possible to establish every detail of the 'true original'; but I'd submit it is possible to establish broad outlines for a workable comparison.
Go for it. I'll wait here.
quote:
quote:
One could self-evidently reply that anabaptism does not represent anything other than an recent aberration within Protestant Christianity
I guess one could reply that - but is it absolutely 'self-evident'?
It is to me.
quote:
Protestant Christianity itself claims to be a 'Reformation' - an attempt to return to the original compared to an RC church which Protestants consider to have gone off the rails more than a bit.
That's not what "reformation" means. It merely means an attempt to improve something.
quote:
And the main piece of evidence on that still appears to be what most people accept as the historical fact that Muhammad fought a war to set up an Islamic state.... EVIDENCE to the contrary please....
The point isn't the naked historical fact. Nobody has evidence to disprove it because we all know it happened roughly that way. Therefore it's hard to see why you keep pushing that particular point. No, the issue is not what happened at that point in time, but how contemporary Muslims interpret those events, and particular the theological and philosophical and historical framework(s) which underlay contemporary Islam, and into which they fit the events of their Founder, as well as the events of today. And you are strangely silent on that point, for someone who wants to paint contemporary Islam a certain color.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
That's not what "reformation" means. It merely means an attempt to improve something.
It is certainly true that the word 'reformation' can simply mean that. It is also rather clearly true that the very much expressed intention of the 'Reformers' was not a general or vague improvement, but a specific goal, a specific kind of reformation/improvement, of taking a church which had gone wrong by departing from Scripture, and to 're-form/reshape' it by going back to the Scriptural original. As you said yourself, new shit (post-4th century Orthodoxy or medieval RCC) shouldn't contradict old shit (the actual teaching of Jesus and the apostles in the NT).
Buddhism as I understand it is not simply pacifist; it is pacifist through the implications of a completely different worldview to Christianity. I raised Buddhism to point out that even their kind of pacifism could be compromised by the dynamics of making Buddhism a state religion....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
See and there you go again. Of course I must be in favour of anabaptists because I have previously said something about the Christian state.
No, I don't expect you to be in favour of every aspect of Anabaptism; we aren't here discussing Anabaptism as such - but I am puzzled that your own view appears to be opposed to the 'Christian state' and the 'religious state' in general, yet you refer to that view as an 'aberration' of the Anabaptists. Is it also an 'aberration' when expressed, in terms an Anabaptist can pretty thoroughly agree with, by the Muslim author of that book you recommended?
The question there, and so far I'm not finding a clear answer in the book, is how he will get round/explain away Muhammad's acts which, as Mousethief has pointed out, is a case of
quote:
Nobody has evidence to disprove it because we all know it happened roughly that way.
.
So far, I've not found the bit that explains that....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
That's not what "reformation" means. It merely means an attempt to improve something.
It is certainly true that the word 'reformation' can simply mean that. It is also rather clearly true that the very much expressed intention of the 'Reformers' was not a general or vague improvement, but a specific goal, a specific kind of reformation/improvement, of taking a church which had gone wrong by departing from Scripture, and to 're-form/reshape' it by going back to the Scriptural original.
Ah. I misunderstood your use of quotes around "reformation" -- I thought you were meaning to point out the meaning of the word. Why did you put it in quotes, then?
New shit: Sola Scriptura. Wholly novel in the history of Christianity.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to rest on the erroneous assumption that persecution only ever arises at the hands of the state.
Didn't say that. In the case of Christians observing the 'NO Christian state' idea they would also be following the 'warfare not with fleshly weapons' teaching of Paul, and the notion in Peter that Christians are not only not to murder but not even be that 'allotriepiskopoi' thing.
The Rhineland situation at that time would I think reflect people under the mistaken idea that the state they lived in should be 'Christian' so that there was no place for Jews - that is, it seems to be private vigilante action by people nevertheless taking the 'Christian state' line.
Wow. That is an incredible amount of contortion in a very small amount of writing. You say you never claimed that persecution only ever arises at the hands of the state and to demonstrate that you claim . . . that vigilante violence is actually an example of violence perpetrated on behalf of the state! The term "one size fits all" doesn't even begin to cover your obsessive attempts to frame all violence (and just about every other action you disapprove of) as state action.
I'd hypothesize that your typical murderous mediæval peasant engaged in a pogrom was not acting out of a complex political analysis of the proper concept of an ethno-state. Indeed, the concept of 'the state' was a lot more nebulous in the Middle Ages than it is today, even to scholars of the time. It seems a lot more likely that he was motivated by revenge (because the Jews murdered God*) rather than any calculations about the demographic composition of the state in which he lived.
--------------------
*Speculative motive for Mediæval pogromists, not an actual accusation against Jews.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'll come back to some of the above later - and it may be a while because I know I've got a heavy weekend coming up.
But I would like to get rid of this canard, and basically stupid idea, that I'm characterising 'all Muslims' as evil murdering psychopaths and similar.
No, if anything I'm characterising all Muslims as the unfortunate innocent victims of Muhammad's confused and incredibly bad decision to set up his religion in the form of a religious state established by military force and so leaving Islam with a major contradiction at its heart, with aspirations of peace undermined by the implications of being a state religion.
It says much for most Muslims - as a similar situation says for most citizens of 'Christendom' over the centuries - that the results have been nowhere near as bad as they might have been.
It still remains a fact that it would be a good idea to correct Muhammad's mistake; unfortunately there is no easy way to do that in Islam - and if Croesos thinks I'm contorted, he should read this book mr cheesy introduced me to by a Muslim who's attempting that, and so far doing brilliantly in arguing against the religious state but making very heavy weather of reconciling that argument with Muhammad's actual teaching and example. OK, I haven't finished yet and he may surprise me - but so far his efforts don't seem to really work.
And given that Muhammad DOES claim to be following/worshipping the SAME GOD as Judaism and Christianity, I think there are significant implications in Muhammad setting up a religious state in that God's name 600 years after that SAME GOD provided, through Jesus, a better way to spread his religion globally on the basis of eschewing 'Christian states'.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It still remains a fact that it would be a good idea to correct Muhammad's mistake; unfortunately there is no easy way to do that in Islam - and if Croesos thinks I'm contorted, he should read this book mr cheesy introduced me to by a Muslim who's attempting that, and so far doing brilliantly in arguing against the religious state but making very heavy weather of reconciling that argument with Muhammad's actual teaching and example. OK, I haven't finished yet and he may surprise me - but so far his efforts don't seem to really work.
I'm not sure that several centuries of political, religious and philosophical thought could easily be summarised by one book.
Unless it's a really thick book.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
I doubt that it's right for Christians to try to fix Islam. Anymore than Muslims should try to fix Christianity.
Sure, we can discuss it. But trying to do any more than that would deeply offend Muslims. Not to mention how ISIS/Daesh would react...
Are you thinking that, if we can just convince the Daesh terrorists to give up on instituting a state/caliphate, their terrorism would stop, and everything would be ok?
FWIW: I think they've got lots of issues; but they aren't really about Islam at all--they're just using it as a vehicle, though they may not realize that. I think they're nihilists, and in love with wreaking pain and the bad kind of chaos. They want revenge for many things, and may be seeking the return of a perceived Golden Age.
Or maybe they think that if they set everything right (by their lights), Allah will end the world, and they can go to Paradise.
(Thinking aloud.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it's a bit like a bat-squeak in a hurricane. I don't know if many Muslims will be all that interested in Christians' opinions of their history and their doctrine, maybe some will be.
Meanwhile, the Middle East is an all-consuming inferno, with tribal, national, ethnic, and religious splinters flying all over the place. Is there a solution? It might be exhaustion in the end that brings peace.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
I'm not sure that several centuries of political, religious and philosophical thought could easily be summarised by one book.
I'd want more than one book; but having been specifically recommended this one by another participant on this thread, I'm giving my opinion so far on it - and thinking of other cases where I've come across similar arguments, feeling they're all rather convoluted because they're not faced by something which is easy to expound as they want, but by rather big obvious facts which tend against their position and which they need to 'get round' to justify their position.
It's nowhere near so complicated to explain the (actually in many ways similar) Anabaptist position where at least the NT is on my side rather than working against me....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This touches directly on the topic of this thread. This is from Karen Armstrong's Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World. Speaking about the period between the Camp David accords and the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
quote:
In his book The Hidden Pillar , which was privately circulated, Abed al-Salem Faraj takes this new belligerent Islam to its logical conclusion in a way that is quite new. He argues that the jihad was one of the "pillars" of Islam and was central to it. This was an extraordinary innovation that, in those days of heightened tension, many Egyptians were prepared to accept.... He thus limited Islam to one aggressive doctrine and excluded many other more complex traditions, in the same way as Crusaders and religious Zionists had produced caricatures of their religion.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
This is a bit of a tangent here but seems necessary to clarify something Croesos said earlier....
Anabaptists are NOT objecting to 'the state' as such. We accept the existence of states and similar institutions as part of God's providential arrangements in managing a world full of humans of whom it can be said "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" - even a bad state provides some mitigation and restraint....
According to the NT Christians are actually told to be 'subject to the state/authorities/powers-that-be' with essentially only one exception - that in the last resort we must "obey God rather than man".
And contrary to the interpretation espoused (though not invented) by Ian Paisley in NI, when we are unable to 'obey man' we are not to 'go for our guns' and rebel, but to remain subject to the state in a different way, following the example of Jesus, Paul, Peter and large numbers of the early church by accepting martyrdom, the state's penalty for our disobedience.
The primary Anabaptist objection is to the idea of a 'Christian state', conflating and confusing the moral/spiritual power of the religion with the 'local monopoly of (physical) force' in the state. And the primary reason for our objection is not the rational(ist)/secular objections to a religious state, but simply an issue of faith - Jesus personally and through the apostles has instructed us not to do his kingdom that way, and we trust him about it....
Having said that, looking at the explicit and implicit reasons why the true religion would pass up the tempting idea of being allied with the state, it's possible to come up with quite a few good rational reasons why the religious state isn't a good idea - ideas such as I've also been finding in that Muslim author on mr cheesy's recommendation.
Anabaptist beliefs mean in general that Christians will sit light to the state. And even lighter when faced with the monstrosity of a supposedly Christian state distorting the way Jesus' kingdom is meant to work, and in the process dividing the church....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
How about this: from "A statement concerning the nature, faith and order of the United Reformed Church" which is always read out at ordination and induction services:
We believe that
Christ gives his Church a government
distinct from the government of the state.
In things that affect obedience to God
the Church is not subordinate to the state,
but must serve the Lord Jesus Christ,
its only Ruler and Head.
Civil authorities are called
to serve God's will of justice and peace for all humankind,
and to respect the rights of conscience and belief.
While we ourselves
are servants in the world
as citizens of God's eternal kingdom."
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Baptist Trainfan;
quote:
Civil authorities are called to serve God's will of justice and peace for all humankind, and to respect the rights of conscience and belief.
This is the awkward bit - and in effect how an 'Independent' like Cromwell was able to fight a war including such incidents as the Drogheda massacre and end up with many years of what was effectively a Puritan tyranny.
The catch comes, you see, when we think it is the business of Christians to MAKE the 'Civil Authorities' live up to that ideal. Paul wrote Romans 13 in the time of Emperors like Caligula and Nero - but he still said "be subject to the authorities and don't rebel". Subsequent Christians have often talked themselves into the idea that being 'subject to the authorities' is only for when there is a 'good ruler' - but with the likes of a Hitler or a Stalin, get the guns out....
Paul set forth the difficult task of Christian witness by peaceable means against even the likes of Nero - in NI, one Ian Paisley made this comment; and note that by including the 'reformers', 'puritans' and particularly the 'covenanters' he is clearly envisaging and approving English Civil War style military action against a government...
quote:
Certain people who wish to bolster up a rotten government and the persecuting laws of the same, condemn the resistance of the martyrs, reformers, confessors, non-conformists, puritans and covenanters to the evil laws and governments of their day, and to all who would follow in their train in this our own generation....
Which, and similar arguments, was taken as justification for the Protestant side of fighting against not some horrendous Nero/Hitler/Stalin, but against the UK's democratic government trying to end anti-RC discrimination in NI.... And I'm fairly sure the Republican/RC side would be using similar arguments, it's a line of reasoning that goes back even beyond the separate RCC to the united Imperial Church of Theodosius & Co.
In effect the 'Paisley pattern' seeming to offer a sensible 'exception' actually overturns the rule as Paul stated it....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a bit of a tangent here but (...)
Steve Langton, you may like to consider the wise words posted earlier on this thread describing quote:
the reasonable situation where any voluntary group says "If you really won't keep our rules please leave"
You are straying off the topic and onto your hobby horse again. That is against the rules. You cannot reasonably expect to stay on board and continue to flout the rules.
/hosting
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Sorry, my fault too this time. Apologies.
[ 09. October 2016, 20:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Eutychus. Although Christian extremism as a comparison to Islamic extremism is perhaps not so far 'off-topic'...
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Surely you are not arguing with a hostly ruling in Purgatory, Steve. Right?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Ooops! Sorry Gwai and Eutychus. If I have further queries on that I'll take them to Styx.... Thank you....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Returning to 'nos moutons'...
The case I made originally, and I've been a bit bewildered by how heavy weather you've all made of it, was that whatever in the present world may be the immediate causes of violent Islamic extremism, the ultimate cause of it was Muhammad's decision to set Islam up in the form of a religious state.
By thus conflating the faith and its moral/spiritual power with the physical power of Weber's "local monopoly of force", he basically made war, and persecution of heresy in the state, pretty much inevitable to begin with. War by the state in the name of Islam, war against the Islamic state by states of other religions or none, wars/rebellions to set up Islamic states, wars to make an already Islamic state more strict... and so on.
Precisely because this is holy war in the name of a god, the temptation to win at all costs all too easily leads to extremism, and sinful humans are very good at justifying their extreme conduct at least in their own minds. Look at the example above, in a 'Christian state' context, from Ian Paisley....
We may be able to mitigate individual examples of Islamic extremism by reducing the more immediate provocations - but even that's not going to be easy. To really prevent it means tackling the state-and-religion link, to somehow get Islam to work like the early Christian church seeking only voluntary membership and not seeking a privileged place in the state.
And unfortunately that's not easy either, because of that not-very-disputable fact of Muhammad having set up the first Islamic state, and the Quran supplying apparent divine backing for that step. Muslims who try make heavy weather of it, because it's basically impossible without criticising Muhammad and the Quran; and the kind of people affected by the more immediate causes of extremism are unlikely to find such argument convincing anyway.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The case I made originally, and I've been a bit bewildered by how heavy weather you've all made of it, was that whatever in the present world may be the immediate causes of violent Islamic extremism, the ultimate cause of it was Muhammad's decision to set Islam up in the form of a religious state.
I'm not sure why you're bewildered by us making heavy weather of it when you acknowledge that Muslims (who, naturally, have a far better understanding of what Muhammad said and did and subsequent Islamic scholarship) make heavy weather of it. I don't think it's helped clarify things here when the conversation has spun off into vaguely related tangents.
The main question (for Islamic scholars and ordinary muslims to sort out) is whether that first Islamic state was the result of something inherent in the revelation Muhammed received (in which case that should be a feature of Islam today), or whether it was simply a case of situational expediency and following the only examples Muhammed had to follow (in which case it may not need to be a feature of Islam today) - there wouldn't have been any states or Empires he knew of which did not have any official religion.
quote:
To really prevent it means tackling the state-and-religion link, to somehow get Islam to work like the early Christian church seeking only voluntary membership and not seeking a privileged place in the state.
However, in relation to your "heavy water" comments, that doesn't seme to be an issue for a very large number of Muslims living in secular states - which includes several Muslim majority countries such as Turkey or Malaysia (which, of course, doesn't mean those countries don't contain a sizable minority of Muslims who would seek to make those nations religious states).
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The case I made originally, and I've been a bit bewildered by how heavy weather you've all made of it, was that whatever in the present world may be the immediate causes of violent Islamic extremism, the ultimate cause of it was Muhammad's decision to set Islam up in the form of a religious state.
I too have been surprised at the heavy weather. But that's how we do it.
I think it is interesting to pin the issue on this point about a religious state. I'm sure that case has merit, and agree that the problems inherent in a religious state are very significant.
To me, though, the answer relates to your comment here:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We may be able to mitigate individual examples of Islamic extremism by reducing the more immediate provocations - but even that's not going to be easy. To really prevent it means tackling the state-and-religion link, to somehow get Islam to work like the early Christian church seeking only voluntary membership and not seeking a privileged place in the state.
I suppose that it may be possible to mitigate individual examples of Islamic extremism by reducing the more immediate provocations. I'm guessing that you mean a reduction in the Western military presence that every Western leader appears to dearly wish for.
I think, though, that the problem goes so far beyond this that it is out of the control of any Western leader. Western capitalism and culture are inherently invasive. Everything about them undermines the pillars of Islamic culture. They especially undermines the state-and-religion link because they do not recognize this kind of authority.
To me this means that there is little that we can do to significantly reduce extremism, other than reducing the more immediate provocations. The central problem is still there, and will continue until something gives.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's an interesting point about the immediate causes of something, and the ultimate cause, in this case, of Islamist violence.
However, in such cases, relating to historical questions, I always wonder how someone can know this. History is much more difficult to decipher than physical stuff, since the latter tends to be reproducible.
Hence, we can make predictions, say, that gravity should have such and such effects on very large stars. But we can't predict historical events.
Anyway, I don't understand the process whereby the 'ultimate cause' is ascertained in relation to historical stuff, except by saying 'because I say it is'.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, I don't understand the process whereby the 'ultimate cause' is ascertained in relation to historical stuff, except by saying 'because I say it is'.
Maybe so.
I guess it is just opinions based on observation, which of course may be way off.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, I don't understand the process whereby the 'ultimate cause' is ascertained in relation to historical stuff, except by saying 'because I say it is'.
Maybe so.
I guess it is just opinions based on observation, which of course may be way off.
Well, it also matches with fashion and prejudice.
Here are three statements:
"the ultimate cause of the French revolution was the clash between monarchy and the rising bourgeois."
"the ultimate cause of the French revolution was the Enlightenment, which had begun to desacralize the monarchy and the church."
"the ultimate cause of the FR was the deregulation of the grain market, leading to starvation."
Find the lady!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, it also matches with fashion and prejudice.
Here are three statements:
"the ultimate cause of the French revolution was the clash between monarchy and the rising bourgeois."
"the ultimate cause of the French revolution was the Enlightenment, which had begun to desacralize the monarchy and the church."
"the ultimate cause of the FR was the deregulation of the grain market, leading to starvation."
I think that is a great observation.
Clearly, no one can speak of "ultimate causes" with much accuracy. The progression of society as it took specific form in 18th century France, and why it led to the revolution, can be described in too many ways to authoritatively pinpoint.
People do it anyway.
I don't think that it is wrong to take stabs at this kind of thing. It is surely useful to try to make sense of what is happening in the world.
The particular irritation that caused me to start this thread is what I see as my country's lack of understanding of "Islamic rage." This lack of understanding, as I see it, leads us to consistently do the wrong thing because of our inability to empathize with the Islamic point of view.
I wish that our news sources would display more sensitivity to the ways in which our culture ruffles the feathers of people in other parts of the world.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good points, Freddy. I don't think that Steve Langton's approach will help much either, as it seems highly tendentious.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Macaulay, when discussing the French Revolution and the various reasons given for it said something like it was a bit like arguing as to whether gunpowder or matches were responsible for blowing up the mills at Hounslow. The point being that either on their own would be insufficient but together... BOOM!
Something similar could be said about the Islamic world. On the one hand you have the various precedents in the life of Mohammed for smiting people, on the other hand you have the political and social conditions which support the rise of Islamism. I think that if the latter held, and not the former, then some other kind of justifying ideology would be found, either a secular one or a Muslim Bossuet or Pope Urban would emerge finding some hitherto unexplored reasons for Muslims to resort to violence to resolve the various perceived injustices that Islamists are upset about.
It's a bit like the whole "was Martin Luther's anti-semitism and support for Princely rule part of the dynamic that led to the rise of Nazism". Luther was indeed anti-semitic and he was, indeed, in favour of absolutism. As indeed were the Nazis. But Denmark was Lutheranist too and there was no popular support for Nazi ideology and the Danes managed to save pretty much all of their Jews from the Holocaust.
So, I think the whole "if we go back to the original texts we can see where everything went wrong" is wrong, because it isn't inevitable. When societies go off the rails, as it were, they then chose to prioritise certain texts.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
So, I think the whole "if we go back to the original texts we can see where everything went wrong" is wrong, because it isn't inevitable. When societies go off the rails, as it were, they then chose to prioritise certain texts.
If only it was that simple; but
1) As I see it there were certainly several causes/reasons for Islam itself and why Muhammad came up with what he did. But
2) there is only one cause/reason for the violent extremism, which is that choice to set up an Islamic state, and to fight a war to do it.
3) Once you've done that, the only way to really hope to get back to a peaceable option is to provide a positive theology for doing so - not just an aspiration or hope, a concrete reason to do peace. Christianity 'upgrades' Judaism with a positive policy to spread the Kingdom of God in a new way under a new covenant with a new Messianic king. Unfortunately in Islam that option was either ignored, rejected or possibly just not known to Muhammad, and the conflicted position between practical war and aspirational peace just drags on to Muhammad's death and the conflict remains unresolved - but simply by existing, the war option kind of counts more....
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
So, I think the whole "if we go back to the original texts we can see where everything went wrong" is wrong, because it isn't inevitable. When societies go off the rails, as it were, they then chose to prioritise certain texts.
If only it was that simple; but
1) As I see it there were certainly several causes/reasons for Islam itself and why Muhammad came up with what he did. But
2) there is only one cause/reason for the violent extremism, which is that choice to set up an Islamic state, and to fight a war to do it.
3) Once you've done that, the only way to really hope to get back to a peaceable option is to provide a positive theology for doing so - not just an aspiration or hope, a concrete reason to do peace. Christianity 'upgrades' Judaism with a positive policy to spread the Kingdom of God in a new way under a new covenant with a new Messianic king. Unfortunately in Islam that option was either ignored, rejected or possibly just not known to Muhammad, and the conflicted position between practical war and aspirational peace just drags on to Muhammad's death and the conflict remains unresolved - but simply by existing, the war option kind of counts more....
Steve, you're basically claiming that the rise of ISIS is entirely attributable to the fact that Mohammed resorted to violence in setting up the Ummah just under a millennium and a half previously. Palpable nonsense is the kindest description of your position. Religions and societies simply do not work as you think they do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
There have been vast stretches of time in which peaceable Islamic kingdoms/empires have sat around cheek and jowl with Christian (Orthodox), Zoroastrian, and other nearby empires. It wasn't until crusaders from the west brought the idea of Holy War to the Levant that the idea of jihad was repurposed to mean a holy war against the Christian West. Even then, after Saladin and Richard the Lionheart inked their treaty, the Arab world somnolesced again. Saladin's successors would have been happy to sink back into their dogmatic slumbers were it not for sword-happy nutjobs from western Europe.
Islam is clearly and obviously capable of creating long-lived peace, high culture, and great civilization. It is capable of being usurped into creating chaos and havoc, as the Berbers did in Spain. But once they buggered off, Andalusia settled down again, many of the Jews returned, and things went back to a sleepy status quo.
If you really want to discover the ORIGIN of Islamic extremism, you're barking up the wrong tree. Don't look to Mohammed. Look to the crusading Popes.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you really want to discover the ORIGIN of Islamic extremism, you're barking up the wrong tree. Don't look to Mohammed. Look to the crusading Popes.
That's how I see it too.
Except that I would broaden it to make invasiveness an inherent quality of Western culture.
Of course the response of Islamic extremism does not help, but it is just that - a response.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you really want to discover the ORIGIN of Islamic extremism, you're barking up the wrong tree. Don't look to Mohammed. Look to the crusading Popes.
That's how I see it too.
Except that I would broaden it to make invasiveness an inherent quality of Western culture.
Vikings all.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes. Though in slight defense of my (probable) Viking ancestors, they didn't invent it, AFAIK.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes. Though in slight defense of my (probable) Viking ancestors, they didn't invent it, AFAIK.
Fellow Viking! We have something to be proud of.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yup. Lots of explorers. Though maybe not so proud of the lutefisk!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
Steve, you're basically claiming that the rise of ISIS is entirely attributable to the fact that Mohammed resorted to violence in setting up the Ummah just under a millennium and a half previously. Palpable nonsense is the kindest description of your position. Religions and societies simply do not work as you think they do.
No, not entirely - but yes, ultimately....
And Mousethief is very right that the Christians ('Christians'??) like the Crusading Popes have a lot to answer for in this as well - but then they were crusading against - er - Islamic states.... and doing so from the position of - er - Christian states.... And without that idea on both sides, how would they have a religious war? Other kinds of war, maybe - but religious????
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
Steve, you're basically claiming that the rise of ISIS is entirely attributable to the fact that Mohammed resorted to violence in setting up the Ummah just under a millennium and a half previously. Palpable nonsense is the kindest description of your position. Religions and societies simply do not work as you think they do.
No, not entirely - but yes, ultimately....
And Mousethief is very right that the Christians ('Christians'??) like the Crusading Popes have a lot to answer for in this as well - but then they were crusading against - er - Islamic states.... and doing so from the position of - er - Christian states.... And without that idea on both sides, how would they have a religious war? Other kinds of war, maybe - but religious????
Quite irrelevant. What was the state of Islam before the Crusades? Peaceful, high-culture, promoting learning, etc. This was destroyed by the Crusades, and especially the concept of jihad as a fight against personal sinfulness, transforming it into a fight against the Christian West, which meaning it's held pretty much ever since. Your whole "this state that state" thing misses the point by a country mile. It's just a return to your one-note opera. But put aside your one-note opera for a second and look at the historical facts. What "radicalized" the Muslims? Christians.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes. Though in slight defense of my (probable) Viking ancestors, they didn't invent it, AFAIK.
Fellow Viking! We have something to be proud of.
Rape, pillage, plunder, and little butter cookies in a tin.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
Just the butter cookies, please. The world's had far too much of the rest.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
Just the butter cookies, please. The world's had far too much of the rest.
Just making the point that the Vikings were not admirable people. They were nasty rapists and murderers.
[ 11. October 2016, 03:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mt--
I'm well aware of that. And it was horrible and wrong. (And I did say, earlier, that I was only *slightly* defending them, with a
.)
I've got a variety of UK and Scandinavian ancestry. Lots of that going on. And--shock!--in most of the rest of the world, too, at most times in history. Including the US.
But that's not all that they were. Any of them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But that's not all that they were. Any of them.
So what else where they, these Vikings?
They've left a few campfire sagas, some stories about how they "found" America, some tall-and-blonde descendents, some interesting sounding minority languages.. and not a lot else.
Scandinavians have built some admirable social security systems in the last 100 years, but it is quite hard to associate this with Vikings from 1000 years ago.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
Actually, I made a point of including most of the world, and not just the Vikings--and that includes the "that's not all that they were".
IMHO, if we start comparing, in this context, ancestral cultures, who did what, "minority languages", long-term effects of the cultures, etc., things could get pretty heated, pretty quickly. So I'm going to opt out.
I would think that someone from Wales, whose people have been hassled so much by outsiders, would understand that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--
Actually, I made a point of including most of the world, and not just the Vikings--and that includes the "that's not all that they were".
IMHO, if we start comparing, in this context, ancestral cultures, who did what, "minority languages", long-term effects of the cultures, etc., things could get pretty heated, pretty quickly. So I'm going to opt out.
Classical Islamic scholars were led by their so-called war-loving state religion to amazing heights in astronomy, philosophy, mathematics etc.
The Viking religion really was one of glorifying violence and they didn't have any scholars, didn't make any intellectual advances and didn't leave anything substantive.
Thus it seems to me that there really isn't much to look at approvingly from Viking culture (other than their cool beards, their boat burning habits, fish and shouting) whereas there is much to admire about the early Islamic cultures.
quote:
I would think that someone from Wales, whose people have been hassled so much by outsiders, would understand that.
I am not "from" Wales, I live here. And you know where you can go with your lazy stereotype.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Some Vikings sailed across the North Sea and raided Britain and Ireland, with the rape and murder and pillaging. Other Vikings sailed to Iceland, Greenland and onto North America without any of the rape and murder. Others sailed through the Mediterranean trading in a large range of goods. Others peacefully settled islands off the Scottish and Irish coast, and areas of the mainland of northern Britain, living side by side with the natives - in some places the settlers assimilated to the local culture (eg: Norsemen settling in parts of France becoming Normans, largely indistinguishable from the rest of the local French culture). Many just stayed and farmed, fished and raised their families in Scandinavia.
There was a relatively small minority who were extremists, committing violent crimes against others. And, what has happened? The whole Viking people have become seen as synonymous with the extreme minority. Sounds familiar ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Some Vikings sailed across the North Sea and raided Britain and Ireland, with the rape and murder and pillaging. Other Vikings sailed to Iceland, Greenland and onto North America without any of the rape and murder. Others sailed through the Mediterranean trading in a large range of goods. Others peacefully settled islands off the Scottish and Irish coast, and areas of the mainland of northern Britain, living side by side with the natives - in some places the settlers assimilated to the local culture (eg: Norsemen settling in parts of France becoming Normans, largely indistinguishable from the rest of the local French culture). Many just stayed and farmed, fished and raised their families in Scandinavia.
I think you'll find the raping-and-pillaging was a pretty fundamental part of being a Viking and that it only didn't happen in some parts because there was nobody there to rape and pillage.
It is probably true that in time they eventually grew out of it - possibly associated with the growth of Christianity amongst those groups.
quote:
There was a relatively small minority who were extremists, committing violent crimes against others. And, what has happened? The whole Viking people have become seen as synonymous with the extreme minority. Sounds familiar ...
I don't know that this is fair either. They were always a smallish group, they really did have a religion which glorified violence and striking out into new territory. I think it is an unproven rhetorical point that only a minority were into rape-and-pillage - if that was true, they'd never have been able to invade any new land.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
From the origins of Islamic extremism to Vikings (via Anabaptists)...
Kindly take this tangent elsewhere, y'all. And try to avoid sweeping generalisations about entire people groups whether current or historic while you're at it.
/hosting
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I would think that someone from Wales, whose people have been hassled so much by outsiders, would understand that.
I am not "from" Wales, I live here. And you know where you can go with your lazy stereotype.
??? No stereotype intended. My understanding-- from comments I've heard over the years, including on the Ship and even in nursery rhymes--is that the Welsh have been looked down on a lot, *wrongfully*, forbidden to speak their language for a long time, etc. And I was surprised that someone from a country with that experience would make seemingly-disparaging comments about "minority languages" and how a particular culture never produced anything positive.
I'm puzzled by what you said about not being from Wales. It could mean that you're not ethnically Welsh; that you live there but weren't born there; think of yourself more as a citizen of the UK or Europe, etc. I'm not going to ask. But it's confusing to me that, if you don't relate closely to Welshness, you make a point of using a Welsh-language sig, and have a pro-Welsh-language joke.
Not looking for a fight. As I said, I'm opting out from comparing heritages in this context.
Pax.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
Sorry. Didn't see your host post until after I posted.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
Steve, you're basically claiming that the rise of ISIS is entirely attributable to the fact that Mohammed resorted to violence in setting up the Ummah just under a millennium and a half previously. Palpable nonsense is the kindest description of your position. Religions and societies simply do not work as you think they do.
No, not entirely - but yes, ultimately....
And Mousethief is very right that the Christians ('Christians'??) like the Crusading Popes have a lot to answer for in this as well - but then they were crusading against - er - Islamic states.... and doing so from the position of - er - Christian states.... And without that idea on both sides, how would they have a religious war? Other kinds of war, maybe - but religious????
Quite irrelevant. What was the state of Islam before the Crusades? Peaceful, high-culture, promoting learning, etc. This was destroyed by the Crusades, and especially the concept of jihad as a fight against personal sinfulness, transforming it into a fight against the Christian West, which meaning it's held pretty much ever since. Your whole "this state that state" thing misses the point by a country mile. It's just a return to your one-note opera. But put aside your one-note opera for a second and look at the historical facts. What "radicalized" the Muslims? Christians.
I think you are over-egging the pudding here, to put it politely. Prior to the Crusades Mohammed unified Arabia, under Muslim rule, which involved a certain amount of fighting, and his successors then conquered the territories of what are now Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel (and the occupied territories), Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, parts of Spain and Portugal and Sicily. Muslim armies penetrated southern France and raided Italy as far north as Rome, as well as besieging Constantinople. The express justification of this was to impose expand the frontiers of 'The House of Islam' and contract those of 'The House of War'.
Apart from Charlemagne's wars against the Saxons there isn't anything comparable on the Christian side of the ledger prior to the Crusades (unless you count Justinian's reconquest of Italy and North Africa as an anti-arian crusade, which most historians don't). If anything the radicalisation went in the opposite direction with the Crusades as a response to Islamic conquest.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If anything the radicalisation went in the opposite direction with the Crusades as a response to Islamic conquest.
Excellent point.
I think that this shows how powerfully perceived threats work on the human psyche.
Exactly how legitimate the threat of Islam was at that time is beside the point.
My OP is about the view that Islamic extremism is a radical response to a threat from the West that is widely perceived in that part of the world.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Classical Islamic scholars were led by their so-called war-loving state religion to amazing heights in astronomy, philosophy, mathematics etc.
I have NOT been denying that. Obviously where a stable state has been established and is no longer a war zone, more civilised pursuits can prevail. The UK didn't do too badly in those areas even during and after the upheavals of the ECW, on through the 1688 Revolution, and considerable involvement in European wars....
It remains a simple fact that Muhammad, an intensely revered prophet, set a bad precedent, and precisely because he is so revered, that precedent still affects things today - yes, Callan, even 1500 years later....
Mousethief, I'm not sure that post-1000CE crusading can be blamed for the Muslim conquests of North Africa and Spain, of large parts of India and other Eastern nations, and of much of the Middle East and Eastern Europe - in some ways the Crusades to the Holy Land were a response to that, following on from the Reconquista in Spain. And back pre-1000CE wasn't it the Byzantine Orthodox doing much of the fighting against Islam?
Of course the current extremism is to a significant extent a 'reaction' against the acts of the West - and you've surely noticed I'm far from uncritical of said West - but the fact still remains that without that initial teaching/example to establish a religious state by warfare, as opposed to the different form of religious conquest taught by Jesus, there wouldn't even be war on behalf of Islam, let alone extremism. Muhammad crossed a crucial line there, and this book I'm now reading makes clear it's not easy to get back from it....
Likewise the Crusades were only possible because there was a (nominally) Christian state - created in a bit of a muddle over a century, but then upheld partly by a tradition that could ignore the NT teaching because it had faithlessly persuaded itself that 'Sola Scriptura' was not enough....
(BTW, AIUI, the original Reformation concept of 'Sola Scriptura' was not a narrow view; more just an assertion of that St Vincent's principle about, in Mousethief's delicate phrasing, "not letting the new shit contradict the old shit", especially when the 'old shit' is the word of the Son of God and his appointed apostles).
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Muhammad crossed a crucial line there, and this book I'm now reading makes clear it's not easy to get back from it....
It is interesting to think about the line that Muhammad crossed.
A Christian version of Sharia law is not a good philosophical fit in the West precisely because Jesus never crossed that line. Instead He made a demarcation between church and state - a line that has sometimes been blurred in European history.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted Steve Langton:
quote:
Likewise the Crusades were only possible because there was a (nominally) Christian state - created in a bit of a muddle over a century, but then upheld partly by a tradition that could ignore the NT teaching because it had faithlessly persuaded itself that 'Sola Scriptura' was not enough....
Actually, this is not quite right. The problem of European politics during this time was that 'states' (for want of a better word) were comparatively weak and there was a long standing problem of feudal rulers settling disputes themselves without recourse to the centre. So, if you are a French Count and another French Count is giving you jip, rather than go to the King, who is in no position to help you out, you summon your vassals and get medieval on his arse. (Apologies to any proper medievalists who read this paragraph).
The initial response of the Church was to solve this by promoting various local truces under the auspices of something called 'The Peace of God'. It had some limited successes but the official theology of the church was basically Augustinian and it was rather hard selling the concept of a universal human vocation towards peace to warrior aristocrats who were, civilisationally, one step up from Hagar the Horrible. Meanwhile, in the East, the Seljuk Turks are busy slapping around the Byzantine Empire and making it impossible for pilgrims to visit the Holy Land. So Pope Urban had a brilliant idea. Why not export all those feudal warlords to the Middle East where they can reconquer the Holy Land and shore up the Byzantine Empire. According to the High Papalism of the era the Pope's ability to forgive sins empowered him to offer a quid pro quo for those who set out for the east in the form of a free ticket to heaven.
Initially the idea was wildly successful. Jerusalem was conquered and Crusader states were set up in the Middle East. But unfortunately they comparative weakness of Muslim states from which the First Crusade had profited did not last and gradually they retook the territories that had been lost to them. Meanwhile, back in Western Europe, something beginning to resemble to modern state is slowly coming into existence. And the various Kings have got problems of their own and don't really want their vassals buggering off to the Middle East. When the Papal Legate turned up in England, for example, to preach the Second Crusade Henry II, one of the great centralisers of the day, sent polite regrets. He had other fish to fry.
This was considered comparatively shocking. Richard I's decision to go on the Third Crusade can probably be put down to his daddy issues among other factors but the fact that he, Philip Augustus of France and the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa all went demonstrates that state-building monarchs saw no particular conflict between going on Crusade and maintaining a centralised state but the condition of England, when Richard got back, may have suggested to thoughtful observers that this was not entirely the case. Frederick II did negotiate a Christian presence in Jerusalem but it was short lived and was done to get his Crusading obligations out of the way so he could, unsuccessfully, try to consolidate his control over Germany and Italy.
So, I would suggest that the Crusades were born out of the weakness of the Christian state and as rulers became more powerful they, and their vassals, became more and more reluctant to spend time and energy sorting out the Middle East, as it were. The successful Crusades were the Reconquest of Spain and the Albigensian Crusade, which had the Spanish and French monarchies behind them and the Northern Crusade which laid the foundations of the Kingdom of Prussia. The symbolic death of the crusades was probably administered by Philip IV of France who violently laid hands on the Pope and even more violently suppressed the Knights Templars, ostensibly for heresy but really because they had pots of money and maintaining a centralised state isn't cheap.
The point of this lengthy disquisition is not to say that the Crusades were a good thing. It's to say that like most historical phenomena they were complicated. A simple reductive attempt to boil everything down to illustrating the badness of the Constantinian State or a simple tale of innocent Muslims chopped to pieces by nasty Christians is to reduce history to propaganda. People in the past had their own concerns - strange and often barbaric as they seem to us now - and using them as lay figures in theological disputes inhibits understanding of the past and the present and is probably bad theology as well.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Thanks, Callan. I loved reading that. So interesting. This is what I enjoy about the Ship.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
The point of this lengthy disquisition is not to say that the Crusades were a good thing. It's to say that like most historical phenomena they were complicated.
And for the umpteen-millionth time, I'm not denying the complications, stop assuming that I am
It still remains a basic one-side-of-the-line-or-the-other thing that if you follow the NT instructions on how to conquer the world for the faith, 'not with fleshly weapons', then you won't be fighting wars for your faith. And that means accepting that you don't conflate religion and state!
If you do try to have a religious state, as some Christians centuries after Jesus unwisely(
) tried, and as Muhammad clearly did, then the dynamics will be that certain kinds of external and/or civil war for/against the state religion will be inevitable, and/or discrimination/persecution within the state which may provoke violence, and more extreme forms will be all-too-likely, given that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".
If the faith actually teaches the 'religious state' option, the situation is simply screwed - obeying God will mean engaging in the necessary wars, etc. If the faith doesn't teach that but, as in Christianity, teaches an alternative in which you don't seek to be a religious state in the first place, then the dynamics are completely different.
Christianity in the NT teaches not to do Jesus' kingdom via the religious state tactic - result, so long as Jesus is trusted, no war by or on behalf of the faith (though possibly persecution of it).
Islam/Muhammad does teach the Islamic state and sets the example of doing it by war.... This means that in and for Islam there simply will be (and have been) various kinds of war and there will also be extremism from time to time when the relevant further circumstances arise....
To say this is not to 'over-simplify'; it is to draw attention to a key point at which a choice one way or other makes a massive and important difference....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Steve, the problem - and I think it's the problem, is not the conflation of Church and State, but the lack of theology as to what happens when someone in the Church becomes someone in the State.
You don't have any answer to this except that no Christian should ever hold secular authority. And there's a billion degrees of nuance between that position, and the Divine Right of Kings.
I've asked you before, and never received a cogent answer, about what happens when Anabaptists find themselves in a majority in a population. Leaving it to the minority to run the State apparatus isn't tenable, or justifiable, but as far as I can tell, that's what you'd argue for.
[edited to add}
So, Islam has developed (again, AFAICT) a sophisticated and nuanced theology of secularism. Muslims serve in all tiers of the State, whether the State is fully secular, nominally Christian, nominally Muslim, or a theocracy. Not every Muslim magistrate or school governor wants to declare violent jihad just because they exercise secular power, and that's simply because they have a theology that's says that public service is a common, divinely-sanctioned, Good. Like very many Christians.
[ 11. October 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I guess we just need the "right kind" of Muslims in public service: those who believe in decency but not so much in their own religion that they're going to use positions of authority to bring about violent jihad and usher in Sharia.
Which amounts to that we're tolerant of Muslims as long as they don't actually try believing in Islam.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And presumably the same for those nasty Roman Catholics: they're allowed to have their own churches and practices, just be sure not to actually undermine our society with that crazy belief in the Pope.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
by Callan;
quote:
The point of this lengthy disquisition is not to say that the Crusades were a good thing. It's to say that like most historical phenomena they were complicated.
And for the umpteen-millionth time, I'm not denying the complications, stop assuming that I am [brick wall]
It still remains a basic one-side-of-the-line-or-the-other thing that
m8, if you think that everything boils down to your Anabaptists/ Jesus, good - everyone else, bad dichotomy you can't complain when people think you are oversimplifying everything a tad.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
m8, if you think that everything boils down to your Anabaptists/ Jesus, good - everyone else, bad dichotomy you can't complain when people think you are oversimplifying everything a tad.
Again, not what I'm saying. Much much more to Christianity, just not directly relevant to this topic.
And clear thinking please - I'm not detecting that more than a very few Shipmates actually support the 'religious state' idea. You probably see the problems I do, especially those which have been shown up by the 1600 years of supposedly 'Christian' states in defiance of Jesus. And the equivalents to those problems in other religions which operate as state religions....
So why all the stuff chucked at me over the issue? When I first stuck my toe in the water of the Ship's forums I thought most people would be broadly in line with me. I'm bewildered by the unexpected inconsistency....
In the current debate - you're rather ducking the point, aren't you? The 'religious state' issue is essentially 'binary' - it is the case where one simple choice makes vast difference, and the origins of Christianity in the NT, and Islam in Muhammad and the Quran, are clearly on opposite sides of the line....
I'm not oversimplifying, you and others appear to be kicking up something of a fog or smokescreen around it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
I've asked you before, and never received a cogent answer, about what happens when Anabaptists find themselves in a majority in a population. Leaving it to the minority to run the State apparatus isn't tenable, or justifiable, but as far as I can tell, that's what you'd argue for.
And I'm afraid you're not going to get the full answer on this thread either, as I'm trying to explain my position on Islam deliberately without "going the whole Anabaptist hog". For purposes of this thread a much less thorough separation of Church and State will do.
But may I remind you of my point to Croesos earlier. The Anabaptist objection is not to 'the state'; how we relate will depend on the individual state itself, and states vary enormously. The BIG objection is to the attempt to run a 'Christian state' in defiance of Jesus' instruction to do his Kingdom a different way.
Also by Doc Tor;
quote:
So, Islam has developed (again, AFAICT) a sophisticated and nuanced theology of secularism. Muslims serve in all tiers of the State, whether the State is fully secular, nominally Christian, nominally Muslim, or a theocracy. Not every Muslim magistrate or school governor wants to declare violent jihad just because they exercise secular power, and that's simply because they have a theology that's says that public service is a common, divinely-sanctioned, Good. Like very many Christians.
Not arguing; but with serious reservations that when the temptations to extremism do arise, as they clearly have in many parts of the world right now, I'm not sure that the arguments for the peaceable approach are either strong enough in their Islamic basis, or simple and comprehensible enough, to win over the disaffected who are likely to be extremists.
And I can see how a lot of Muslims could look at those arguments and see them as not really Islamic at all, but 'liberal Western' or some such - as alien in their eyes as the 'Christian state' looks to me compared to the NT teaching. Convoluted 'heavy weather' arguments, such as I'm finding in that book mr cheesy suggested, may easily be rejected for the very much more obvious conclusions to be drawn from the fact of Muhammad setting up an Islamic state (in every way that matters, even if it wasn't quite like a modern state).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Steve--
This isn't the kind of thing where you can explain, over and over, permanently convince people of your argument, and win.
You said you'd assumed that most Shipmates would be broadly in line with you. IME, it's rare to have most Shipmates (Christian or otherwise) agree on something--whether it's salvation, tithing, politics, or the rhyming scheme of a limerick.
Even people of goodwill can wildly disagree on seemingly-obvious issues. Your posts seem like you're pushing all your possible points at us with a bulldozer; and when we don't agree (or complain about getting buried), you load up the bulldozer and try again.
IMHO, you seem to think that you've found something that could fix the world--particularly, stop violent jihadists--if only... And it seems like your bottom line is that Muslims should become Christians; and if they'd just follow Jesus' teachings (particularly the non-violent ones that Anabaptists like), things would be mostly ok.
But life isn't that simple. Trying to convert jihadi terrorists would be disastrous. Telling peaceful Muslims that they're at fault, because the Prophet was at fault, and they need to accept Isa as their savior, would be mean. And Christians have done horrible, evil things, too. And still do.
If I may suggest, maybe you could take a break from arguing, and just listen and try to understand why other people see things differently than you do. Ask an occasional question, if you need to.
Give yourself a break from
, ok?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
I guess we just need the "right kind" of Muslims in public service: those who believe in decency but not so much in their own religion that they're going to use positions of authority to bring about violent jihad and usher in Sharia.
Which amounts to that we're tolerant of Muslims as long as they don't actually try believing in Islam.
Also by mr cheesy;
quote:
And presumably the same for those nasty Roman Catholics: they're allowed to have their own churches and practices, just be sure not to actually undermine our society with that crazy belief in the Pope.
Of course being separate from the state, I won't be making that decision; but you sum it up rather well - how pluralist can you afford to be with a religion that has jihad as physical warfare and the setting up of a religious state as major components? And how sure are you of the stability and solid foundation (not to mention comprehensibility to non-academic Muslims) of the version of Islam that won't fight a war to set up an Islamic state?
As regards the RCC - again not my decision; but while I don't agree with the place they give the Pope, they're welcome to believe it within the state as a variant form of Christianity. Again the catch will be if they want to make the UK legally an RCC state, as has been the doctrine back to the 4th century even before the split with the Eastern churches.
Fortunately indications there are that - albeit slowly because of the need to explain away the earlier error of an 'infallible' Magisterium - the RCC is gradually coming into line with the NT itself, and before long will effectively become quasi-Anabaptist. As with the CofE, the institution seems at times a bit behind a lot of its members on that one....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Not arguing; but with serious reservations that when the temptations to extremism do arise, as they clearly have in many parts of the world right now, I'm not sure that the arguments for the peaceable approach are either strong enough in their Islamic basis, or simple and comprehensible enough, to win over the disaffected who are likely to be extremists.
Steve, your argument boils down to "Despite all the evidence that Muslims can and do support serving a secular state without tying themselves up in theological knots, I don't believe it."
That's fine. You can believe what you like. But you're demonstrably wrong. It's your theology, not theirs, that isn't strong enough, or simple or comprehensible enough. It's not fit for purpose - that purpose being living in a modern secular state. Islam has found an accommodation with that, while Anabaptism has singularly failed.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
"Despite all the evidence that Muslims can and do support serving a secular state without tying themselves up in theological knots, I don't believe it."
I've mentioned that book by a Muslim that I'm reading - he is very much "tying himself up in theological knots"... and that has seemed the case with others I've come across.
The Biblical view is fine for living in a secular state or any other. But as I said, not answering that in full here; hoping to start a suitable thread eventually.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
We're the popes who preached the holy crusades really interested in Christian states? Or in destroying the Muslim state?
It's most disingenuous to posit the Muslim conquests as the origin of the Crusades. It was 300-something years later, and the rhetoric of the popes was centered on access to the holy places, not ancient history. The Arab Muslims were in fact not radicalized. The meaning of jihad had changed to an internal struggle against sinful impulses.
Your red-eyed axe-wielding fanatic had laid down his arms and gone back to herding sheep. Whatever you guys dredge up to justify the crusades, you need to come to grips with this fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan
People in the past had their own concerns - strange and often barbaric as they seem to us now - and using them as lay figures in theological disputes inhibits understanding of the past and the present and is probably bad theology as well.
Then we might as well close this thread, because we can't really find the origins of a phenomenon without looking at historical precedent and drawing conclusions from it based on what we can gleam about conditions and motivations of times past.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I guess we just need the "right kind" of Muslims in public service: those who believe in decency but not so much in their own religion that they're going to use positions of authority to bring about violent jihad and usher in Sharia.
Which amounts to that we're tolerant of Muslims as long as they don't actually try believing in Islam.
Or at least Steve's Version of Islam. Because, you know, these guys' version might just not include imposing Sharia on Great Britain or the U.S. But Allah forbid we let the dirty stinking Muslims define their own religion. It's our job to tell them what they need to believe in order to be members in good standing of their own religion.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not detecting that more than a very few Shipmates actually support the 'religious state' idea.
You may be right about that, depending of course on how "the 'religious state' idea" is actually defined.
quote:
You probably see the problems I do, especially those which have been shown up by the 1600 years of supposedly 'Christian' states in defiance of Jesus.
Probably not a safe assumption at all. There are not only a variety of positions Christians hold on the church-state relationship, there are a variety reasons they hold those positions. Some of those reasons have more to do with politics than with theology. But the fact that you have met with disagreement over and over here about this topic is likely a good sign that many others do not see the same problems you do, because they do not understand Jesus' teaching the way you do.
quote:
And the equivalents to those problems in other religions which operate as state religions....
Again, probably not a safe assumption.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've mentioned that book by a Muslim that I'm reading - he is very much "tying himself up in theological knots"... and that has seemed the case with others I've come across.
I'm going to translate that as "I disagree with him".
The fact - indisputable fact - is that a great many Muslims, along with their Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Sikh colleagues, help run schools, serve as magistrates and councillors and police officers and civil servants and MPs. You might dispute the theological basis for their willingness to serve the state in a formal capacity, but that they have one, even if it is tainted by a degree of pragmatic fudging, is undeniable.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
even if it is tainted by a degree of pragmatic fudging, is undeniable.
I still don't accept that those from outside of the religion are really able to identify what is or isn't "pragmatic fudging".
Rather than believing that Muslims are aware that their religion really demands that they work to establish Islamic states and then fudging this to become useful contributing members of a secular society (which would appear to me to paint them as fundamentally dishonest), it seems far easier to believe that those people don't actually believe that.
I'm sure that there are a massive spectrum of beliefs - and insisting that the end inhabited by the extremists is the "real deal" still seems like an effort to oversimplify a complex reality.
And I'm not even sure that belief in an idealised "Islamic state" is always a prelude to undermining secular society. I'm not sure how she does it, but I am aware of at least one very open Muslim politician - who I met once talking to a primarily Christian audience about the difference between "allowing" Muslim women to make a choice about wearing a burka and standing against the misogynist societies that force women to wear Burkas - who says that she believes it would be best for societies to be run on Islamic lines. I'm not sure how she squares that circle, but I've seen no evidence that believing in this leads to any kind of excess. If anything, the reverse - she is one of the most engaged and engaging people that I've ever met.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
even if it is tainted by a degree of pragmatic fudging, is undeniable.
I still don't accept that those from outside of the religion are really able to identify what is or isn't "pragmatic fudging".
Well, likewise. But I was offering some nuance to Steve.
What's also undeniable is that Islamist extremists would see those Muslims who do hold office in a secular state as hopelessly compromised. I don't think it helps those Muslims for Christians like Steve to also see them as hopelessly compromised.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We[']re the popes who preached the holy crusades really interested in Christian states? Or in destroying the Muslim state?
It's most disingenuous to posit the Muslim conquests as the origin of the Crusades. It was 300-something years later, and the rhetoric of the popes was centered on access to the holy places, not ancient history. The Arab Muslims were in fact not radicalized. The meaning of jihad had changed to an internal struggle against sinful impulses.
Your red-eyed axe-wielding fanatic had laid down his arms and gone back to herding sheep. Whatever you guys dredge up to justify the crusades, you need to come to grips with this fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan
People in the past had their own concerns - strange and often barbaric as they seem to us now - and using them as lay figures in theological disputes inhibits understanding of the past and the present and is probably bad theology as well.
Then we might as well close this thread, because we can't really find the origins of a phenomenon without looking at historical precedent and drawing conclusions from it based on what we can gleam about conditions and motivations of times past.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I guess we just need the "right kind" of Muslims in public service: those who believe in decency but not so much in their own religion that they're going to use positions of authority to bring about violent jihad and usher in Sharia.
Which amounts to that we're tolerant of Muslims as long as they don't actually try believing in Islam.
Or at least Steve's Version of Islam. Because, you know, these guys' version might just not include imposing Sharia on Great Britain or the U.S. But Allah forbid we let the dirty stinking Muslims define their own religion. It's our job to tell them what they need to believe in order to be members in good standing of their own religion.
There was a very good analysis, possibly by the great Oxford historian Terry Jones, on the telly 15-20 years ago that showed that one of the Pope's motives, in the light of his fundamentalist chilialism, was to unite the chivalrous knights - constantly warring barons - of Europe to make Jerusalem ready for Christ's return. To fulfil the apocalypse. A thread that ran through Victorian to WWI England to say the least: Balfour was an anti-Semitic Anglo-Israelite. Just the other side of the same coin as SCIS.
[ 12. October 2016, 09:30: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
It's most disingenuous to posit the Muslim conquests as the origin of the Crusades. It was 300-something years later, and the rhetoric of the popes was centered on access to the holy places, not ancient history. The Arab Muslims were in fact not radicalized. The meaning of jihad had changed to an internal struggle against sinful impulses.
The primary reason Christians did not have access to the Holy Places at this period was because of the Seljuk Turks who had conquered Anatolia (which had hitherto been part of the Byzantine Empire) and then pushed south to control Jerusalem. So to talk as if the 'Muslim conquests' were something that had happened "300 years ago" is a little bit unhistoric. Incidentally, the first two books immediately to hand - Tom Holland's 'In The Shadow Of The Sword' and Christopher Tyerman's 'God's War' disagree with you about Jihad being a purely spiritual matter. It was both the war between the believer and himself and the believer and the non-believer.
In any event, a Christian doctrine of 'Holy War' as opposed to 'just war' was not postulated until after the Islamic conquests. Coincidence? Or learning from example?
quote:
Your red-eyed axe-wielding fanatic had laid down his arms and gone back to herding sheep. Whatever you guys dredge up to justify the crusades, you need to come to grips with this fact.
I'm not trying to justify the Crusades. I'm merely pointing out that from the point of view of Christians of this period your picture of a peaceable Islamic civilisation minding its own business would have seemed a little bit starry eyed and that, to a large extent, the historical facts are on their side.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
It's not fit for purpose - that purpose being living in a modern secular state
Will come back on more recent posts tonight - I hope. Meanwhile I missed something while posting late last night/early this morning....
Anabaptism is not about the purpose of "living in a modern secular state". Like other Christians, our purpose is to live in God's gigantic universe, not your narrow secular state. In God's universe, it is the secularists who are not 'fit for purpose'.
Having said that, among religious views in general, any religion which accepts the view that its job is peaceable persuasion is a better fit in the secular state than a religion which believes in conversion at swordpoint and imposing a religious state. Yes??
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
It's not fit for purpose - that purpose being living in a modern secular state
Will come back on more recent posts tonight - I hope. Meanwhile I missed something while posting late last night/early this morning....
Anabaptism is not about the purpose of "living in a modern secular state". Like other Christians, our purpose is to live in God's gigantic universe, not your narrow secular state. In God's universe, it is the secularists who are not 'fit for purpose'.
Having said that, among religious views in general, any religion which accepts the view that its job is peaceable persuasion is a better fit in the secular state than a religion which believes in conversion at swordpoint and imposing a religious state. Yes??
You don't live in God's gigantic universe. You live in Stockport. Unless your theology permits you to fully engage with your neighbours and your community - and yes, that involves getting your hands dirty and helping to run it - then it's not fit for purpose.
Your Muslim neighbours get this in a way that you simply don't/can't. Their orthopraxis is vastly superior to yours.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Their orthopraxis is vastly superior to yours.
Others have observed the same thing. Isn't it amazing?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure about orthopraxis but my Muslim neighbours, local shopkeepers, and friends, seem to live quite peacefully, (well, OK, this is orthopraxis), and don't seem about to wield Kalashnikovs in my direction. Should I earnestly ask them to renounce Islam, as it has a dark violent past? I don't think I am going to do that.
(Of course, we have a Muslim mayor - danger!).
[ 12. October 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
To be sure the Turks fucked up a good thing. But you might as well blame the excesses of the Franks on the Romans. Sure they were both Christians. But the Franks didn't sack Rome because they were Christians.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about orthopraxis but my Muslim neighbours, local shopkeepers, and friends, seem to live quite peacefully, (well, OK, this is orthopraxis), and don't seem about to wield Kalashnikovs in my direction. Should I earnestly ask them to renounce Islam, as it has a dark violent past? I don't think I am going to do that.
(Of course, we have a Muslim mayor - danger!).
I think the takeaway from this post is something I've been thinking for quite a while now (like about 10 pages...) which is that debating the origins of Islamic extremism is a futile exercise when it comes to considering the best way of engaging with Islam today.
[ 12. October 2016, 13:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, the best way of engaging with Muslims. There is no such thing as Islam.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You're right of course, I was trying to do some unsuccessful wordplay.
By the way, I notice Steve Langton has earned himself a couple of weeks' shore leave, so don't expect any comeback from him for a while.
[ 12. October 2016, 21:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0