Thread: Purgatory: Is There Anything Which We Can Or Should Do About Islamism? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022996
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
In a recent thread there seemed to emerge a rough consensus on the heterogeneity of Islam and the impossibility of blanket judgments of it, but the unacceptable nature of some of its manifestations, both in the West and in Muslim-majority countries.
We get upset about reports of Christians or other non-Muslims being killed, or about women enduring appalling punishments, and feel that we, or our governments, should respond in some way
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Islamism, a term embracing terrorism; intolerance and persecution of other religions; inequality and mistreatment of women; imposition of sharia law; and opposition to democracy and liberalism (freedom of expression, association, etc)?
The choices as I see them include:-
1. There is no point in ordinary people such as ourselves holding or propagating any opinion about it, because there is nothing we can do about except direct our votes in our own countries’ elections to the parties with the best policy on the matter( which brings us back to the question of what is the best policy).
2. The West, past and present, including its Christianity, is so irredeemably wicked that we have forfeited any right to make any judgment about any other system or culture, including Islamism.
3. Radical cultural relativism. No system is any better or worse than any other, and if Islamists do things differently from the way we do, then that is their business and none of ours, and it is arrogant for us to think otherwise.
4. Patience. Eventually everyone, including Islamists, will come around to seeing that liberal, pluralist democracy and some sort of market economy is best, but they have to come to that decision for themselves, and though it might take decades or centuries, there is nothing we can do to hurry up the process, and it is always counterproductive if we try.
5. Respect for democracy. Muslims, given the opportunity, sometimes give the majority vote to (what seem to us) repressive and illiberal parties, as seems to be happening as an outcome of the so-called Arab Spring.
6. Military intervention. It is possible that the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan will survive, and evolve into something viable and acceptable (just as the Seoul regime in South Korea, originally scarcely better than communism in the North, emerged eventually as a liberal and prosperous democracy), but that looks very unlikely at the moment.
7. Just face the fact that horrible things go on under Islamist regimes, but take the attitude that they are none of the West’s business, and all that Western countries can do is protect themselves through measures such as screening of immigrants and airline security, and let the Islamist countries go to hell in a handbasket.
8. As far as possible, maintain friendly relations with Islamist regimes, both for our own benefit (eg oil) and in order to exert discreet pressure for incremental human rights improvements.
9.Write to or email offending governments, or support human rights advocacy groups which are doing so.
I am aware, of course, that human rights abuses, and questions of how to respond to them, are not confined to Islamism, but let's try to stick to that for the purposes of this discussion.
[ 20. September 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am aware, of course, that human rights abuses, and questions of how to respond to them, are not confined to Islamism, but let's try to stick to that for the purposes of this discussion.
Why?
That's the bottom line issue.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
But you're not really interested in the truth are you?
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
But you're not really interested in the truth are you?
Bingo. Sadly, we respond unevenly to human rights abuses in various countries because we don't want to offend those who we benefit from economically (think oil or cheap products) and label those that we don't like or get anything from as an evil that needs to be dealt with. As for military solutions, I've think we've made a royal mess with our interventions and elections in those countries haven't gone the way we'd like, in some respects it's made situations worse or just the same as before we meddled.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Is There Anything Which We Can Or Should Do About Islamism?
No.
Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means to sort things out we can't really be trusted to sort out someone else's society.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Doesn't that make the Western abandonment of faith the main issue? If that is so we should be confront atheism rather than Islam. Heck there are more atheists than Muslims, in the West at any rate.
btw, confronting human rights abuses and terrorism is another issue entirely. Unless you have located the Atheist Liberation Front.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Is There Anything Which We Can Or Should Do About Islamism?
No.
Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means to sort things out we can't really be trusted to sort out someone else's society.
What about violent Islamists actually in our own society, then?
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
You mean the ones already under house arrest?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Doesn't that make the Western abandonment of faith the main issue? If that is so we should be confront atheism rather than Islam. Heck there are more atheists than Muslims, in the West at any rate.
btw, confronting human rights abuses and terrorism is another issue entirely. Unless you have located the Atheist Liberation Front.
Huh? What did I do now?
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Doesn't that make the Western abandonment of faith the main issue?
Yes, that's right. quote:
If that is so we should be confront atheism rather than Islam. Heck there are more atheists than Muslims, in the West at any rate.
Yes, that's right. It is the fruits of Western Atheism that gives Islamism the moral high ground in certain areas. They, of course, point the finger at Christianity for the ills of Western civilisation, but the reality is that western secularism and the concomitant abandonment of biblical morality is what gives Islamism the majority of its ammunition.
[ 16. April 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: Daron ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God.
Ah, yes. "Christ is the answer. Now, what's the question..."
--Tom Clune
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Kaplan
quote:
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Islamism.
I'm aware that in the UK there are already systems in place to monitor nascent terrorist networks. There are charities and organisations set up to target things such as forced marriages and to reduce honour killings. Authorities have tried to work with imams, providing professional training. There are also some Muslim youthworkers who work with youngsters who are at risk being radicalised. The work is made harder by the high unemployment rates for young people in these areas; attacking low educational achievement and improving job prospects therefore goes hand in hand with giving young Muslims a greater investment in society.
Churches in areas with large Muslim populations need to develop interfaith networks. This doesn't have to require people talking about religion (although it can be) but working together to provide assistance to the community, as necessary.
An Anglican church not far from me works with Muslims in the local community forum to keep a food bank for people in crisis. This isn't about telling Muslims what to do, but getting to know people. Taking a different tack, a Baptist church I know has a mission to the local Muslim Yemeni population, and runs social and educational events aimed at this community. The church even hired an Arabic-speaker as their pastor! Evangelism is their focus, and they seem to have developed this work without causing any antagonism so far.
When we know each other there's less mistrust, more openness. People can learn to respect each other.
No doubt, much more could be done, at national, local and community level. I do fear that some local initiatives will be at risk of losing much of their funding in these times of financial difficulty.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Oh, and I've just read a review of a new popular history book that looks at the early history of Islam. We could all do with learning more about Islam, I suspect. The book: Tom Holland, 'In the Shadow of the Sword'.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God.
Ah, yes. "Christ is the answer. Now, what's the question..."
A perfectly reasonable approach which appears increasingly more reasonable as one's knowledge of Christ increases.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
@Daron
That's astounding. I had no idea I had so much power and influence.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
We don't. Christ in us does.
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.
I guess this is a pond difference. We are good enough at terrorizing ourselves that those poor slub Islamists get lost in the noise around here...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between "utilitarian" human rights abuses and "ideological" human rights abuses, though? Or would you argue that all abuses are ultimately carried out to achieve an end and the ideology attached to them is simply aimed at making them more palatable to the majority?
I should add that, in my attempt to categorise, Islamism would fall within the ideological camp, but there'd be lots of others in there as well.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Yes there is something we can do about Islamism. Treat Muslims the same way we do Christians.
And then we can start by taking beams out of our own eyes. If we want to talk about the unacceptable nature of some of its manifestations, let's start with the majority local religions. We have far more of a responsibility to control the actions of our own country than those that take place in other countries.
If you are worried about people getting killed for arbitrary reasons, both sides of the Atlantic are engaged in a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Not that I've any objection to chucking rocks if that's what it takes.
Why single out "Islamism"? At a personal level, Christians worry me a lot more. As far as I know almost all the recent terrorism in my country has been the responsibility of either Catholic or Protestant groups. (And before someone mentions that neither the IRA nor the UVF have much to do with Christianity, that's part of the point).
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Christianity, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Christianism, a term embracing terrorism; intolerance and mistreatment of gay people; intolerance and persecution of other religions; inequality and mistreatment of women; and opposition to democracy and liberalism (freedom of expression, association, etc)?
I see Islamism as no different to Christianism. Except that only one is a direct threat to people I care about at a personal level.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...intolerance and mistreatment of gay people...
I see Islamism as no different to Christianism. Except that only one is a direct threat to people I care about at a personal level.
Well there's a world of difference between a society that is debating whether the word "marriage" should be applied to gay partnerships and a society that punishes homosexuality with the death penalty.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I should add that I take your point entirely about beams in Christianity's eye.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It is the fruits of Western Atheism that gives Islamism the moral high ground in certain areas. They, of course, point the finger at Christianity for the ills of Western civilisation, but the reality is that western secularism and the concomitant abandonment of biblical morality is what gives Islamism the majority of its ammunition.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you claiming that people in countries thousands of miles away are oppressing other people because there are so many atheists in this country? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And if you're suggesting that "bring back biblical morality" is the answer, does that mean you think the best way to prevent people from being oppressed in countries thousands of miles away is to start oppressing people in this country? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Doesn't that make the Western abandonment of faith the main issue? If that is so we should be confront atheism rather than Islam. Heck there are more atheists than Muslims, in the West at any rate.
No because in the West we have freedom to choose to be athiest, Christian or Muslim. In many Islam-dominated countries Christians are persecuted, and Muslims who convert to Christianity are ostracised, attacked, arrested, tortured, killed.
IMO the main issue should be to work to protect those of our brothers who are being attacked, rather than complaining that our countrymen, with their free choice, choose not to be saved. And the change we should be aiming for in any other country is to allow freedom of religion, so those Muslims who are convicted by Christ of their sin are free to repent and follow Christ rather than being too terrified to admit their faith, or killed when they do.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I thought what gave Islamism the moral high ground in certain areas was the fact that we keep invading their countries.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Ah yes, good old "the only workable solution is to make sure that everyone has adheres to my religion"! An evergreen standard among certain flavors of Christians, though also very popular with Islamists as well.
What exactly is to be done to the people of "the West" who don't have an "understanding of [your] God"?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between "utilitarian" human rights abuses and "ideological" human rights abuses, though? Or would you argue that all abuses are ultimately carried out to achieve an end and the ideology attached to them is simply aimed at making them more palatable to the majority?
I should add that, in my attempt to categorise, Islamism would fall within the ideological camp, but there'd be lots of others in there as well.
I'm afraid I don't understand your question Erroneous Monk.
Are you asking what kinds of human rights abuses we should be worried about?
What do you mean by utilitarian?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Frankly, the best thing we could with 'bad' Islam is give as much support as possible to 'good' Islam while it fights the 'bad' kind.
Which we occasionally manage. But I still have strong impressions from a documentary I saw many years ago (quite possibly even before September 11), where the Prime Minister of the Comoros was lamenting the fact that his government couldn't get the aid necessary to make the moderate, government-funded schools compete with the rich schools set up by radicals, funded with money from Saudi Arabia, who attracted the best and brightest in his country.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
Originaly posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
I thought what gave Islamism the moral high ground in certain areas was the fact that we keep invading their countries.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
No because in the West we have freedom to choose to be athiest, Christian or Muslim. In many Islam-dominated countries Christians are persecuted, and Muslims who convert to Christianity are ostracised, attacked, arrested, tortured, killed.
Fred Clark of Slacktivist made the argument (his site is currently down or I'd provide a link) that one of the reasons we see religious extremism prosper in certain regions is a consequence of lack of legal protections for religious minorities. When the state can establish an "official" religion it means that, unless the state picks your religion, your 'right' to worship only exists at the suffrance of the state. As such, any change of government may very well remove (or allow) your ability to worship your god. This dynamic raises the stakes of any political action to a great degree.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the best thing we could with 'bad' Islam is give as much support as possible to 'good' Islam while it fights the 'bad' kind.
Good Islam being the Islam that doesn't opress women, gays and people who want to change religion yes?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the best thing we could with 'bad' Islam is give as much support as possible to 'good' Islam while it fights the 'bad' kind.
Good Islam being the Islam that doesn't opress women, gays and people who want to change religion yes?
No, no! "Good" Islam is the Islam that keeps the oil flowing, even if it has to break some heads (and 'disappear' some dissidents) to do so. It's still a complete mystery as to why Muslims object so strongly to Western support of "good Islam".
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between "utilitarian" human rights abuses and "ideological" human rights abuses, though? Or would you argue that all abuses are ultimately carried out to achieve an end and the ideology attached to them is simply aimed at making them more palatable to the majority?
I should add that, in my attempt to categorise, Islamism would fall within the ideological camp, but there'd be lots of others in there as well.
I'm afraid I don't understand your question Erroneous Monk.
Are you asking what kinds of human rights abuses we should be worried about?
What do you mean by utilitarian?
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?
Or should we be concerned *only* about the end result - that someone's human rights are taken away?
I think it's a relevant question because if human rights abuses stem from or are exacerbated by a root cause, tackling that cause may lessen the abuse. But if the abuse stems from an ideology, then that seems less likely to happen.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The bottom line issue is always the nature of God. All other issues of truth and justice proceed from that bottom line. As the West abandons its understanding of God as he has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture it becomes increasingly incapable of discerning the source of the fundamental inadequacies of Islamic ideology.
Doesn't that make the Western abandonment of faith the main issue? If that is so we should be confront atheism rather than Islam. Heck there are more atheists than Muslims, in the West at any rate.
No because in the West we have freedom to choose to be athiest, Christian or Muslim. In many Islam-dominated countries Christians are persecuted, and Muslims who convert to Christianity are ostracised, attacked, arrested, tortured, killed.
IMO the main issue should be to work to protect those of our brothers who are being attacked, rather than complaining that our countrymen, with their free choice, choose not to be saved. And the change we should be aiming for in any other country is to allow freedom of religion, so those Muslims who are convicted by Christ of their sin are free to repent and follow Christ rather than being too terrified to admit their faith, or killed when they do.
ISTM that you are arguing for intervening in other countries before sorting out our own. Christians have been persecuted in China for decades, possibly centuries; Are you going to let them suffer because China isn't Islamic?
Then again your concept of brotherhood probably differs from mine.
No wonder the world's in a mess.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?
...
No. If making money is more important than respecting human rights, that's already an ideology in itself. OliviaG
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
They, of course, point the finger at Christianity for the ills of Western civilisation, but the reality is that western secularism and the concomitant abandonment of biblical morality is what gives Islamism the majority of its ammunition.
It couldn't be that for the better part of 100 years we (the West) have supported brutal secularist dictators who murder their citizens in cold blood but keep the oil flowing?
You really think that what *motivates* a villager in Yemen to pledge jihad against America is the skimpyness of bikinis in Miami Beach and the latest episode of Jersey Shore?
/granted that some of our popular entertainments make for good anti-Western propaganda.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
I've been through discussions like this one elsewhere. My thinking has become a little broader.
The answer that there are just as many violent and terroristic Christians and Moslems requires comparison of different forms of violence that may not quite equate, i.e., economic disparity encouraged by western nominally Christian countries that creates poverty, no opportunities and hopes for the future, as the western countries either have alienated the local government which encourages terrorism, or is allied with the government which is exploiting their own people. Thereby creating justification for terror.
The key is how to have people in Moslem countries where terrorism ideals are idealised acquire some semblance of hope, such that radicalizable young people will have less to be angry about, as a proxy for those they see as victimized by western (Christian) nations who say kind and democratic things and do cruel, exploitive and violent things. It is worse when these young people immigrate, because they have experience of the extremes in comparison.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
You really think that what *motivates* a villager in Yemen to pledge jihad against America is the skimpyness of bikinis in Miami Beach and the latest episode of Jersey Shore?
Well, I could be convinced to sign up to wage jihad against Jersey Shore...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
You really think that what *motivates* a villager in Yemen to pledge jihad against America is the skimpyness of bikinis in Miami Beach and the latest episode of Jersey Shore?
Well, I could be convinced to sign up to wage jihad against Jersey Shore...
--Tom Clune
If only the West and the Islamic World could set aside their difference and focus on the common enemy...
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
If only the West and the Islamic World could set aside their difference and focus on the common enemy...
Which is?
I think it is the rich corporate structure we formerly called the military-industrial complex, which creates poverty and lack of hope everywhere. makes me think that the poor in western countries may find themselves agreeing with the Islamic terrorists. I have an awful thought just now along the lines of Marilyn Manson: Bin Laden McViegh.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
If only the West and the Islamic World could set aside their difference and focus on the common enemy...
Which is?
I think it is the rich corporate structure we formerly called the military-industrial complex, which creates poverty and lack of hope everywhere. makes me think that the poor in western countries may find themselves agreeing with the Islamic terrorists. I have an awful thought just now along the lines of Marilyn Manson: Bin Laden McViegh.
No_prophet, you've taken a beautiful joke and turned it into something ugly. I'm appalled!
--Tom Clune
Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on
:
quote:
Article 18.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Doesn't this cover the question? Islam most certainly doesn't allow conversion. Apostasy is punishable by death. No whitewashing it. I'm not saying that the nice average muslim family down the street from me (and they are indeed nice) would go out and kill their cousin who became a Christian, but like it or not, the Koran mandates death for apostasy from Islam. Plain and Simple.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Remarks on the O.P.'s ideas:
Choice no. 1 is illogical for reasons you point out. Probably you mention it only lest someone out there actually hold the position.
Choice no. 2: No, I don't have much time for intellectual spoiled brats chopping off the branch on which they sit. It is quite in order vigilantly to criticize specific national policies or harmful cultural trends. But without Western values and achievements, what are the odds that one would have either the time or the opportunity to think these thoughts, let alone the freedom to express them?
Choice no. 3: In other words, admit an irrefutable logic in someone's telling you: "When you are in power, you let me speak because that is your way. When I'm in power, I will not let you speak, because that is my way." I refuse for reasons of self-defense.
Choice no. 4: This is to some extent an insult to Islam, because it assumes that the recent conflicts are more inherent than they are. In the past, Muslims and westerners have sometimes coexisted nicely. Patience is justified when conditions are improving. But are they now? We have more trouble with hostile movements attributed (correctly or not) to Islam than we did a generation ago, not less. Furthermore, the observation "Once an Islamic country, always an Islamic country" has very few exceptions. Aren't they the ones who can afford to be patient?
Choice no. 5: Yes, but what does this mean? We may need to allow democracy to self-destruct in other countries; but we have a responsibility to preserve it in our own and a right to make decisions accordingly. This may require refusing admission to a group that either has a history of not assimilating or holds an undemocratic article of faith with evident sincerity. In the U.S., we expect assimilation, and by and large we get it. We should welcome and open our hearts to Muslim immigrants who wish to embrace our secular and free political principles, while alert to the possibility of failures outweighing success stories. Respect for soverign national borders is a two-way street. Must we fear for our lives because foreigners object to cartoons in our newspapers? Per the principle of national sovereignty, there is only so much an American can say to European countries whose standard with immigrants is not assimilation but pillarization, other than warning. I wouldn't want them to be among those democracies that self-destruct because of Trojan horses.
Choice no. 6: In the debate Hitchens v. Hitchens that I watched Friday evening, Peter asked Christopher, once you start intervening, where do you stop? Christopher replied that we should intervene only when a country has violated one or more taboos formally defined and internationally accepted. He mentioned four, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated all four. Intervention in Iraq might have been undertaken for some unworthy or spurious reasons, have been practically ill-advised and mismanaged, and may well fail. But it is hard to argue that it was unjustified. It is easier to argue that it was long overdue.
Choice no. 7: This is basically my position insofar as it is feasible. Would that we could just let them go to hell in a handbasket. Unfortunately, we can't as long as we are addicted to oil.
Choice no. 8: This is what we've bent over backwards to do with China. Time will tell how well it works.
Choice no. 9: Probably a waste of time and a pathetic illusion-- in George Smiley's words, jumping up and down and calling it progress.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Choice no. 6: In the debate Hitchens v. Hitchens that I watched Friday evening, Peter asked Christopher, once you start intervening, where do you stop? Christopher replied that we should intervene only when a country has violated one or more taboos formally defined and internationally accepted. He mentioned four, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated all four. Intervention in Iraq might have been undertaken for some unworthy or spurious reasons, have been practically ill-advised and mismanaged, and may well fail. But it is hard to argue that it was unjustified. It is easier to argue that it was long overdue.
I think it's even harder to argue that the current Iraqi state is an exemplar of liberal democracy and religious toleration. If invading Iraq was supposed to be a check on Islamism, replacing the Hussein regime with an Iranian client state counts as a resounding failure.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Has Christianity, apart from in Paul's day, ever spread by leaving cultures alone while being Christ to them ?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am aware, of course, that human rights abuses, and questions of how to respond to them, are not confined to Islamism, but let's try to stick to that for the purposes of this discussion.
Why?
That's the bottom line issue.
My answer to your question: Because Islamism, if not Islam, is an ideology to which millions subscribe all over the world. When an abuser of human rights appeals to it, we have a problem that does not apply to those who abuse them for self-aggrandizement.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I'm not sure many in the West understand the religion of Islam really well and therefore are able to understand the various deviations from it conveniently labelled as 'Islamicism', for which btw, there is no word in Arabic or other languages of the Muslim world.
The situation of the average citizen in Cairo, Damascus and Kabul is not good. In fact it's downright lousy.
Men of blood, such as the late Osama bin Laden, with their dreams of a revived Caliphate, led by, guess who: them are a symptom of the deep do-do the Islamic world imho is in. Their ideas and actions have been denounced and are abhorred by knowledgeable Muslims who are not in the pay of anyone and whose strings no one appears to be pulling.
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Syria etc. are corrupt autocratic embezzling states.
I think the average person there - if he or she dared to speak - would say what they want is a modicum of respect; freedom from fear of the security services and an opportunity to make a decent livelihood in a situation where most money is skimmed off by a corrupt elite. Give them half a chance to gain those and I think they'd metaphorically tell the 'Islamicists' to disappear into their own Khyber Passes.
Regarding those unfortunates who murder the innocent in Western cities such as Toulouse I suspect we have a lot to do in addressing and countering the pernicious propaganda and manipulation that makes them so behave.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fred Clark of Slacktivist made the argument (his site is currently down or I'd provide a link) that one of the reasons we see religious extremism prosper in certain regions is a consequence of lack of legal protections for religious minorities. When the state can establish an "official" religion it means that, unless the state picks your religion, your 'right' to worship only exists at the suffrance of the state.
China has no official religion. Nor does Syria or North Korea.
On the other hand England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Costa Rica do.
So whatever makes a government intolerant of religion it doesn't seem to be having one of their won.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the best thing we could with 'bad' Islam is give as much support as possible to 'good' Islam while it fights the 'bad' kind.
Good Islam being the Islam that doesn't opress women, gays and people who want to change religion yes?
There was a reason for putting those terms in quotes, buying into the premise of the OP without necessarily agreeing it was so simple to identify those nasty, nasty Islamists.
Frankly I'd settle for 'bad' Islam equalling the kind that encouraged terrorist attacks. Mind you, having spent a highly instructive afternoon with Professor Robert Pape a few years back, I'm aware that bad Islam looks remarkably like bad Christianity and bad Hinduism and bad atheism when it comes to inspiring suicide bombers.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
... the Koran mandates death for apostasy from Islam. Plain and Simple.
And the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG
More specifically, the Jewish law does. I doubt that you can cite any such mandate in the N.T.
The best people to interpret the Jewish law are the Jews. They do so with guidance from the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient open book, which in many cases makes radical-sounding strictures practical. If the Jews have not in fact executed witches, astrologers, etc. for a long time, and especially if the Talmud does not actually prescribe that penalty, we have good reason for confidence that the stricture is in abeyance.
However, honor killings in Islamic communities, even in Europe, are hardly unknown, meted out by their own families, especially to young women who appear too enamored of infidel ways.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
I see your honour killings and raise you the Fundamentalist LDS - trafficking girls as young as twelve across the US/Canada border for "celestial marriage". Furthermore, many Muslim clerics assert that honour killings are not based on the Koran or Islam. All those awful things that are supposedly "Islamist" have a strong cultural component and have been / are practiced by all religions. For some perspective, we should remember that non-Muslims can murder their children as well. Should Andrea Yates' killing of her children be considered a "Christian" filicide?
From where I'm looking, it's all a matter of degree: women are oppressed by pretty much *all* religions and it's pretty hard to disentangle religious misogyny from patriarchy in the broader culture. Furthermore, our modern culture doesn't owe its liberties directly to Christianity anyway. Christianity may have paved the way to the Enlightenment, but we owe our rights and freedoms to dissenters, deists, agnostics and atheists as well. OliviaG
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.
It's hard to take this reply seriously, but I'll try.
It isn't about Islam it's about terrorism period.
In my first post on this forum I said
quote:
Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means
Notice the word Until.
No we have not got all the terrorists in this country, Islamist or otherwise in gaol or under house arrest. But some are, which goes to show that Special Branch and MI5 are doing their job.
More people died in the UK as a result of the Norhern Irish troubles than died in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Unless the provos and the UDF were Islamists I can't see your point. In fact the reason we have such strong anti-terror laws in the UK has more to do with the Irish Troubles than it does Islamic terrorists.
52 people died in the 7/7 attacks on London. 77 people were killed by Anders breivik last year in Norway. Was Breivik an Islamist? Nope he's anti-Islam.
But the alarmists are baying against Islam, equating terror with radial Islam. But it does not add up. In the USA only 6% of terror attacks were by Islamic exremists. In Europe it is even less.
So lets keep it in perspective, Islam is not as big a problem as people make it out to be.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam [snip]?
Same as it ought to be towards 'bad' Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other ism's?
The question really is, why the focus on Islam?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The question really is, why the focus on Islam?
The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"
And it also had a quote that "As soon as we use a preface like Muslim or Afghan, suddenly the issue becomes about culture, not domestic violence."
You'd never, ever have a report that highlighted the fact that a white Anglo-Celtic man of vaguely Christian background beat his wife. You'd just have a 'man' beating his wife.
[ 17. April 2012, 02:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam [snip]?
Same as it ought to be towards 'bad' Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other ism's?
...
Our 'War on Terror' has, in the Muslim World, become 'War on Islam'.
Much public opinion in the Western World seems to be similar to what helped, in earlier times, to launch the Crusades.
I think we need a modern day St Francis of Assisi to metaphorically 'visit the Sultan'.
Who knows? There could be an 'Outbreak of Peace'.
Wouldn't that be luverly?
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fred Clark of Slacktivist made the argument (his site is currently down or I'd provide a link) that one of the reasons we see religious extremism prosper in certain regions is a consequence of lack of legal protections for religious minorities. When the state can establish an "official" religion it means that, unless the state picks your religion, your 'right' to worship only exists at the suffrance of the state.
China has no official religion. Nor does Syria or North Korea.
On the other hand England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Costa Rica do.
So whatever makes a government intolerant of religion it doesn't seem to be having one of their won.
England, Denmark and Norway have official churches for the same purpouse they have royal families. Just for the sake of keeping an old tradition.
I thought the church of Scotland was not stablished anymore, correct me if I´m wrong.
Anyway, the amount of freedom in these countries are in no way in the same league as in ANY country where muslims constitute at least 50%+ of the population. Even countries who have secular governments, like Turkey or Indonesia. When people talk about religious "freedom" in Indonesia, for example, it´s about being able to choose among a list of 5 or 6 religions, and if you are muslim, stick to it until you di. So far from what we consider "relgious freedom" in the west...
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[qb] The question really is, why the focus on Islam?
The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"
It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text. So it´s ok to express an opinion that it´s not only about "bad islam", but islam itself being bad. Surely, that´s not a very politically correct thing to say, but if we live in democratic and free societies, people should be able to express that.
If it is okay for people like Richard Dawkins to claim that christianity itself is bad (and not only the "bad christianity"), why is it an ultimate insult for someone to pursuit an opinion that Islam itself is bad?
I don´t share the same opinion as Richard Dawkins about christianity, but I´ll always defend the right of people like him to express their opinions. Therefore, muslims, if they seek to live in western countries, should accept criticism towards their religion, just like any other religions are subject to criticism.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I thought the church of Scotland was not stablished anymore, correct me if I´m wrong.
I'm afraid it is. The odd thing being that HM Queen Elizabeth (II in England) stops being an Anglican and becomes a Presbyterian as soon as she steps North of the border, becoming Anglican again on her return. Odd world, isn't it?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG
More specifically, the Jewish law does. I doubt that you can cite any such mandate in the N.T.
Hey Olivia. You forgot adultery by stoning. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
the Bible mandates death for witches, astrologers, homosexuals, and children who disobey their parents. Your point? OliviaG
More specifically, the Jewish law does. I doubt that you can cite any such mandate in the N.T.
How bout that pesky Matthew line that says not one jot of the law will pass away.
Or all those other NT passages that say certain characters were righteous before the law.
Say Elisabeth and Zechariah?
5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The best people to interpret the Jewish law are the Jews. They do so with guidance from the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient open book, which in many cases makes radical-sounding strictures practical. If the Jews have not in fact executed witches, astrologers, etc. for a long time, and especially if the Talmud does not actually prescribe that penalty, we have good reason for confidence that the stricture is in abeyance.
However, honor killings in Islamic communities, even in Europe, are hardly unknown, meted out by their own families, especially to young women who appear too enamored of infidel ways.
But those Muslims that do not prescribe these penalties are not in abeyance like their Jewish counterparts?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?
Or should we be concerned *only* about the end result - that someone's human rights are taken away?
I think it's a relevant question because if human rights abuses stem from or are exacerbated by a root cause, tackling that cause may lessen the abuse. But if the abuse stems from an ideology, then that seems less likely to happen.
A good question, even if I can't quite get my head around it.
Taken to a logical extreme anything that infringes on another might be taken as abuse?
I suppose it's best to take it on a case by case scenario. But the labeling of abuse will certainly depend on ideology.
We might think wearing a hijab is an abuse - but many women in the Muslim world would not.
I guess I draw the line in terms of danger to physical health and wellbeing.
If someone's life is at risk - my warning bells would be going off.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text...
Would you have a Quranic reference for this gorpo?
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text. So it´s ok to express an opinion that it´s not only about "bad islam", but islam itself being bad. Surely, that´s not a very politically correct thing to say, but if we live in democratic and free societies, people should be able to express that.
They should be able to express that. And we should be able to express how wrong it is. Because the same could be said of Christianity and Judaism. A wife is a man's property do do as he likes with. It is (to use your phrase) a mere reading of their sacred text.
I'm going off on a tangent now - how to write a conspiracy theory.
Take some true facts that you know are true which support your theory, talk about them exclusively whilst not mentioning other equally true facts you know about that do not support your theory. So depending on your point of view it is possible to make an argument that Islam or Christianity are warlike religions simply by quoting verses from the Bible or Quran. But it's equally possible to show they are peace loving by quoting different texts from the same book. It depends on how you use the text.
quote:
If it is okay for people like Richard Dawkins to claim that christianity itself is bad (and not only the "bad christianity"), why is it an ultimate insult for someone to pursuit an opinion that Islam itself is bad?
It isn't OK. There's little difference in what Dawkins is doing in terms of making a conspiracy theory than other people such as Dan Brown. The difference being that Brown admits his is fiction. Woolly reasoning like this is not becoming for someone of Dawkin's intellect.
Sure he can express it, but he should expect it to be opposed. Anyway, this thread isn't about Dawkins.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
...
I'm going off on a tangent now - how to write a conspiracy theory.
Take some true facts that you know are true which support your theory, talk about them exclusively whilst not mentioning other equally true facts you know about that do not support your theory. So depending on your point of view it is possible to make an argument that Islam or Christianity are warlike religions simply by quoting verses from the Bible or Quran. But it's equally possible to show they are peace loving by quoting different texts from the same book. It depends on how you use the text.
...
Indeed, Balaam.
The problem with this thread is that there are indeed such half-baked conspiracy theories on the subject under discussion floating around in the media and everywhere else.
Whilst everyone is entitled to his/her opinion there is nothing to guarantee that all opinions are equally valid.
BTW gorpo I'd still appreciate the Quranic reference.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
It would not necessarily be a better question, just a different one, and one which you are free to post to start a new thread if you so wish.
If someone started a discussion on human rights in Burma, we would tend to roll our eyes if anyone were to object to it on the grounds that it was somehow invalid because it didn’t mention human rights in Zimbabwe.
This thread is on the specific question of Islamism, of which Islamist violations of human rights are a major component.
It is a relevant issue on which to focus for at least three reasons.
First, because of the high profile of Islam (the world’s second biggest religion) in current events – Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing unrest in North Africa and the Middle East (especially Syria) to name just a few.
Second, because of the immensely complex challenges of deciding whether certain actions of which we disapprove which carried out by Muslims are integral to Islam or textually unjustifiable Islamist accretions; of differentiating amongst the different expressions of Islam, which vary enormously between, say, Saudi Arabia and the Comoros on the one hand, and Indonesia and Turkey on the other; and of countering generalizations about Muslims, a majority of whom, especially in the West, are moderates who are not interested in Islamist extremism, whether their religion can be shown to require it or not.
Thirdly, like it or not, globally a disproportionate number of human rights abuses are carried out under Islam, relative to the number perpetrated in the name of any other single religion/worldview/ ideology, with the possible exception of communism.
quote:
But you're not really interested in the truth are you?
Sorry Evensong, but you've got me a trifle bemused here.
In context, it appears that you imagine that I am either unaware of the truth that there are other sources of human rights abuse, or that if I am, I am unwilling to recognise them.
In fact, I referred to them in the OP.
Kindly elaborate.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
[ 17. April 2012, 05:30: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
I would have hoped we'd have learned better by now. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I think evensong is right, if we can figure out a way to deal properly with human rights violations in general, across the board, from all religions, and regardless of who's carrying them out (or how much oil the 'poor and oppressed' are sitting on); then you've got an answer to your question.
Not too long ago, you could have substitued the word 'communist' for every instance of "Muslim" or "Islamist" in this thread and had pretty much the same disscussion.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[qb] The question really is, why the focus on Islam?
The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"
It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text.
I've read variations of this chestnut so many times on the Ship, I shouldn't be surprised any more. But over and over again this picture is painted of all the bad things THEIR book says, while tacitly ignoring all the things in OUR book that could be read in a very, very bad light.
Guess what, gorpo. The Bible is full of horrendous things if you read it with no eye for context. Take the log out of your own eye before carrying on too much about the speck in the eye of that Muslim over there. Any Christian man who wants to justify beating his wife could find a battery (pun intended) of Bible verses to back up his authority to do so. Doesn't mean he'd be right, but he could do it.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Thirdly, like it or not, globally a disproportionate number of human rights abuses are carried out under Islam, relative to the number perpetrated in the name of any other single religion/worldview/ ideology, with the possible exception of communism.
...
Got any numbers, calculations or references for the "disproportionate number"?
How do you decide whether a country's religion or economic system or whatever is the causal factor for those abuses? What makes you so sure that e.g. Saudi Arabia is oppressive only because it is Wahhabi and not because it is also a monarchy / plutocracy? Or because except for oil money, it is woefully economically undeveloped? Or for cultural reasons that may even predate Islam? OliviaG
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Is the Western European Enlightenment (capital E) the standard to which all ought to aspire?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
What was the story about the three wishes?
I think you were clean bowled a long time ago.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
I would have hoped we'd have learned better by now.
I think evensong is right, if we can figure out a way to deal properly with human rights violations in general, across the board, from all religions, and regardless of who's carrying them out (or how much oil the 'poor and oppressed' are sitting on); then you've got an answer to your question.
Not too long ago, you could have substitued the word 'communist' for every instance of "Muslim" or "Islamist" in this thread and had pretty much the same disscussion.
We always have to have a "them" to hate. Now it's Muslims. It is a small percentage of Muslims who have hijacked their religion. With well over a billion Muslims in the world we'd be chest high in blood if the religion were as evil/violent as many claim them to be. To be honest, many OT Jewish laws and penalties are the same as the Koran. Many rabid Islamophobes love to cherry pick the Koran as much as some rabid atheists love to do with the Bible. I have to agree with Evensong and others - concentrate on human rights violations no matter who does it and ignore the tendency to hate "them" whoever the group de jour is.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... We get upset about reports of Christians or other non-Muslims being killed ...
Yes; I also get upset about reports of Muslims being killed. Don't you?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I translate 'human rights violations' into 'offer them a decent life safe from murder; rape; torture and the rule of the kleptocracy'.
This is not a 'religious' debate: it's about real suffering people whose situation has usually been made worse by our intervention.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
Let's see, we should prop up and support those who torture, rape and slaughter because they are "bulwarks" against people we are claiming torture, rape and slaughter. Is that about right? Unbelievable.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
ISTM that you are arguing for intervening in other countries before sorting out our own. Christians have been persecuted in China for decades, possibly centuries; Are you going to let them suffer because China isn't Islamic?
I love it when peple make that argument, that just because we're interested in one problem, that necessarily means we can't possibly be interested in any other problem! I'm sure there's a technical name for that logical fallacy. I don't know it so I'll just go ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
@ Balaam - I assume you think then that all would-be Islamist terrorists are under lock and key, yes? Fine, if you're right, nothing to worry about then.
It's hard to take this reply seriously, but I'll try.
It isn't about Islam it's about terrorism period.
In my first post on this forum I said
quote:
Until we can sort out those in our own society that would resort to violent means
Notice the word Until.
No we have not got all the terrorists in this country, Islamist or otherwise in gaol or under house arrest. But some are, which goes to show that Special Branch and MI5 are doing their job.
More people died in the UK as a result of the Norhern Irish troubles than died in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Unless the provos and the UDF were Islamists I can't see your point. In fact the reason we have such strong anti-terror laws in the UK has more to do with the Irish Troubles than it does Islamic terrorists.
52 people died in the 7/7 attacks on London. 77 people were killed by Anders breivik last year in Norway. Was Breivik an Islamist? Nope he's anti-Islam.
But the alarmists are baying against Islam, equating terror with radial Islam. But it does not add up. In the USA only 6% of terror attacks were by Islamic exremists. In Europe it is even less.
So lets keep it in perspective, Islam is not as big a problem as people make it out to be.
First off, the Northern Irish terrorism problem was largely then, this is now. Unless of course you want to cite stats about the number of deaths caused by Fenians and anarchists in the late 1800s...
Secondly, your statement is akin to saying 'unless and until we eliminate murder, let's not bother about rape'; to my mind, violence abroad should be no less of a concern to us as Christians than violence 'at home'.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
ISTM that you are arguing for intervening in other countries before sorting out our own. Christians have been persecuted in China for decades, possibly centuries; Are you going to let them suffer because China isn't Islamic?
I love it when peple make that argument, that just because we're interested in one problem, that necessarily means we can't possibly be interested in any other problem! I'm sure there's a technical name for that logical fallacy. I don't know it so I'll just go
You don't know the name because there isn't one. The Islamophobes are ideologically choosy about those they wish to take violent action against. It defines Islamophobia.
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
Is There Anything Which We Can Or Should Do About Islamism?
Pray.
Evangelize.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
Let's see, we should prop up and support those who torture, rape and slaughter because they are "bulwarks" against people we are claiming torture, rape and slaughter. Is that about right? Unbelievable.
You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.
(I opposed the war too, but for different reasons).
Actually, the classic case of realpolitik in modern history was the western democracies' support of Stalin against Hitler - now there's a case of "torture rape and slaughter" against "torture rape and salughter".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.
Frankly, it seems to me that the history of the West's engagement with a chunk of central Asia is several decades of lurching from one wrong horse to the next. I mean, Saddam Hussein is to a large extent a mess of our own making because there was such a massive anti-Iran focus after the Iranian revolution. And half the mess in Afghanistan is a result of people who were backed with enthusiasm when they were fighting against the Soviet Union.
Which one of your options was "back the hell out of it for a change"?...
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.
Frankly, it seems to me that the history of the West's engagement with a chunk of central Asia is several decades of lurching from one wrong horse to the next. I mean, Saddam Hussein is to a large extent a mess of our own making because there was such a massive anti-Iran focus after the Iranian revolution. And half the mess in Afghanistan is a result of people who were backed with enthusiasm when they were fighting against the Soviet Union.
Which one of your options was "back the hell out of it for a change"?...
Not to mention the current mess in Iran is a result of our overthrowing a democratically elected leader there and installing a brutal dictator. Our policies have bitten us in the ass time and again and we never learn. I predict the fiascos of how we conducted the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will bite us just as hard somewhere down the road.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The question really is, why the focus on Islam?
The opening of a newspaper article I read this morning said: "When a Muslim man beats his wife, why does the broader community focus on his religion rather than on the crime?"
And it also had a quote that "As soon as we use a preface like Muslim or Afghan, suddenly the issue becomes about culture, not domestic violence."
You'd never, ever have a report that highlighted the fact that a white Anglo-Celtic man of vaguely Christian background beat his wife. You'd just have a 'man' beating his wife.
If the Anglo-Celtic man in question was a churchgoer or church leader, you can be sure that the UK media would mention it. If the person concerned was 'merely' a cultural Christian, then nothing would be said, because there would be nothing to say; unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, every Anglo-Celtic British person is assumed to be culturally Christian, regardless of actual belief or behaviour.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
In Europe it is even less.
First off, the Northern Irish terrorism problem was largely then, this is now. Unless of course you want to cite stats about the number of deaths caused by Fenians and anarchists in the late 1800s...
Did you check out the links I provided? I've included one in the quote above, the one that shows that according to Europol only 0.4% of terrorist attacks are by Islamic militants. Scroll down in that page to the tables. 2006 (the last year for which UK attacks were available by type) there were 0 terrorist attacks in the UK by Islamic extremists and 4 by separatist organisation. The Northern Irish terror problem is a lot less than it was. But it hasn't gone away and is still a greater security threat than Islamic terrorism.
quote:
Secondly, your statement is akin to saying 'unless and until we eliminate murder, let's not bother about rape'; to my mind, violence abroad should be no less of a concern to us as Christians than violence 'at home'.
No.
It isn't about Islam it is about terrorism. By putting terrorists into categories of islamic and other you are the one saying 'unless and until we eliminate murder, let's not bother about rape.'
And as for violence abroad, look at the two links again - one is from the USA. is the USA not abroad? And the other link from Europol. Is Europol a British institution? Do not acuse me of not looking at the international picture if you can't be bothered to even scan the liks I provided.
Keeping it current and international, if that's what you want, the latest Europol conference on organised crime and terrorism, from June last year, is published online. Large pdf file. The section on terrorism runs from page 16 to page 20.
From the introduction: quote:
Europol has reported concern about the rise in anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric
From the Terrorism section: quote:
The changing dynamics in our societies, together
with technological advances, may encourage isolated,
disaffected individuals to turn into violent
extremists and even, in extreme cases, to become
‘lone wolf’ terrorists.
That was a conference that ended on July 1 2011. On 22 July 2011 Anders Behrin murdered 77 people.
Loooks like Europol are right to me.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I'm saying is there a qualitative difference between abusing someone's human rights for a purpose (for example, giving a minority group fewer rights than majority group because it enriches the majority economically) and abusing someone's human rights for ideological reasons (giving a minority group fewer rights than majority because the majority believe that the minority are inherently less entitled to those rights for whatever reason)?
Or should we be concerned *only* about the end result - that someone's human rights are taken away?
I think it's a relevant question because if human rights abuses stem from or are exacerbated by a root cause, tackling that cause may lessen the abuse. But if the abuse stems from an ideology, then that seems less likely to happen.
A good question, even if I can't quite get my head around it.
Taken to a logical extreme anything that infringes on another might be taken as abuse?
I suppose it's best to take it on a case by case scenario. But the labeling of abuse will certainly depend on ideology.
We might think wearing a hijab is an abuse - but many women in the Muslim world would not.
I guess I draw the line in terms of danger to physical health and wellbeing.
If someone's life is at risk - my warning bells would be going off.
I'm not explaining myself very well. However, there have been two posts upthread which address this, and might clarify. One is a direct response from OliviaG which says:
quote:
If making money is more important than respecting human rights, that's already an ideology in itself
and one from Alogon which says:
quote:
Because Islamism, if not Islam, is an ideology to which millions subscribe all over the world. When an abuser of human rights appeals to it, we have a problem that does not apply to those who abuse them for self-aggrandizement.
So one view, Alogon's, is that it is more of a problem to abuse human rights in a way which might "catch on" e.g. because the abuses are seen as sanctioned by a faith that millions subscribe to.
The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda.
And then I'm still undecided...
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
As someone who has lived in a Muslim country for the past five years, I can attest to the fact that (in Turkey, at least) there is a much higher rate of domestic abuse than in the US. A woman I know that runs youth camps says that over 95% of the girls that she has worked with have seen abuse in some form or another.
I'm not sure if that's a 'Muslim' problem or not, but I've heard enough news out of neighboring countries like Iran, Iraq, etc. to know that the problem is widespread throughout the Muslim world.
So how should we deal with this?
I'm currently back stateside for 6 months, in New England to be exact. Last night an elderly woman was stabbed to death in a home invasion incident for no apparent reason. People are getting killed over packs of cigarettes and pairs of sneakers. Murder seams to be epidemic here (especially compared to Turkey). There seem to be so many people who have no problem taking another human life.
I'm not sure if that's a 'Christian' problem or not, but it seems to be a problem in a lot of Christian countries.
What do you expect the Muslims ought to do to help us sort out our problems?
And look at Israel! I don't know if the horrible human rights violations of their apartheid regime are a 'Jewish' problem or not, but it's certainly a problem!
What do you think the neighboring Muslim counties ought to do to help them sort their shit out? Which one of the above 10 options ought they Muslims enact to get Israel to stop abusing Palestinians (not to mention restricting the travel rights of some Europeans )?
When we've figured that out, let us go and do likewise. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda.
And then I'm still undecided...
I'm trying to see where she made that claim. If I had noticed earlier, then I would have repled.
There are a few things that those abusing for self-aggrandizement, being mere amateurs, will not do, e.g. suicide bombing. That's the difference. OliviaG might point out, if she thinks it would help her, that they, too, are self-aggrandizing in the sense of taking someone up on an offer of an instantaneous heavenly reward surrounded by nubile virgins. But to sell or buy such a promise requires a religion, doesn't it?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The better question would be:
What should we do about human rights abuses?
It would not necessarily be a better question, just a different one
That's my point. It is not a different question.
Are "Islamist" abuses really that different from those in Burma or China or North Korea?
Slightly different ideologies perhaps - same result. Humans suffer.
But seeing as you're all gung ho about stopping abuses in the Middle east all I can say is go for it. Excellent.
We did fuck all while a million odd Rwandans died in flat out genocide.
Time to say something right?
Oh no wait....the Rwandans are Christians..... that doesn't work.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
That's what caused all the trouble in the first place. Why do you think Islam has become more militant recently?
And Saudi Arabia is the most extreme in its particular sect of Islam yet is the closest western ally in the middle east.
So how does that work?
The chaplain to the Archbishop of the Middle East recently came to visit us and said no one there wants "advice" from the US. The US have a bad reputation.
I can only assume it's because of their terrible foreign policy that seeks only to protect its economic interests.
Edited to include a to irish_lord
[ 17. April 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda. ...
Not even close. I'm saying it is pointless to exclusively blame "Islamism" for human rights abuses when there are demonstrably many other factors - patriarchal, cultural, economic, whatever - that also provide rationalizations for human rights abuses. I think it is utterly counterproductive to tell people their religion sucks (even if you think it does). I think it is ridiculous to claim that Christianity is so much better when Western societies are freer because they have gradually become less Christian. Or to keep playing the "well, we don't do that any more" card (see above). Or to proof-text from scriptures of other faiths while "interpreting" the Bible. Or to continue to overlook the extermination of Indigenous peoples around the world by Christian colonization. And in my own neck of the woods, it's overwhelmingly Christians who are campaigning to roll our freedoms back and return us to medieval ignorance. OliviaG
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
OliviaG, where's the Koran New Covenant abrogation ?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Oooh. Or rather OOh-ooh-OOh-ooh-ooh NightOwl2 wit-to-who. If we'd let Stalin take out Mossadeq and the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, would that have been better ?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Taking moral responsibility for stopping other people's moral failings is a position fraught with dangers of self-righteousness and demonisation.
For us, framing 'Islamism' as a problem that we may be called upon to do something about looks something like an attempt to feel self-righteous about oneself. It's pretty clear that Islamism isn't one of our moral failings (nobody on this thread is a Muslim): it's something that those other people over there do.
Also, claiming that all 'bad Islam' is a manifestation of a single problem is a bit like saying that child abuse in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria and pentecostals killing children as a byproduct of exorcisms in the UK are all part of a single 'bad Christianity'.
Christians in the West may sometimes feel that they are a minority against whom the majority is prejudiced. Muslims in the West genuinely are a minority against whom the majority is prejudiced. Framing Islam as a problem, even if we qualify that procedure by saying it's only 'bad' Islam that's a problem, only contributes to that persecution. And it's actually counterproductive: it feeds an 'us and them' attitude on both sides that results in hostility on both sides.
Also, framing Islamism as a problem that not enough was being done about was exactly what motivated Anders Breivik to kill seventy or so children.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oooh. Or rather OOh-ooh-OOh-ooh-ooh NightOwl2 wit-to-who. If we'd let Stalin take out Mossadeq and the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, would that have been better ?
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people. Also note, we didn't try to remove Stalin from power so there must have been something in it for us.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A tenth choice which I could have included:
10. Prop up leaders who are or were repellent in themselves, but function(ed) as a bulwark against the greater evil of Islamist extremism, eg Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad.
Let's see, we should prop up and support those who torture, rape and slaughter because they are "bulwarks" against people we are claiming torture, rape and slaughter. Is that about right? Unbelievable.
You're right, it is strange, but I've put it up as a hypothetical which is actually not so hypothetical, because at the time of the Iraq War some of its opponents claimed that it was counter-productive to get rid of a secularist such as Saddam Hussein.
(I opposed the war too, but for different reasons).
Actually, the classic case of realpolitik in modern history was the western democracies' support of Stalin against Hitler - now there's a case of "torture rape and slaughter" against "torture rape and salughter".
Sadly, Kaplan Corday, I think it's the way you framed your first post which led to grave misunderstanding and internal agony for some of us.
As someone who does know something about both Islam and the Middle East, I regret the fact that Radical Whig, a former British naval intelligence officer and now academic in that area, with on-the-ground experience in Iraq, appears to have left the boards because he added real depth of knowledge to these discussions.
You see, in matters like this, I think we need to 'see ourselves as others see us'. In that regard, I think we all need much, much more real information about what is happening at all the little Ground Zeros we are creating.
Sadly, our response to 9/11 has been grossly, insanely disproportionate and inappropriate.
As I said previously, I think George W Bush's 'War on Terror' as it grew out of all proportion, became what the entire Muslim World - not just the crazed loonies such as bin Laden, labelled 'Islamicists' for our convenience - saw and see as 'The War on Islam'. That is something we, in the West, now have to live with.
Amongst consequences are the deaths and permanent disablement of so many of our own service personnel; devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan with the loss and disablement of so many locals; the vast reduction of the ancient Christian communities of Iraq etc.
Women's rights in places such as Afghanistan are as bad as they were under the Taliban. Read Malali Joya's book if you don't believe me. This actually makes the 'beating women in Islam' issue pale in comparison, which is bad. Rape, torture, abduction etc. are all horror stuff.
The catalogue of horrors continues. When will it ever cease?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text...
Would you have a Quranic reference for this gorpo?
I have a portuguese version of the Kuran, so i just had to google for the english verse:
Quran 4:34 - Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). Quran 4:34
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Is the Western European Enlightenment (capital E) the standard to which all ought to aspire?
Most people I know wouldn´t be trading here for Sudan or Saudi Arabia. You don´t see guethos of european immigrants in muslim countries.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I agree with your misgivings about the military interventions, Sir P.
The truth remains, however, that even if 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions had never taken place, we would still be faced with an Islam which for fourteen centuries has contained elements of misogyny, intolerance, despotism and conquest.
The facts that other religions and ideologies have been as bad or worse, and that not all Muslims and not all varieties of Islam are the same, do not mean that we can pretend that Islam does not exist as an identifiable entity to which we cannot help but respond in some way and at some level.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, claiming that all 'bad Islam' is a manifestation of a single problem is a bit like saying that child abuse in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria and pentecostals killing children as a byproduct of exorcisms in the UK are all part of a single 'bad Christianity'.
Actually, it is a very apt analogy.
For centuries now we have been wrestling with the issue of whether, and to what extent, abuses associated with Christianity are inevitable outcomes of Christianity, or aberrations and anomalies.
If anybody pontificated that it was inappropriate to bring up in a discussion of Christianity the Crusades, the Inquisition, Roman or Genevan theocracy, paedophile priests, Rwandan Christians slaughtering each other, the Balkan Orthodox slaughtering Balkan Muslims, or whatever, on the grounds that Christianity is a variegated religion, and that such a discussion would run the risk of hurting Christians' feelings or making non-Christians think badly of them, we would regard them as stark raving obscurantist bonkers.
quote:
Also, framing Islamism as a problem that not enough was being done about was exactly what motivated Anders Breivik to kill seventy or so children.
I have been watching the clock waiting to see how long it would take for someone to exploit this.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I think it is ridiculous to claim that Christianity is so much better when Western societies are freer because they have gradually become less Christian.
Or have they become less Christian because they are freer? The Bible doesn´t endorse any earthly punishments on those who leave faith. It quotes Jesus sayng his kingdom is not from this world... so separation between religion and state are in the Christian DNA. Of course, nations in history have failed to practice it. The same can´t be said about Islam. Jesus says pray for your enemies; do not resist an evil person, when he slaps you turn the other face. Is there an equivalent for these teachings in the Kuran?
I know that cherry picking texts won´t prove anything. I suppose everyone here has read the Bible, and most have read the Kuran also. Jesus and Muhammed had radically different opinions on how to deal with "non-believers".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.
<tangent to display ignorance>
Who was installed by the west contra democracy in Iran?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.
<tangent to display ignorance>
Who was installed by the west contra democracy in Iran?
Mohammed-Reza Shah Pahlavi.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Holy Shit!!!
Long live Western Democracy.
And the economic sanctions continue.....the hypocrisy is unbelievable.....
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...
The facts that other religions and ideologies have been as bad or worse, and that not all Muslims and not all varieties of Islam are the same, do not mean that we can pretend that Islam does not exist as an identifiable entity to which we cannot help but respond in some way and at some level.
Islam and Muslims, as you first stated in the above quote, are indeed heterogeneous.
I am therefore unsure we can set up, as you do later in the piece, a homogeneous 'Islam', (possibly instead of 'Islamicism'?), to which 'we' (as some sort of entity) need to 'respond'.
'We', sadly, under George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, have responded, over-responded hugely I believe, to the events of 9/11 with such disastrous results that the former's 'War on Terror' has become the Muslim World's 'War on Islam'.
I can't, personally, speak for you, or anyone else, on what is an extremely divisive topic. So, may I say, without wishing to put you, or anyone else, down, that I think some of our (fortunately) former leaders; their advisers and certain 'think tanks' may have created a Shadow projection of 'Islamic terrorism' after 9/11 and used an enormous mallet to swat a fly?
Bin Laden; al Quaeda; the Taliban; Jamiyah Islamia; the Pakistani ISI and other very, very nasty individuals and groups exist and need to be resisted but in an appropriate way, which does not become totally counter-productive, so that it turns the whole of Muslim opinion against us.
There are positive signs of change in the Muslim World. Perhaps our best 'strategy' is to let these grow organically, in their own way, without trying to subvert them to our own short term political ends? That means not necessarily sticking with the rotten, corrupt, kleptocracies which rule places such as Saudi Arabia (home of Wahhabism; bin Laden and where most of the money for al Qaeda came from).
gorpo, thank you for the quote. I think the topic of 'wife beating in Islam', if I can say so without being accused of junior hosting, could well do with its own thread, this one being so contentious by its very nature.
On a personal note, may I say, having recently suffered some very adverse reactions to a (prescribed) drug I hope I have not been too nasty to anyone?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
On a personal note, may I say, having recently suffered some very adverse reactions to a (prescribed) drug I hope I have not been too nasty to anyone?
Au contraire.
You are a paragon of grace and irenicism, and we all hope that you are feeling better soon.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
On a personal note, may I say, having recently suffered some very adverse reactions to a (prescribed) drug I hope I have not been too nasty to anyone?
Au contraire.
You are a paragon of grace and irenicism, and we all hope that you are feeling better soon.
Thank you. You're far too kind. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I am trying, desperately, not to be a silly old ratbag.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.
<tangent to display ignorance>
Who was installed by the west contra democracy in Iran?
Mohammed-Reza Shah Pahlavi.
I stated this in an earlier post. The answer above was for whether we should have allowed Stalin to take over the Persion Gulf region. I didn't interpret that as why we took our actions, but answered a hypothetical question as I knew the truth. The ignorance is not mine.
[ 18. April 2012, 08:39: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The facts that other religions and ideologies have been as bad or worse, and that not all Muslims and not all varieties of Islam are the same, do not mean that we can pretend that Islam does not exist as an identifiable entity to which we cannot help but respond in some way and at some level.
Bzzt. Wrong.
A religion is not an entity. A group of adherents of a religion is an entity. Provided that they organise themselves as a group in some way on the basis of their shared adherence.
Which might seem a fairly semantic point, if it wasn't so vitally important to the whole route this discussion has taken.
I can talk about the Roman Catholic Church as an entity because I can identify its membership and heirarchy. I can do the same with various other churches. But I can't identify Christianity as an entity.
Similarly, I can identify several different companies in an industry... let's say oil. BP, Mobil, Exxon. Yep, all entities. The oil industry? Nope. The entities in that field may indeed share some common characteristics, but the idea that the industry itself is an entity is an incorrect shift in concept.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.
<tangent to display ignorance>
Who was installed by the west contra democracy in Iran?
Mohammed-Reza Shah Pahlavi.
That was Kermit, wasn't it? Never trusted that fucking CIA muppet....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To follow on from my last post, the distinction is important and indeed I think it's driven much of this debate. Are you blaming the philosophy/ideology, or (some of) the people implementing the philosophy/ideology? The response is accordingly very different.
Let me illustrate with an analogy...
John was very excited when he bought his new home appliance. However, John is becoming increasingly grumpy because he can't get the appliance to work.
There are at least 3 possible different reasons for this:
1. The product is faulty. No matter how many buttons John presses, the product isn't going to work.
2. The product is fine, but there's a mistake in the instructions. It might be a genuine error, or the instructions might be for an older model and weren't changed to reflect the new functionality of the model John bought. It's possible that by a bit of common sense or maybe just dumb luck, John will find the right of combination of buttons and the product will work.
3. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the product or the instructions. John is a stereotypical male who skims instructions at best. John's exasperated wife, instructions in hand, will get the thing to work in 2 minutes flat once she's got John out of the way.
Three different causes of the same bad result. Three very different responses are needed. With a faulty product, it could be just a one-off fault that can be rectified by giving John a new appliance. Or it might turn out to be a more systemic fault in the manufacture. With the faulty instructions, it needs to be corrected by the seller or every individual purchaser will be affected. If it's John's inability to read that's the problem, then every other purchaser will be just fine.
[ 18. April 2012, 09:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...It must have something to do with the fact his religion teaches it´s ok to beat his wife. Not a particular sect of his religion, or a particular fundamentalist interpretation of it... but the mere reading of their sacred text...
Would you have a Quranic reference for this gorpo?
I have a portuguese version of the Kuran, so i just had to google for the english verse:
Quran 4:34 - Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). Quran 4:34
Compare and contrast:
Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
In the Quran, explicitely light physical chastisement is a last resort when the woman has failed to submit to her husband. In the Bible physical abuse is mandated as a sign of love. I find the Proverbs quote worse. (Not that I find either anything other than morally vile).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you blaming the philosophy/ideology, or (some of) the people implementing the philosophy/ideology?
If you're asking me personally, I don't know.
The debate over whether the unacceptable activities of some Muslims are committed because of, or despite, their Islamic faith is an ongoing one, and I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it instead of responding with knee-jerk political correctness.
As for your engrossing domestic drama, the answer is obvious: fiendishly devious Islamist militants are surreptitiously flooding the West with faulty electrical appliances in an effort to sow discord in Western marriages.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... The other view, OliviaG's, is that self-aggrandizement is in itself a faith that millions subscribe to and therefore human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Islamism are no more of a problem than human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of advancing the abuser's personal agenda. ...
Not even close. I'm saying it is pointless to exclusively blame "Islamism" for human rights abuses when there are demonstrably many other factors - patriarchal, cultural, economic, whatever - that also provide rationalizations for human rights abuses. I think it is utterly counterproductive to tell people their religion sucks (even if you think it does). I think it is ridiculous to claim that Christianity is so much better when Western societies are freer because they have gradually become less Christian. Or to keep playing the "well, we don't do that any more" card (see above). Or to proof-text from scriptures of other faiths while "interpreting" the Bible. Or to continue to overlook the extermination of Indigenous peoples around the world by Christian colonization. And in my own neck of the woods, it's overwhelmingly Christians who are campaigning to roll our freedoms back and return us to medieval ignorance. OliviaG
Agreed. Which is why I didn't mean to talk exclusively of Islamism. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is whether human rights abuse in the name of an ideology (e.g. Christinity, Islam, Communism, Agrarian Socialism) is more of a problem than human rights abuse that's just intended to make the abuser better off (e.g. slavery/forced labour).
In the former case, the abuser - though, we would say, deluded - thinks s/he is doing something justified and may be blind to the abuse. In the latter case, the abuser knows they're being abusive and doesn't care.
I think I find the former a scarier idea - people doing something abusive and thinking that the end justifies the means.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you blaming the philosophy/ideology, or (some of) the people implementing the philosophy/ideology?
If you're asking me personally, I don't know.
The debate over whether the unacceptable activities of some Muslims are committed because of, or despite, their Islamic faith is an ongoing one, and I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it instead of responding with knee-jerk political correctness.
How do you know it's knee-jerk, exactly? Because people reach a different conclusion to you quite rapidly?
I'll tell you why I think it's not because of their Islamic faith. For the simple reason that 99.9% of people with Islamic faith seem to get on with their lives with a minimum of drama. If they dislike the West, it's with the same level of dislike I have for shock jocks, 4WD owners in the city and politicians of certain persuasions: the kind of dislike that means I don't want to spend time with them and would like to have as little to do with them as possible, but doesn't inspire me to go and blow them up or anything.
Anyone who wants to ascribe bad deeds to Islam in general has to explain why so few Muslims live up to the religion's alleged "true" form. It's that simple.
[ 18. April 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Amen.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Compare and contrast:
Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
In the Quran, explicitely light physical chastisement is a last resort when the woman has failed to submit to her husband. In the Bible physical abuse is mandated as a sign of love. I find the Proverbs quote worse. (Not that I find either anything other than morally vile).
Nice one Justinian!
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, claiming that all 'bad Islam' is a manifestation of a single problem is a bit like saying that child abuse in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, Christians killing Muslims in Nigeria and pentecostals killing children as a byproduct of exorcisms in the UK are all part of a single 'bad Christianity'.
Actually, it is a very apt analogy.
For centuries now we have been wrestling with the issue of whether, and to what extent, abuses associated with Christianity are inevitable outcomes of Christianity, or aberrations and anomalies.
Who is this 'we' you speak of?
If people have been wrestling with a question for centuries that is generally a sign that the question is badly framed.
quote:
If anybody pontificated that it was inappropriate to bring up in a discussion of Christianity the Crusades, the Inquisition ... we would regard them as stark raving obscurantist bonkers.
Not 'inappropriate'. 'Misleading'. 'Confused'. An example of glib analysis.
quote:
Also, framing Islamism as a problem that not enough was being done about was exactly what motivated Anders Breivik to kill seventy or so children.
I have been watching the clock waiting to see how long it would take for someone to exploit this. [/QB][/QUOTE]
How is it exploiting it if you yourself concede that it's relevant to the discussion?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
When I grow up, I wanna be a philosopher.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Preventing someone else from mass slaughter and genocide is far different from removing a valid government from power and installing someone who tortures, rapes and slaughters their own people.
<tangent to display ignorance>
Who was installed by the west contra democracy in Iran?
Mohammed-Reza Shah Pahlavi.
I stated this in an earlier post. The answer above was for whether we should have allowed Stalin to take over the Persion Gulf region.
Do you really think they tried to destroy Iranian democracy because of Stalin? Honestly?
But even if that's what they thought they were doing (can they have been that stupid?), so what? It woudl have been a stupid thing to do anyway.
In the middle 20th century the USA and Britain successfully intervened to remove governments they did not like from Iraq (in 1947) and Iran, and partially successfully in Korea.
The Americans intervened unsuccessfully in Cuba and Vietnam. They lost those wars. They never even tried in Mongolia, it being a little too far away and surrounded by Russia and China.
Now, which of those sets of countries represents the greater threat to the US now?
On the one hand Iraq, Iran, North Korea?
On the other hand Cuba, Vietnam, Mongolia?
Not only does military intervention of that sort not help in the long run, things actually end up better when the US loses.
(Actually I don't think Iran is a serious threat to the USA, but it looks as if a lot of Americans do, so the argument still stands)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Can we add Chile to the 'dumb intervention' list, please. Even if it didn't cause so much backlash towards the United States, the consequences of ousting Allende and installing Pinochet were so utterly appalling that someone, somewhere needs to be slapped hard across the face and have "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!?!" yelled at them very loudly.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you blaming the philosophy/ideology, or (some of) the people implementing the philosophy/ideology?
If you're asking me personally, I don't know.
The debate over whether the unacceptable activities of some Muslims are committed because of, or despite, their Islamic faith is an ongoing one, and I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it instead of responding with knee-jerk political correctness.
As for your engrossing domestic drama, the answer is obvious: fiendishly devious Islamist militants are surreptitiously flooding the West with faulty electrical appliances in an effort to sow discord in Western marriages.
So, is this post an example of:
1) completely missing the point of orfeo's analogy
2) failing to engage with the point of orfeo's analogy
or
3) having no response, poking fun at orfeo's analogy?
Knowing which it is would determine how to respond. OliviaG
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... In the former case, the abuser - though, we would say, deluded - thinks s/he is doing something justified and may be blind to the abuse. In the latter case, the abuser knows they're being abusive and doesn't care. ...
There's also a third option: the abuser knows they're being abusive AND believes it is justified. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head. Witches and exorcisms - it is believed that physical punishment will cause a demon to flee, for example. "Corrective" rapes - it is believed that raping a lesbian will make her straight. And Justinian cited "spare the rod, spoil the child". (These are all activities carried out by good Christian folk to this day, BTW.)
But you do have a point and I will add some nuance to my position. In terms of engaging with abusers in an effort to stop the abuse, yes, we do need to understand their motivations and values. I still believe there are often multiple systems at work e.g. religion, economics, culture, etc. In terms of deciding which abusers we challenge, I don't think it matters. By that I mean that we shouldn't dismiss particular abuses by saying, "Well, we need oil and cheap stuff from China" or "Religious freedom - what can we do" or "It's wartime - these things happen". That just demonstrates we too are in the "know and don't care" or "know and justified" camp. OliviaG
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
[ "Corrective" rapes - it is believed that raping a lesbian will make her straight. [...] (These are all activities carried out by good Christian folk to this day, BTW.)
I'm sure there are Christians who have raped lesbians. And Muslims and Buddhists and atheists and agnostics have done such things as well. But I don't see who you can call them "good". Pretty much by definition they are being evil, not good.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...
The debate over whether the unacceptable activities of some Muslims are committed because of, or despite, their Islamic faith is an ongoing one...
That is a fair call.
Certain former Muslims, 'apostates' to the faithful: Salman Rushdie; Ibn Warraq; Irshad Manji and others have, sometimes at considerable personal cost, portrayed Islam as being rotten to the core. Their safety could not be guaranteed in a Muslim society.
A Westerner, such as Richard Dawkins, can contest the validity of Muslim belief without the threat of suffering any adverse consequences.
My own contention is that there is good in Islam and that the dreadful Wahhabi-Salafi-Deobandi axis is an aberration.
Anyone is free to disagree with me.
I think clarifying my own attitude to Islam might help me to see the current political situation vis a vis the West and Islam more realistically.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I'm sure there are Christians who have raped lesbians. And Muslims and Buddhists and atheists and agnostics have done such things as well. But I don't see who you can call them "good". Pretty much by definition they are being evil, not good.
And yet in the examples I gave, they genuinely believe what they are doing IS good. My "good" was sarcastic, theirs is genuine. OliviaG
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
it is believed that raping a lesbian will make her straight. (These are all activities carried out by good Christian folk to this day, BTW.)
Unlike Ken I am not "sure" that this is happened, though obviously it is possible.
Evidence?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you blaming the philosophy/ideology, or (some of) the people implementing the philosophy/ideology?
If you're asking me personally, I don't know.
The debate over whether the unacceptable activities of some Muslims are committed because of, or despite, their Islamic faith is an ongoing one, and I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it instead of responding with knee-jerk political correctness.
As for your engrossing domestic drama, the answer is obvious: fiendishly devious Islamist militants are surreptitiously flooding the West with faulty electrical appliances in an effort to sow discord in Western marriages.
So, is this post an example of:
1) completely missing the point of orfeo's analogy
2) failing to engage with the point of orfeo's analogy
or
3) having no response, poking fun at orfeo's analogy?
Knowing which it is would determine how to respond. OliviaG
4) Finding orfeo's analogy ponderous and unhelpful
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In the middle 20th century the USA and Britain successfully intervened to remove governments they did not like partially successfully in Korea.
Now, which of those sets of countries represents the greater threat to the US now?
North Korea?
Not only does military intervention of that sort not help in the long run, things actually end up better when the US loses.
Yep, no doubt about it, if the USA and Britain had been unsuccessful in preventing the North's invasion of the South, then:
1. The peninsula's whole population, not just the North's, would have been enjoying the peace and prosperity bestowed by the benevolent Kim Il-sung and his dynastic successors for the previous half century.
2. Pyongyang's military leadership wouldn't have dreamed of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
That bloody USA and Britain have sure got a lot of explaining to do to those poor Southerners.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PONDEROUS?!?!
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I think, whilst there exist far greater threats to the world than 'Islam' (however defined), as near neighbours and fellow Semitic religions (use 'Abrahamic' if you wish), they have had issues of various sorts since the origin of Islam.
The issues arise, to my mind anyway, often as much due to similarities and claims by both to being 100% right.
There is argument on the theological and philosophical level.
There has been warfare over the centuries caused by what wars are usually caused by dressed up in 'religious' garments.
We are now mixing with Muslims every day in our Western society. There are both tension and understanding here.
It is a heady mix.
Where will it all end?
I really have no idea. There are both good and bad scenarios as far as outcome goes.
One of the things this thread has convinced me of is the fact that I need to constantly question my own perspective on the issue in the light of what is unfolding on the ground, both intellectually and on the streets of Cairo, Jakarta etc.
Perhaps my own supposed 'knowledge'; 'understanding' and tendency to be extremely politically correct on this matter need to be re-examined?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Evidence?
Well, I'm still waiting for your evidence for the "disproportionate" number of human rights abuses ascribed to Islamism. While I'm waiting, I'll answer your question.
quote:
The crime was first identified in South Africa where it is sometimes supervised by members of the woman's family or local community, and is a major contributor to HIV infection in South African lesbians. Corrective rape has also been known to occur in Thailand, Ecuador, Canada, the United States, and Zimbabwe.
Corrective Rape
Dominant religion in those countries (also from Wikipedia):
South Africa: 79% Christian
Ecuador: over 95% Christian
Canada: 77% Christian
USA: 78% Christian
Zimbabwe: 85% Christian
Thailand: 96% Buddhist (Oh, you got me there. Those nasty Buddhists. We really should do something about them.)
OliviaG
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it ...
You accuse other people of failing to engage in your argument, and yet you say things like this:-
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So, is this post an example of:
1) completely missing the point of orfeo's analogy
2) failing to engage with the point of orfeo's analogy
or
3) having no response, poking fun at orfeo's analogy?
Knowing which it is would determine how to respond. OliviaG
4) Finding orfeo's analogy ponderous and unhelpful
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Well, I'm still waiting for your evidence for the "disproportionate" number of human rights abuses ascribed to Islamism.
Me too.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Is it me but no-one seems to be asking what we should do about the 'Hindu'** missiles that can now just reach Israel/Europe* and Japan.
It's all India has joined the 'elite'...
*I guess, the map shows it reaching Tehran from near the far side.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The issues arise, to my mind anyway, often as much due to similarities and claims by both to being 100% right.
It's the claim of ANYONE to be 100% right - to the point that they can't tolerate the presence of disagreement - that's the root cause of most of these problems.
Islam is hardly alone, though, in having a 100% right brigade. It's not even confined to religions. Any time that someone is not only convinced of the rightness of their point of view on something - religion, music, football team, correct colour of the shared fence - but willing to do anything to enforce the 'right' point of view, it's a recipe for trouble.
Some might think I'm being a bit flippant with my alternatives, but I'm not. Several years ago in Australia, one neighbour killed another as a result of a dispute about water restrictions. It's not the difference of opinion that's the problem, it's the decision about what to DO in response to the dispute.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... I had hoped (vainly as it happens)that some contributions to the thread might have engaged with it ...
You accuse other people of failing to engage in your argument, and yet you say things like this:-
Kaplan wasn't asking for people to engage with the argument, but with the thread.
I suspect this is code for "please agree that Something Must Be Done so that I've got a seemingly-legitimate hook on which to hang my islamophobia".
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The issues arise, to my mind anyway, often as much due to similarities and claims by both to being 100% right.
It's the claim of ANYONE to be 100% right - to the point that they can't tolerate the presence of disagreement - that's the root cause of most of these problems.
Islam is hardly alone, though, in having a 100% right brigade. It's not even confined to religions. Any time that someone is not only convinced of the rightness of their point of view on something - religion, music, football team, correct colour of the shared fence - but willing to do anything to enforce the 'right' point of view, it's a recipe for trouble.
Some might think I'm being a bit flippant with my alternatives, but I'm not. Several years ago in Australia, one neighbour killed another as a result of a dispute about water restrictions. It's not the difference of opinion that's the problem, it's the decision about what to DO in response to the dispute.
There's nothing you say here I would disagree with.
It's just that I thought we were discussing 'Islamicism'.
The sad thing about the sort of skewy 'Islam' coming out of the Deobandi madrassas of Pakistan and various mainly Saudi funded Wahabi institutions is that it is not like the more laid back 'folk' Islam, often influenced by Sufism, which tends to be much more pluralist in outlook.
'Folk' Islam in many countries is giving way to the more rigid Wahabi-Salafi-Deobandi version. Ally this to people with money, guns and grievances and you have people who are willing to wade a 'jihad' against 'kaffirs', both their own co-religionists who they have redefined as such and us non-Muslims in order to establish what they define as 'Sharia Law'.
Remember, orfeo, there is more than one nutter prepared to murder for this and all of them are sure they are acting in full compliance with God's will. Your nutter was a single demented nutter acting alone.
Olivia G, I'm not sure you've actually got Kaplan in the box and are questioning him for the Prosecution. Cool down. This is just a discussion.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Remember, orfeo, there is more than one nutter prepared to murder for this and all of them are sure they are acting in full compliance with God's will. Your nutter was a single demented nutter acting alone.
If you added up the worldwide number of Christians killed by Muslims in the last decade, and the worldwide number of Muslims killed by Christians in the same time period, which number do you suppose will be higher?
Hint: it's the second. So which is the more dangerous set of nutters? Muslims or Christians?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
To paraphrase (itals):
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The issues arise, to my mind anyway, often as much due to similarities and claims by both to being 100% right.
It's the claim of ANYONE to be 100% right - to the point that they can't tolerate the presence of disagreement - that's the root cause of most of these problems.
Islam is hardly alone, though, in having a 100% right brigade. It's not even confined to religions. Any time that someone is not only convinced of the rightness of their point of view on something - religion, music, football team, correct colour of the shared fence - but willing to do anything to enforce the 'right' point of view, it's a recipe for trouble.
Some might think I'm being a bit flippant with my alternatives, but I'm not. Several years ago in Australia, one neighbour killed another as a result of a dispute about water restrictions. It's not the difference of opinion that's the problem, it's the decision about what to DO in response to the dispute.
There's nothing you say here I would disagree with.
It's just that I thought we were discussing 'Islamicism'.
The sad thing about the sort of skewy 'Christianity' coming out of the ConEvo Fundamentalist churches is that it is not like the more laid back traditionalist and liberal Christianity, often influenced by established churches, which tends to be much more pluralist in outlook.
'Folk' Christianity in many countries is giving way to the more rigid Fundamentalist version. Ally this to people with money, guns and grievances and you have people who are willing to wade a 'crusade' against 'backsliders and non-believers', both their own co-religionists who they have redefined as such and Muslims in order to establish what they define as 'Biblical Truth'.
Remember, Sir Pellinore, there is more than one nutter prepared to murder for this and all of them are sure they are acting in full compliance with God's will. Your nutter was a single demented nutter acting alone.
Kaplan, I'm not sure you've actually got Olivia G in the box and are questioning her for the Prosecution. Cool down. This is just a discussion.
I think that's all.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Evidence?
Well, I'm still waiting for your evidence for the "disproportionate" number of human rights abuses ascribed to Islamism. While I'm waiting, I'll answer your question.
quote:
The crime was first identified in South Africa where it is sometimes supervised by members of the woman's family or local community, and is a major contributor to HIV infection in South African lesbians. Corrective rape has also been known to occur in Thailand, Ecuador, Canada, the United States, and Zimbabwe.
Corrective Rape
Dominant religion in those countries (also from Wikipedia):
South Africa: 79% Christian
Ecuador: over 95% Christian
Canada: 77% Christian
USA: 78% Christian
Zimbabwe: 85% Christian
Thailand: 96% Buddhist (Oh, you got me there. Those nasty Buddhists. We really should do something about them.)
OliviaG
Non sequitur.
The fact that the crime occurs in countries with Christian majorities is not evidence that it is committed by Christians.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Remember, orfeo, there is more than one nutter prepared to murder for this and all of them are sure they are acting in full compliance with God's will. Your nutter was a single demented nutter acting alone.
If you added up the worldwide number of Christians killed by Muslims in the last decade, and the worldwide number of Muslims killed by Christians in the same time period, which number do you suppose will be higher?
Hint: it's the second. So which is the more dangerous set of nutters? Muslims or Christians?
I think both sets are highly dangerous.
'Islamic' extremism and the vast over-response of the West are, to me, both part of the same sinister Dance of Death.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
You must've had fun with that one Sioni Sais.
A good parody? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I suspect this is code for "please agree that Something Must Be Done so that I've got a seemingly-legitimate hook on which to hang my islamophobia".
I presume that this is directed at me.
1. The "Islamophobia" accusation is water off a duck's back.
There are no doubt people who fear and hate Muslims, but the term gets thrown around so indiscriminately as a weapon against anyone who voices the slightest criticism of Islamism or Islamofascism, no matter how carefully they distinguish Islamists from mainstream Muslims, that it has become meaningless.
2. The OP actually contains a number of options, including remaining silent and doing nothing, and specifically mentions my reservations about military intervention.
It nowhere states that Something Must Be Done, but asks whether we should respond at all, and if so, how.
It was prompted by the situation that a considerable proportion of both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds recognises that there is an extremist Islamist wing of Islam, and are concerned about it, but have concluded that military intervention is not the way to deal with it.
[ 19. April 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The fact that the crime occurs in countries with Christian majorities is not evidence that it is committed by Christians.
But crimes committed in countries with Muslim majorities are evidence of them being committed by Muslims?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I always love it when the true Scotsman comes to a thread.
*grabs popcorn*
[ 19. April 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Remember, orfeo, there is more than one nutter prepared to murder for this and all of them are sure they are acting in full compliance with God's will. Your nutter was a single demented nutter acting alone.
Oh, absolutely. But all you're saying is that a group of organised nutters is potentially more dangerous than a single lone nutter because they can reinforce each other a bit and might have access to more resources. That doesn't say much about the particular basis of nutterdom, except that maybe water restrictions don't really hang together as an inspiring philosophy. Although, there are some pretty hardcore environmentalists out there who think "the answer" involves methods such as destruction of property that I would never support. Not sure if any of the loony green fringe have gone so far as attempting murder, but I think it's entirely possible that there's been a green terrorist or two.
The thing about inspiring philosophies, though, is that they can inspire people to remarkably good actions just as much as remarkably bad ones. So, where's the praise for the truly magnificent things that were done in the name of Islam? Where's the admiration for the magnificent art and architecture inspired by the belief that images of living things shouldn't be used? Where's the thanks for the knowledge in science - especially mathematics, medicine and astronomy - preserved and cherished and built and reintroduced to backward European Christians? Are those things not "Islamic" as well?
[ 19. April 2012, 12:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I suspect this is code for "please agree that Something Must Be Done so that I've got a seemingly-legitimate hook on which to hang my islamophobia".
I presume that this is directed at me.
1. The "Islamophobia" accusation is water off a duck's back.
There are no doubt people who fear and hate Muslims, but the term gets thrown around so indiscriminately as a weapon against anyone who voices the slightest criticism of Islamism or Islamofascism, no matter how carefully they distinguish Islamists from mainstream Muslims, that it has become meaningless.
But the underlying assumption behind the OP is that we need to have a specialized response to radical Islam as opposed to just plain radicalism. There are plenty of crazies to go around, so why the focus on Islam unless there's an underlying belief that Islam itself is flawed and turning out crazies because there's something wrong with it?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:2. The OP actually contains a number of options, including remaining silent and doing nothing, and specifically mentions my reservations about military intervention.
It nowhere states that Something Must Be Done, but asks whether we should respond at all, and if so, how.
It was prompted by the situation that a considerable proportion of both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds recognises that there is an extremist Islamist wing of Islam, and are concerned about it, but have concluded that military intervention is not the way to deal with it. [/QB]
There have been several suggestions put forth. I don't think anyone here is denying that there are extremist Muslims, or that it is a concern; however I don't think there's anything that can be done from outside Islam. The fixing of this problem is an 'internal affair.'
Because you didn't answer before: if you flip your question around, what should Mainstream Islam 'do' about radical Judaism or Christianity?
[ 19. April 2012, 13:26: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
Good luck, where I'm from they're the one's with all the guns. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Bilal (# 17067) on
:
The OP said:
'So what should our attitude be toward “bad” Islam, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Islamism, a term embracing terrorism; intolerance and persecution of other religions; inequality and mistreatment of women; imposition of sharia law; and opposition to democracy and liberalism (freedom of expression, association, etc)?'
'Islamism' is not a term that Muslims like - it's not an Islamic concept and lumps together things Islamic and things that are contrary to Islam. Terrorism is contrary to the teaching of the Quran for example, but sharia law is part and parcel of Islam.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Is there a "Christianism" that is a counterpoint to "Islamism"?
Christianism perhaps being about getting armed to the teeth, arranging for dictators to be supported so the natural resources of other countries can be exported to the "Christian" countries, deciding that God is on the side of one particular economic system. Developing an international patents system so that medical drugs are too costly. Pretending we're considerate and concerned about others by giving a few dollars as individuals to various charitable organizations, whilst our societies arrange for the poor, down and out to continue in that status. Giving to overseas charities who cannot begin to counter the international co-opting of their gov'ts whose officials have large bank accounts in first world countries. Yadda yadda.
It was true in 1985 and it is true today:
quote:
Bruce Cockburn wrote:
See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution
- Call it Democracy
The enemy is not Islam, Islamism or any other 'ism'. The enemy is the beast who reside with some alleged Moslems, but who lives and reigns within allegedly Christian societies just as happily. And really is well at home, particularly when we delude ourselves that the beast is actually God-on-our-side.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In terms of deciding which abusers we challenge, I don't think it matters. By that I mean that we shouldn't dismiss particular abuses by saying, "Well, we need oil and cheap stuff from China" or "Religious freedom - what can we do" or "It's wartime - these things happen". That just demonstrates we too are in the "know and don't care" or "know and justified" camp. OliviaG
OK. You've definitely persuaded me on this point. Right thinking people will try and do what they can to prevent any human rights abuses, taking places for any reasons. Though, as you say, we - like everyone else in the world - are not always right-thinking.
But who is easier to stop? Is it easier to stop the man who rapes women because he enjoys rape, or the man who rapes women both because he enjoys rape and because he wrongly believes it will "cure" lesbianism, which he wrongly believes to be a sin, and therefore that the rape is in the best interests of saving the woman's soul?
My initial reaction is to think the latter man is more dangerous, because the mental process of justifying his crime requires him to cast his victim as "deserving" the abuse. And once you take the mental step of deciding any class of person deserves to be abused, you increase the chances of committing more and worse abuses.
But then I think that the former man (the one who just enjoys rape) probably also goes through a process of self-justification, that involves him determining that the victim "deserved" it. He just doesn't bring the good of her soul into his justification.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Is there a "Christianism" that is a counterpoint to "Islamism"?
Rushdoony? Gary North?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The fact that the crime occurs in countries with Christian majorities is not evidence that it is committed by Christians.
Well, then, I look forward to seeing your statistics on human rights abuses in predominantly Muslim countries in comparison with countries where other religions are dominant. Which is what this thread is supposedly about, innit? OliviaG
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
alleged Moslems
Not true Scotchmen?
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Alleged in the sense of saying they are but behaving rather differently.
Like the Catholicism claimed by the IRA, the Islam claimed by Al Qaeda or the Christianity claimed by the Lord's Resistance Army. We might also ask about the godliness of the military enforcement of oily economic policies as I've previously posted about.
It's an Animal Farm world where God (or Satan) can look between Christian, Moslem, atheist, Satanist and can't tell the difference.
[ 19. April 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
To do you justice, Evensong, I don't think anyone in their right mind would lump you in with them.
Your reputation is intact.
Perhaps I shouldn't comment. Somewhere in his cups in a pub in Wales someone is giggling himself silly at having twisted The Ultimate Last Word out of a comment I was silly enough to have made when they let him out.
It's the full moon somewhere.
It's affecting us all.
It will wane.
Time to parachute out of here.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In terms of deciding which abusers we challenge, I don't think it matters. By that I mean that we shouldn't dismiss particular abuses by saying, "Well, we need oil and cheap stuff from China" or "Religious freedom - what can we do" or "It's wartime - these things happen". That just demonstrates we too are in the "know and don't care" or "know and justified" camp. OliviaG
OK. You've definitely persuaded me on this point. Right thinking people will try and do what they can to prevent any human rights abuses, taking places for any reasons. Though, as you say, we - like everyone else in the world - are not always right-thinking.
But who is easier to stop? Is it easier to stop the man who rapes women because he enjoys rape, or the man who rapes women both because he enjoys rape and because he wrongly believes it will "cure" lesbianism, which he wrongly believes to be a sin, and therefore that the rape is in the best interests of saving the woman's soul?
My initial reaction is to think the latter man is more dangerous, because the mental process of justifying his crime requires him to cast his victim as "deserving" the abuse. And once you take the mental step of deciding any class of person deserves to be abused, you increase the chances of committing more and worse abuses.
But then I think that the former man (the one who just enjoys rape) probably also goes through a process of self-justification, that involves him determining that the victim "deserved" it. He just doesn't bring the good of her soul into his justification.
It seems to me that part of what you're saying is that "the end justifies the means" thinking is a significant problem to overcome.
I speak as someone who tends very strongly to the view that the end doesn't justify the means.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
I tried to envisage the responses, hostly and otherwise, had a conservative Christian posted a fantasy about gunning down liberals, but my imagination collapsed with the effort.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
I tried to envisage the responses, hostly and otherwise, had a conservative Christian posted a fantasy about gunning down liberals, but my imagination collapsed with the effort.
One of the differences is that I don't think Evensong owns a gun or would actually point it at anyone. The mind boggles. Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
And I'm trying to think of any liberal acts of terrorism in recent years. It was only a few years ago that a Conservative Christian (and Freeman on the Land) literally walked into a church and gunned down a doctor in cold blood.
The two sides are not equal when it comes to violence.
That said, it was extremely bad form by Evensong.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
]Well, then, I look forward to seeing your statistics on human rights abuses in predominantly Muslim countries in comparison with countries where other religions are dominant.
Fair comment.
No, I don’t have proof in the form of a breakdown of global human rights statistics, and I certainly don’t have the time to do a country by country analysis based on Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch annual reports, so if you choose to believe that globally the human rights records of Muslim societies are the same or better than those of non-Muslim societies, I don’t have the hard evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
What is suggestive, however, without being conclusive, is the preponderance of Muslim countries in the various lists of worst human rights offenders which are available online.
AI and HRW don’t do “league tables”, but those which are published (eg Maplecroft Index, Freedom House, Ten Worst Countries For Women), while containing communist countries (North Korea, Laos), Buddhist countries (Myanmar), Hindu countries (Nepal) and Christian countries (DRC, Equatorial Guinea), invariably contain a majority of Muslim countries.
If more than half were Christian, instead of Muslim, it would be difficult to imagine any reasonable person concluding that there was no point in asking whether their Christianity might possibly have something to do with it.
[ 20. April 2012, 10:49: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
AI and HRW don’t do “league tables”, but those which are published (eg Maplecroft Index, Freedom House, Ten Worst Countries For Women), while containing communist countries (North Korea, Laos), Buddhist countries (Myanmar), Hindu countries (Nepal) and Christian countries (DRC, Equatorial Guinea), invariably contain a majority of Muslim countries.
On any of those league tables, have a look for how many of the countries are democracies and how many are dictatorships of one sort or another.
Do you not think that the key issue affecting and influencing human rights in these places, far from being the religion they happen to follow, is in fact the presence of a ruling elite that will happily suppress any dissent?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me that part of what you're saying is that "the end justifies the means" thinking is a significant problem to overcome.
I speak as someone who tends very strongly to the view that the end doesn't justify the means.
Yes, that. But also, isn't it human nature to create an end that justifies the means we have in mind? And, in fact, might not that be what has driven certain similar aspects in the faith practice of major religions, as well as non-religious ideologies?
Posted by Nooj (# 15637) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
quote:
Article 18.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Doesn't this cover the question? Islam most certainly doesn't allow conversion. Apostasy is punishable by death. No whitewashing it. I'm not saying that the nice average muslim family down the street from me (and they are indeed nice) would go out and kill their cousin who became a Christian, but like it or not, the Koran mandates death for apostasy from Islam. Plain and Simple.
Where did the concept of human rights come from? It's a human invention. Islam at least says that God told people to kill apostates. God > human invention.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
I tried to envisage the responses, hostly and otherwise, had a conservative Christian posted a fantasy about gunning down liberals, but my imagination collapsed with the effort.
It's not that hard to explain Kaplan.
It's because conservatives don't have a sense of humour.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
I tried to envisage the responses, hostly and otherwise, had a conservative Christian posted a fantasy about gunning down liberals, but my imagination collapsed with the effort.
It's not that hard to explain Kaplan.
It's because conservatives don't have a sense of humour.
Evensong, if you are trying to (a) be obnoxious and (b) get me to sympathise with Kaplan, you're doing a good job.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's not that hard to explain Kaplan.
It's because conservatives don't have a sense of humour.
Wow, you've put your finger on it.
"Liberals and conservatives think differently" has been a very active and interesting thread this week. I'm still reading through it and haven't commented because all I can say so far has been already been said by many others: a one-dimensional liberal-conservative axis is far too simplistic a dichotomy to describe all of us, and maybe any of us.
The learned author of the Washington Post article has apparently been unpersuasive. He could have made a slam-dunk case if he had listened to you. Or maybe he already realizes this simple truth but didn't let on, because they pay him by the word.
It also explains why National Review is so entertaining, and even people who disagreed with him lamented Bill Buckley's passing, while I have trouble rememembering anything I've read in The Nation.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Hey, I'm as right-on a leftie as you'll find here but I'd recommend P.J. O'Rourke to anyone who thinks conservatives can't be funny. Maybe there aren't so many, but those that are tend to be very good indeed.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The fact that the crime occurs in countries with Christian majorities is not evidence that it is committed by Christians.
quote:
Subsequently posted by Kaplan Corday:
... If more than half were Christian, instead of Muslim, it would be difficult to imagine any reasonable person concluding that there was no point in asking whether their Christianity might possibly have something to do with it.
"Fox in socks, our game is done, sir.
Thank you for a lot of fun, sir."
OliviaG
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... if you choose to believe that globally the human rights records of Muslim societies are the same or better than those of non-Muslim societies, I don’t have the hard evidence to demonstrate otherwise. ...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Furthermore, the point under discussion is not my personal beliefs, but rather your assertion that
quote:
...Thirdly, like it or not, globally a disproportionate number of human rights abuses are carried out under Islam, relative to the number perpetrated in the name of any other single religion/worldview/ ideology, with the possible exception of communism. ...
If there's no hard evidence to prove your point, convincing me won't change that. OliviaG
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
I was referring to evangelical and liberal Christians on the Ship, which in context I would have imagined was obvious.
That being said, you have performed a valuable service in reminding us that evangelicals, even on the Ship, are really all psychotic gun-nuts, who engage in discussion faute de mieux, but would really rather be blowing away their interlocutors with the .44 magnums which they all keep under their beds.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
I was referring to evangelical and liberal Christians on the Ship, which in context I would have imagined was obvious.
That being said, you have performed a valuable service in reminding us that evangelicals, even on the Ship, are really all psychotic gun-nuts, who engage in discussion faute de mieux, but would really rather be blowing away their interlocutors with the .44 magnums which they all keep under their beds.
No he hasn't. He has suggested that if gun-nuts really are Christians then that's where on the Christian spectrum you'll find most of them, which turns your statement round.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
I was referring to evangelical and liberal Christians on the Ship, which in context I would have imagined was obvious.
That being said, you have performed a valuable service in reminding us that evangelicals, even on the Ship, are really all psychotic gun-nuts, who engage in discussion faute de mieux, but would really rather be blowing away their interlocutors with the .44 magnums which they all keep under their beds.
No he hasn't. He has suggested that if gun-nuts really are Christians then that's where on the Christian spectrum you'll find most of them, which turns your statement round.
No, he hasn't.
He didn't say that gun-nuts who are Christians are conservatives, he said that conservative Christians are gun-nuts.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
]Well, then, I look forward to seeing your statistics on human rights abuses in predominantly Muslim countries in comparison with countries where other religions are dominant.
Fair comment.
No, I don’t have proof in the form of a breakdown of global human rights statistics, and I certainly don’t have the time to do a country by country analysis based on Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch annual reports, so if you choose to believe that globally the human rights records of Muslim societies are the same or better than those of non-Muslim societies, I don’t have the hard evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
What is suggestive, however, without being conclusive, is the preponderance of Muslim countries in the various lists of worst human rights offenders which are available online.
AI and HRW don’t do “league tables”, but those which are published (eg Maplecroft Index, Freedom House, Ten Worst Countries For Women), while containing communist countries (North Korea, Laos), Buddhist countries (Myanmar), Hindu countries (Nepal) and Christian countries (DRC, Equatorial Guinea), invariably contain a majority of Muslim countries.
If more than half were Christian, instead of Muslim, it would be difficult to imagine any reasonable person concluding that there was no point in asking whether their Christianity might possibly have something to do with it.
Pretty meaningless until you establish what proportion of countries in the entire world are Communist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Muslim.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The fact that the crime occurs in countries with Christian majorities is not evidence that it is committed by Christians.
quote:
Subsequently posted by Kaplan Corday:
... If more than half were Christian, instead of Muslim, it would be difficult to imagine any reasonable person concluding that there was no point in asking whether their Christianity might possibly have something to do with it.
"Fox in socks, our game is done, sir.
Thank you for a lot of fun, sir."
OliviaG
Yes, I was anticipating that juxtaposition, but it represents a false equivalence.
Not only can you not produce a single instance of corrective rape of lesbians by Christians (which is not the same as saying that it can’t have possibly happened), but neither can you produce a single statement from the Bible or any other source of Christian theology which endorses such an abhorrent practice, so no connection between the fact that it takes place in Christian-majority countries, and a Christian cause of it, exists.
On the other hand, whatever the precise statistics might be, there undeniably have been and continue to be, countless unacceptable practices carried out by Muslim governments, organizations and individuals explicitly in the name of Islam, and with prima facie textual justification (jihad, for example, is currently a contested and controversial term, but those who interpret its Koranic usage as a call to literal violence have not only a section of Islamic scholarship to back them, but also centuries of tradition, beginning with the whole period preceding the Crusades).
It is therefore entirely reasonable to at least raise the possibility of a connection between Muslim-majority status and human rights abuse, while maintaining the provisos that other factors (political, historical, economic) might be involved; that other religions and ideologies can be sources of human rights abuse; and that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims, for a variety of reasons (laziness, cowardice, other priorities, differing interpretations of the Koran, or sheer decency and humaneness) are not terrorists, wife-beaters or anything similar.
(There is, coincidentally, an area of my life in which I am known as Mister Fox).
[ 21. April 2012, 03:01: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I think I need to publicly apologise to Sioni Sais.
There appears to have been a mistake/glitch/blockage which prevented me commenting on his post by quoting it.
Things went from there.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Evensong, if you are trying to (a) be obnoxious and (b) get me to sympathise with Kaplan, you're doing a good job.
Thank you. I like to do things well.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's not that hard to explain Kaplan.
It's because conservatives don't have a sense of humour.
Wow, you've put your finger on it.
I think so.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The two sides are not equal when it comes to violence.
This is because of atonement theology ya know (usually PSA in conservatives).
Violent atonement theology justifies human violence.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
And I would still like to know why referring to Breivik in this context counts as 'exploiting' what he did, but referring to the attack on the World Trade Centre isn't 'exploiting' that attack?
[ 21. April 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... neither can you produce a single statement from the Bible ... which endorses such an abhorrent practice
Even if there aren't verses that endorse corrective rape specifically, it isn't hard to find Bible verses that can be used to support rape.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Muslim governments, organizations and individuals explicitly in the name of Islam ...
Well, they would, woudn't they? Anders Behring Breivik called himself a Christian and implied that his violent acts would help prevent the "de-Christianisation of Europe". His acts seem to have been done 'in the name of Christianity'. Does his case show that 'there's a problem with Christianity'?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
... On the other hand, whatever the precise statistics might be, there undeniably have been and continue to be, countless unacceptable practices carried out by Muslim governments, organizations and individuals explicitly in the name of Islam, and with prima facie textual justification ...
Ah, so now they're "countless". Saves the trouble of counting.
It is also undeniable that there are countless Muslim voices speaking out in the name of Islam against those practices. ReligiousTolerance.org tries to present the full range of beliefs and practices of all religions. These are collected quotations and I've left out ellipses for ease of reading; bold is mine. Call it cherry-picking if you like, but at least I'm providing a different type of cherry.
Apostasy
quote:
Apostates have been rarely executed in the 21st century. However, Muslims feel "a powerful sense of rage...when one of their number forsakes the community." They consider it a profound insult to Allah and to all Muslims.
This is an alternative belief heard increasingly within Islam: that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty. Of course, whether a person who leaves Islam can be expected to be free of condemnation from their family and neighbors is a different matter.
The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.
The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown at the top of this essay, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy.
Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy often base their belief partly on a hadith in which he said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because: This hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient basis on which to impose the death penalty.
The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented.
Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.)
There is no historical record which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy.
A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.
Dr. Maher Hathout, author of "In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam," writes:
"We strongly oppose the state's use of coercion in regulating Islamic belief in such a manner, since faith is a matter of individual choice on which only God can adjudicate."
Referring to the two hadiths traditionally used to justify the death penalty, Hathout writes:
"...both of them contradict the Quran and other instances in which the Prophet did not compel anyone to embrace Islam, nor punish them if they recanted."
Female Genital Mutilation
quote:
FGM: A cultural, not a religious, practice:
This mutilating procedure is often associated mainly with the religion of Islam. This is incorrect. FGM is primarily a social practice, not a religious one. Female genital mutilation predated Islam. It originated in Africa and remains today a mainly African cultural practice. Some indicators of this are:
It is widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity: Examples are Ethiopia and Kenya.
In multi-faith countries, it is often forced on girls whose families follow all faiths: Animism religions, Christianity, and Islam. For example, it is frequently practiced among both Muslims, Christians and Animists in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Sudan. 1
FGM was once practiced by Ethiopian Jews (a.k.a. Beta Israel; formerly known by the derogatory term "Falashas"). 2, 3, 4.5 This practiced was apparently discontinued some time ago. A pediatrician who works in the Beta Israel community claims that they no do not practice FGM in Israel. Also, their daughters who were born in Ethiopia were not mutilated. 6
FGM has spread to countries in or near Africa (e.g. Egypt) which are Muslim. But FGM is rare or nonexistent in many other Muslim countries. Examples are Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Also, It is not done in the Maghreb countries of Northwest Africa.
FGM is only occasionally found in Indonesia and other predominately Muslim countries in Asia.
In some countries where FGM is practiced, there can be:
"... a strong perception that the practice of FGM/C is required by Islam. The engagement of religious leaders in public discussion has proven to be an essential element in raising awareness of this practice, disassociating it from religious considerations and creating an enabling environment for change. The sub-regional conference on FGM/C, hosted by the Government of Djibouti in February 2005, was notable for the two-day debate among religious leaders from Djibouti and neighboring countries on the theological dimensions of FGM/C. Following an important debate, the outcome document, the Djibouti Declaration, asserts that claims that the Koran requires FGM/C are baseless and reaffirms that all types of FGM/C are contrary to the religious precepts of Islam."
OliviaG
[ 21. April 2012, 18:56: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
I was referring to evangelical and liberal Christians on the Ship, which in context I would have imagined was obvious.
That being said, you have performed a valuable service in reminding us that evangelicals, even on the Ship, are really all psychotic gun-nuts, who engage in discussion faute de mieux, but would really rather be blowing away their interlocutors with the .44 magnums which they all keep under their beds.
No he hasn't. He has suggested that if gun-nuts really are Christians then that's where on the Christian spectrum you'll find most of them, which turns your statement round.
No, he hasn't.
He didn't say that gun-nuts who are Christians are conservatives, he said that conservative Christians are gun-nuts.
I can on reading see where you got to your understanding. But my intent was much more accurately summed up by Sioni. And I didn't say that conservative Christians are gun-nuts. I said that they tend to be a lot more gun happy than liberals. Most gun-nuts are on the Conservative side. And the liberal side has a strong history of not only anti-war activism but conscientious objection to the point that the morality of fighting against Hitler is contraversial.
The gun nuts skew heavily conservative. The peace at any cost lunatics skew heavily liberal. This doesn't mean that all on one side fit that category or all of one subgroup are on that side of the spectrum.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yeah. I'm tired of being lumped with fundy Christians.
Can we shoot them all? Please?
They're bad for my reputation.
I tried to envisage the responses, hostly and otherwise, had a conservative Christian posted a fantasy about gunning down liberals, but my imagination collapsed with the effort.
One of the differences is that I don't think Evensong owns a gun or would actually point it at anyone. The mind boggles. Conservative Christians tend to be a lot more gung-ho and gun happy than liberals.
And I'm trying to think of any liberal acts of terrorism in recent years. It was only a few years ago that a Conservative Christian (and Freeman on the Land) literally walked into a church and gunned down a doctor in cold blood.
The two sides are not equal when it comes to violence.
That said, it was extremely bad form by Evensong.
It depends on what you call "conservative" and "liberal". Socially? Theologically?
Anders Behring Breivik certainly isn´t a theologically conservative christian, let alone an evangelical... his writtings show that she had a vague belief in a deity, and has been agnostic for most of his life, and even today considers himself "moderately religious". He only chooses christianity as a banner cause he thinks that the only common ground that could unify Europe, but he doesn´t seem to care about any particular belief in christianity.
On the other hand, many of the extreme-fundamentalist christian sects are (or have been in their beginnings) anti-war and peaceful, for example: the Jeovah Witness´, whose beliefs are incompatible with military enlistment. The Assembleies of God and the 7th Day Adventist Church also opposed military enlistment by their members, but gradually relaxed these rules as they became more "mainline".
So are the mennonites, the "amish", the Brethren Baptists, and several pentecostal churches. A little look at the list of the "peace" denominations shows that they are all socially conservative/fundamentalist.
But in atempts to demonize conservative christianity, every person who comits an atrocity and has a vaguely christian background will make headlines as a "fundamentalist/conservative christian".
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
.
But in atempts to demonize conservative christianity, every person who comits an atrocity and has a vaguely christian background will make headlines as a "fundamentalist/conservative christian".
There is also a long-standing left-wing tradition of killing Christians, as witness
the classic scenario of the Spanish Civil War, when Republicans slaughtered nuns, priests and bishops.
And to forestall the inevitable, yes, it is true that the Nationalists also committed atrocities, and that the Republic was a lesser evil than Franco and the fascists.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The gun nuts skew heavily conservative. The peace at any cost lunatics skew heavily liberal. This doesn't mean that all on one side fit that category or all of one subgroup are on that side of the spectrum.
I am not a gun owner, and I don't personally know any evangelicals who are.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's because conservatives don't have a sense of humour.
Obviously, when we don't get jokes about multiple shootings.
Looks like we're stuck with deploring our inhibitions and envying the contrasting ease with which you are amused.
You are a very fortunate person.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
quote:
And I would still like to know why referring to Breivik in this context counts as 'exploiting' what he did, but referring to the attack on the World Trade Centre isn't 'exploiting' that attack?
Because, as gorpo points out, all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
[ 22. April 2012, 09:24: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... neither can you produce a single statement from the Bible ... which endorses such an abhorrent practice
Even if there aren't verses that endorse corrective rape specifically, it isn't hard to find Bible verses that can be used to support rape.
Yes, the OT passages on rape are very real and embarrassing and I am not going to even try to attempt to rationalise them, but not only are they are nowhere endorsed in the NT, but I know of no creed, statement of faith or practice, or theologian, which has used them to justify rape, and I know of no case or cases of rape on the part of Christians in which they have been cited as permitting it.
Do you?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Ah, so now they're "countless". Saves the trouble of counting.
Numerous, many, whatever.
Anyone who monitors human rights abuses discovers a disproportionate number in the Muslim world compared with the non-Muslim world.
The precise number is not only not susceptible of calculation, but arguably a trifle less important than their occurrence.
quote:
It is also undeniable that there are countless Muslim voices speaking out in the name of Islam against those practices.
Countless?
Tu Quoque, surely; if my countless was hyperbolical , then yours is a fortiori.
One of the most disappointing aspects of human rights abuses in Muslim contexts is the paucity of moderate Muslim voices who speak out against them, but no-one has ever denied that there are brave Muslims who do.
Nor has anyone ever denied, to my knowledge, that there are differences in Muslim scholarship over issues such as apostasy ( I referred to the controversy over jihad), or that FGM is not mentioned in the Koran and has also been practised by non-Muslims.
[ 22. April 2012, 10:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
And I would still like to know why referring to Breivik in this context counts as 'exploiting' what he did, but referring to the attack on the World Trade Centre isn't 'exploiting' that attack?
Because, as gorpo points out, all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
You're a lost cause Kaplan Corday.
May the lord have mercy on your soul.
I'll pray for you.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
But in atempts to demonize conservative islam, every person who comits an atrocity and has a vaguely muslim background will make headlines as a "fundamentalist/conservative muslim".
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
And who, exactly, is entitled to decide that question?
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al would have it that Islamic terrorism is the result of taking religion seriously and so reflects just as badly on Christians as on Muslims.
Oh. You've said upthread that it would be bonkers to think Dawkins doesn't have a point.
quote:
quote:
And I would still like to know why referring to Breivik in this context counts as 'exploiting' what he did, but referring to the attack on the World Trade Centre isn't 'exploiting' that attack?
Because, as gorpo points out, all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
You're missing the point. Breivik isn't an orthodox Christian. Breivik is an anti-Islamist.
The issue is whether Breivik's actions are the inevitable result of taking seriously statements such as the OP:
quote:
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
It's clear that the link between attitudes such as those cited and Breivik are far more direct than those between terrorist attacks on the US and Islam.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I think I need to publicly apologise to Sioni Sais.
There appears to have been a mistake/glitch/blockage which prevented me commenting on his post by quoting it.
Things went from there.
Just for the record, Sir Pellimore (ret'd) and I have exchanged posts and PM's and everything's fine by me.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Anyone who monitors human rights abuses discovers a disproportionate number in the Muslim world compared with the non-Muslim world.
The precise number is not only not susceptible of calculation, but arguably a trifle less important than their occurrence. ...
They say you can't manage what you can't measure. If you are unwilling or unable to quantify your own assessment of the current situation, how will you know if the situation ever changes? OliviaG
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
And who, exactly, is entitled to decide that question?
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al would have it that Islamic terrorism is the result of taking religion seriously and so reflects just as badly on Christians as on Muslims.
Oh. You've said upthread that it would be bonkers to think Dawkins doesn't have a point.
quote:
quote:
And I would still like to know why referring to Breivik in this context counts as 'exploiting' what he did, but referring to the attack on the World Trade Centre isn't 'exploiting' that attack?
Because, as gorpo points out, all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
You're missing the point. Breivik isn't an orthodox Christian. Breivik is an anti-Islamist.
The issue is whether Breivik's actions are the inevitable result of taking seriously statements such as the OP:
quote:
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
It's clear that the link between attitudes such as those cited and Breivik are far more direct than those between terrorist attacks on the US and Islam.
There´s enormous difference between having an opinion and taking violent action against people who believe the oposite. One doesn´t need to support or defend Islam fervorously in order to be tolerant.
I find it hilarious that in western mailine Christianity some people would call a bishop "arrogant" by stating a belief in physical ressurrection of Jesus (as that is a statement some perceive to exclude or alienate some sectors of the Church), while any word spoken against Islam is a crime.
Criticism against Islam is not coming mainly from churches, it´s coming from secular people, as the mainline churches have already closed on the dogma: criticizing Islam is mortal sin.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Anyone who monitors human rights abuses discovers a disproportionate number in the Muslim world compared with the non-Muslim world.
I would be interested in knowing how that stacks up to the human rights abuses we see in Israel against Christians, Muslims, and Palestinians?
Maybe we should start a parallel thread: "Is There Anything Which Muslims Can Or Should Do About Judaistism?"
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
Exactly.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This is the correlation/causation question. If Muslim countries figure disproportionately in a league of human rights abuses, does this mean that this is caused by Islam? No.
Compare, eating chocolate makes you live longer, since it has been found that people who eat chocolate eat longer. Well, no.
Religious states in the US have more crime, therefore religion causes crime. Well, no.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Criticism against Islam is not coming mainly from churches, it´s coming from secular people, as the mainline churches have already closed on the dogma: criticizing Islam is mortal sin.
I haven't the faintest idea whether this is true or just another problem of correlation and causation as quetzalcoatl so correctly pointed out but lets assume its true for the sake of argument and ask why.
The answer would be because they know their history. They have been accused of exactly the same thing: "Christianity is evil - their scriptures are misogynistic, anti-semitic, archaic, intolerant and violent".
But mainline churches know it's alot more complicated than that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's also a huge fucking projection. Here is this big bad wolf, upon whom we can project all the bad stuff that exists in the world (and in us), and we can point with self-righteousness, and say, they are bad, and violent. Or, even better, their violence is bad, but ours is holy and good. The end of the cold war left a gap in the market for suitable projectees, but nature abhors a vacuum!
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's clear that the link between attitudes such as those cited and Breivik are far more direct than those between terrorist attacks on the US and Islam.
There´s enormous difference between having an opinion and taking violent action against people who believe the oposite. One doesn´t need to support or defend Islam fervorously in order to be tolerant.
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
We should be so lucky, if the worst that Islamism ever came up with was a similarly unpleasant, isolated and ineffectual Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I would say that a lot of Islamism is political, and not simply religious. Thus 9/11 didn't target a big Christian cathedral, but some of the key centres of American power.
Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that a lot of Islamism is political, and not simply religious. Thus 9/11 didn't target a big Christian cathedral, but some of the key centres of American power.
Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
Will they call it US imperialism? Maybe, but enough western politicians have made a big thing of their faith that I'm sure on some forums you can read 'Is there anything that can or should do about Christism*?'.
*Not sure that's a word, but you get the idea.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The other interesting aspect of this is the collapse of the Arab left, which partly coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and also with the utter bankruptcy of 'Arab socialism', which had turned into various forms of dictatorship.
And in addition, probably some elements on the left were just physically wiped out, as in Iraq.
So this has left a gaping void in relation to radical anti-capitalist, and anti-American politics, which Islamism has in many ways filled.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
Out of curiosity, what actions have you seen Dawkins propose other than evangelising the good news that we are free to make our own way and shouldn't listen to imaginary beings?
quote:
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, they are debating on forums, 'is there anything which we can do to stop the fucking depredations of US imperialism?'
Setting us up for Jihad vs. McWorld:
quote:
The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions ... They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically.
There are people who have caused just as much harm to humanity and to our world as any terrorist - or more. We give them a pass because they do it for money and wear nice suits. I'm not naive about what Kaplan Corday calls "Islamism", but on a personal level, I'm far more concerned about enemies that are closer and more dangerous.
On a global level, I think it is ridiculous to think that all those evils would go away if all those Muslims would just convert to a nicer religion. Marvin the Martian nailed it - the real problem is absolutism, not religion. Now add poverty, illiteracy, disease, and my perennial favourite, patriarchy. Toss in economic upheaval, pollution and climate change, and top with a plutocratic monarch or dictator and o noez! secret police, human rights violations, conflict, communal violence, etc. But it's just so much easier - and profitable and convenient - to blame religion rather than the real sources of human misery. The ones we are complicit in or profit from. OliviaG
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... and I know of no case or cases of rape on the part of Christians in which they have been cited as permitting it.
Do you?
I've seen a report of that. In response, would you want to say that such a person wasn't a Christian? Would you want to say that other factors, not Christianity, are responsible for such crimes? If so, well - so would I! From that example to the reported killings by Mr Breivik, to the killings in Srebenica and Rwanda, to attempts to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid using the Bible, I'd want to say that these examples involve corruptions of Christianity (and/or other factors, such as the pursuit of power and ethnic hatred), not authentic Christian faith. Can we agree on that?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... all the 'real Scotchmanry' in the world can't turn Breivik into an orthodox Christian, while there is no doubt that the World Trade Centre attackers were Muslims.
If I'm willing to say that Mr Breivik didn't represent real Christianity, then how could I disagree with a Muslim who says that the World Trade Center attackers didn't represent real Islam?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or ... whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
If we wouldn't let extremists define Christianity, how can we let extremists define Islam? I once heard someone illustrate a 'circular argument' like this:
We know that there was a St George and that he killed a dragon, since:
(a) we know that there was a St George, because he killed the dragon
(b) we know that there was a dragon, because St George killed it
In a similar way, you seem to be arguing that:
(a) we know that Islam is extremist, because extremists say so
(b) we know that extremists represent real Islam, because Islam is extremist
To me, that looks circular - and an argument that you wouldn't accept, if it was applied to Christianity.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some opinions, such as Dawkinsite atheism and anti-Islamism, are essentially believing that action must be taken against people who believe the opposite.
Out of curiosity, what actions have you seen Dawkins propose other than evangelising the good news that we are free to make our own way and shouldn't listen to imaginary beings?
Dawkins has frequently said that Something Should Be Done about religious people raising children (and not only in off-the-cuff remarks which were quoted completely out of context, honest) although he's been careful to suggesting anything concrete.
Aside from that, he's moved on from evangelising religious believers. He's mostly now on convincing atheists and agnostics to disassociate themselves from the religious believers and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
quote:
quote:
All such opinions have a tendency to tip over into advocating violence when pontificating to third-parties that nothing is being done proves not to be doing anything.
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
There's the beginning of the Terror in the French Revolution, before Robespierre overcame the Hebertists.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Find me the acts of atheist violence please (that were not direct consequences of the Communist Party being atheist).
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century.
It might have been understandable, if not justifiable, given the nature of the Roman Catholicism in Spain, but that is a separate issue.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Over on Nasreddin's Dhow, they're discussing "Is there anything Muslims can or should do about Fred Phelps?" OliviaG
We should be so lucky, if the worst that Islamism ever came up with was a similarly unpleasant, isolated and ineffectual Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps.
We should be so lucky if the worst that Christism ever came up with was Fred Phelps.
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I think we should give them the freedom to live their religion as they perceive it - after all, they are not the real enemy. As Bob Dylan sang, "...but the enemy I see, wears a cloak of decency...."
The real enemy is Secular Humanism in it's many guises (eg. Scientism) - and they would love nothing better than to see us (who at least believe in God) fighting with each other - "There, see what religious people are like? We told you so!" they will say...
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
As someone who has, quite correctly, IMHO, dropped out of this thread, may I be allowed this brief cameo appearance, to post this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Reuel Marc Gerecht, which, I think, might inform the discussion?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577350200925769444.html
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a real person, with all the normal limitations, so should a Shippie wish to criticise the critic rather than the critique, I attach his biography, readily available on the web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuel_Marc_Gerecht
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Yes, that would explain the murder of 283 nuns.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century. ...
AIUI, both this and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution were as a result of the churches' support of the Franco government / the monarchy. So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents. OliviaG
Yes, that would explain the murder of 283 nuns.
Well it might. Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Personally reminds me of the assumption my 'own' folk make that if someone kills a gay person, it must be because they were gay. Harvey Milk being an example.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So perhaps it wasn't about atheists killing Catholics but simply about revolutionaries killing an instituion of political opponents.
The line between "these religious people are propping up our political opponents" and "religion in general impedes human progress" is I think a fairly slight one.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The anticlerical killings during the Spanish Civil War, to which I referred earlier in the thread, were carried out by anarchists rather than communists, and represented a continuation of anticlerical violence which had existed in Spain since the late nineteenth century.
It was always going to happen that somebody would exploit anticlerical killings to distract attention from the fact that religion is a real problem.
9/11, the Bali bombings, the London July bombing, and so on all show that religion is a force for evil.
Is there anything which we can or should do about religion?
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
2) Exclude all religious believers from public office?
3) Round them up and reeducate religionists in concentration camps, making sure to sterilise them in case it's a genetic disposition?
4) Just kill them all.
I hope that political correctness won't impede an honest discussion of the above options.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
So what were the alternative characteristics that might have motivated militant atheists to murder them?
Being women?
Then why were thirteen bishops, 4,184 priests and 2,365 members of other orders, a total of 6,562 males, murdered as well?
(The figures are from The Battle For Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-9 by Antony Beevor, who is unfriendly toward the Catholics, and therefore sticks to the conservative ie lower estimates).
Being power-wielders?
Bishops, maybe priests, but not nuns.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
It is difficult to imagine anything less politically correct than defending religion.
I don't know what parallel universe you're living in.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
The KKK probably contains more FBI agents than actual members these days, and when I googled KKK/Muslims I found nothing; the IRA is moribund and in its heyday probably shared quite a fraternal feeling with similarly murderous Islamists; and the Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago.
Why should Muslims give a fuck about any of them?
I have just received my latest edition of the Barnabasfund magazine, and despite its no doubt being concocted by a cabal of CIA, Mossad and Vatican agents, in my simplicity I happen to believe its reports about Christians and others suffering at the hands of Islamists in places such as Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Pakistan.
At such times, the spectacle of safe and secure politically correct Westerners performing sophistical contortions to obfuscate Islamism ceases being amusing and becomes simply nauseating.
[ 24. April 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that if someone kills Catholics, it must be because they're Catholics and not because of any other feature.
Even with nuns, being Catholic is not their ONLY defining characteristic.
So what were the alternative characteristics that might have motivated militant atheists to murder them?
Being women?
Then why were thirteen bishops, 4,184 priests and 2,365 members of other orders, a total of 6,562 males, murdered as well?
(The figures are from The Battle For Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-9 by Antony Beevor, who is unfriendly toward the Catholics, and therefore sticks to the conservative ie lower estimates).
Being power-wielders?
Bishops, maybe priests, but not nuns.
Being on the other side of the conflict. I thought the point being made was obvious. In fact I suspect you're wilfully missing it.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Alas, we have the KKK, the IRA, the Crusades, et al.
I ask again, what can or should Muslims do about such groups?
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel!
The KKK probably contains more FBI agents than actual members these days, and when I googled KKK/Muslims I found nothing; the IRA is moribund and in its heyday probably shared quite a fraternal feeling with similarly murderous Islamists; and the Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago.
Why should Muslims give a fuck about any of them?
I have just received my latest edition of the Barnabasfund magazine, and despite its no doubt being concocted by a cabal of CIA, Mossad and Vatican agents, in my simplicity I happen to believe its reports about Christians and others suffering at the hands of Islamists in places such as Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and Pakistan.
At such times, the spectacle of safe and secure politically correct Westerners performing sophistical contortions to obfuscate Islamism ceases being amusing and becomes simply nauseating.
I guarantee you the Middle East has not forgotten the Crusades.
Al Qaeda is the equivalent of the KKK in the Muslim world. They're fanatics that have twisted the words of their respective holy books to their own evil ends. Al Qaeda is just as despised by Muslims as the KKK is by Christians.
The fact that the KKK and IRA on 'on their way out' (thank God!) is irrelevant. At no time, not now nor in their heydays would anyone have posed the question "What ought good, honest Muslims to do about this problem?"
Similarly while we so flippantly discuss what the West ought to do regarding the problems of "Islamism"; most would consider it wildly inappropriate for the Arab League to get too involved in matters pertaining to Israel and their state-sanctioned persecution of Muslims (and Christians).
Now, I don't deny the reports of Christians and others suffering at the hands of radical Islam; but we can't sit here considering our 'rightful' course of action if we deny them any course of action in similar circumstances.
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
This is long and detailed, and more of a media analysis from a USA POV, but gives a broad picture of the Church's voice during the Spanish Civil War.
quote:
It was this religious aspect that so inflamed the Catholic journalists of America. One of the most pervasive and brutal campaigns ever waged against the Catholic Church was occurring in the Republican-controlled areas of Spain. Editors printed story after story to the families of Catholic America about the terrible toll inflicted by the forces of the Popular Front against the Church and its clergy.12 Conversely, they also detailed the crusade-like atmosphere of the nationalist armies. The Carlists speak for themselves. They went into battle with the Sacred Heart pinned to their chests and died with "Viva Cristo Rey!" on their lips. Franco himself many times wore the Carlist red beret. Catholic sources never tired of stories of Catholic heroism, especially of the astonishing narratives of the Simancas barracks and the defense of the Alcazar. These began in about November of 1936 and never let up throughout the course of the war. Many authors emphasized that American Catholics could not come to terms with this level of clerical and ecclesial persecution. They had no historical reference point, as they had been raised in an atmosphere of pluralism and tolerance.
American Catholics and the Spanish Civil War
As for who is important enough to be a legitimate target in a war, that's a question that goes far beyond any particular conflict. In the 21st Century, it looks like the answer is "anybody". OliviaG
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Irish lord99 wrote:
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
Yes, it's amusing really that the problem becomes the militant response to Western interference, rather than the interference. Gosh, you mean that Iranians actually still remember the coup of 53, against a democratic govt, part funded by the CIA? Erm, I believe they do, and remembered it when the Shah was overthrown. I believe the CIA call it blowback, and the British called it just not cricket.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) Do nothing because we're too cowardly to confront the Political Correctness mafia?
It is difficult to imagine anything less politically correct than defending religion.
I appreciate that 'politically correct' is vague enough to mean anything that a right-wing commentator wants it to mean. Nevertheless, I can't think of any meaning of 'politically correct' by which defending religion is less politically correct than, off the top of my head, defending someone who shot an unarmed black teenager because he might have been threatening.
quote:
I don't know what parallel universe you're living in.
It's the one of the ones with heavy-handed satire and irony in it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I guarantee you the Middle East has not forgotten the Crusades. {/QUOTE]
Rodney Stark, in his book on the Crusades, God's Battalions, claims that the Crusades grievance is not a millenium-old folk memory, but was deliberately manufactured by Wahhabists about a century ago.
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
[QUOTE]What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
I'm not sure to what or whom the "we" refers.
I made my own scepticism about military intervention quite clear earlier in the thread.
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault, and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future. The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
Believe it or not, I do not have any secret pet scheme of my own which I think would resolve the situation, which is why I posted the OP.
What is complete and utter bullshit, however, is to pretend that there is no such thing as Islamism; that no moderates, women or members of non-Muslim religions suffers from it; and that therefore to even invite discussion of this non-issue is ipso facto "Islamophobic".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
I would recommend a mixture of these two:
quote:
5. Respect for democracy. Muslims, given the opportunity, sometimes give the majority vote to (what seem to us) repressive and illiberal parties, as seems to be happening as an outcome of the so-called Arab Spring.
quote:
9.Write to or email offending governments, or support human rights advocacy groups which are doing so.
But I would alter 9.
I would write to your own government to stand up for human rights abuses. They do this already. Your opinions would support that.
In particular, I would right to and get involved in supporting the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East say pressure has to come from the international scene - not the US.
You could also support the great work they do .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Kaplan Corday wrote:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault, and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future. The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
It would also be an astonishingly naive thing to say - that 'all the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault'. How could that be true? For example, the deep patriarchal biases in the Muslim and Arab world exist without Western interference, I assume.
However, it is possible that Western interference has made the Arab and Muslim world enraged with the West, and therefore more likely to embrace militant actions against it.
Of course, T. Blair and others have denied this, and have claimed that the war in Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the support for Israeli ethnic cleansing, and so on, in themselves do not lead to increased Arab and Muslim militancy.
Maybe T. Blair is correct, and in fact, the world has been made safer. I suppose we are engaged in an interesting experiment to see if he is.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... “bad” Islam, which I shall for the sake of convenience call Islamism, a term embracing terrorism; intolerance and persecution of other religions; inequality and mistreatment of women; imposition of sharia law; and opposition to democracy and liberalism (freedom of expression, association, etc ...
For the umpteenth time, all those things happen in the absence of Islam as well. (Obvious exception being sharia law, but plenty of countries, including the USA, still impose the death penalty. Some Jewish communities have their own rabbinical courts for family law.) Why should our attitude towards "bad Islam" be any different from our attitude towards bad capitalism, bad Buddhism, or bad monarchy? OliviaG
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Why should our attitude towards "bad Islam" be any different from our attitude towards bad capitalism, bad Buddhism, or bad monarchy? OliviaG
Because, with the possible exception of capitalism, in each case the real problems are better addressed by addressing the real problems rather than the supposed cause.
If the problem is the abuse of women's rights, then the solution is to address women's rights.
If the problem is terrorism, then find out what the specific aims of the particular terrorists are and then work out what to do about that. As an example, in Iraq there were Shi'a terrorists blowing up Sunnis and Sunni terrorists blowing up Shi'a. If you think that the problem is 'Islamism' or 'bad Islam' you don't have any conceptual resources to address Muslim terrorists blowing up Muslims.
If the problem is a lack of support for liberal democracy then the solution is to argue the case for liberal democracy - and refrain from funding dictators who are willing to give the West oil on the cheap.
You address the problems, not some supposed overarching superproblem.
(The reason capitalism might be an exception is that capitalism genuinely is a structural principle that organises societies; it's not primarily a set of theories.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
The other, really obvious, thing to do if you think there's something called Islamism that is a problem, is to post on Muslim boards and ask about it. Posting on a Christian website (ITTWACW) is really rather pointless.
If someone is serious about thinking there are problems with Islam and they are serious about doing something about those problems then the first thing they do is talk to some Muslims and ask them what they think.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's too sensible. It's much more satisfying to posit an hideous Other, whom one can then froth and rant about. What's not to like? Fear and loathing all nicely packaged.
Thinking again about T. Blair, if he is right that various incursions into the Arab/Muslim world have made the world safer, surely we should therefore invade Iran? Then the world would be even safer. You know it makes sense.
[ 25. April 2012, 10:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs. Any "who started it" argument of this sort is likely to find out that it was the older group.
quote:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
That is because you are getting a consistent response from most people that runs along the lines of "Your question is based on a lie. There is no such thing as 'Islamism' - even the very word is an invention of bigots. The question you asked is loaded. And although there are definite problems in the Islamic world any such attempt at a simplistic definition confuses wood for trees and is itself part of a problem."
So what should be done about Islamism? Exactly what we are doing. Pointing out that the users of this term are bigots. This doesn't mean that nothing should be done about the lack of womens rights in Afghanistan, or the Wahabbism and general religious problems of Saudi Arabia to name but two issues. But these are not the same issue.
Further one of the worst things we can do as outsiders is to imply that all forms of Islam are the problem, as short sighted words like 'Islamism' do. Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians. They first close ranks as they are being attacked, and then tune you out because it's obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Any possible leverage or persuasion you have will be lost. And that when most Christians who've heard of them are at least as keenly unhappy with Jack Chick and Fred Phelps as any atheist - it's not the Atheists' religion that those two are dragging into disrepute.
Which means if you actually give a damn about the problems you see and call Islamism, the first thing you yourself can do is stop referring to Islamism because just using that word adds to any existing problems, losing you potential allies and causing those who are unhappy to rally round as they are under attack.
quote:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly:
That would have been as stupid, wrongheaded, bigotted, and counterproductive as chalking everything up to "Islamism" is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also the point that Islamism itself exists on a spectrum. Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
In fact, one hears of moderate Taliban. They give you a cup of tea, before cutting off your head.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
In Turkey there are dozens of varieties of Islam. There are some who have a non-realist theology that isn't far from the "Sea of Faith". Others sign up to various mystical and universalist interpretations of Islam. (The same is true of other mostly Muslim countries as well of course, though its perhaps more widespread in Turkey than in most Arab countries)
Its worth noting that in the past some of the most violent political groups were followers of the more liberal or mystical theologies,. Not all sufis are nice fluffly cuddly bunnies.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, one hears of moderate Taliban. They give you a cup of tea, before cutting off your head.
The British Taliban.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs.
No, not at all. The monophysite churches resisted conversion to Islam more than the others did. The centre of the so-called monophysite churches is Egypt, which remained a largely Christian population for the first few centuries of Muslim rule. Ethiopia and Armenia never went Muslim at all, though Artmenia as it is now is far smaller than ancient or mediaeval Armenia was. Large parts of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria remained Armenian Christian until well after the Turkish conquest - some until the Great War.
The eastern churches that lost most numbers after the first Muslim expansion were Arab were Nestorian ones. Both monophysites and the Melkite minority hung on for centuries. Christianity also almost entirely disappeared in north-west Africa where they were officially Orthodox Chalcedonian Catholics (with a capital "O" and "C" because this is before the Great Schism. Some people have speculated than in fact they were mostly in schism because of a hanogover from Donatism, I'm not sure of that.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
There was a huge financial incentive for the invaders to keep as many Egyptian christians as christians - that way they had to fork out all the tolls, tributes and taxes associated with their dhimmi status.
The mass conversions really only start to take hold once the period of the Mamluks is underway, considerably later. They became much more capricious and often targeted christian civil officials, both to make examples of them and encourage the population to convert.
I've seen the statement that the conversions were due to arguments with Chalcodonian christians before somewhere else, but I've not found any support in my reading around the subject in history books - any chance of a reference, Justinian if you feel it correct? Undoubtedly the Byzantines treated the monophysites badly, though.
In other parts of former Christendom invaded by Islam, the Encyclopedia of Islam records relation varying between the highly supportive and the outright hostile, largely on the basis of personal relations between the ruled and rulers of that area.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
What's nauseating here is the ignorant assumption that western intervention is always 'good' and 'with the best of intentions'. Not to mention the illusion that we can achieve positive results in the Muslim world when, let's face it, we never have before.
I'm not sure to what or whom the "we" refers.
The West, as was indicated in the beginning of my paragraph.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I made my own scepticism about military intervention quite clear earlier in the thread.
Yes, but I did not specify military intervention. You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
I'm challenging your double standard.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up.
Several people, including myself (near the bottom of page three), have said that option 4(patience, it needs to be an internal process within Islam) is the best choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It would have been refreshingly honest, at least, if someone had stated straightforwardly: "All the problems in the Muslim world are the West's fault,
Problem is, I don't believe that.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
and there is not a thing which can be done about them apart from pushing for Western forces to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorism, theocracy, misogyny and persecution of other religions are just going to go on for the foreseeable future.
Plenty can be done, but IMO should not; if for no other reason than the West's pathetic track record of failed attempts to intervene either militarily, politically, or otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The West is as bad or worse than Islamism anyway".
Nice straw man. Radical Christianity is as bad as radical Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Believe it or not, I do not have any secret pet scheme of my own which I think would resolve the situation, which is why I posted the OP.
I didn't think you did. Again, what I'm challenging is the assumption that the West has the right to do X, but the Middle East doesn't have the right to do jack.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What is complete and utter bullshit, however, is to pretend that there is no such thing as Islamism; that no moderates, women or members of non-Muslim religions suffers from it; and that therefore to even invite discussion of this non-issue is ipso facto "Islamophobic".
Again, nice straw man. The first half of that paragraph is perfectly true, and I don't think anyone here is saying that radical Islam is non-existent or less than horrible. No one is saying it's a none issue. The charge of Islamophobia is leveled at the attempt to distinguish radical Islam from the rest of the radical stuff out there and place a higher priority on Muslims that persecute Christians instead of (for example) Zionists that persecute Muslims (and Christians).
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the point that Islamism itself exists on a spectrum. Isn't it correct that in Turkey there are many 'moderate Islamists'?
Just to interject, I've lived in Turkey for over five years now, and the most extreme Muslim I've met would make your average Evangelical look like a raving loon by comparison. Terrorism is IME universally condemned by the Turkish Turks (some Kurdish Turks obviously use terrorist tactics, but not for religious reasons).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Whether or not that is true, while Christians should be ashamed of the Crusades, Muslims are in no position to resent them, given the four and a half centuries of expansionist Islamic holy war which preceded them.
Which happened at least in part because the Monophysites converted en masse to Islam because they were fed up of persecution from their fellow Christians and the teachings of Islam weren't far from their own beliefs.
No, not at all. The monophysite churches resisted conversion to Islam more than the others did. The centre of the so-called monophysite churches is Egypt, which remained a largely Christian population for the first few centuries of Muslim rule. Ethiopia and Armenia never went Muslim at all, though Artmenia as it is now is far smaller than ancient or mediaeval Armenia was. Large parts of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria remained Armenian Christian until well after the Turkish conquest - some until the Great War.
The eastern churches that lost most numbers after the first Muslim expansion were Arab were Nestorian ones. Both monophysites and the Melkite minority hung on for centuries. Christianity also almost entirely disappeared in north-west Africa where they were officially Orthodox Chalcedonian Catholics (with a capital "O" and "C" because this is before the Great Schism. Some people have speculated than in fact they were mostly in schism because of a hanogover from Donatism, I'm not sure of that.
We are supposed to refer to non-Chalcedonians as Dyophysite (rather than Nestorian) and Miaphysite (rather than Monophysite) these days, though I don't know why.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
Now that's an intriguing comment coming from the scourge of (if I might indulge in a pig-Latin neologism) homostramentumism.
The only right to "intervention" which I have ever maintained is the right to openly discuss what happens in the Muslim world free of McCarthyite-style accusations of "Islamophobia".
I have not advocated any programme beyond that.
And ss for Muslims, there is nothing I would like better than for them to have the right to open discussion of anything they liked, including attitudes and responses to the non-Muslim world.
The primary obstacle to that happy outcome is the intolerance and repression of Islamist regimes.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Further one of the worst things we can do as outsiders is to imply that all forms of Islam are the problem, as short sighted words like 'Islamism' do. Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians.
Ihe analogy between Phelps/Chick on the one hand, and Taleban, Al Qaeda, misogyny, theocracy, violence against other religions, etc. on the other, would have to be one of the most desperate and unconvincing ever drawn.
Actually, if you read what I wrote instead of what you would like me to have written, you would see that I have consistently drawn a distinction between "moderate and progressive followers of Islam" and Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
The implication that anything unacceptable involving Muslims must be regarded only in its specific context (historical, social, political,, whatever) and in isolation from its wider Islamic context, is a disingenuous half-truth.
If similar abuses were being commmitted over as widespread an area, and with the same level of intensity, by avowed Christians, it is inconceivable that anyone would demand that they be treated in isolation, with no reference to their common Christian element.
And if anyone believes that this is in fact the case, then they should be equally free (because it would be equally legitimate) to ask "how should we respond to the dark side of Christianity?".
Oops, they already do!
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are getting a consistent response from most people
I have heard about insularity and parochialism, but that's wonderful.
Hello! There is a world outside the Ship!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
Regardless of who invented it, it's still a bad term. I acknowledge that you make a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism", but the latter term itself is clearly designed to minimise the distinction and imply a direct and inevitable link.
'Radicalism' would be much better. If you want to be more specific, then 'radicalism amongst Muslims' would, in my view, work much better, simply because it makes clear that it is not a claim that the term applies to all Muslims.
Whereas "Islamism" makes it very difficult to conceive of a term that applies to non-Islamist followers of Islam.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Tribal loyalties are common in every group of humans - and the second you start defining problems in terms of a large tribe you force them together with the attack. You attack the moderate and progressive followers of Islam with terms like Islamism and the problems of the extremists and you get much the same reaction as if you blame Jack Chick and Fred Phelps on all Christians.
Actually, if you read what I wrote instead of what you would like me to have written, you would see that I have consistently drawn a distinction between "moderate and progressive followers of Islam" and Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd: quote:
Is it just me or has the OP quietly dropped the disclaimer that he's only talking about Islamism or 'bad' Islam?
One of the issues is whether 'bad' Islam is an aberration from Islam, or a result of taking it seriously, or to put it a different way, whether the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are, from the point of view of strict islamic orthdoxy, 'bad' Muslims.
So you've been consistently drawing a distinction between moderate and progressive followers of Islam and 'Islamism' by insinuating - sorry, ingenuously raising the question without any agenda - that the overwhelming majority of harmless Muslims are 'bad' Muslims and only 'Islamism' is taking Islam seriously?
(Just because I didn't invent a racial epithet doesn't mean I wouldn't be racist if I were to use it.)
quote:
If similar abuses were being commmitted over as widespread an area, and with the same level of intensity, by avowed Christians, it is inconceivable that anyone would demand that they be treated in isolation, with no reference to their common Christian element.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ 26. April 2012, 09:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are getting a consistent response from most people
I have heard about insularity and parochialism, but that's wonderful.
Hello! There is a world outside the Ship!
So when you wrote, What is more, I suggested a number of options in the OP which no-one has taken up, you didn't mean no-one on the Ship has taken them up. You meant no-one on or in the world outside the Ship, not even the looniest right-wing echo-chambers, has taken up any of your options? The fact that not even in the right-wing echo-chambers can you find any support for any of your options should tell you something, shouldn't it?
Or is the claim that you weren't talking only about the Ship something that you made up on the spur of the moment just to come back at Justinian?
You know, if you thought the Ship was insular and parochial why did you post your OP here? Rather than on a Muslim talking board where it might actually have achieved something?
Incidentally, the world is not short of atheists who want to blame everything bad that anyone did in Europe between 306 AD and the present on Christianity. You might not be able to conceive of anyone thinking that Christianity should not be treated as a common element. I can conceive of that. Indeed, I myself think that Christianity should not be treated as a common element.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm quite fascinated, actually, exactly how Kaplan Corday expects to get any responses to the proposed options from outside the Ship.
I can only conclude that parallel threads have been set up on a number of other message boards?
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
You assume we have the right to intervene in some way while constantly dodging the question about whether or not you think Muslims have the right to intervene in the affairs of Zionist or Christian matters.
Now that's an intriguing comment coming from the scourge of (if I might indulge in a pig-Latin neologism) homostramentumism.
The only right to "intervention" which I have ever maintained is the right to openly discuss what happens in the Muslim world free of McCarthyite-style accusations of "Islamophobia".
I have not advocated any programme beyond that.
Not sure what you mean by homostramentumism?
The OP (not to mention the freaking TITLE of the thread) strongly implies the right to intervene far beyond 'discussion.'
And we are discussing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And ss for Muslims, there is nothing I would like better than for them to have the right to open discussion of anything they liked, including attitudes and responses to the non-Muslim world.
The primary obstacle to that happy outcome is the intolerance and repression of Islamist regimes.
I think you're confusing radical Islam with basic human nature.
All dictatorships are intolerant and repressive, there's nothing special about dictatorships where a Muslim is the dictator.
Hell, the reason we have terms like 'freedom of speech' is because the founders of America had lived under an oppressive Christian regime and had not had that freedom.
20-30 years ago it was the communists.
This too shall pass.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Ihe analogy between Phelps/Chick on the one hand, and Taleban, Al Qaeda, misogyny, theocracy, violence against other religions, etc. on the other, would have to be one of the most desperate and unconvincing ever drawn.
Except in terms of effects. "We aren't them - and the jackasses saying we are are trying to attack us directly so are our enemies" is a constant. And have you ever seen what happens when an outsider pitches into a family feud?
By referring to 'Islamism' and asking what should be done about it you are driving the moderates to team up with the extremists.
quote:
Actually, if you read what I wrote instead of what you would like me to have written, you would see that I have consistently drawn a distinction between "moderate and progressive followers of Islam" and Islamism (a term which I did not invent).
The term 'Islamism' implies that the radicals are the default. It centres the word Islam on them. It makes the ones you want to court appear to be the abberations.
As for you not inventing the term, there are plenty of terms that I did not invent but will not use because they are gratuitously insulting and counter-productive. I'm sure you can think of a few racist slurs you didn't invent as well.
This is the problem Dawkins has communicating. He talks about Christians and the mainstream Christians all take a listen and say "Nothing to do with us. He's talking about the fundamentalists." This ignores that he blasts the mainstream Christians for being not even wrong but because they can dismiss him based on half his critique they do so.
quote:
If similar abuses were being commmitted over as widespread an area, and with the same level of intensity, by avowed Christians, it is inconceivable that anyone would demand that they be treated in isolation, with no reference to their common Christian element.
You mean we can't lump the Indian Mutiny, the Belgian Congo, much of the race for Africa, and just about every other part of the late 19th Century/early 20th Century Christian countries conquering even more of the world together? Islam's got a long way to go to match the Christian record reaching from Cortez and Pizzaro right through to the end of World War 2 and decolonialisation.
quote:
And if anyone believes that this is in fact the case, then they should be equally free (because it would be equally legitimate) to ask "how should we respond to the dark side of Christianity?".
Oops, they already do!
But that is precisely the equivalent of what you aren't doing. What you are doing is asking "How should we respond to Christ-worship?" And then defining 'Christ-worship' to be the dark side of Christianity. Islamism makes the default to be the intolerant group.
If you actually want to make a difference, the first thing you can do is scrub the word Islamism from your vocabulary. And then advise everyone you know who uses it to do the same. Because every single time you use the loaded term 'Islamism' it adds another straw to the problem you claim to oppose.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The term 'Islamism' implies that the radicals are the default
You managed to say in one pithy sentence what I stumbled around trying to say in a few paragraphs.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
This morning I had the opportunity to discuss some of the issues on this thread with a friend of mine, a Sunni Muslim of Gujerati ancestry who grew up in South Africa and is now working in IT in Australia.
He is quite aware that Australia is not a Christian country, despite 64% identifying as Christian in the last census (2006; the figures for last year’s census are not yet available), because a lot fewer than 10% attend church regularly.
His main gripe with Australia appears to be that his local mosque is full of Muslims from the former Yugoslavia whose language (presumably Serbo-Croat) he can’t understand.
He seemed genuinely mystified when I asked him whether Muslims felt any resentment toward Christianity or the West because of the Crusades.
His answer was along the lines of, “Why would we? That was ages ago, and there are no Crusaders around today”.
Interestingly, given the recurrence of the “true Scotchman” theme on this and other threads, he was inclined to treat Muslim terrorists and suicide bombers as not “real” Muslims.
His attitude toward use of the term “Islamism” was one of indifference.
He did not enthusiastically endorse it, but was not offended by it, and recognized it as one way of describing Muslim extremism.
Obviously with well over one billion Muslims in the world it is pointless to extrapolate from one individual Muslim’s opinions, but my friend’s responses should at least raise cautions about common stereotypes, clichés and generalizations which take the form of, “Muslims believe that all Westerners are Christians”, “Muslims are still outraged over the Crusades”, or “Muslims find the expression Islamism bigoted and offensive”.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kaplan Corday: Obviously with well over one billion Muslims in the world it is pointless to extrapolate from one individual Muslim’s opinions, but my friend’s responses should at least raise cautions about common stereotypes, clichés and generalizations which take the form of, “Muslims believe that all Westerners are Christians”, “Muslims are still outraged over the Crusades”, or “Muslims find the expression Islamism bigoted and offensive”.
Are those common stereotypes, clichés and generalizations? Because I never heard the first two of them.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
After over five years of living in Turkey and being surrounded by Muslims and having nothing but Muslim friends, I feel I have a slightly better understanding of how Muslims in the Middle East feel about the Crusades. (Your friend isn't of ME descent, but rather from Western India, why they'd be upset about the crusades, I don't know?).
We've also already heard from a Muslim on this thread that the term 'Islamism' is offensive to at least himself and his Muslim friends.
So yeah, extrapolation from one encounter is pretty pointless. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... Your friend isn't of ME descent, but rather from Western India, why they'd be upset about the crusades, I don't know?..
Simple answer. He could be a member of the Tabligh movement which originated in India, and is, I believe quite strong amongst Indian Muslims in South Africa.
For the Tabligh movement and varieties of Islam common in the West I heartily recommend Ziauddin Sardar's "Desperately Seeking Paradise".
With a copy in your pocket you could amaze your Muslim and Nonmuslim friends alike! Be popular! Be considered an oracle!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Sardar
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0