Thread: Islam and violence 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=028854
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Is Islam intrinsically violent?
Does the Qu'ran teach domination of Jews, Christians and other infidels?
Is there a ''blind side'' of this religion, which somehow encourages violence and death? Is ISIS representative of the faith or a medieval throwback?
I am asking this as we try and move on from Paris and the two terrorist massacres. I am asking quite a few questions here, the answers I really don't know; I know little about Islam. If there are shipmates who could enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Is Islam intrinsically violent?
Of course not, or the overwhelming majority of the world's 2.2 billion Muslims wouldn't live in peace each day.
quote:
Does the Qu'ran teach domination of Jews, Christians and other infidels?
I recommend you answer this question by finding and reading an English interpretation of the Qu'ran. There is a recommendations thread in Heaven on this topic. However, the short answer is this: Mostly no. But the Qu'ran was written at a time when Mohammed was intermittently at war with his neighbours, and contains passages designed to assist with the brutality of Early Medieval warfare. The Bible is not short of such passages either (although for the Iron Age through to the late classical era).
quote:
Is there a ''blind side'' of this religion, which somehow encourages violence and death? Is ISIS representative of the faith or a medieval throwback?
It's not a 'blind side' at all. The leaders of ISIS and Al Qaeda know exactly what they're doing, and a big part of that is to gain political power by representing the faith as uncompromising. Things like violent responses to peaceful offences (such as depictions of the prophet) are designed to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims, to drive more Muslims towards ISIS et al. There are Christian leaders who do the same thing, and we are all the losers in both cases.
t
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I think you're being disingenuous Saul.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
No, IMO Islam is not inherently violent, history will show that.
My view is that there is a confluence of political, social and cultural, economic and religious factors that have led to a situation in which numbers of Muslim people in various parts of the world feel justified in using extreme violence.
It is unfair, ignorant and divisive to say it's because of their religion -plenty of people of all faiths and none commit acts of horrendous violence but it's also untrue to say that religion has nothing to do with the current acts of terrorism and violence being carried out by Al Quaeda, ISIL, lone wolf Islamists and others.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
the Qu'ran was written at a time when Mohammed was intermittently at war with his neighbours, and contains passages designed to assist with the brutality of Early Medieval warfare. The Bible is not short of such passages either (although for the Iron Age through to the late classical era).
I think this is the crucial bit.
Christianity has shown an ability to reinterpret itself over time - and crucially, reinterpretation is part of its narrative (to take just one of many possible examples, "you have heard it said... but I say unto you...").
Efforts are certainly being made by many Muslims to reinterpret Islam for the present age, and I am having active conversations with some who are trying to do that. Part of the current problems are with those who think that such attempts are anathema.
(I'm not qualified to judge whether the Qu'ran has within itself as much potential as the Bible in this respect beyond noting that it seems a lot depends on whether a notoriously difficult original text can legitimately be translated; as far as the Bible goes, I firmly believe that it can and should be).
However, by all accounts the jihadists at an operational level have a cobbled-together smorgasboard of belief that bears little or no resemblance at all to historic Islam. I think this is part of the legacy of secularism; having nothing transcendent to believe in, people start believing in anything that looks remotely transcendent.
As far as France goes, the big hope for me - of which there is already some evidence - is that religion can again become a legitimate subject of public life and debate.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I think you're being disingenuous Saul.
Am I? Simply I am asking some questions on a topic I know very little about.
Saul
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If you say so Saul. What do you know about Judaism Saul? And Zionism Saul? And Ayn Rand Saul? And the struggle to transcend the justification of violence as redemptive in any way Saul?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
One other thing: much of what the Prophet is said to have said on many topics does not come from the Qu'ran (which after all is supposed to be mostly what God said) but from various sayings sources called Hadith. These are not all equally respected, and they can contradict each other, despite the apparently pretty good research efforts of the original compilers. A lot of scholarly debate revolves around the relative merits of these traditions.
Some hadith seem to our modern eyes quite progressive, others startlingly repressive. Naturally, different groups, traditions, and individuals place different weight on these.
Some ultra-fundamentalists profess no interest in hadith, but only the Qu'ran. This often means that their own leaders' words and thoughts stand in for Mohammed's in interpreting the book. You may imagine for yourself how this goes down with scholars, both progressive and conservative, who spend their time trying to make fair decisions based on hadith.
t
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Saul, you profess you know little of Islam but that hasn't prevented you commenting on that very topic in the past. Here's a post of yours from November last.
Now, can you please stop pretending that you are coming to this as an innocent outsider. Just as you know my position, I know yours.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I am asking some questions on a topic I know very little about.
Why are you asking questions here? I thought this was a Christian website? If you want to know more about Islam, wouldn't it be better to ask your questions on an Islamic website?
Asking your questions here would be a good idea if you like knowing very little about the topic and want to stay that way.
[ 11. January 2015, 22:52: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Is Islam violent? Perhaps. Is it as violent as Christianity or Judaism? Probably the way to judge that is to look at what religions dominate the countries that dominate the world militarily. Islam may have had a golden age of violence, but it's sadly behind Christianity in the dominate your neighbor struggles of the current age. Of course you could pretend that that dominance isn't due to violence but eloquent preaching. That will work as long as you don't look at history.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
What is 'Islam'?
There are many people in the world who claim to follow 'Islam'. Many are peaceful and claim that 'Islam' is peaceful and argue based on interpretations of the Qur'an. Some are violent and claim that 'Islam' is violent and also argue on interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith.
I don't believe that any of the 'Islam's are correct. I do not believe that Mohammad received the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel. I do not believe that the Qur'an is a revelation from God or that Mohammad was a prophet.
So what basis do I have to determine what is the 'true' Islam? Or what the Qur'an 'truly' teaches? I can determine the most common Islams, the most peaceful Islams, the most violent Islams.
But I'm not sure how I could answer the OP's question except sociologically; ie many conceptions of Islam are peaceful but historically and today some conceptions are violent. In relatively few conceptions of Islam is there an idea of the separation the secular from the sacred (i.e. Church and State) or an idea that respect for the freedom of individual conscience should extend to allowing that individual to express blasphemous opinions without punishment.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Some ultra-fundamentalists profess no interest in hadith, but only the Qu'ran. This often means that their own leaders' words and thoughts stand in for Mohammed's in interpreting the book. You may imagine for yourself how this goes down with scholars, both progressive and conservative, who spend their time trying to make fair decisions based on hadith.
Interestingly my experience has been the opposite. Quran-only Muslims that I have come across were progressive, and are often considered not true Muslims by more 'fundamental' Muslims. The, um, somewhat unclear nature of the Qur'an seemed to give them flexibility in interpretation which the (sometimes pretty horrific) Hadith denied them.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That's what I have run into , too, Demas
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Could it be that Islam is at the same stage as Christianity was during the crusades? The only difference is that weapons and communications are much more sophisticated now so the outcomes are more drastic.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It definitely seems to be at a tipping point. Which, in my mind, makes it that much more important to support people who are trying to get it to tip the right way.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Could it be that Islam is at the same stage as Christianity was during the crusades?
It would be nice to think so but I don't think history works that way.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Saul, you profess you know little of Islam but that hasn't prevented you commenting on that very topic in the past. Here's a post of yours from November last.
Now, can you please stop pretending that you are coming to this as an innocent outsider. Just as you know my position, I know yours.
SS - This sounds ever so conspiratorial, it's almost like a re-run of ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion''. Some say it's true, some say it's a lie and so on. If we take entrenched positions we'll never meet in the middle for a Sainsburys advert will we.
I ''know yours'', not sure what your point is here? It's like we're long lost debating partners, who bump into each other, to lock horns at our London club over Port and papers.
The questions I asked are legitimate ones surely. I genuinely know little about Islam; what I do know is that after numerous Islamic terrorist outrages, many people are asking some fundamental questions about this religion and the adherence of some of it's members to violence.
Hence my OP.
I too am asking some questions about some of the adherents of this religion, specifically those who seem to be wedded to extreme, systematic and repulsive violence.
They are genuine questions and they deserve genuine answers.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
They are genuine questions and they deserve genuine answers.
It would have been more honest if you had stated your strongly-held position on these genuine questions rather than pretended this was a first foray of yours into the area to gather views.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Saul, you profess you know little of Islam but that hasn't prevented you commenting on that very topic in the past. Here's a post of yours from November last.
Now, can you please stop pretending that you are coming to this as an innocent outsider. Just as you know my position, I know yours.
SS - This sounds ever so conspiratorial, it's almost like a re-run of ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion''. Some say it's true, some say it's a lie and so on. If we take entrenched positions we'll never meet in the middle for a Sainsburys advert will we.
I ''know yours'', not sure what your point is here? It's like we're long lost debating partners, who bump into each other, to lock horns at our London club over Port and papers.
The questions I asked are legitimate ones surely. I genuinely know little about Islam; what I do know is that after numerous Islamic terrorist outrages, many people are asking some fundamental questions about this religion and the adherence of some of it's members to violence.
Hence my OP.
I too am asking some questions about some of the adherents of this religion, specifically those who seem to be wedded to extreme, systematic and repulsive violence.
They are genuine questions and they deserve genuine answers.
Saul the Apostle
OK, if you really do know so little Islam then it gives a weak base for your earlier posts but, if we look at the part of your post I have italicised, I don't think there have been many religions that can't be used to justify violence and most of them have. I'll exclude Bah'aiism, because that seems to be composed of people who are repelled by the violence done in the name of other faiths and political systems.
In any event, most violence, whether terrorist or not, is the outcome of a desire for power over others. Attributing it to an ideology, faith or national security is usually a bid to garner support among the usually far more numerous peaceful supporters.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
They are genuine questions and they deserve genuine answers.
It would have been more honest if you had stated your strongly-held position on these genuine questions rather than pretended this was a first foray of yours into the area to gather views.
I certainly believe that the Jewish people deserve a viable homeland and nation. Whether you could call me a ''Christian Zionist'' depends on how you define the term itself. I make no bones about it. I stand by my posts of November 2013 or 14 as SS has pointed them out.
But we don't come onto SOF with a badge of varied political /spiritual affiliations do we? Unless by my prolonged absence things have changed?
However, that aside, I genuinely am asking these questions, genuinely because I don't have the answers. I suspect some in the West may be asking similar questions too, if they were honest. Simples.
Saul.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
To "move on from Paris and the terrorist massacres" involves a decision not to attempt, as you have done, to define that issue solely in terms of Islam.
That makes about as much sense as taking the Lord's Resistance Army as representative of Christianity. Do you think it is? Do you think restrictive measures against Christianity would have been effective in putting an end to the LRA?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Shipmates
If you want to make this thread about Saul, I'm not going to let you. Call him to Hell if you think he is being disingenuous or coming at this highly provocative topic with a preset agenda.
Saul the Apostle
We draw a distinction here between posting provocative topics and being personally provocative. The former is, generally, accepted provided threads don't turn into rants (which gets them moved to Hell). The latter is judged by Admin under the general category of Commandment 1 jerkiness (which includes flamebaiting).
You have a posting history here. So be very careful how you contribute to this thread, else a reference to Admin will be inevitable.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 12. January 2015, 09:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think humans definitely have a tendency to violence - look at Europe in the last century, to see copious amounts of it. But I don't think that any religion has any monopoly - they sort of share it out!
The Middle East is quite a violent place at the moment, but I don't think this is because of Islam. There are a number of causes - first, the old secularist regimes became very corrupt and violent, and a number of insurgencies have developed against them.
Second, the West has hurled huge amounts of violence at the region - invasions, bombings, drone-strikes, and so on - and again insurgencies have developed against this.
Third, a massive vacuum developed in Arab politics, as the old secularists were utterly discredited, and the left were basically wiped out. The Islamists have leapt into this vacuum.
But even Islamism is not inherently violent.
The odd thing is that 'Islam is inherently violent' is the creed of Al Quaeda and IS!
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I'm actually going to return to the original question and say: of course not. It's not Islam. And rooting through the Qu'ran to find "smash the infidel" passages is a massive red herring, even if they are there. They're in the Bible, and I'm pretty sure that when it comes down to it all the Christians who aren't out slaughtering others right now aren't basing their decision whether or not to do so on what's in the Bible. Because that just isn't how people work.
If we want to do something about the problem of Islamist extremism, we need to look at what it has in common with other situations in which one group of "ordinary" people hates another enough to kill those they don't even know.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Barnabas62,
I apologise for concentrating my fire on the person, not the argument.
Sioni
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I suppose the best way to find out the answer to the OP is to compare crime figures from the rest of the country to crime figures in Birmingham.
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suppose the best way to find out the answer to the OP is to compare crime figures from the rest of the country to crime figures in Birmingham.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I see what you did there!
Speaking of which (possible slight tangent, sorry) - is spreading deliberate falsehood on a national news channel protected by the First Amendment? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious as to how this sort of thing can happen unchallenged, given that it seems likely to create tension.
Posted by Moominpappa (# 12044) on
:
The question reminded me of this article , written in the wake of the Sydney Cafe siege, comparing the motivations of previous 'terorists' with those who conduct attacks in the name of Islam today. One quote, but it's worth reading the whole thing if you have 10 minutes:
When skyjacking dominated the papers, there was a certain inevitability about a percentage of lost or damaged individuals declaring themselves skyjackers. Now, with the media fixated on Islam, we’re seeing a comparable tendency for loners and misfits to embrace jihad, not because they’ve studied the theology of Sayyid Qutb or received training in Afghanistan, but because the rhetoric of holy war offers certainty – and waving a black flag gets them noticed.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
is spreading deliberate falsehood on a national news channel protected by the First Amendment? Not a rhetorical question...
Well, Al Sharpton has a nightly program on a national news channel sooo.....yes, yes it is.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
is spreading deliberate falsehood on a national news channel protected by the First Amendment? Not a rhetorical question...
Well, Al Sharpton has a nightly program on a national news channel sooo.....yes, yes it is.
Not claiming Mr. Sharpton is unbiased, but no one, out side of maybe these guys or Pravda during the Cold War twists "news" more than Murdoch's Crew
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
is spreading deliberate falsehood on a national news channel protected by the First Amendment? Not a rhetorical question...
Well, Al Sharpton has a nightly program on a national news channel sooo.....yes, yes it is.
Not claiming Mr. Sharpton is unbiased, but no one, out side of maybe these guys or Pravda during the Cold War twists "news" more than Murdoch's Crew
I wouldn't be so sure. We have SKY TV and Murdoch papers in Britain too, but for a long and uninterrupted record of malicious mendacity the Daily Mail beats them hands down.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is the use of religion to attempt to reverse domination by the west resembles that people become alcoholic sometimes to deal with emotional troubles and then with enough practice the emotional troubles recede and the alcohol is the central issue. Just read alcohol for religion and emotional troubles for power and economic control.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Sorry, Sioni, I was keeping it simple and local for him.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Sioni, I was keeping it simple and local for him.
By citing KCNA and Pravda?
And a purg personal attack to boot!?
Nicely done!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I'll hold my hand up and say I'm biased.
I DO believe Islam is a violent religion - so call me to Hell!
Boko Haran
Al Quaida
IS
The Government of Saudi Arabia
Hamas
These are not individuals; these are not lone wolves; these are not idiots who misunderstand their religion. These are heavily sponsored, organised and supported.
Can anyone tell me what the Christian or Jewish equivalent of these groups is, funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
In answer my question, please refer to the Vicar of Baghdad who speaks of IS cutting children from his congregation in half, and the Boko Haran Muslims who just slaughtered 2000 children, women and old people in BAGA
I'm sorry, but I do not see Christianity being manifested or even misused anywhere in the world to commit stuff like this.
And when the Islamic Saudi government beats people for freedom of speech, I would like to know what is the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.
I would also suggest that the reason that Western Muslims are peaceful is simply because they live under Western Law and democratic society.
Why are the middle eastern countries that are governed according to islamic principles not like this?
Where do Christian societies behead adulterers and stone adulterers.
Note that even in Britain, Muslims are willing to kill their young women in 'honour killings' if they marry the person they choose.
THIS is why people think Islam is violent.
Putting on my hard hat now.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
And a purg personal attack to boot!?
Your attempt at junior hosting is noted.
/hosting
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
....These are heavily sponsored, organised and supported.... funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
Lots wrong with the rest of your post but let's start here. Thousands out of billions wouldn't be much of a proportion and would perhaps be very good evidence that most Muslims are peaceable. Millions would be more concerning. Can you show this is the level of support for ISIS for instance?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's simply a logical error.
'Some Muslims are violent, therefore Islam is violent' does not compute.
Compare, 'some Germans in WWII carried out genocide, therefore Germans are genocidal', or in fact, any equivalent statement.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
....These are heavily sponsored, organised and supported.... funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
Lots wrong with the rest of your post but let's start here. Thousands out of billions wouldn't be much of a proportion and would perhaps be very good evidence that most Muslims are peaceable. Millions would be more concerning. Can you show this is the level of support for ISIS for instance?
Erm, the fact that they can sweep across a country and take over whole towns rather suggests a fair bit of support and external resourcing, don't you think?
And anyway, I'm think of the total support for all these groups together. None of these groups are lone gunmen!
And Sharia law isn't just the opinion of some radical Imam somewhere in one mosque.
[ 12. January 2015, 18:21: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
What about the recent torture revelations in the US?
And the large numbers of innocents killed in drone strikes?
Or the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or the torture and war crimes in Algeria done by France?
Are those Christian crimes?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone tell me what the Christian or Jewish equivalent of these groups is, funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
Well, for a start it's estimated the IRA had about 8000 active members during 20 years. Sinn Fein regularly got over 100,000 votes, though quite likely most of those supported the cause but not the methods of the IRA. How many supporters in the US and elsewhere? Certainly an equivalent organisation with 10's of thousands of supporters.
The Lord's Resistance Army has already been mentioned, with an estimated 3000 soldiers. Plus all the people needed to support those soldiers, probably at least 10 times the number of actual soldiers. So, a second equivalent with 10's of thousands of supporters.
The Ku Klux Klan currently has an estimated membership of 5-8 thousand. But, in the early part of the 20th Century had a membership in the millions.
Anyone have any idea of the size and support for Christian militia in Lebanon during the civil war there?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What about the recent torture revelations in the US?
And the large numbers of innocents killed in drone strikes?
Or the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or the torture and war crimes in Algeria done by France?
Are those Christian crimes?
Also, do those examples mean that the French and the Americans are intrinsically brutal? No, of course not. It's a false generalization.
In fact, it's the logic used by Al Quaeda and IS. 'Westerners come to our homeland and inflict massive violence on us; therefore Westerners are intrinsically violent and destructive people'. False logic.
But also deadly.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
<load of Islamophobic stuff>
Putting on my hard hat now.
That looks more like a hard heart than a hard hat. If Christianity has a cardinal virtue it is that it operates on the basis of unconditional love, and doesn't use the methods of those that attack it and Christ's followers.
That takes a lot more courage than any amount of military action. More than I can muster too.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, for about a 1000 years, Christians burned people. What generalization can we draw from this? Hardly any.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Islam is violent in the way that Christianity was violent 600 or so years ago, and in the way Judaism was during the Old Testament times. Perhaps it is common for religions to go through stages, and we're just in that stage in the aging of Islam?
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
It seems to me that there isn't much difference between the track records of Christianity and Islam when it comes to violence.
Having said that I think there is very little justification for violence when looking at the entire bible because the revelation of Jesus eclipses anything revealed in the old testament and there is no justification of violence in the life of Jesus and the gospels; while there is justification for violence in the Quran and Mohammad was a military leader.
Christian fundamentalists can easily end up as pacifists if they take the words and life of Jesus seriously and literally, I don't think it would be easy to end up as a pacifist through taking the words and life of Mohammad seriously and literally.
A puzzle therefore is why are most Muslims more peace loving than the revelation that they claim to base their lives on while many Christians are far more warlike that the revelation we claim to base our lives on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Islam is violent in the way that Christianity was violent 600 or so years ago, and in the way Judaism was during the Old Testament times. Perhaps it is common for religions to go through stages, and we're just in that stage in the aging of Islam?
It depends on your point of view. Some people in the Arab and Muslim world will point at all the violence wreaked on the Middle East by the West in the past few years - invasions, bombings, drone-strikes - and will say, 'there is your Christian West for you, loving its neighbour as only it knows how - by killing them!'
I think some of them see the West as horrendously violent and cruel, but we don't like to think that.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
Attacking Islam because of ISIS and making blanket statements about a whole religion with billions of followers is analogous.
(Note I did not say identical), to blaming Judaism for mistakes done by the IDF or a particular Israeli government.
What makes a given criticism of Israel anti-semitic is generalizing to a whole religion.
This type of over-generalization causes things like the attacks on the kosher supermarket.
Making the same kind of statements against Islam that ISIS makes about Judaism can only lead to the same kind of thing. The deaths of more innocent people. Or does anyone posting those statements here think that doing so will lead to peace?
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Barnabas,
I shall behave myself and try to be a perfect English gentleman. But just as I was about to draw my trusty Excaliber sword of truth ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
you rescuded me from ad hominem attack ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Anyway.
I couldn't find a British survey but the next best (or worse depending on your POV) is a US based survey from Christianity Today. It asked: ''Does Islam Encourage Violence More Than Any Other Religion?''
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/does-islam-encourage-violence-more-than-other-religions-pew.html?pa ging=off
The findings are not a surprise with white republicans feeling that Islam was more violent etc. and say black protestants far less so.
The debate is certainly is all to be had and I would add violence and murder are not unknown in our (European neck of the woods) manor and the debate whilst needed shouldn't be about throwing brickbats and scoring cheap points against Muslims.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Ikkyu
I think that's right. It's the logic of Al Quaeda and IS - since some Westerners come here to inflict violence on us, then they are all violent.
So weird to see people here using the same logic. It's also fatal logic at times.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It is fun that there is a nuclear submarine named Coprus Christi (body of Christ), which they put "city of" after protest. I sure hope that if they ever fire missiles from it, they say "taste and see that the lord is good" accompanied by the true love of Christ within their hearts.
The Trijicon guns with bible verses one them is also interesting.
[fixed link]
[code]
[ 12. January 2015, 19:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What about the recent torture revelations in the US?
And the large numbers of innocents killed in drone strikes?
Or the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or the torture and war crimes in Algeria done by France?
Are those Christian crimes?
Only if they were done by US generals shouting "Jesus saves" or "Sing Hosanna!" as they did it.
Classic error of equating 'West' with 'Christian'. Whereas Islamic terror is done overtly in the name of Allah, citing Islamic teaching and shouting God is Great
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Mudfrog's ideas would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous, as over-generalizations often are.
It reminds me of the old ideas of the savage African or the savage Arab, whereas we in the West are so civilized. Never mind, eventually the benighted Muslims will catch up with us.
Yeah, right.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is fun that there is a nuclear submarine named [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_City_of_Corpus_Christi_(SSN-705)]Coprus Christi[/url] (body of Christ), which they put "city of" after protest. I sure hope that if they ever fire missiles from it, they say "taste and see that the lord is good" accompanied by the true love of Christ within their hearts.
Well, okay. But the sub was clearly intended to be named after the Texas city from the beginning. I'd be willing to bet that most non-Catholic Texans don't think of wafers and chant when the city's name is mentioned, anymore than Californians do when they talk about their state's capital.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What about the recent torture revelations in the US?
And the large numbers of innocents killed in drone strikes?
Or the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or the torture and war crimes in Algeria done by France?
Are those Christian crimes?
Only if they were done by US generals shouting "Jesus saves" or "Sing Hosanna!" as they did it.
Classic error of equating 'West' with 'Christian'. Whereas Islamic terror is done overtly in the name of Allah, citing Islamic teaching and shouting God is Great
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers.
My point was that blaming ALL Muslims for the crimes of some makes as much sense as blaming ALL Christians for the crimes of some Christians.
Al Qaeda and ISIS claim that there is a western Crusade against all Muslims. Do we want to create one?
And about numbers:
What about more than 130,000 civilians? Iraq body count And that includes children and mothers.
Or the genocide in Rwanda? Wikipedia
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers.
Is 2000 some kind of tolerance threshold?
How does 347-504 unarmed civilians rate? Does it change anything if some of the women were gang-raped and mutilated before being finished off?
Oh, and I think Alan Cresswell had a few other examples of atrocities perpetrated by self-styled Christians you somehow seem to have missed.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Islamic terror is done overtly in the name of Allah, citing Islamic teaching and shouting God is Great
To refresh your memory about earlier posts, here's the rationale put forward by Lord's Resistance Army commander Vincent Otti (from that link):
quote:
Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to kill the innocent, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.
ETA: According to this page:
quote:
By 2004, the LRA had abducted more than 20,000 children, while one and half million civilians had been displaced and an estimated 100,000 civilians killed
[ 12. January 2015, 20:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
See also the Christian militias in the Central African Republic, which have been killing Muslims. Ah, but hold on, maybe they are Not True Christians?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Classic error of equating 'West' with 'Christian'.
It seems to me that some of your assertions make the classic error of equating 'Middle East' with 'Muslim'.
Some of the organisations and countries that you cite are every bit as much political organisations as religious ones. The fact that some politician mentions 'Allah' is not automatically more significant than the fact that it's standard practice for American politicians to mention 'God', living as they do in a country whose motto is 'In God We Trust'.
[ 12. January 2015, 20:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Note that even in Britain, Muslims are willing to kill their young women in 'honour killings' if they marry the person they choose.
Actions which are repeatedly condemned by Muslim leaders - both because those actions are evil and un-Islamic, and because the white-Christian-dominated press demands such condemnation from faith leaders with no direct connection to them.
Violence against women is endemic in our society. It is not peculiar to Islam. To attack Muslims at large in order to remedy this evil is like cutting off your foot because there are chickenpox spots on it.
t
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, honour killings are reflections of a geographical culture, not of Islam. They predate the arrival of Islam in the relevant areas of the world. In India, Hindus carry out honour killings.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's frightening that so much illogicality is prevalent on all sides. The Islamists over-generalize and say that all Westerners are guilty of the violence against their lands; but here we find Christians over-generalizing and saying that Islam itself is violent.
The trouble is, that in Europe now, we have growing movements which are using this illogicality to say, that Muslims should be controlled more, or should be expelled, or are dangerous people. Demonization is going on on all aides - the Great Satan, as they say in Iran.
I just hope we are not going back to the 30s, when it was the Jews who were said to be toxic.
[ 12. January 2015, 20:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
What a useless thread. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing; all the nuance used to discuss Christianity stripped away.
The Islam that the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia believe in is extremely violent - by design. The Islam that many Ahmadiyya believe does not seem to be particularily violent.
So what is "Islam"? And what is "inherently"?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Al Qaida kills in the name of Islam. The USA kills in the name of freedom. I'm pretty sure that isn't an inherently violent concept either. When people are angry at another group, they pick out the thing they think differentiates them from that group and wave it around like a banner.
As for support - it is very difficult to tell how much support these groups have for the simple reason that they are vicious, bloodthirsty and heavily armed. That being the case, there's a pretty good likelihood that much of the "support" comes from fear and self preservation rather than genuine enthusiasm. Combine that with the mix of genuine, reasonable grievances about invasions, drone strikes and human rights abuses, and a huge amount of misinformation that typically gets passed around about the immoral and decadent west, and you really don't need Islam to be inherently violent to get the exact situation that you have today.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
We used to have an Islamic Shipmate, who somehow wandered in, possibly by accident. (Plato's Cat? I'm not certain about his screen name).
Of course, Ship manners can be deceiving and there is no guarantee that someone who seems reasonable and nice here truly is. Still, he put up with a lot of crap from people who wanted to tell him how awful his religion was and had no desire to hear him explain it. When he finally left (probably because he decided he didn't need the toxicity in his life), I felt the Ship was definitely poorer for it.
The point of this rambling is that when he was around, we were able to talk TO a Muslim, if only one. That seemed to be one more than some shipmates had ever taken the opportunity to engage in conversation. Now we can only talk ABOUT Muslims, and there is no reason to believe we will be more correct than a group of Muslims would be talking about Christianity.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I couldn't find a British survey but the next best (or worse depending on your POV) is a US based survey from Christianity Today.
Oh. A survey is not a debate. quote:
The debate is certainly is all to be had
The question to my mind is which debate.
I think most of us probably agree that Western democracies are, so far, the least bad alternative we have found.
Democracy (or what passes for it) is not without its atrocities, as amply illustrated on this thread, including by me, but I still think it is less bad than the alternatives. We may even agree that for all its failings, Christianity has made some positive contributions. To my mind, the best option for now in human terms looks like attempting to make religious pluralism work within the framework of democracy.
I think Christianity has the theological baggage to address that challenge and, in spiritual terms, that it could advance the kingdom of God in doing so. It seems to me that some Muslims are also very willing to make a go of that challenge. Working together with them and those of other faiths who are also willing to do so offers the prospect, in the long term, of fewer people embracing more violent alternatives.
André Malraux famously said that "the twenty-first century will be religious, or there won't be a twenty-first century at all". I think that the banishment of religion from the public sphere by secularism (as has been particularly the case in France) has a lot to do alienation and the ensuing rise, in the West, of violence predicated on irrational spirituality.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The greatest failure by far is ours. Christian. Islam is proof of the failure.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, Mudfrog, the only reason that Mr and Mrs Ebrahim don't come around to your house and murder Mrs and Major Mudfrog in their beds is because they live in a western democracy and that - rather than their own intrinsic humanity or their faith, is the only restraint on their otherwise murderous tendencies?
With black and white attitudes like that, it looks like the terrorists have won after all
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And Sharia law isn't just the opinion of some radical Imam somewhere in one mosque.
Actually, that's pretty much exactly what sharia law is.
You realise that Sharia law is pretty much like saying 'common law' or 'civil law'.
The United Kingdom and Pakistan and the United States and Zimbabwe are all common law jurisdictions, but you'd be unwise to assume that the law in the United Kingdom is the same as that in Pakistan. Sharia is like that.
What happens under sharia is that you take your legal dispute to an imam. That imam has been trained in one of a number of schools of interpretation (fiqh). Think the schools of Hillel and Shammai in Old Testament Judaism. The schools of interpretation use more or less different principles of deciding cases. The imam decides your case, according to the principles of interpretation. That decision is binding upon the two parties, and anybody else who chooses to accept it. Anybody who is not a party to the case may ignore it if they think that the imam is wrong.
So any particular ruling in sharia is pretty much exactly the opinion of the imam who gave it. It may be considered more or less well-founded by other imams, but it has no intrinsic universal authority.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
The difference between the LRA and ISIL it seems to me is that I don't see Christians in the west providing material support, nor justifying the actions of, or going to fight with the LRA. I don't see Christian Ministers (even the whackiest) extolling the virtues of martyrdom nor calling for a state based on the 10 Commandments. I've not heard of Christian sub- groups in Australia recruiting for the establishment of a "biblically-based" society and going over to help LRA The vast, vast majority of Muslims don't support ISIL or Alquaeda or apologise for their actions either BUT a few do and this is deeply unsettling. I think it's justified to ask what is it that makes people do this-the people themselves say it's to honour and defend the prophet-equally so other Muslims say that it's a betrayal of Islam and totally at odds with the faith-we hope it's true but what other explanation do we have? I "get" suicide bombers from Palestine attacking Israel, I really do, but Australian born and educated people going to fight with Isil or Australian born girls going to become brides of ISIL fighters-I just don't understand.
We (those of us living in western democracies) are, understandably afraid of being blown-up, beheaded, or shot by somebody claiming to be acting on behalf of their prophet. It's an overstated fear given that you are far more likely to die in a car accident than by an act of terrorism.They claim to be doing it in the name of religion, it's not unreasonable for people to believe them. Again, that's not the same as saying ALL followers of the religion choose to follow that path or that the religion requires it but I've not heard of any Australian, Englishman or Frenchman killing or taking a compatriot hostage to defend the name of Jesus.
There are some valid points raised in a press release by Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamic group in Australia, published in the SMH article
quote:
The statement on Monday said its "hesitance to condemn" such attacks reflected its desire to "resist a vile, racist and narcissistic worldview that highlights and humanises European life but dehumanises and makes invisible non-European life".
but this is nothing but an outright threat,
quote:
"It seems some in Australia are arrogantly and irresponsibly heedless of the fact that provoking and insulting a people's core beliefs is a matter that can only end in acrimony for everyone concerned," it said.
It concluded: "The establishment of a just Caliphate, with the true interests of all humanity at heart, is the only assured response to the unending crimes of European and Western powers harming both Muslim and non-Muslim alike."
Inciting acrimony, much?
I just don't see any other group, be it religious, ethnic, political or whatever making such threats against Australian society. Again, just before somebody tells me most Muslims don't do this I whole-heartedly concur but what is it that makes a certain sub-group act this way? There are plenty of disaffected and marginalised groups in Australia, what is it that makes this very small sub-group of a very small portion of the Australian population act like this?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I just don't see any other group, be it religious, ethnic, political or whatever making such threats against Australian society. Again, just before somebody tells me most Muslims don't do this I whole-heartedly concur but what is it that makes a certain sub-group act this way? There are plenty of disaffected and marginalised groups in Australia, what is it that makes this very small sub-group of a very small portion of the Australian population act like this?
Which group is culturally dominant in Australia? How did it get that way? Do you think its members need to be actively extremist in order to go on benefitting from this state of affairs?
Of course not. The people risking the most are people who feel (I suspect wrongly) that they can change the world to their (collective) advantage by their deeds.
The challenge to us is to change society in positive ways, because it's quite apparent that oppression doesn't work.
t
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read those comments about Australia. Good grief. The irony hurts bad. The white man's burden is a poignant one.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I forgot to say that in the Middle East, the West does not say that it is killing in the name of Jesus, but in the name of freedom. This is very important, and those being killed are very grateful for that.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Evangeline
Are you serious - promoting something published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir? Are you aware of their history and their aims?
They exist to promote the creation of a caliphate - preferably world-wide - in which only sharia law holds sway; they deny the right of Israel to exist; they hold that the primary role for a woman is that of a mother and wife. They also preach that women should wear the chaddor or jilbab.
Are you aware that even the spineless UK government has banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir as an organisation that promotes terrorism?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Evangeline
Are you serious - promoting something published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir? Are you aware of their history and their aims?
They exist to promote the creation of a caliphate - preferably world-wide - in which only sharia law holds sway; they deny the right of Israel to exist; they hold that the primary role for a woman is that of a mother and wife. They also preach that women should wear the chaddor or jilbab.
Are you aware that even the spineless UK government has banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir as an organisation that promotes terrorism?
In other words, their version of Islam inherently violent.
Good thing their version is less common than other versions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers.
There's Fallujah 1 and 2. Hundreds of civilians killed in each battle, tens of thousands displaced.
I honestly don't think you've been paying attention.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What makes a group like Hizb-ut-Tahrir come out with tosh like the thing in the SMH?
Easy: they're following the lead of their founder, Omar Bakri Mohammed. Yes, HuT existed in simple form in Lebanon before OBM but he took it to the next level, particularly in his time in the UK.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers.
The means are different. They just do it from inside an air conditioned building in Nevada:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
Even the official US figures depend on the assumption that every male of military age killed by one of these strikes is a terrorist.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is fun that there is a nuclear submarine named [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_City_of_Corpus_Christi_(SSN-705)]Coprus Christi[/url] (body of Christ), which they put "city of" after protest. I sure hope that if they ever fire missiles from it, they say "taste and see that the lord is good" accompanied by the true love of Christ within their hearts.
Well, okay. But the sub was clearly intended to be named after the Texas city from the beginning. I'd be willing to bet that most non-Catholic Texans don't think of wafers and chant when the city's name is mentioned, anymore than Californians do when they talk about their state's capital.
As it happens, all of the Los Angeles-class submarines are named for cities. Apparently "the Angels", "Saint Francis", "Saint John", "Holy Faith", and "Saint Paul" (with Minneapolis) weren't sensitive enough to protest over. ("St. John, eh? Yeah, OK, I bet he'd smite.")
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As it happens, all of the Los Angeles-class submarines are named for cities. Apparently "the Angels", "Saint Francis", "Saint John", "Holy Faith", and "Saint Paul" (with Minneapolis) weren't sensitive enough to protest over. ("St. John, eh? Yeah, OK, I bet he'd smite.")
I can just hear them launching an attack and saying, "Take that, ye brood of vipers!"
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Evangeline, not only can I think of examples from the USA of people trying to suggest our society's laws should be based on the 10 Commandments, and basically saying that any law that departs from the Bible is invalid, I can think of Australian examples as well.
In term of groups that basically want to set up Australia as a Christian state, Catch the Fire is probably the most prominent. Danny Nalliah has stood for political office(I forget the political party's name).
It isn't remotely difficult to find people who treat Australia as a Christian country rather than a secular one. Just spend time on an internet comments page on the right kind of issue and it will come through. Take same sex marriage for example, where you can guarantee that someone will manage to suggest that any marriage outside a church is invalid (which of course gets a reaction from all the heterosexuals that were married in a purely civil ceremony).
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
So just like some conceptions of Islam are inherently violent, some conceptions of Christianity are also inherently violent?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As it happens, all of the Los Angeles-class submarines are named for cities. Apparently "the Angels", "Saint Francis", "Saint John", "Holy Faith", and "Saint Paul" (with Minneapolis) weren't sensitive enough to protest over. ("St. John, eh? Yeah, OK, I bet he'd smite.")
I can just hear them launching an attack and saying, "Take that, ye brood of vipers!"
And a little mouse shall lead them. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So just like some conceptions of Islam are inherently violent, some conceptions of Christianity are also inherently violent?
I'm not sure whether or not this question is directed at me, but as it ties in nicely to what I was thinking about for my next post anyway...
To my mind, the comment about "which group is in power in Australia" is very pertinent. Because I think a lot of what we're talking about here has little to do with inherent traits and a lot more to do with which options people believe are open to them.
A lot of the things we're talking about are just examples of 'asymmetric warfare'. People engage in what we call 'terrorism' when they don't have access to or can't be part of a conventional army.
In other contexts, where we approve of their objectives, we're just as likely to call the same people a resistance movement or freedom fighters. It's worth noting that authoritarian, repressive regimes that we thoroughly disapprove of will happily call their opponents 'terrorists'. The label is not so much about the violence as about whether we consider the goals of the violence justifiable. World War 2 resistance movements were certainly happy to kill non-military collaborators.
If there's a reason why Christians don't engage in violence, the biggest single reason is that they feel they can achieve most of their aims through other methods. The ballot box and advertising campaigns for one. It's much nicer to achieve your goals that way. Christians in the West generally get away with threatening a politician's electoral success rather than the politician's life.
But there certainly are some Christians who, if they can't achieve their aims by other means, think that violence is an available option. Bombing abortion clinics is one clear example.
The short version of all that rumination is that instead of talking about 'inherently violent', it might be better to talk about 'willing to embrace violence', and acknowledge that most of the Christians around us don't exist in circumstances where they conclude that it's necessary to translate that willingness into action.
And to acknowledge the ones that do tip over, like Anders Breivik - the biggest single terrorist attack in Europe in recent years wasn't committed by a Muslim but by a man claiming that his nation's Christian heritage was under threat.
[ 13. January 2015, 01:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Sioni, I was keeping it simple and local for him.
By citing KCNA and Pravda?
And a purg personal attack to boot!?
Nicely done!
Pravda is an exceedingly well known organ of the former USSR and, especially with the link provided, the KCNA being the same for North Korea should be obvious. THis is part of the simple. I did assume you would be familiar with Fox. I did not wish, nor felt the need, to assume you were familiar with news agencies anywhere other than the US. I had no immediate desire to go into a comprehensive comparison. So a simple comment for me and a local reference for you.
I did notice that you did not supply a rebuttal to the meat of the comment, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Having said that I think there is very little justification for violence when looking at the entire bible because the revelation of Jesus eclipses anything revealed in the old testament
When Christians then cease to use the OT to pronounce judgement, perhaps there will cease to be justification for referencing its faults.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Oh dear this white woman's burden is heavy on this thread (yes, I'm being ironic).
My point is that it is not illogical and outrageous for Australian people to make a link between Islam and violence as some seem to be claiming.
I don't see anybody claiming that Islam and violence are synonymous but in their day-to-day life there is anxiety about being the victim of violence at the hands of somebody claiming to be acting on behalf of their prophet. 88 Australians were killed and about that number again injured in 2002 by Al-Quaeda. A month ago, the city of Sydney was shut down and 20 or so people terrorised and 2 killed by a madman granted asylum here. Photos are splashed on social media of a 10 year old Australian boy holding up decapitated heads in Syria.
We are not going to make society a better place by ignoring the fears and beliefs of a sizeable proportion of the 98% of Australians who are not Muslim.
Fears articulated here, by a conservative journo but published in mainstream, not-right wing newspaper, "These Crimes Have Everything to do with Islam"
Teufelchen, thanks for your reply and I concur to an extent but that's a horrifying assumption that you make about "needing" to commit acts of terrorism. I don't believe anybody in Australia needs to commit acts of terrorism. WOW, that really sounds like justifying violence. My point was not that the Christian white majority don't commit terrorism but that groups like the dispossessed and marginally and mistreated Australian indigenous population DON"T, nor do the migrants from SE Asia or the Pacific Islands. We can't dismiss this as all to do with the Middle East either. When Indonesian Muslims plan and commit the murder of 88 Australians, with funds provided by a Saudi-born Muslim one is surely not completely off base to inquire what part religion has played in that atrocity.
L'organist, my point in quoting Hizb ut-Tahrir, who I hasten to add have NOT been banned in Australia (to do so would be oppressive) was that you don't find ANY Christian groups in Australia no matter how loony making statements in support of the LRA. I am not in any way saying that Hizb ut-Tahrir speak for all of Islam. Just again that when you have people within your society saying things like that and it being quoted in major daily newspapers, it is not unreasonable for Australians to believe that Islam is more violent than Christianity because they are overtly threatening violence within Australia. It's interesting that you seem to be advocating for the oppression of this group and the limiting of free speech by banning it-or did I read you incorrectly?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If there's a reason why Christians don't engage in violence, the biggest single reason is that they feel they can achieve most of their aims through other methods. The ballot box and advertising campaigns for one. It's much nicer to achieve your goals that way. Christians in the West generally get away with threatening a politician's electoral success rather than the politician's life.
There is a lot of truth in that. But differing groups have differing aims as well, and some of these aims are more compatible with the ballot box and advertising campaigns than others.
As you can see from my posts above, I agree that the phrase 'inherently violent' is problematic.
I would instead talk about issues of persuasiveness of various conceptions of Islam (and Christianity, and Hinduism etc).
If you start a conversation with the shared context of the importance and reliability of the depiction of Jesus in the gospels, then how persuasive is a theology that calls for slaughter of innocents? Well history shows that such theologies can be constructed which are persuasive for certain people at certain times, with horrific consequences, even if we in hindsight believe them to be deeply flawed.
However I don't buy the argument that a shared context of belief in the reliability of the gospels depictions of Jesus has no effect of the persuasiveness of proposed theologies. The view of Jesus in the gospels may be ignored, or other factors may be argued to mitigate against it, but I think that it does over time and in the long run constrain the persuasiveness of the worst theologies.
As a budding evil theologian, you can convince someone that 'love your enemies' doesn't apply to those people over there with the funny hats, but you have to go through the effort of dealing with the phrase. You can't just ignore it and remain plausible and convincing.
The character of Jesus as recorded in the gospels influences the persuasiveness of the varied Christianities.
Now it seems we have various Islams vying for the allegiance of the world's Muslims. Some of those Islams seem compatible with freedom of speech, liberal democracy, freedom of conscience and worship etc. Some of those Islams are evil.
The million lives question is which of those Islams will be the most persuasive, given the shared context of the Qur'an and the life of Mohammad as recorded in the Hadith.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I did notice that you did not supply a rebuttal to the meat of the comment, though.
That's because there was none.
"Twisting news" does not equal spreading deliberate falsehood.
Sharpton is a known liar, tax cheat, sad sack of shit, and good buddy of Obama. There is really no one to compare him to, on Fox or anywhere else.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does 347-504 unarmed civilians rate?
Ah, My Lai, the gift that keeps on giving!
Hundreds killed in an inexcusable and unofficial massacre, and despite the fact that it was acknowledged by America, and its perpetrators openly tried and (however inadequately) punished, it still gets regularly trotted out to satisfy the needs of knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
The Hue atrocity, however, which took place a month before, and was not a “lone wolf” unauthorized crime, and murdered just as many victims as at My Lai and up to thousands more, is still officially unacknowledged, locked away in the files of the communist dictatorship in Hanoi, never be mentioned by any decent, self-respecting Western leftist.
It is striking the way so many of the Western left tie themselves into knots making excuses for - or at the very least abstaining from criticizing - Islamofascism, in exactly the same way they did with communism.
Perhaps not quite the same, because in the Sixties it was not uncommon for some of them to have posters of Mao, history’s worst mass murderer, on their walls, whereas I have not come across an icon of Abubakar Shekau in a student squat – yet.
As Marx said, history always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I did notice that you did not supply a rebuttal to the meat of the comment, though.
That's because there was none.
"Twisting news" does not equal spreading deliberate falsehood.
Sharpton is a known liar, tax cheat, sad sack of shit, and good buddy of Obama. There is really no one to compare him to, on Fox or anywhere else.
Yeah...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that it is not illogical and outrageous for Australian people to make a link between Islam and violence as some seem to be claiming.
It's logical. It's also pretty simplistic unless there's a discussion about what kind of link there is.
The main source of objection is not about making a link, it's about treating the link as being a direct causal one.
[ 13. January 2015, 03:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I did notice that you did not supply a rebuttal to the meat of the comment, though.
That's because there was none.
"Twisting news" does not equal spreading deliberate falsehood.
Sharpton is a known liar, tax cheat, sad sack of shit, and good buddy of Obama. There is really no one to compare him to, on Fox or anywhere else.
Yeah...
That reply reminds me of the Oregon Ducks.
So confident, yet so weak.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that it is not illogical and outrageous for Australian people to make a link between Islam and violence as some seem to be claiming
Whether or not it is logical or reasonable to draw a link between Islam and violence cannot possibly depend on the nationality of the person drawing the link.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that it is not illogical and outrageous for Australian people to make a link between Islam and violence as some seem to be claiming
Whether or not it is logical or reasonable to draw a link between Islam and violence cannot possibly depend on the nationality of the person drawing the link.
Of course it can when you're talking about people's experience of violence within their own nation. People in Australia don't fear being killed by the Tamil Tigers or the Ku Klux Klan when they're walking around Sydney, they do feel fearful of being killed by somebody who says they are doing so in the name of Islam. Hence, it's logical to link violence with Islam when this is what you see around you and you read threats published by Islamist groups in the newspaper.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
]That reply reminds me of the Oregon Ducks.
So confident, yet so weak.
If you wish to trade information, I will play with you. If you wish to merely trade feeble retorts, you can play with yourself.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
]That reply reminds me of the Oregon Ducks.
So confident, yet so weak.
If you wish to trade information, I will play with you. If you wish to merely trade feeble retorts, you can play with yourself.
Okay then, loser...
Goodbye.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Of course it can when you're talking about people's experience of violence within their own nation.
Using either your personal experience or the reporting in your local press as a basis for drawing conclusions about a worldwide religion with something in the region of one and a half billion adherents is far from logical.
It is understandable if people in Sydney are scared of being attacked by a Muslim, but it's not logical. You are at greater risk cycling around Sydney than you are of being attacked by a Muslim.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that it is not illogical and outrageous for Australian people to make a link between Islam and violence as some seem to be claiming.
It's logical. It's also pretty simplistic unless there's a discussion about what kind of link there is.
The main source of objection is not about making a link, it's about treating the link as being a direct causal one.
Agree totally Orfeo, but that's not what I see being argued here by some-it was that Christianity is just as violent -"just look at the LRA".
It's simplistic to make a direct causal link, that's what I tried to say way up earlier in the thread,
quote:
Evangeline
No, IMO Islam is not inherently violent, history will show that.
My view is that there is a confluence of political, social and cultural, economic and religious factors that have led to a situation in which numbers of Muslim people in various parts of the world feel justified in using extreme violence.
It is unfair, ignorant and divisive to say it's because of their religion -plenty of people of all faiths and none commit acts of horrendous violence but it's also untrue to say that religion has nothing to do with the current acts of terrorism and violence being carried out by Al Quaeda, ISIL, lone wolf Islamists and others.
So let's discuss what that link is.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
....These are heavily sponsored, organised and supported.... funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Can you show this is the level of support for ISIS for instance?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm, the fact that they can sweep across a country and take over whole towns rather suggests a fair bit of support and external resourcing, don't you think?
Erm, not to the tune of millions of people, no. Certainly tens of thousands, but as I say above the existence of tens of thousands of fighters out of billions of Muslims doesn't prove much. Certainly no more than the IRA and UVF did for Christianity.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
that's not what I see being argued here by some-it was that Christianity is just as violent -"just look at the LRA".
It's simplistic to make a direct causal link, that's what I tried to say way up earlier in the thread
Who do you see saying that?
I introduced the LRA from the OP, in which Saul the Apostle suggested that asking whether Islam was inherently violent was the way to move on from the Paris terrorist attacks. I contend that this is the wrong question, and said:
quote:
That makes about as much sense as taking the Lord's Resistance Army as representative of Christianity.
The LRA was then mentioned again in response to Mudfrog's challenge to find anyone perpetrating atrocities in the name of the Christian God. He has so far failed to respond to that.
My point was not to demonstrate a link of cause and effect but to highlight the futility of trying to draw conclusions about Islam from terrorists of the ilk active in Paris last week.
Doing so is playing into their hands.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Of course it can when you're talking about people's experience of violence within their own nation.
Using either your personal experience or the reporting in your local press as a basis for drawing conclusions about a worldwide religion with something in the region of one and a half billion adherents is far from logical.
It is understandable if people in Sydney are scared of being attacked by a Muslim, but it's not logical. You are at greater risk cycling around Sydney than you are of being attacked by a Muslim.
I am not making a case that Islam is inherently violent-I said that clearly on page 1. What I've been trying to say here is you can't deny that there is a link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam and you are not improving society by ignoring the link
I was talking about why people in Australia link Islam with violence but they don't do the same with Christianity when groups like the LRA commit violence-my point remains the LRA don't threaten Australians with violence and nor do Australian Christians give them material support or commit violence in Australia in their name.
Being killed in a motor vehicle accident (not necessarily cycling though), is as I acknowledged upthread, for an Australian, a much greater risk-than dying at the hands of an Islamic terrorist-that's got nothing to do with violence though, which is what we're discussing.
It's a tangent and I'm not making any claims about Islam and violence on the basis of these stats, but as you raised it, your assertion about cycling in Sydney being more likely than being attacked by a Muslim depends on how you look at the stats. In 2002, 34 Australian cyclists died in road crashes but 88 Australians were murdered by Muslim terrorists.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
...you can't deny that there is a link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam and you are not improving society by ignoring the link
How does looking at the link improve society?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does 347-504 unarmed civilians rate?
Ah, My Lai, the gift that keeps on giving!
Hundreds killed in an inexcusable and unofficial massacre, and despite the fact that it was acknowledged by America, and its perpetrators openly tried and (however inadequately) punished, it still gets regularly trotted out to satisfy the needs of knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
I did not "trot this out" to satisfy any "knee-jerk anti-Americanism". I posted the link because Mudfrog said quote:
And I haven't seen any evidence of any US soldiers marching into a village and killing 2000 children and their mothers
and I felt My Lai was close enough.
I also conceded your point, before you posted, that Western democracies have their fair share of atrocities and also concede that they often deal with the aftermath better than others - which is why I said I think democracy is the least bad alterative and the real debate is about how to preserve it, not about the intrinsic violence of this or that religion.
What will not get us any further is people ignoring or explaining away the atrocities perpetrated by their own "side", or refusing to take into account the way those atrocities are perceived by those who identify with the victims.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
...you can't deny that there is a link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam and you are not improving society by ignoring the link
How does looking at the link improve society?
The same way any honest examination of a social problem is helpful. As it stands if you have terrorists claiming to act on behalf of Islam surely it is warranted to look at that claim rather than blindly believe it or deny it out of hand. Muslims are part of Australian society, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not try to understand their religion.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Muslims are part of Australian society, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not try to understand their religion.
That I can see, but I can't see that it would be a helpful way into understanding Islam by starting with a focus on the links with violence. That to me seems more likely to generate fear and separation.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Muslims are part of Australian society, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not try to understand their religion.
That I can see, but I can't see that it would be a helpful way into understanding Islam by starting with a focus on the links with violence. That to me seems more likely to generate fear and separation.
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Sure, and perhaps technically that's true, but often when people use that form of expression it means that another option is better.
One aim for an improved society could be that people recognized that their Muslim neighbours were not members of an inherently violent religion. Whether you get there by ignoring or focusing on a link with violence isn't obvious to me.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One aim for an improved society could be that people recognized that their Muslim neighbours were not members of an inherently violent religion.
That depends on whether they are Hizb ut-Tahrir members of course...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One aim for an improved society could be that people recognized that their Muslim neighbours were not members of an inherently violent religion.
That depends on whether they are Hizb ut-Tahrir members of course...
Which might make them members of an inherently violent organisation.
Which is exactly what we might say about members of the Ku Klux Klan or some such.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Just like the KKK, Hizb ut-Tahrir members believe in an inherently violent form of their religion, in this case Islam.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The fact that a minority of adherents of a particular religion take a view that it encourages violence doesn't mean we can apply the term "inherently violent" unless we provide so many qualifiers including the terms "minority" and "sect" and "view of" that do extreme violence to the term "inherently".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'm an unreconstructed Guardian-reading woolly liberal when it comes to my political stance.
And proud of it.
I find myself in broad agreement with Gary Younge in his column yesterday.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger-polarised-debate-paris-attacks
I think there's something very reductionist in trying to boil down any religion to try to determine whether it is inherently violent or not.
That's not the point.
Even if it were, even it could be proven beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam was intrinsically violent how would that help us in any way?
All it would do would be to create a state of paranoia. Which is exactly what the terrorists want to achieve.
As a Christian I am convinced that the Gospel is the 'power of God unto salvation for all who believe.'
Equally, that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that some people won't take advantage of its salvific impetus - if that's the right term - but channel it into all manner of unacceptable ways and behaviour - be it the dreaded extreme 'Constantinian' or Erastian stances that have bedevilled some parts of Christendom ... or be it the kind of holier-than-thou and judgmental attitudes we see displayed by all too many of us - whether right or left, whether liberal or conservative in our theology.
The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay, as the old-time Pentecostals I knew used to say.
Of course there are links between aspects and elements within Islam and extremist violence.
It'd be naive to claim otherwise.
Likewise, it would be equally naive to turn a blind-eye to the way that people operating from within a Christian paradigm can go to the bad ... be it the Lord's Resistance Army, Jonestown, Waco or extreme Ulster Protestants or whacko-jacko Russian Orthodox nationalists.
I don't believe it's a concession to 'comparative religion'/all religions are the same to acknowledge - along with Gary Younge that those who claim that Islam is inherently violent are no 'less nonsensical' than those who claim that it is 'inherently' peaceful.
You can read his full quote and article on the link I provided.
Ok, so he does claim that those who consider Islam to be 'inherently' violent are 'more hateful' than those who consider it 'inherently' peaceful ... which is more emotive than I would be.
I would simply suggest that they are both equally misguided - and/or driven by a particular agenda.
I don't see the need to make value judgments about the adherents of other religions in order to bolster my belief that Christianity is true.
According to Gary Younge, 'Islam, like any religion isn't "inherently" anything but what people make of it. A small but significant minority have decided to make it violent.'
With some caveats, I would agree with him. We can all of us make a balls-up of any system or belief, no matter how good, bad or indifferent the principles of that belief system are.
Look what a mess we've made of our own faith walk. I'd rather point the finger at my own sins and shortcomings than issue blanket condemnations at everyone else who believes differently to me.
The main point, though, is what do we do about it?
Like Kelly Alves, Orfeo and Eutychus, I would rather attempt to find common ground with people of good-will and moderate views - whatever their religion or ideology - rather than adopting a kind of binary, Manichaean view of the world.
Also, I don't think that tit-for-tat comparisons between this, that or the other atrocity takes us very far. Which seems to be how Kaplan and Mudfrog are interpreting any suggestion that Christianity can harbour and foster unacceptable behaviours under the necessary conditions for things to turn sour.
We've also got to remember to compare like with like.
Boko Haram are a militant, Islamist sect bent on creating a separatist caliphate in northern Nigeria. I'm sure they have friends in high places, but largely they are some kind of whacky outgrowth of a particular form of virulent extremism.
So they are not directly comparable with, say, US forces in Vietnam - although I take the point Eutychus was making.
Incidentally, it does seem as if the death toll in their recent outrage may be closer to 600 than 2,000 but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible or less of an outrage.
The point, though, is what do we DO about it?
Bombs and drones don't seem to be working.
What practical suggestions does anyone have?
Dialogue - such as that advocated by Eutychus and others - strikes me as one route.
What other possibilities are there?
Pointing the finger at Islam in a reductionist way and accusing it of being inherently violent doesn't take us anywhere it seems to me.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The fact that a minority of adherents of a particular religion take a view that it encourages violence doesn't mean we can apply the term "inherently violent" unless we provide so many qualifiers including the terms "minority" and "sect" and "view of" that do extreme violence to the term "inherently".
There are many conceptions of Islam just like there are many conceptions of Christianity.
Hizb ut-Tahrir believe in a violent and supremacist Islam. Most Muslims believe in other Islams.
Since I don't believe any of these 'Islams' are true, all I can say is that the Islam of Hizb ut-Tahrir is thankfully less common than other, nicer, Islams.
There simply isn't one monolithic platonic 'true' Islam. There just isn't.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Just like the KKK, Hizb ut-Tahrir members believe in an inherently violent form of their religion, in this case Islam.
Yes, and some Americans believe that Neil Armstrong was never really on the moon. Am I supposed to take them as defining the scientific achievements of the United States?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Orfeo - you missed the next bit of Demas's post, 'Most Muslims believe in other Islams'.
I didn't read Demas's post as a blanket condemnation of all 'Islams'.
Sure, he's said that he doesn't believe that any of the 'Islams' are true - which is something different.
People can say that they don't believe that Christianity is true, or that Judaisism is true or Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else without necessarily being guilty of 'hate' towards any of those belief systems or their adherents.
Posted by sesto (# 18322) on
:
I don't think religion is inherently peaceful or violent. People bring their own circumstances & ideas & apply them to religion.
The West, a predominately Christian part of the world, is relatively comfortable; we have space to take from religion Jesus the healer & preacher of love. But I'm sure that some people with more chaotic lives in Latin America take from the scriptures the Jesus who wanted to lay his Kingdom over the oppressive Roman empire, Jesus the political leader.
The Muslim world is HUGE, billions strong, and we need to stop discussing it like it's a tiny, self-contained entity. Relatively well adjusted Muslim countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia are not centres of this Islamic Violence; but rather the turmoil is coming from countries whose citizens are suffering, like Nigeria, or the Middle East (in which people are suffering in part because of extensive harmful Western intervention).
This is a very complicated issue & it won't do to put it all in simple terms when those terms hurt real people. Any religion can be articulated in violent terms & actions, there is plenty of Buddhist violence you can read about, & we must never use it to cast aspersions on the overwhelming majority of peaceful, normal people who draw great contentment & strength from their faith. Muslims are being stamped upon enough all over the world as it is.
The Christians of Norway do not have to apologise for Breivik's atrocities, and neither should the world's Muslim community be held responsible for the extremist strains interpreting scripture to their own ends.
[ 13. January 2015, 08:16: Message edited by: sesto ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
There simply isn't one monolithic platonic 'true' Islam. There just isn't.
But there is a general entity described as Islam. It might not be monolithic or platonic, but we can still use the term Islam to describe a religion with certain characteristics, the evidence being that violence does not seem to be a necessary consequence of subscribing to it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orfeo - you missed the next bit of Demas's post, 'Most Muslims believe in other Islams'.
I didn't read Demas's post as a blanket condemnation of all 'Islams'.
Which is fine, but we got here from;
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One aim for an improved society could be that people recognized that their Muslim neighbours were not members of an inherently violent religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
That depends on whether they are Hizb ut-Tahrir members of course...
Which isn't fine. The fact that those individuals *believe* Islam is inherently violent does not alter the fact that most Muslims are not violent and therefore as a general statement Islam does not appear to be inherently violent.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What practical suggestions does anyone have?
Dialogue - such as that advocated by Eutychus and others - strikes me as one route.
What other possibilities are there?
From a Christian perspective, I think we need to consider this in our capacity as human beings, as citizens, and as Christians. If anyone is interested, here is my on-the-fly translation of my sermon last Sunday which looks at this a little.
On a day-to-day level, I think our individual actions and attitudes count. It's why I marched on Sunday; but there are many other more mundane, but also more challenging ways we can take a stand.
On a broader level, theological reflection also has a part to play, as does prayer, but I persist in thinking the best way forward is to view this as a political and sociological issue.
The fact that the tactics of terrorism are not confined to a given ideology suggests that looking in such places for the root causes is a wild goose chase.
The NI problem was addressed by seeing it as a political, not a religious issue, and by seeing who would eventually sit round a table and negotiate. I don't think many people would have guessed, back in the day, that Gerry Adams would.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijonmost Muslims are not violent and therefore as a general statement Islam does not appear to be inherently violent.
I agree and have not said anything to the contrary, although I would phrase it as "the most common conceptions of Islam do not appear to be inherently violent"
Some, thankfully less common, conceptions of Islam are distinctly violent and supremacist.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orfeo - you missed the next bit of Demas's post, 'Most Muslims believe in other Islams'.
I didn't read Demas's post as a blanket condemnation of all 'Islams'.
Well, neither did I. I've actually appreciated Demas' contributions to this thread greatly. My question wasn't really intended to suggest that Demas was saying anything about Islam in general. It was a rhetorical device.
The point I'm trying to make in the last couple of posts is that there's a significant difference between describing something about an organisation and describing something about a religion.
Because really, a religion is a terribly abstract thing. As is any belief, or philosophy. When we talk about a religion in this way, we're not describing concrete practices (worship on a Sunday or a Friday, what people do when praying, the dates of festivals). We're basically discussing the theology. And theology is extremely broad, abstract, covering life the universe and everything stuff.
We're still actually being a LITTLE bit abstract if we start talking about a specific organisation, but organisations have stated goals, policy statements (we call them "mission statements" for companies a lot of the time), and organisational structures. They can have office holders and official representatives.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the Ku Klux Klan or the Roman Catholic Church, there's a significant conceptual difference between talking about a Christian organisation - one that asserts that it's values and actions are based on Christianity - and talking about Christianity itself. It's abundantly clear just from that pair of organisations that you can have radically different organisations that claim for themselves a basis in the same text. They've got very different things out of it.
So it is with Islam. A person or organisation saying that they are Muslim is really just a statement that they read/study/take as a basis for living their life the Quran rather than the Bible or some other starting text. What they actually get out of that text and all the traditions surrounding it can vary wildly.
Whereas a given organisation is far more likely to have a more specific grounding, a statement that members are expected to sign up to. The Church of England has 39 Articles that are an example of this.
[ 13. January 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Muslims are part of Australian society, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not try to understand their religion.
That I can see, but I can't see that it would be a helpful way into understanding Islam by starting with a focus on the links with violence. That to me seems more likely to generate fear and separation.
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
You keep talking about this link. But what is it? I can't see one.
Mudfrog seems to be saying that there is an essential link: that Islam is essentially violent, but as yet, Mudfrog has not demonstrated that.
Simply listing a number of Islamist groups who practice violence does not show that Islam is essentially violent, nor even, in fact, that Islamism is. There have been plenty of moderate Islamist parties around the world.
There are plenty of French racists today - so is there a link between being French and racism? I would say not a logical one.
Similarly people have cited various violent Christian groups or actions - does this demonstrate an inevitable link? Again, not at all.
[ 13. January 2015, 09:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The things that occur to me while making dinner...
You know, we could run this entire argument on the basis that most terrorist acts are committed by men.
Seriously. We could have a thread on "Men and violence". We could have a long discussion about whether there was something inherent in men that made them violent. Someone could provide us with a list of bad men. Others could then attempt to say that this list was hardly representative of all men everywhere.
We might get accusations of someone being an apologist for men's violence, and then responding by making a distinction between attempting to explain motivations and justifying those motivations.
Someone could point out that women are also capable of violence, and provide examples, before being countered with the fact that we don't encounter as many threats from women.
Who knows? Maybe there's almost overwhelmingly female message board somewhere that is engaging in that very exercise.
Worth thinking about. Personally, makes me wonder why exactly it is I've accepted Islam as the proper basis for defining the discussion. Just because the latest violent man said something about a particular man in his excuse for his violence?
[ 13. January 2015, 09:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
romanlion, lilBuddha
The Hell Board exists for pissed off venting as you know. Looks like that particular vent is over here so keep it that way please. Others please note. Next warning will be with my Host Hat on and will get offenders a reference to Admin.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Worth thinking about. Personally, makes me wonder why exactly it is I've accepted Islam as the proper basis for defining the discussion. Just because the latest violent man said something about a particular man in his excuse for his violence?
I really don't think it is as controversial as you imagine to suggest that testosterone plays a role in terrorist violence. And it really doesn't do any favours to moderate and reformist Islam to pretend that there is no link between extremist, radical Islam and violence. Not least if you divide the world up into 'us' and 'them' then you are storing up a whole world of trouble which then gets attached to each and every grievance whether real or imagined.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
You keep talking about this link. But what is it? I can't see one.
I find this a bit mystifying to be honest.
ISIL seem to me to be a concrete political manifestation of a particular vision of Islam. It may not be the Islam that most other Muslims follow, but it professes a clear and coherent theology, is led by a PhD in Islamic studies, and attempts to justify its horrific actions in terms of the Wahhabist strain of Sunni jurisprudence.
As a flawed analogy, many people have analysed the English civil war from perspectives of class, nationality etc but I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they couldn't see any link between the puritans, Cromwell and Christianity.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
You keep talking about this link. But what is it? I can't see one.
I find this a bit mystifying to be honest.
ISIL seem to me to be a concrete political manifestation of a particular vision of Islam. It may not be the Islam that most other Muslims follow, but it professes a clear and coherent theology, is led by a PhD in Islamic studies, and attempts to justify its horrific actions in terms of the Wahhabist strain of Sunni jurisprudence.
As a flawed analogy, many people have analysed the English civil war from perspectives of class, nationality etc but I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they couldn't see any link between the puritans, Cromwell and Christianity.
I think disingenuous is the term I would use rather than mystifying. The problem I think is that it is now a matter of left wing tribalism to say that there is no link to Islam because to do so would concede ground to the right.
In fact there is a perfectly respectable movement on the left, including Charlie Hebdo which strongly opposes Islamism and is in some cases allied to reform movements in Islam.
Very happy today that both the Guardian and the BBC Newsnight have shown the latest Charlie Hebdo front page with 'blasphemous' drawing of Muhammad. In contrast the Telegraph have cropped the image.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Teufelchen, thanks for your reply and I concur to an extent but that's a horrifying assumption that you make about "needing" to commit acts of terrorism. I don't believe anybody in Australia needs to commit acts of terrorism. WOW, that really sounds like justifying violence. My point was not that the Christian white majority don't commit terrorism but that groups like the dispossessed and marginally and mistreated Australian indigenous population DON"T, nor do the migrants from SE Asia or the Pacific Islands.
If you think I'm justifying terrorism, you did not read my post enough.
My point was that you form part of a society which the the beneficiary of past acts of mass violence that would put Boko Haram in the shade. (So do I, albeit a different one.) It's a bloody good thing that more oppressed groups don't respond in horrible ways, but I still think that if you want to know what motivates the foot soldiers of terrorism, you can look firstly to economic deprivation and political oppression. Religion is often used as the tool to bring them together, and there is usually a rich and/or well-educated outsider directing the action. (Osama bin Laden, for example, was a rich Saudi exile sending lots of Pakistanis and Afghans to their deaths.)
t
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
You keep talking about this link. But what is it? I can't see one.
I find this a bit mystifying to be honest.
ISIL seem to me to be a concrete political manifestation of a particular vision of Islam. It may not be the Islam that most other Muslims follow, but it professes a clear and coherent theology, is led by a PhD in Islamic studies, and attempts to justify its horrific actions in terms of the Wahhabist strain of Sunni jurisprudence.
As a flawed analogy, many people have analysed the English civil war from perspectives of class, nationality etc but I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they couldn't see any link between the puritans, Cromwell and Christianity.
Well, people keep talking about a link between Islam and violence. So what is it? As yet, no-one has demonstrated this, but have simply asserted it.
Listing a number of violent Islamist groups does not even demonstrate that Islamism is essentially violent, let alone Islam.
It's also the logic of Al Quaeda - who say that since the West is using violence against the Middle East, therefore the West is inherently violent, and in fact, Westerners are also. False logic, yet people here are using the same logic.
Well, Mudfrog is nailing his colours to the mast, and saying that Islam is essentially violent - but again, this is pure assertion.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, people keep talking about a link between Islam and violence. So what is it? As yet, no-one has demonstrated this, but have simply asserted it.
Listing a number of violent Islamist groups does not even demonstrate that Islamism is essentially violent, let alone Islam.
The onus is on you to provide proof. The fact is that all these Al-Quaeda, and ISIL-linked terrorists claim to be inspired by their extremist version of Islam. Why do you discount their own testimony by saying there is no link between their faith and their violence?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Are you willing to subject the LRA (see above) to the same standard of proof?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that all these Al-Quaeda, and ISIL-linked terrorists claim to be inspired by their extremist version of Islam. Why do you discount their own testimony by saying there is no link between their faith and their violence?
There quite clearly is a link. They self identify with Islam, they use language derived from Islamic literature to express the intent of their actions, to attempt to justify their actions to others, and to recruit new members.
But, a link does not mean that there is causality. Are these organisations violent because they are Islamic with the primary driver towards violence being their faith? Or, are these organisations violent for other reasons, and their Islamic identity secondary to those other reasons in the actions they choose to pursue?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you willing to subject the LRA (see above) to the same standard of proof?
I think that the beliefs of the Lord's Resistance Army should be taken seriously and countered just like any ideology which does harm. Christians have a particular responsibility to distance themselves from such groups and condemn and argue against ideologies which claim to be inspired by Christianity. Mainstream churches have spent huge amounts of time rebutting seriously bad theologies such as the prosperity gospel, racist theologies and hateful fringe cults like the Westboro baptists. We could just say, 'nothing to do with us' and walk by on the other side but we don't.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, a link does not mean that there is causality. Are these organisations violent because they are Islamic with the primary driver towards violence being their faith? Or, are these organisations violent for other reasons, and their Islamic identity secondary to those other reasons in the actions they choose to pursue?
There are a mixture of factors involved. Who is to say whether the religious element is primary or secondary (that might depend on individual motives as much as group motives). My consistent point is that the religious factor is part of the mix and that one of the ways of countering such violence is to starve it of religious justification.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Spawn: What I take from your response is that if there is a link between islamic terrorism and Islam, it is up to muslim scholars and theologians to untangle that link, in much the same way as you see it primarily as the responsibility of Christians to do so for the LRA.
The apparent absence of Muslims on this thread has been deplored, and unless anyone wishes to share any special credentials I get the feeling there are no really informed experts here on this subject.
From this I conclude that the best way forward in real life in this respect is to get together with some informed Muslims who, as expressed earlier, are willing to express their faith in the context of pluralistic Western society.
However, I also repeat my contention that attempting to explain this in religious terms is entirely the wrong place to start if a pragmatic solution in Western democracies is to be found.
The right place to start would be to discuss the causes and catalysts of terrorism, in which religious belief could play a role (and undoubtedly sometimes, but not always does).
[x-post]
[ 13. January 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I also repeat my contention that attempting to explain this in religious terms is entirely the wrong place to start if a pragmatic solution in Western democracies is to be found.
To the early part of your post, it's not my job as a Christian to advocate peaceful, mainstream views of Islam. That is the job of Muslims within their community.
But attempting to deal with lslamist terrorist without reference to religion is pointless. You cannot defeat such violence without seeking to address the religious causes and justification of violence with the Muslim community. This is not the same as blaming Islam or tarring all Muslims but it is to say that it is lazy and wrong to engage in denial of any sort of link.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My consistent point is that the religious factor is part of the mix and that one of the ways of countering such violence is to starve it of religious justification.
But, how do you starve violent organisations of religious justification? As Christians, we can make as much noise as we want to say we don't consider the actions of the KKK, the LRA, Phelps gang, the paramilitaries in NI etc to be Christian. It doesn't stop other Christians, to a greater or lesser extent, to provide justification for their actions. And, it doesn't stop the media jumping on the ramblings of the lunatic fringe and splashing them across headlines and ignoring the mainstream.
I've very little knowledge of Islam. But, I would be surprised if a similar dynamic doesn't exist there. With those pursuing violent action having people who can supply some level of justification, and the voices of the lunatic fringe getting coverage and the moderate majority being largely unheard.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, people keep talking about a link between Islam and violence. So what is it? As yet, no-one has demonstrated this, but have simply asserted it.
Listing a number of violent Islamist groups does not even demonstrate that Islamism is essentially violent, let alone Islam.
The onus is on you to provide proof. The fact is that all these Al-Quaeda, and ISIL-linked terrorists claim to be inspired by their extremist version of Islam. Why do you discount their own testimony by saying there is no link between their faith and their violence?
Ah, but now you are rather cleverly shifting ground. You are saying that 'their extremist version of Islam' provides them with justification - I have no quarrel with that.
Now all you have to do now is demonstrate that that version flows automatically from Islam itself.
I have friends who say that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy, and I say to them, no, it isn't. That's what you make of it, but it is not essentially anything.
Religions and ideologies are chameleons, they adapt to their context.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
I said that you're not improving society by ignoring the link between ISIL, Al-Quaeda and Islam. I claimed nothing more than that.
You keep talking about this link. But what is it? I can't see one.
I find this a bit mystifying to be honest.
ISIL seem to me to be a concrete political manifestation of a particular vision of Islam. It may not be the Islam that most other Muslims follow, but it professes a clear and coherent theology, is led by a PhD in Islamic studies, and attempts to justify its horrific actions in terms of the Wahhabist strain of Sunni jurisprudence.
As a flawed analogy, many people have analysed the English civil war from perspectives of class, nationality etc but I'm not aware of anyone claiming that they couldn't see any link between the puritans, Cromwell and Christianity.
I think disingenuous is the term I would use rather than mystifying. The problem I think is that it is now a matter of left wing tribalism to say that there is no link to Islam because to do so would concede ground to the right.
In fact there is a perfectly respectable movement on the left, including Charlie Hebdo which strongly opposes Islamism and is in some cases allied to reform movements in Islam.
Very happy today that both the Guardian and the BBC Newsnight have shown the latest Charlie Hebdo front page with 'blasphemous' drawing of Muhammad. In contrast the Telegraph have cropped the image.
I am arguing against essentialist views of history, which are always post hoc and ad hoc. In fact, they tend to follow the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, or the clustering illusion. Oh, look, here's a cluster of data, there must be some causation there. See under vaccination.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
attempting to deal with lslamist terrorist without reference to religion is pointless
Of course "reference needs to be made" to religion when it is invoked in terrorism (just as in Northern Ireland). Is anyone here disputing this? quote:
it is lazy and wrong to engage in denial of any sort of link.
I think that wording is really unhelpful here. As has been pointed out "link" seems to be being used by some to mean "direct causality" and/or "primary cause". I don't think anybody here is denying this terrorism and Islam are somehow connected, but not a few of us are having trouble with "link" because it often looks like a loaded term being used to drive an agenda.
The most "denial" I can see here, albeit implicitly, is Mudfrog's refusal to admit that examples of the behaviour he challenged people to produce (to disprove his claims) have been forthcoming, and he has so far not acknowledged that at all.
I can't see any way that kind of attitude is going to help.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My consistent point is that the religious factor is part of the mix and that one of the ways of countering such violence is to starve it of religious justification.
But, how do you starve violent organisations of religious justification? As Christians, we can make as much noise as we want to say we don't consider the actions of the KKK, the LRA, Phelps gang, the paramilitaries in NI etc to be Christian. It doesn't stop other Christians, to a greater or lesser extent, to provide justification for their actions. And, it doesn't stop the media jumping on the ramblings of the lunatic fringe and splashing them across headlines and ignoring the mainstream.
I've very little knowledge of Islam. But, I would be surprised if a similar dynamic doesn't exist there. With those pursuing violent action having people who can supply some level of justification, and the voices of the lunatic fringe getting coverage and the moderate majority being largely unheard.
When society, the media, community leaders, opinion formers, and politicians present a consistent view in opposition to racism, for example, then over time views within communities change considerably. Similarly in the Church things have changed when leaders decided to change teaching. Even in the Dutch Reformed Church views on apartheid are entirely different to what they were 15-20 years ago. When you get rid of a 'them' and 'us' mentality which is often caused/influenced/supported by rigid social or religious beliefs then you can find things changing relatively quickly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
When you get rid of a 'them' and 'us' mentality which is often caused/influenced/supported by rigid social or religious beliefs then you can find things changing relatively quickly.
I agree with this bit. The challenge for Islam in France, as a relatively recent arrival in any numbers, is to find the sort of platform and consensus-building process that can facilitate this. It has taken the Church centuries to develop that.
As I've said before, one of the best foreseeable outcomes of the current situation here would be to give religion in general and Islam in particular a public voice within France's secular framework that it has not had before.
Unfortunately I don't think this view goes down very well in the largely evangelical Christian circles in which I (sometimes) move, but it's one of my big prayers.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Really can't see what 'essentialism' or bad science has to do with it. The Kouachi brothers believed they were inspired by a particular version of radical, political Islam. Are you seriously telling me that their actions had no connection to these beliefs? For example, their choice of target? Their rhetoric?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Spawn,
That again goes straight to Christianity being a cause of heinous crimes. If you wish the tree to cease its growth, you must stop feeding the roots. And the nourishment of this violence is not Islam. This tree gains its shape and gets its food from the Christian west. Whose religion is then to blame?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Spawn,
That again goes straight to Christianity being a cause of heinous crimes. If you wish the tree to cease its growth, you must stop feeding the roots. And the nourishment of this violence is not Islam. This tree gains its shape and gets its food from the Christian west. Whose religion is then to blame?
You are going to have to explain what you mean. Christians are responsible for enough crimes of their own without taking responsibility for crimes committed by Muslims.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ sesto
Welcome to the Ship and thanks for dipping your toe into the rather troubled waters of this thread. I hope you find the place stimulating and useful. Perhaps you can see already why the ethos is unrest, and also why we have the 10C's and board guidelines?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it's one of these both/and things again ...
I agree that there's a kind of knee-jerk reaction on the left, 'It can't possibly be anything at all intrinsically wrong within radical Islam itself, it's all the fault of nefarious Western capitalism ...'
Equally - and I think we've seen examples on this thread and elsewhere on other threads where Islam has been the topic - there's a kind of knee-jerk reaction from the right - which essentially boils down to not finding any redeeming features at all within Islam - whether radical or otherwise - lest to do so is somehow to concede defeat to relativism and liberalism.
I suspect that the insistence by many conservatively inclined Christians here - whether evangelicals, Orthodox or whatever else - is partly based on this.
It's far easier to deal with something we don't understand if we demonise it in some way - either by denying that there's any semblance of truth there at all - 'they are worshipping a false god, an idol' - or by making cultural (or even racist) judgements - 'They're different to us ... they're back in the middle ages, they're this, they're that, they're the other ...'
Neither of which helps in my view.
I don't think it helps matters by ignoring or downplaying the links between radical and extreme forms of Islamism and the kind of brutal violence we're seeing in various quarters - IS, Northern Nigeria, the Taliban attacks inside Pakistan and also continuing in Afghanistan, the recent terrorist atrocities in Paris etc.
Neither does it help by failing to acknowledge the links between particular fundamentalist Christian beliefs and attitudes and bad practices.
Over on the other Islam thread there's been some consideration as to whether 'fundamentalism' is the right word to use in connection with these things.
Whether it is or isn't, there are common factors, I would suggest, behind both the insane rampages of the Boko Haram's of this world and the ravages of the Lord's Resistance Army.
Whether 'fundamentalism' is the right term for this common factor, I don't know ... but the common ground is there irrespective of the belief system behind it and the paradigm out of which they each arise - be it an Islamic one or a Christian one.
What is this common ground?
Well, a tendency to 'other' other people is one factor. There are also the various political and sociological factors that Eutychus has mentioned ... throw in a particularly inflexible interpretation of one's religious texts and practices and voila - there is your toxic mix for extremism and religious violence.
A toxic mix, I would argue, that can erupt in any soil - be it Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Islamic or atheist.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I was talking about why people in Australia link Islam with violence but they don't do the same with Christianity when groups like the LRA commit violence
Yes. I agree with you that people do draw such links based on their own experience, and that many people whose only exposure to terrorism is of the Islamist kind are more likely to see terrorism as a uniquely Islamic activity.
I don't agree with your assertion that this is in any way logical behaviour. This kind of thought is an example of the seductive falsehoods that humans are prone to, and the role of logical rational thought is to defend against that. (It may not be as false as cherry-picking the year of the Bali bombing in order to count dead Australians, though.)
I stand by my assertion that the existence, or otherwise, and the nature of the links between Islam and violence, the level of support for Islamist terror in the wider Muslim community and so on does not in any way depend on the Australianness of the observer.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This isn't an exact analogy - no analogy is - but I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with a health professional who specialised in dealing with people with mental health problems.
In her job she'd come across plenty of people with religious delusions - or else hyper-anxiety about issues like the End of the World and so on.
I'm not singling these groups out particularly, but she said that the most common religious backgrounds for this sort of thing were Pentecostals (particularly independent pentecostals) and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now, neither their Pentecostalism nor their Jehovah's Witness beliefs were the cause of their mental issues - but neither did these things help. If you're already over the line in terms of mental health issues then it's not going to help going to the Kingdom Hall every week and listening to lurid sermons about the Apocalypse ...
Whereas at one time the received health-care doctrine was to steer such vulnerable people away from religious communities of any kind - the standard approach now, she told me, was to try to find some kind of more moderate spiritual setting where they could feel at home to some extent without being pushed over the edge ...
So, for some of the Pentecostal clients they would try to steer them towards a more middle-of-the-road evangelical setting or towards a Baptist or a Methodist church or something of that kind.
Ok - I know it's not the same thing we're talking about here - but surely some kind of dialogue and finding of common ground is the way forward?
This may not prove possible in some instances - of course not - but the key to dealing with radical extremism within any tradition must surely come from within that tradition itself.
I know nobody here is putting forward simplistic solutions - 'Convert them all to Christianity and everything will be ok ...'
But I'd still like to see some measures/solutions proposed that go beyond the all-too-easy stance of pointing the finger at someone else's religion and condemning it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, a link does not mean that there is causality. Are these organisations violent because they are Islamic with the primary driver towards violence being their faith? Or, are these organisations violent for other reasons, and their Islamic identity secondary to those other reasons in the actions they choose to pursue?
There are a mixture of factors involved. Who is to say whether the religious element is primary or secondary (that might depend on individual motives as much as group motives). My consistent point is that the religious factor is part of the mix and that one of the ways of countering such violence is to starve it of religious justification.
It's very easy to say that the religious element is secondary, by noting the billion people whom share the religious element without sharing the violence.
If the religious element was primary, then people with that religious element being violent would be the norm and non-violent people would be the exception, only failing to be violent because of some other, rarer factor.
[ 13. January 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whereas at one time the received health-care doctrine was to steer such vulnerable people away from religious communities of any kind - the standard approach now, she told me, was to try to find some kind of more moderate spiritual setting where they could feel at home to some extent without being pushed over the edge ...
This is more or less what I would like to see happen in national culture in France, which so far has, roughly speaking, basically sought to steer everyone away from religious communities of any kind.
From my understanding, though, not all those terrorists invoking Islam are raised in a strong Muslim environment of any kind. Some may come from a vaguely Muslim background but the religious element, such as it is, is extremely hotchpotch.
As an aside, I've certainly seen people go over the edge quite unexpectedly in excitable Christian charismatic environments.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Gamaliel wrote: I agree that there's a kind of knee-jerk reaction on the left, 'It can't possibly be anything at all intrinsically wrong within radical Islam itself, it's all the fault of nefarious Western capitalism ...'
Really? That in itself sounds like a poor over-simplification to me.
Most of the left-wing analysis of jihadism that I've read starts with the domestic scene - I mean, that underground opposition began against the corrupt and violent Arab regimes, which were mostly secularist, and which had ruled for nearly 50 years.
These regimes imprisoned and tortured oppositionists, both Islamist and left-wing. In fact, the left was liquidated in some countries - Saddam began to execute Iraqui communists in the 80s.
Hence, the idea of violent struggle was already a live one before the Western invasions, bombings and so on.
Of course, now they have fused together.
Also, which left-wing groups are uncritical of radical Islam? I think a lot of them are very critical of all religious thinking!
There has been a massive political vacuum in Arab politics, since the secularists were utterly discredited, and the left had been liquidated. The Islamists have stepped into the vacuum, but I think they offer yet another cul de sac. How on earth are they going to function in a globalized economy?
Well, having said that, it's possible that moderate Islamists might be able to do this, as in Turkey.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Sometimes it is possible to speculate on individual cases aside from the population statistics. For instance it's difficult to see how a guy who smoked weed and slept with a girlfriend who seemed happy enough being photographed in bikinis had radical Islam as the primary influence in his life.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Gamaliel's point seems to click a few ''yes'' buttons in my head at least.
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
This was amply illustrated by this last night on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
Panorama -The Battle for British Islam
Panorama investigates the battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims. John Ware hears from Muslims trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values.
Saul
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes it is possible to speculate on individual cases aside from the population statistics. For instance it's difficult to see how a guy who smoked weed and slept with a girlfriend who seemed happy enough being photographed in bikinis had radical Islam as the primary influence in his life.
Is there a zealous convert element in play? Someone raised with little exposure to moderate Islam is converted to a radical form of Islam. Without the background of instruction from moderate muslim clerics, the convert doesn't recognise how far from mainstream Islam the radical sect he's converted to is. His new sect may even teach that most of mainstream Islam is apostate and not much better than the infidels, seperating the convert from contact with moderates. Aware of the faults of his pre-conversion life, the convert wishes to make amends for past errors and jihad provides a means to do so (according to the leaders of the sect he's joined).
Does that seem to be reasonable speculation?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does that seem to be reasonable speculation?
Except as I understand it he doesn't seem to have gone through a phase of religious living post-conversion. This isn't someone who has undergone a trajectory of secular life => blinding light => "reformed" life including jihad, but rather someone who never seems to have been seriously religious who turns up shooting people.
There must have been a period when he was becoming predisposed to thinking about shooting people and then planning it, and presumably at the same time there was no overt religious display.
Of course maybe that story is about to come out but I haven't seen it yet.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
I don't think so. Mainstream seems to view terrorism as unacceptable and therefore that doesn't need reconsideration, radical or otherwise.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
I don't think so. Mainstream seems to view terrorism as unacceptable and therefore that doesn't need reconsideration, radical or otherwise.
Yes, exactly. That would only be true if you accept the canard that Islam is inherently violent. It isn't. The British imams are getting up and saying exactly this, and are denouncing the violence.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Some men.
Some politicians.
Some Russians.
Some Americans.
Some football fans.
Some teenagers.
Some drivers.
I just don't get the desire to stick one particular noun in there instead of a vast number of alternatives. Basically all you're doing is observing a general fact about human beings, that not all of them behave in the way us 'civilised/rational' people expect or within our rules, and that this is worrying.
This is about as trite as it can get. It's an observation so broad it can be re-used again in a different decade where a different kind of person is making the headlines.
The world is a vast, seething mass of a million different attitudes and mindsets, and some of them are mutually exclusive, and there is absolutely zero reason why the world is going to just collectively decide to align itself to your individual set of values when it hears about your concern.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Au contraire, I thought the BBC Panorama piece made the point about the steadily growing (and this is the sad point) minority of Muslims who did accept violence as a beneficial thing.
Approximately six hundred British Muslims have also moved beyond ideology and into practice, by going to Syria and IRAQ to join up with Islamic State.
This was the core debate in the Panorama programme, admittedly it's focus was on British Muslims and I expect there are similar debates across the parts of the world where Muslims make up a decent % of the population.
Some folk here in the West seem to be in a state of collective ostrich like amnesia. Substantial elements of Muslim youth are getting radicalised. The Muslim community seem to recognise it and are worried about it; on the other hand some non Muslims seem totally unconcerned. I just hope another 7/7 doesn't creep up on us.
Saul
[ 13. January 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Six hundred.
Out of how many? Approximately 3 million?
I saw figures for France the other day. I think the latest estimate was 1,400.
Out of an estimated 5 or 6 million.
Is there something inherently violent about Islam? Not by a long shot. Is that evidence of substantial radicalisation of youth? You need a pretty weak definition of 'substantial'.
[ 13. January 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Just to do the math for you - and really, we should have done this a HELL of a lot earlier in either of the parallel threads that have been running on this topic:
We are talking about 0.02 or 0.03% of the Muslim population being involved in this activity, and we're asking questions like whether Islam is inherently violent and suggesting that there's a substantial radicalised element.
This is sheer madness. If you tried to suggest that was a significant percentage in any other context, people would think it was completely bonkers.
[ 13. January 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does that seem to be reasonable speculation?
Except as I understand it he doesn't seem to have gone through a phase of religious living post-conversion. This isn't someone who has undergone a trajectory of secular life => blinding light => "reformed" life including jihad, but rather someone who never seems to have been seriously religious who turns up shooting people.
There must have been a period when he was becoming predisposed to thinking about shooting people and then planning it, and presumably at the same time there was no overt religious display.
Of course maybe that story is about to come out but I haven't seen it yet.
Ongoing speculation ...
Maybe radical Islamic sects who advocate violence have an inherent attraction to people who are attracted to violence? With the terrorist organisations attached to some of these sects providing the access to weapons and training to put that inclination towards violence into action.
Maybe the lack of the religious living post conversion is because the sect they've joined advocates armed struggle as a means to gaining favour with Allah, and they go straight into that as a form of religious living (albeit quite short if they end up getting gunned down by police or putting on an explosive vest shortly after joining the struggle)? Perhaps the form of religious living we experience in Christian sects is different because in general the action they engage in is seeking new converts, which requires an understanding of the message they are supposed to be delivering? That takes more time than "put on this vest and walk into that market over there".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just to do the math for you - and really, we should have done this a HELL of a lot earlier in either of the parallel threads that have been running on this topic:
We are talking about 0.02 or 0.03% of the Muslim population being involved in this activity, and we're asking questions like whether Islam is inherently violent and suggesting that there's a substantial radicalised element.
This is sheer madness. If you tried to suggest that was a significant percentage in any other context, people would think it was completely bonkers.
I think some people on the right, and maybe some Christians, want it to be true. This is why you get these equivocations on words like 'link', which can be rather coyly used to suggest 'cause', without having to actually say it. And also the equivocations with statistics, as with 'substantial'.
As to why they want it be true that Islam is inherently violent - I suppose it's a useful bogeyman, it's the Other who can be scapegoated, it masks our own violence, and so on.
I suppose they are the modern blacks and Jews.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Au contraire
Au contraire what? You said that Islam needs radical reconsideration. I say it doesn't, we are talking about a minority problem. Mainstream Islam already rejects terror.
You even say
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The Muslim community seem to recognise it and are worried about it
Now if you want to discuss how the Muslim community and how the West might want to act to stop a minority becoming radicalized that's valuable but a completely different discussion from the one that starts by asking if Islam is inherently violent and needs radical reconsideration.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe radical Islamic sects who advocate violence have an inherent attraction to people who are attracted to violence? With the terrorist organisations attached to some of these sects providing the access to weapons and training to put that inclination towards violence into action.
This makes sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe the lack of the religious living post conversion is because the sect they've joined advocates armed struggle as a means to gaining favour with Allah, and they go straight into that as a form of religious living
I've also heard of the soon-to-be-"martyrs" living it up licentiously just before, presumably on the basis that all will be forgiven by Allah because of their "martyrdom".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is even talk of non-Muslims going out to Syria, to join jihad, although presumably they would have to convert to join the Islamist groups. It might appeal to adolescents, as a sort of romantic yearning to fight oppression.
No hard evidence for this yet.
There is also talk in France of a shift from the early recruits, who seemed to be largely from poor backgrounds in the banlieues, to more educated and more affluent kids. Again, all hearsay.
[ 13. January 2015, 17:43: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, a link does not mean that there is causality. Are these organisations violent because they are Islamic with the primary driver towards violence being their faith? Or, are these organisations violent for other reasons, and their Islamic identity secondary to those other reasons in the actions they choose to pursue?
There are a mixture of factors involved. Who is to say whether the religious element is primary or secondary (that might depend on individual motives as much as group motives). My consistent point is that the religious factor is part of the mix and that one of the ways of countering such violence is to starve it of religious justification.
It's very easy to say that the religious element is secondary, by noting the billion people whom share the religious element without sharing the violence.
If the religious element was primary, then people with that religious element being violent would be the norm and non-violent people would be the exception, only failing to be violent because of some other, rarer factor.
I'll take Orfeo's contributions as being the most intelligent of the small number of people who deny that there is any causal connection whatsoever between 'Islamism' and violence. Please note that I am not making the claim that in Islam in violence is normative. Though like Christianity, Islam has a bloody past, the vast majority of Muslims have always been peaceful, neighbourly, hospitable ordinary people just getting on with their lives.
One of the most important influences for me was living in Pakistan for a year as a young man. I got to know many Muslims and fell in love with Sufi Islam and later Shia Islam and specifically with the thinking of people like Ali Shariati , 'red Shiism' which struck a chord with the kind of liberation theology which I was imbibing at the time.
I have specifically used terms like Islamism, radicalism, and extremism to qualify anything I say. And nothing said in this thread persuades me that we shouldn't be paying attention to religious origins to Islamist violence. I'm a strong believer in the influence of ideas - including ideologies like fascism, national socialism,
Stalinism and Maoism which need to be monitored and countered. Violent Islamism falls into this category.
The fact that Islam is largely peaceful is neither here nor there. The problem is not Islam itself but extremist political Islam which is a relatively recent thing - you can track it through Wahabbi and Salafi schools of through, and it found its origins in thinkers like Mawdudi and Qutb. It is the reason, one of my favourite countries, Pakistan is a place which it is not longer safe to visit and Egypt is also in danger of becoming a basket case. That is not to deny that a number of countries aren't making a good case for combining Islam with democracy and even in some cases secularism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Spawn,
My point was that if you choose to holiest the religion of people who do bad things as the cause of those bad things, then Christianity is a large part of the problem being discussed.
Many of the issues which fuel the current situation were and are created by those who call themselves Christian. And in the name of Christianity
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Washington post death penalty for leaving Islam survey
survey quoted by bbc news Bristish muslim attitudes
I hate when people lump all Muslims together when attitudes and interpretations of Islam vary so much from country to country and Muslim to Muslim.
However at the same time the idea that there is no connection between Islamic beliefs and violence is belied by the surveys I am linking where the majority of Muslims in some countries think that individuals who leave Islam should die while a significant minority of British Muslims have the same opinion.
In contrast I would imagine that precisely 0% of Christians posting on these boards would believe there should be death penalty for apostasy from Christianity.
I think the reason for this difference is due to differences in specific teaching contained within each faith.
[ 13. January 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Green Mario ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
survey quoted by bbc new Bristish muslim attitudes
That link dates from 2007 so is not exactly up to date.
quote:
I hate when people lump all Muslims together when attitudes and interpretations of Islam vary so much from country to country and Muslim to Muslim.
Yes. So do I.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Spawn,
My point was that if you choose to holiest the religion of people who do bad things as the cause of those bad things, then Christianity is a large part of the problem being discussed.
Many of the issues which fuel the current situation were and are created by those who call themselves Christian. And in the name of Christianity
In your earlier post you chose the term Christian West to describe a battle of civilisations. You are wholly wrong and you aid a narrative which divides communities. You as somebody purporting to be a Buddhist should be aware of this. Please note that I am never going to send a post that blames all Muslims for minority issues.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
The current debate seems to be framed around those who fear that a large percentage of Muslims are attracted to terrorism and those who say that this is ludicrous, we are talking about a tiny number analogous to Christians fundamentalists who attack abortion clinics, that both Christianity and Islam contain violence and commands that legitimise violence as well as much that encourages peace.
I think both these extremes deny the facts. Islamic violence in terms of terrorism really does only involve a small minority and is not representative, but violence towards people who are seen as apostate in many Islamic countries is seen as the norm - despite the Quran saying that there is "no compulsion in religion". A major difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians have a clear hermeneutic to reject the more violent passages and commands of the old testament, the supremecy of the life and teaching of Jesus. I don't think within Islam such a clear hermmenutic exists that makes it necceassay to reject commands to violence when apparently contradicted by more peaceful passages.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Spawn,
Though I do not expect everyone here to know this, I do have a very strong record on this site of stating religion is not the root of problems, people are. Regardless of religion, people will find a justification to do what they will.
You reference "radical" Islam, I think it just as fair to reference Christianity.
Ultimately, religion is merely a justification, a proffered excuse.
We do the those involved an injustice by accepting the excuse and not dealing with the root causes.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Six hundred.
Out of how many? Approximately 3 million?
I saw figures for France the other day. I think the latest estimate was 1,400.
Out of an estimated 5 or 6 million.
Is there something inherently violent about Islam? Not by a long shot. Is that evidence of substantial radicalisation of youth? You need a pretty weak definition of 'substantial'.
I have to say those stats quoted by Green Mario are much more disturbing than I would have expected though. A third of 16-24 year old Muslims in Britain think that the death penalty should be applied to those who convert to another religion or leave Islam, I'm genuinely shocked, it isn't indicative of future terrorist activity but I find the notion of it being seen as desirable to execute somebody over their religion appalling and yes-that's violent.
I have no idea whether the survey was conducted amongst the most recent immigrants attending the most hard-line mosque, it would be interesting to know how the sample was selected, but even allowing for sample bias that is disturbing information.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Ariel I meant I hate it when other people do it. Obviously when I do it I don't hate it as much because then it's justified.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Spawn,
Though I do not expect everyone here to know this, I do have a very strong record on this site of stating religion is not the root of problems, people are. Regardless of religion, people will find a justification to do what they will.
You reference "radical" Islam, I think it just as fair to reference Christianity.
Ultimately, religion is merely a justification, a proffered excuse.
We do the those involved an injustice by accepting the excuse and not dealing with the root causes.
If I was a Buddhist, I'd be using my terms carefully. I always carefully say Islamist, extremist or radicalised to qualify anything I say about Islam. I would never use an unqualified, generalised term about another faith. You are decades out of date by insisting on using the term 'Christian West'. Have some respect, please.
[ 13. January 2015, 20:21: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
i am confused? How am I offering disrespect to Islam?
It is the radical which is the problem and this is irrespective of whatever religious affliation one has.
As far assuming the Christian West, the problem is decades old, so the terminology is apt. Though, to be honest, I was using it more to point out the problem of trying to apply a religious label.
Those countries commonly considered the West are indeed part of the problem.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
A third of 16-24 year old Muslims in Britain think that the death penalty should be applied to those who convert to another religion or leave Islam, I'm genuinely shocked, it isn't indicative of future terrorist activity but I find the notion of it being seen as desirable to execute somebody over their religion appalling and yes-that's violent.
To be an open Atheist, in at least much of the Islamic world, is to take your life in your hands. Ahmed Harqan gave this interview where in his opinion he states the extremists are not veering off of Islamic practices. The roots of their violence are in the tradition they come from. He also states that people cannot think critically about their tradition, or at least do so openly. Wikipedia says he and his wife survived an assassination attempt shortly after the interview.
On a side note, it is interesting the cleric he is debating states that ISIS is not Islamic and is the work of Mossad.
[ 13. January 2015, 20:46: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
i am confused? How am I offering disrespect to Islam?
It is the radical which is the problem and this is irrespective of whatever religious affliation one has.
As far assuming the Christian West, the problem is decades old, so the terminology is apt. Though, to be honest, I was using it more to point out the problem of trying to apply a religious label.
Those countries commonly considered the West are indeed part of the problem.
You were comparing 'radical Islam' to the general term 'Christianity'. You were making ridiculous statements about the 'Christian west'. I kind of assumed you were being ironic. Apparently you are totally serious.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are the modern blacks and Jews.
I think the blacks and the Jews are still the blacks and the Jews, both literally and figuratively.
t
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are the modern blacks and Jews.
I think the blacks and the Jews are still the blacks and the Jews, both literally and figuratively.
t
Thanks Teufelchen. I hadn't noticed this statement before but it says it all really. Quetzelcoat hadn't noticed that Jews were being killed by Islamist terrorists. Says it all.
[ 13. January 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Islamist terrorists kill 8 times more Muslims than they do non-Muslims. Well, that was at least the figure for Al-Qaeda in a study a few years ago.
If their primary aim is to kill Jews, they've got really bad aim.
Even now, a couple of times the latest massacre in Nigeria has come up as an example of the horrors of this terrorism - and it is indeed horrible - without much recognition that it's highly likely the victims were Muslim as well. That is the demographic of the area being attacked.
[ 13. January 2015, 21:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are the modern blacks and Jews.
I think the blacks and the Jews are still the blacks and the Jews, both literally and figuratively.
t
Thanks Teufelchen. I hadn't noticed this statement before but it says it all really. Quetzelcoat hadn't noticed that Jews were being killed by Islamist terrorists. Says it all.
No. You're putting a meaning on my words that goes beyond my intention. I don't think quetzalcoatl hadn't noticed; I think it was simply an unfortunate turn of phrase. I mean that racism and anti-semitism haven't gone away just because we are (justly) concerned by islamophobia.
t
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
NB This is not intended to deny that from time to time, in specific incidents, Jews are indeed targeted.
I'm just pointing out that the overall cumulative effect of terrorist incidents does not have the makings of a concerted campaign against Jews.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When there's a nuclear war, it will be between Sunni and Shia.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When there's a nuclear war, it will be between Sunni and Shia.
That's unprovable, and bordering on nonsense.
t
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Please note that I am not making the claim that in Islam in violence is normative. Though like Christianity, Islam has a bloody past, the vast majority of Muslims have always been peaceful, neighbourly, hospitable ordinary people just getting on with their lives.
...
I have specifically used terms like Islamism, radicalism, and extremism to qualify anything I say. And nothing said in this thread persuades me that we shouldn't be paying attention to religious origins to Islamist violence.
You know, a member of my extended family is in jail for murder.
Never met the guy. Never want to. Know about a major trauma in that branch of the family a generation earlier. Also aware, however, that he has a couple of perfectly law-abiding brothers.
There's another member of my extended family who's been in and out of jail a lot in his life.
Again, never met him. Know a little bit more about him. I'm aware that he had a difficult upbringing.
Thank God I don't have to deal with people walking up to me and saying "You know, we really have to discuss how to deal with the criminal element in your family. Do you think it's genetic? Okay, maybe it's not genetic, but we really should at least explore the connection between X's criminal behaviour and growing up in your family, there's definitely a connection on account of the problems in the history of the family which seem to stem from your highly dominant great-grandmother."
Because here I am, a perfectly respectable government employee with a security clearance and responsibility for writing criminal law.
Yes there's a connection between us. Yes, the trajectory of these relatives of mine might well have its roots in our common heritage. No, I don't want to discuss how cousin X was affected by his upbringing every fucking time he gets arrested, and no I can't promise you that the next 3 generations of the entire family will never get into trouble with the law. Thanks.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are the modern blacks and Jews.
I think the blacks and the Jews are still the blacks and the Jews, both literally and figuratively.
t
Thanks Teufelchen. I hadn't noticed this statement before but it says it all really. Quetzelcoat hadn't noticed that Jews were being killed by Islamist terrorists. Says it all.
Eh? No, it doesn't mean that, except for someone determined to misinterpret. And what does this 'says it all' mean, except as a snide remark?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm a strong believer in the influence of ideas
This appears to be one of the chasms that this conversation keeps falling down into.
It is certainly intellectually respectable to think of religions as examples of ideology in the Marxist sense - covering superstructures over the underlying reality of class difference flowing inevitably from people's relationship to the modes of production.
So oppression, alienation etc give rise to class conflict, and religion provides a narrative to speak about those problems. If it wasn't one religion, it would be another. If it wasn't Islam it would be Christianity, or Buddhism, or Hinduism.
On this view the phrase "Islam is inherently violent" is nonsense, not because Islam is peaceful but because fundamentally Islam isn't. There is not really anything there. No one is motivated by 'Islam', no one acts or refuses to act because of 'Islam'. Instead they are motivated by real things like oppression, alienation, class, imperialism.
To make it meaningful, the phrase "Islam is inherently violent" must therefore be read as meaning "Muslims are inherently violent". Which is obviously untrue, insulting and damaging to solidarity.
As I said this is an intellectually respectable view. The obvious downside for people who put forward this view and also profess Christianity is that it also applies to them. Under this view, Christianity also fundamentally isn't. There's nothing there. We may be deluded by the illusion of ideology but in the end following Jesus is just a narrative we use to make sense of the impersonal social forces which buffet us. If we were truly honest we would drop Christianity and face reality and admit that our actions are no more truly motivated by the life of Jesus than Muslims' actions are motivated by the life of Muhammad.
For the people on this thread, here is a thought experiment: Every Muslim in the world converts to Christianity. Does anything change? Or if you prefer, every Christian in the world converts to Islam. Does anything change?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Underpinning orfeo's observation, I am reminded of an observation on the theology and personality of a well known conservative charismatic (after that person's death) by someone who knew him very well.
"He was much kinder than the God he believed in".
While I think it is perfectly legitimate to look critically at the moral and ethical implications of any theology, past or present, we have to avoid a trap. That of assuming that a fierce theology automatically produces fierce people who use their faith to justify acts of violence. As if slavish obedience to fierce theological teaching was somehow likely to be more effective than any other kind of obedience. People are a lot more variable than that.
If we can only remember that, then we may be able to begin the journey of assessing people on their merits. MLK's "content of character" test again. Or following Jesus' sermon on the mount strictures about the dangers of judgmentalism.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that fierce theologies don't have dangerous effects, or that fierceness isn't to be found in all kinds of theological variations. I'm counselling against assumptions of either homogeneity in belief or inevitable impact on behaviour. Human violence is ubiquitous, regardless of belief systems. And the same can be said for human gentleness.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
How about some estimate of the proportion of Moslems practicing violent Jihad from each Moslem country...? How many Indonesian Jihadis? The fact is that most violence comes from a small number of mainly arabic countries, and apart from this gradually infecting relatively small numbers of people elsewhere, the majority supply of manpower to violent so-called Islamic groups is from a small number of countries. Now take a look at the recent history of those countries, and the sources of violence become more clear and less obviously connected to Islam.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
How many Indonesian Jihadis?
Depends on the province.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
How many Indonesian Jihadis?
Depends on the province.
What do gay rights have to do with jihad? Is Vladimir Putin an Islamic terrorist, now?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You were comparing 'radical Islam' to the general term 'Christianity'.
No, no I was not.
I did say this quote:
religion is not the root of problems, people are
which should be used as a check.
The point I was attempting is that it makes the same sense attributing violence to Islam as it does attributing the same violence to Christianity.
Countries from the West caused (and still cause) many of the underlying problems which fuel violence originating in the ME and North Africa. Those countries are at least nominally Christian, some very vocally so.
One could draw the conclusion that Christianity were the root of much evil.
But I am not saying this. I am saying that people will find whatever they might to justify their deeds.
You say you are not condemning Islam, and I will not cry you false. However I will say that when you use modifiers like radical or -ist, you are still putting the onus on the word being modified.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Your analogy with your family situation is not very convincing, Orfeo.
Imagine that all the activities which are drawing attention to Islam globally at the moment were being carried out by Christians instead.
Now imagine that someone asked a Christian about these activities’ possible roots in Christian theology, only to be told: “Well, like the overwhelming majority of Christians, I am not involved in any of it, so I am very offended that you should even raise the issue. As for the minority who are, the fact that they call themselves Christian, and are brandishing Christian slogans in justification of their actions, is misleading, because their actual motivation is in all cases economic, political or ethnic, rather than religious – a case of what Marxists call ‘false consciousness’”.
There is no way that Christians would be allowed to get away with distancing themselves from the discussion, and from their co-religionists, in that way.
If a Muslim taxed me with the Crusades, I would feel an obligation, because they involved my co-religionists, to explain that though they were provoked by Muslim aggression in the preceding centuries, they still represented a betrayal of Christian teaching as contained in Christianity’s sacred texts.
I would certainly not be justified in saying: “The fact that they were Christians is merely an odd historical coincidence, and anyway it happened over nine hundred years ago, so they are absolutely nothing to do with me, and I am hurt and outraged that you think you can ask me about them”.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
As someone who has spent a great deal of time in Muslim countries, it seems to me that part of our perception gap between Christian and Islamic violence is due to different roots of our self-identity.
When western Christians commit acts of violence, whether they in war or in acts of terrorism, we tend to do it in the name of a nation, mostly because European, North American and Australasian nations were formed by the people who lived in them and carry a certain level of legitimacy. We tend to feel American or Canadian or French or German or Australian. Or we feel Irish in a land that occupied by the British, or Basque in a land that is occupied by Spain, or Corsican in a land that is occupied by France.
Every single nation in the Middle East was created by a European power. The modern states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Mali, Mauritania, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. were created by mapmakers in London, Paris or Berlin. There was never any local input into the creation of these nations, their flags, symbols, names, currencies, etc. The locals were not consulted about what system of government they should use or who their leadership should be - we installed their leaders through decolonization, then kept or overthrew them as part of the Cold War chess game and more recently invoked the War against Terror (which ironically seems to affect nations that have not produced terrorists and not the nations that have) to maintain this control.
I just spent 3 weeks in Algeria in November. People in Algeria self-identify as Arab or Berber or Black, or they identify as Sunnis or Ibadhi. The nation of Algeria has no legitimacy to most people. They don't feel Algerian in the way that Americans feel American.
When we commit acts of terrorism we do it in the name of our nation. However, the use of religious language is as pervasive in the west as it is in the Arab world. When we went to war to defeat the Nazis Franklin Delano Roosevelt repeatedly said it was a holy cause and that we were a sword of righteousness and a shield of truth. When we fought the "godless commies" in North Korea or Vietnam, or much more recently in the lead up to the Iraq War when Saddam was identified as the anti-Christ using dog whistles by the GOP administration and rather explicitly in fundamentalist circles, religious language including appeals to Scripture were used to justify their what we did. Western and particularly American exceptionalism which has formed the basis of colonization, war and terrorism is itself coded in Christian language - "a city on the hill" (Matthew 5:14). Yet, we don't identify our acts of violence as specifically "Christian" because we have an additional source of identity - our nation-state.
Nations in the Muslim world aren't a source of identity for them so violence is justified far more directly - by appealing to the only legitimate source of identity they have, religion.
I don't see anything about Islam that lends itself to more violence than Christianity. However Muslims will identify their cause in more overly religious terms than Christians. Just because we don't use the "C" word in the same way doesn't mean that religious conviction hasn't formed the basis of violence by Christians up to the present, to at least the same degree as it has for Muslims.
[ 14. January 2015, 03:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
[X-post]
Well if you would feel an obligation, then go ahead. For my part I would feel perfectly justified in saying it really didn't have anything to do with me, and the Crusades were far more about the geopolitical situation rather than any kind of Bible passage, etc etc.
In fact, some of that sounds quite familiar from the last few days on the Ship.
I fail to see why I should be answerable for every person on the planet who decided to call themselves Christian, any more than I'm answerable for every person who's an Australian citizen, or every male, or every gay person, or every lawyer.
[ 14. January 2015, 03:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
To add a bit further to my thought, our news media always identifies all acts of terror committed by Muslims as "Islamic terror". But in the U.S. (at least), the news identifies equivalent terrorism by Christians as "anti-abortion violence" or "hate crimes" which are often prosecuted criminally. So again, I think this leads to some of the perception differences we have here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And to add a bit more to my own thought:
You know, it perhaps wouldn't be a problem if people asked such things once. But it just happens over and over and there's no sign of listening to the answers. It doesn't matter how may times Muslim leaders renounce violence, after each new event they're told off for not renouncing violence.
People don't generally ask about the Crusades because of a genuine interest in the Crusades, either. It's brought up for the sake of point-scoring. Forgive my scepticism, but if people really, truly wanted to learn what Islam had to say about violence, wouldn't they bloody well and go and engage in some study instead of just asking the nearest passing Muslim about it immediately after a terrorist attack?
[ 14. January 2015, 04:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Per the survey quoted by BBC news only 7% of British Muslims admire Al-Qaeda. I would imagine though that no survey would bother asking Christians in the UK if they supported violence against abortion clinics as i am pretty sure the yes's would be close to 0%. 7% is still a small minority view. The percentages that think that death is deserved for leaving Islam though is far more worrying. Does anyone seriously want to maintain that this isn't because of Islamic teaching? I think it is specifically due to Islamic teaching but at the same time many Muslims who would pay lip service to believing this might in reality would be better than wanting to see this carried out in reality when the rubber meets the road because they are better than the teaching they are claiming to follow.
[ 14. January 2015, 06:22: Message edited by: Green Mario ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No. Of course it's related to Islamic teaching.
Does anyone want to seriously maintain it's relevant to anything other than recorded deaths of Muslim apostates?
If we were having a discussion about freedom of religion, it would be highly pertinent. I'm struggling to see its relevance here (just as I'm struggling to see the relevance of LGBT rights in Aceh) unless the aim is a general sort of "Quick! Let's find every possible example of Muslims not living up to our standards!" that isn't interested in whether it has relevance to the problem of terrorism.
It makes about as much sense as using a survey of Americans, finding sizable support for the death penalty, to demonstrate that Americans are inherently violent and are coming to kill you. Although it's possible that someone is running exactly that argument on a message board based somewhere in Western Asia right now.
[ 14. January 2015, 06:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Message got a bit mangled but hopefully enough of the words are in the right order that it makes some sense.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
I think there is a correlation between Americans who support the death penalty and American's who are happy for the US to use violence to achieve it's foreign policy ends, I would be amazed if there is no correlation. Having said that there is massive difference to applying the death penalty to someone who has committed murder rather than someone who thinks in the wrong way about God.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I said it before, but I'll say it again. That survey you keep quoting is seven years old and I would regard the information in that as out of date by now and not suitable to base an up to date hypothesis on. Young people can and do hold firm, sometimes unexamined views, the 16-24 year olds who answered the survey questions at that time will now be 23-31 and may think differently. For that matter, they may not, but I personally would not rely on a snapshot of how things were seven years ago as applicable to the present day.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Having said that there is massive difference to applying the death penalty to someone who has committed murder rather than someone who thinks in the wrong way about God.
Translation: I think one of these things is a really bad crime and I don't think the other one is a crime.
Fine. I don't think people should be put to death for changing their religion either. But I think it's a punishable offence under the law of some countries, possibly by death.
I don't think the death penalty should be applied for murder by the way, but it is.
I certainly don't think the death penalty should be applied for homosexuality. But it is. Christian countries like Russia and Uganda are cracking down on homosexuality lately.
Today I read someone saying online they thought the death penalty should be brought back for pedophilia. I don't agree.
Basically, all this means is that (1) some people think the death penalty is appropriate for the very worst crimes, and (2) people have different ideas about what the worst crimes are.
The first point isn't surprising. What's surprising is how difficult it is for people to grasp the second point.
Our whole notion of plurality inexplicably breaks down when it comes to people having a completely different set of priorities and values to our own.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I perhaps had better complete the point I was trying to make by talking about the difference between what people actually think and what people do.
When you talk about "applying" the death penalty, none of the people answering that survey were doing any such thing. People have LOTS of opinions about what the law should be, but in and of itself that often means nothing more than that they'll vote for politicians who reflect the same opinions (or claim to reflect the same opinions).
To get to people actually "applying" the death penalty, you have to establish that they would take matters into their own hands and break the law of the land.
I sometimes think there ought to be some serious penalties for speeding drivers. I dream of their car engines cutting out, or catching fire, or just seeing them knocked about the head with a plank. My values - clearly not shared with a lot of the population because they zoom past me every morning - place a high priority on the speed limit as a safety measure.
None of this means I hunt down the drivers who speed past me and wreck their cars.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Well plurality/relativism does break down at some point, otherwise saying something is intrinsically violent is no more or less offensive than saying it is intrinsically beautiful and this whole discussion and most other discussions on SOF are moot. No one takes relativism that far.
What if I think making offensive cartoons of my religious leader is the worse possible crime and deserves the death penalty? (I actually have marginally more sympathy with this view than the death penalty for changing religion)?
You talk about a dislike of murder and a liking for religious freedom as if these are mere personal preferences.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[X-post]
Well if you would feel an obligation, then go ahead. For my part I would feel perfectly justified in saying it really didn't have anything to do with me, and the Crusades were far more about the geopolitical situation rather than any kind of Bible passage, etc etc.
In fact, some of that sounds quite familiar from the last few days on the Ship.
I fail to see why I should be answerable for every person on the planet who decided to call themselves Christian, any more than I'm answerable for every person who's an Australian citizen, or every male, or every gay person, or every lawyer.
Totally reasonable to say that the crusades have nothing to do with you. Totally unreasonable to say that the crusades had nothing to do with religion. There is no historian at all who wouldn't see religious beliefs and statements as part of the mix.
It is increasingly clear that this discussion is veering far from the reality of terrorists who scream God is Great as they fire into a news room. It is possible to have a middle position between Islam is inherently violent and religious belief has nothing to do with it. The extreme positions are as usual dominating the thread. It feels at the moment like a debate with flat earthers.
As for Lil' Buddha look at your posts about the 'Christian West' and the sentence in which you directly compared 'extremist Islam' with 'Christianity'. I was using qualifying words to indicate that the problem of religious belief and violence was related only to a subset. I should not have to explain that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
What if I think making offensive cartoons of my religious leader is the worse possible crime and deserves the death penalty? (I actually have marginally more sympathy with this view than the death penalty for changing religion)?
If you think it? Then I'll say I think that's horrible.
If you act on it? Then I suspect that in most countries where making the cartoon was lawful, your actions will be unlawful. And roundly condemned.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[X-post]
Well if you would feel an obligation, then go ahead. For my part I would feel perfectly justified in saying it really didn't have anything to do with me, and the Crusades were far more about the geopolitical situation rather than any kind of Bible passage, etc etc.
In fact, some of that sounds quite familiar from the last few days on the Ship.
I fail to see why I should be answerable for every person on the planet who decided to call themselves Christian, any more than I'm answerable for every person who's an Australian citizen, or every male, or every gay person, or every lawyer.
Totally reasonable to say that the crusades have nothing to do with you. Totally unreasonable to say that the crusades had nothing to do with religion. There is no historian at all who wouldn't see religious beliefs and statements as part of the mix.
It is increasingly clear that this discussion is veering far from the reality of terrorists who scream God is Great as they fire into a news room. It is possible to have a middle position between Islam is inherently violent and religious belief has nothing to do with it. The extreme positions are as usual dominating the thread. It feels at the moment like a debate with flat earthers.
You use this "nothing to do with" phrase far more often than the posters you appear to believe think that things have "nothing to do with" each other.
The post of mine that you're quoting doesn't actually say that the Crusades had "nothing to do with" religion. It says that they had nothing to do with me, and far more to do with politics than religion.
I can't speak for other posters, but when I rejected links between Islam and terrorism, I emphasised more than once that I was rejecting causative links. I still do. I don't see how shouting something about Allah is a coherent explanation of the causes of a terrorist act any more than shouting God Bless America is a coherent explanation of an act.
If we were talking about people who had dedicated their lives to religious philosophy courses, there might be something persuasive, but when we're talking about a pot-smoking bloke who didn't keep himself pure for marriage and who had no difficulty killing a Muslim policeman who got in his way, you need more to persuade me of his religious zealotry than a few catchwords and the target of his disaffection.
[ 14. January 2015, 08:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's perfectly possible, by the way, that there IS some evidence of religious devotion out there. But you're not bringing it to the table. Allah Akbar is a perfectly standard, ordinary thing said by Muslims everywhere. Allah isn't even a specifically Muslim name for God.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's perfectly possible, by the way, that there IS some evidence of religious devotion out there. But you're not bringing it to the table. Allah Akbar is a perfectly standard, ordinary thing said by Muslims everywhere. Allah isn't even a specifically Muslim name for God.
There doesn't need to be any evidence at all of religious devotion (though reports indicate specific radicalisation in prison and links to a cleric). Hypocrites and even criminals can have religious beliefs too and they can act upon them.
You really are throwing everything at this. So you think they could have been saying a specifically Muslim phrase as a commonplace like we'd say 'hello'? Or they could have been Christians saying it Allahu Akbar as they discharged their firearms into the bodies of journalists and Jews?
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Orfeo are you really saying that there is no inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts other than that defined by the law of the land or personal opinion.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
So you think they could have been saying a specifically Muslim phrase as a commonplace like we'd say 'hello'? Or they could have been Christians saying it Allahu Akbar as they discharged their firearms into the bodies of journalists and Jews?
They discharged their firearms into plenty of people. Just not women, apparently.
No, what I am saying is that placing great significance on a Muslim phrase as some kind of explanation of their discharge of firearms doesn't make a lot of sense, given the 99.97% of Muslims who use the exact same phrase every day without discharging firearms at anybody.
All it tells you is that they're Muslim. Wow. Great detective work. Same as shouting God Bless America while on a murderous rampage would tell you that perpetrator was an American. In terms of clues, it's ridiculously tiny.
Because it does nothing to distinguish them from millions of completely innocent people. It does precisely nothing to tell you why they became the kind of Muslim who thinks that discharging a firearm is a good time to say Allah Akbar.
Saying that these men were Muslim is merely stating an obvious starting point, barely more helpful in identifying them than stating they're male, and less useful than stating that they were French.
You can study the Koran all you like, but it's never going to tell you very much about these brothers' upbringing, social class, who they interacted with, what they said to people or wrote, when they first got the idea of travelling (to Yemen I think?), how they got in touch with people.
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
I would like to know what, in practical terms, you would suggest that should involve (both the understanding and the countering), with special emphasis on what it should involve for a Christian leader.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Orfeo are you really saying that there is no inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts other than that defined by the law of the land or personal opinion.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's completely impossible to get the world to conform to my personal opinion and will. What I'm saying is that what I think is unenforceable.
Well, unless you want to start enforcing punishments by inflicting them yourself, as a vigilante or terrorist.
I don't want to do that. I don't think I'm very good at it. So rather than spend all my time screaming at the world that it's not behaving the way it's supposed to, at times I step back and think "I think you're wrong, but I don't have the power to stop you thinking something different".
This is basically what rule of law means. We don't get a power of veto over laws that we disagree with, allowing us to ignore them. We certainly don't get to ignore a law we don't agree with when we travel to a different country - one of the more notable examples in our local region is that several Australians have got into trouble in Thailand for insulting the royal family in some way. I don't think it's right that a quip about the king can land you in jail for several years, but a Thai court isn't going to think much of me saying "well, I don't think that's a good rule".
Neither do we, as individuals, get to create laws that other people have to comply with. As countries, our ability to create laws that people from other countries have to comply with is limited to when they're IN our country.
Basically, whether I think there is inherent humanity or inhumanity in acts is a completely separate question from whether I can expect other people to reach the same conclusions on those questions as I do. After years of watching how the world plays out - from internet discussions to travel to just spending time watching intelligent television on SBS - I've moved from "everybody thinks that" to "surely you can't really think that" to "it's perfectly possible that you might think differently".
There are very, very few things indeed that one can confidently say are close to universal, across all cultures and societies, never mind the individual members of those societies. You can just about get away with saying that people believe that 'murder' is wrong, so long as you remember that 'murder' just means unlawful killing and there is a very wide variety of views about what makes killing lawful. Over in the USA there are millions of people who think it's perfectly alright for 12 strangers to sit down in a room and discuss whether a person is bad enough to justify carefully planning their death. I think that's horrible. Is the law of the USA going to change because I think that's horrible? No. Heck, entire governments - governments that are allies - have been telling the USA they think that's horrible for decades.
Does reaching a definitive position on whether the death penalty is humane or inhumane have any effect on the existence of the death penalty in the USA? Only if the US Supreme Court reaches it. And that's rule of law in a nutshell.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
Although there are millions who have read the text and they're fine with shouting Allah Akbar while someone is being executed, according to the law of the land, because they converted from Islam-is that right.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS Having a job where you are reasonably often instructed to write something that you think is stupid, to implement a policy or process that you think is stupid, and where occasionally your attempts to persuade people fall on deaf ears and you end up writing something that you personally believe is stupid, and then those words end up becoming part of the law of the land... all of that really makes you think about these issues a lot.
Thankfully the things I'm dealing with aren't on the level of "is this humane". They're usually more on the level of "is this efficient" or "is this practical" or "is this going to lead to arguments and court cases". Same basic philosophical questions though.
I've helped enact into a law a series of provisions that, in my opinion (and my opinion never changed on this), are completely useless and are a waste of ink/pixels. We're only talking a page or two of stuff, but it still means that I know there's a law in this country that shouldn't be there. Doesn't matter. It's there. Other people wanted it there. People are applying it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
All it's going to tell you is that they read the exact same text as millions of other people who are utterly revolted by the idea of shouting Allah Akbar while committing mass murder.
Although there are millions who have read the text and they're fine with shouting Allah Akbar while someone is being executed, according to the law of the land, because they converted from Islam-is that right.
You'd have to do a poll in the countries where that IS the law of the land to find out whether or not the people in that country think that SHOULD be the law of the land.
I imagine people who turn up to the executions and watch them and shout are probably fine with it, yes. They think that killing in that situation is acceptable. In a circumstance that I don't think it is acceptable.
Just as some people in the USA think killing is acceptable, in a circumstance that I don't think it is acceptable. Happens to be a different circumstance.
It's just not possible to conclude that because someone thinks killing is acceptable in one circumstance, such as apostasy, that they'll also think that killing is acceptable in another circumstance, such as publication of a satirical magazine.
Nor is it possible to conclude that because a great big bunch of a billion people have a particular idea in common, they'll have a second idea in common, even if the second idea is supposedly extrapolated from the first.
Look at the Nicene Creed. It wouldn't even exist if it weren't for theological wrangling in the early church, it wasn't accepted by everybody, and we ended up with 2 different versions of it because the Orthodox didn't accept the Roman Catholic alteration to it. This is presented to us as a foundational document of our faith, which we recite, and yet the truth is that various other Christians who read the same Bible didn't reach the same conclusion and don't recite the same creed.
PS Of course, Christianity didn't physically kill its apostates much as far as I know. It just told them they would suffer punishment for all eternity. Much kinder in a dialogue between people who all believe in the eternity of the soul, don't you think?
[ 14. January 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You dismiss religious belief as in any way causative, I'm simply saying that it is part of the explanation and part of the cause, mainly because the terrorists invariably say it is. We need to understand that and counter it.
I would like to know what, in practical terms, you would suggest that should involve (both the understanding and the countering), with special emphasis on what it should involve for a Christian leader.
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders but dialogue with Muslims is pretty important. Let's face it, we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect.
The closest I ever came to interfaith dialogue of the more extreme kind was a bus journey to Peshawar chatting to two Mojahedin returning to the front having been shot in action. They were carrying their kalashnikovs and were very well-educated Pathans.. They were fighting to repulse the Soviet invasion and believed they were fulfilling the religious duty of jihad. I was far too nervous of their guns to explain to them that they were just conning themselves and it was all geopolitical.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PPS Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Thank you, Wikipedia article on apostasy.
Yes, yes, Old Testament, suddenly not part of the Christian tradition, etc etc.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PPPS (and then I'm really going to shut up for the night).
If we're going to have an apostasy discussion, we should be really clear that the Quran, unlike Deuteronomy, does not specify a punishment for apostasy.
Rather, the punishment is set out in the Hadith.
Helpfully explained in the more specific and more detailed Wikipedia article solely for Islam.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Orfeo I understand the difference between rule of law and anarchy but c'mon mate that's not what was being discussed and you know it. Neither were we discussing whether or not we as individuals should be trying to change the laws of other lands.
quote:
Orfeo
Today I read someone saying online they thought the death penalty should be brought back for pedophilia. I don't agree.
Basically, all this means is that (1) some people think the death penalty is appropriate for the very worst crimes, and (2) people have different ideas about what the worst crimes are.
The first point isn't surprising. What's surprising is how difficult it is for people to grasp the second point.
The point you seem to miss is that what people define as the very worst crime/s and how they believe these should be punished tells you a lot about their value system, their attitudes towards human life, their propensity towards violence and their respect for/understanding of or definition of human rights. It is also a cause for concern when there is societal discord about what constitutes the worst crime-debates can be had about the length of sentencing or even capital punishment but when there is a huge difference, e.g. blaspheming should not be punishable at all versus it is the worst crime and should be punishable by death.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Much writing in the OT about wars and violence.
Although Judaism has no 'founder' a fair bit of violence during time of Moses and after.
Islam does have a founder - Mohammed - and he describes violence and using violence against those who don't believe.
Founder of Christianity (although he'd probably dispute it) - Jesus - far from advocating violence promoted peace.
Food for thought?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
sprang to my mind this morning (I seem to remember someone asking for a NT verse that could be taken to advocate violence).
[ 14. January 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PPS Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Thank you, Wikipedia article on apostasy.
Yes, yes, Old Testament, suddenly not part of the Christian tradition, etc etc.
FFS which is it Orfeo-why does it matter what some old book does or doesn't say when millions of people don't act on it, what matters is what happens in practice or are you now using what the Koran says to shore up your argument.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders
Inasmuch as it is, at least in part, against what is perceived as Christian, and it's likely to affect our own religious freedoms, I think it is quote:
dialogue with Muslims is pretty important. Let's face it, we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect.
Who are the "them" and the "us" here in your eyes, please? quote:
The closest I ever came to interfaith dialogue of the more extreme kind was a bus journey to Peshawar chatting to two Mojahedin returning to the front having been shot in action. They were carrying their kalashnikovs and were very well-educated Pathans.. They were fighting to repulse the Soviet invasion and believed they were fulfilling the religious duty of jihad. I was far too nervous of their guns to explain to them that they were just conning themselves and it was all geopolitical.
Kudos for the extreme example, but somewhere along the spectrum this is where the rubber hits the road for all of us.
The guy taken hostage in the printing works (who, bear it in mind, by that time was well aware of the Charlie Hebdo attacks two days previously) apparently dressed the wounds of one of the attackers (whilst also facilitating the concealment and intelligence-sharing of a second employee of which the attackers were unaware). That gives me pause for thought.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Oh and I didn't meant to make it sound like i thought Deuteronomy was the Koran, I was referring to the earlier post about the Koran made by orfeo.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Quick response to Eutychus because I'm just going out the door. I'm a bit confused by the question because it is obvious. Let me just say that as a Christian I believe we are all equally-loved by God. - no Jew, Greek etc.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
He may very well have been, but how do we KNOW that for sure?
It's all based on interpretation. How do we know what Christ 'intrinsically' meant when he said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Of course, the usual rules of hermeneutical engagement apply, but ultimately it comes down to interpretation.
I might agree with your interpretation, someone else might take a different view.
How do we decide which one of us is right?
Howbeit, whatever we understand that verse to mean, I think we'd all agree that it couldn't be taken as a proof-text justification for running around murdering people who don't agree with us.
Adherents of Islam have to speak for themselves, but I don't see any evidence for a consensus in the Islamic world that condones or justifies acts of violence and terror.
I don't believe that the Imams and others who are condemning these attacks are doing so simply to avoid a backlash or to draw attention away from themselves whilst they're secretly condoning them ...
No, far from it.
That doesn't obviate the fact that there are clearly extremist and fanatical preachers and punters calling for violence against the infidel etc etc.
Both things are true at one and the same time - there are Muslims who deplore the violence and condemn it, others who deplore it but - for whatever reason - believe that there is some justification or rationale for it ... and loads of nuanced views between those poles.
How could it not be with any religion with so many adherents?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
Which is how you interpret that verse. It happens to be an interpretation I share, and I believe would be shared by the majority of Christians. Yet, a different interpretation could easily be used to justify an armed response to perceived attacks on the Christian faith.
We don't all share the same interpretation of the Bible. In some cases the differences between interpretation are trivial, in others they can be substantial. It wasn't that long ago that Scripture was used to support slavery, to support the execution of heretics, and it has been used to support religious wars. I happen to believe all the interpretations that support such things are wrong, probably most of us here would agree with me on that point.
One of the things that happens very often is that society (or large parts of society) have a whole raft of things that are assumed to be obvious. When we read the Bible it's easy to see things that support what you already know to be "obviously true". At one time European societies saw it as "obviously true that Africans are inferior", and that coloured their reading of Scripture to see in it support for enslaving millions of Africans. Without that "well, it's obvious" filter we read the commentaries that expounded those interpretations with complete bafflement, unable to follow the logic of the argument.
The same goes for all sacred texts, in all religions, as far as I'm aware. It's clear that many Muslims (although, still a small minority) read the Koran and Haddith and see support for terrorist activities. I'm speculating again, but perhaps they come with a "well, it's obvious" filter that says military action is an appropriate response to threats to what you hold most valuable - and, that's not unlikely since the rest of the world generally adopts the same approach, launching military invasions to secure oil supplies etc.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Alan Cresswell wrote:
It's clear that many Muslims (although, still a small minority) read the Koran and Haddith and see support for terrorist activities. I'm speculating again, but perhaps they come with a "well, it's obvious" filter that says military action is an appropriate response to threats to what you hold most valuable - and, that's not unlikely since the rest of the world generally adopts the same approach, launching military invasions to secure oil supplies etc.
Well, violence has been the lingua franca in the Arab world for some time. The old regimes, which have now imploded, used plenty of it against their own people, and the West came in with its invasions, bombings, drone-strikes and so on.
In fact, you could say that the Arab world is in meltdown, amidst a storm of violence.
I don't think these things are 'caused' by Islam, in fact, the old regimes were secularist, and to begin with (after Nasser) termed themselves 'pan-Arab secular socialists', a term which seems ironic now. They still imprisoned and tortured any opposition, whether left-wing or Islamist.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Spawn, to recap, you said quote:
we're unlikely to be conducting an interfaith dialogue with Islamist terrorists but you can break down notions of 'them' and 'us' which religious belief can erect
So I asked quote:
Who are the "them" and the "us" here in your eyes, please?
to which you reply quote:
I'm a bit confused by the question because it is obvious. Let me just say that as a Christian I believe we are all equally-loved by God. - no Jew, Greek etc.
We are all equally loved by God, fine and dandy. But the answer to my question here is no more obvious to me as a result.
For instance, right before that you said quote:
Islamist terrorism isn't very much to do with the Christian leaders
which seems to create a big "us" and "them" distinction right there.
On the face of it, this is a distinction between "us Christians" (who, say you, don't need to introspect on Islamist terrorism) and "them Muslims" (whose responsibility it is to do so and who, perhaps, you might think are to some extent guilty by association).
And ultimately, unless you are a universalist, presumably you believe there is a division between Christian "us" (the "sheep") and everyone else (the "goats")?
Or possibly do you mean a distinction between "us" (people between whom there can be reasonable dialogue) and "them" (those with whom there cannot be)?*
Which "us and them" distinction do you think can usefully be broken down, and how?
I hope you can see why I felt clarification was called for and look forward to your answer.
==
*and to whom I once heard a civilian US military strategist say, in a top-level conference and in all seriousness, "the only response is to kill them all".
[ 14. January 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I suspect that people find the community that makes them feel good about who they are. I had an acquaintance a few years back who was a very committed member of a spiritualist church. She was also schizophrenic - at least, that's my conclusion from the facts that several other family members have been diagnosed as such, and this woman was also hearing voices / experiencing paranoid delusions regularly. In that church, hearing voices was considered a great spiritual gift, which meant that everywhere else she was a mentally ill woman living on benefits, whereas in her church community she was practically a celebrity. She avoided getting diagnosed and was of the view that other people simply misunderstood her gifts. And honestly, who wouldn't want to believe that take on things? People adore religious groups that tell them what they want to hear.
So that's kind of what I think is happening here. If you're an angry young man with issues with aggression, and you come across a small subgroup within your religion that really values people like you, and validates your rages, and tells you that you can be a holy warrior of God and have meaning in this life and reward in the next, what's not to love about that? Many majority Muslim countries have a lot of angry young men, because they have comparatively young populations - if most of your population is under 25 there'll be a different group psychology. Combine that with societies that are very segregated along gender lines, and you get angry young men who get to hang out with other angry young men a lot.
But all of this is due to demographics rather than specifically Muslim beliefs.
I don't think that the western equivalent to Islamist extremist groups is Christian extremist groups. I think it's probably something more like skinhead gangs or football hooligans. A British racist skinhead gang who go around beating up immigrants on their estate, or intimidating people outside the local mosque (and I've seen far more of the latter than I've had any experience with violence by Islamists), will probably tell you that they're doing so in defense of the UK and out of love of their country.
But if people come to me over and over again and say "Liopleurodon, you're British. Why haven't you specifically spoken out against every incident like this that happens? Oh, you SAY that you oppose racism, but maybe there's a bit of you that supports it really? Isn't there something violent about being British? That's why these guys said they were beating people up, and if you look back, Britain has a long history of spreading its empire by the sword, so I think there might be something in this whole Britain-is-violent thing. What about the repuation of British football hooligans abroad? What do you think of them? And hang on... weren't you brought up just a few minutes' walk away from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered? By people of the same ethnicity as you? Have you publically condemned those people?" ...
then yeah, that's gonna get pretty tiresome.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Some very helpful insights there, Liopleurodon (at least for me) - thank you.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Eutychus wrote:
and to whom I once heard a civilian US military strategist say, in a top-level conference and in all seriousness, "the only response is to kill them all".
Some accounts of Saddam's life show him receiving plaudits from CIA officers for slaughtering thousands of Iraqui communists; and also being exhorted to attack Iran harder, I suppose Iran being seen as the great Satan.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't think it's a secret that many of those pulling the strings at the top of terrorist organisations (as opposed to the foot soldiers) are students of military strategy in exactly the same way as the people who end up as officers in Western armies - sometimes training at exactly the same civilian institutions under the same (Western) lecturers and reading exactly the same books.
[ 14. January 2015, 11:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Okay, Eutychus, I just mean that we shouldn't regard each other as enemies because of our differences. And also that the more we get to know each other the more we realise both how different we are and how much we have in common. I obviously don't mean that there are no differences of view. As to questions of ultimate judgement that is beyond my pay grade. I'm not God, nor am I very confident that I know his mind.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Founder of Christianity (although he'd probably dispute it) - Jesus - far from advocating violence promoted peace.
Food for thought?
Who said that he came not to bring peace but a sword.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Orfeo I understand the difference between rule of law and anarchy but c'mon mate that's not what was being discussed and you know it.
I was replying to a post of yours that referred to the law of the land. Why would I "know" that wasn't the relevant topic?
And why do you think I was talking about anarchy? I wasn't. I never mentioned the word. I was talking about values. I was talking about pretty much the same thing as Alan was after me, about the fact that it's far too easy for us to regard a whole bunch of things as 'obvious' and just be mystified when someone else doesn't share those 'obvious' things.
And your response actually reflects that exact point: your "huge concern" that other people don't share your same values as to which crimes are the worst. Well, sorry, but welcome to the planet. It's actually always been like this. You'll find a lot of isn't actually European Judeo-Christian and never was. You're just aware of it now, which is what you get for living in the 21st century where the connections are far stronger than they were before and we're exposed more to people who aren't in our 'club'.
Frankly, I spent a hell of a lot of time on that post, so for you to basically suggest that I was knowingly avoiding the topic at hand is not nice to hear.
[ 14. January 2015, 13:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The point you seem to miss is that what people define as the very worst crime/s and how they believe these should be punished tells you a lot about their value system, their attitudes towards human life, their propensity towards violence and their respect for/understanding of or definition of human rights.
Are the Chinese inherently a very violent race? There are 55 capital offences in China.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Jesus was talking about the inevitability of persecution not commanding Christians to wield the sword.
sorry - I missed this before my last post - but it's interesting that Christians have few qualms about interpreting the words of Jesus but don't think that muslims can do the same with words from the Qur'an.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Okay, Eutychus, I just mean that we shouldn't regard each other as enemies because of our differences. And also that the more we get to know each other the more we realise both how different we are and how much we have in common.
Thanks for the clarification. Does that apply right across the board - to the terrorists too?
(Seeing as how I'm a prison chaplain, meeting terrorists, or at least potential terrorists, is not as unlikely as you might think...)
Is there anyone I should regard as my enemy? Should I regard anyone or any ideology I might believe to be "inherently violent" as my enemy?
Or is regarding any individual (including individuals espousing potentially violent ideologies) as "inherently violent" the first step towards regarding them as our enemy? And thus an inherently wrong move?
(These are not rhetorical questions, by the way).
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Working with aspects of body psychotherapy, I can tell you from direct experience that the emotions we feel when we meet someone are often a direct reflection not of something from ourselves, but something from them. Technically this is called counter-trabnsference, and is far more universal than most people realise. If you then accept those negative emotions as your own and run with them, you only reinforce them in the other person. If you can TOTALLY release them so you are only feelin your own feelings (not by numbing them but by radically lettig them go through a very deep process of release) then you give the other person a hugely powerful opportunity to not be bound by thise emotions. This is Love in action. It's not easy. And it applies to everyone.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I may have missed in this ond unresolved thread any mention of Islamic Wahabism or Salifist motives that contribute to the terrorism. These two strands would seem t be at the core of the trouble, Wahabi or Salifi
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I may have missed in this ond unresolved thread any mention of Islamic Wahabism or Salifist motives that contribute to the terrorism. These two strands would seem t be at the core of the trouble, Wahabi or Salifi
I agree. Actually, Spawn did raise them over on the other thread. But it's difficult to make sense of the whole question of violence within Islam without considering that. IMHO, natch.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Leo clearly any text needs interpreting whether the bible, the Quran or a post on SOF. I am not sure I understand the point you are making though.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I may have missed in this ond unresolved thread any mention of Islamic Wahabism or Salifist motives that contribute to the terrorism. These two strands would seem t be at the core of the trouble, Wahabi or Salifi
That was an interesting website. It certainly showed me that I know surprisingly little about Islam at a "theological and practical" level. (Well, in retrospect that's not surprising at all, but I was considering myself to be more informed than I am.)
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Okay, Eutychus, I just mean that we shouldn't regard each other as enemies because of our differences. And also that the more we get to know each other the more we realise both how different we are and how much we have in common.
Thanks for the clarification. Does that apply right across the board - to the terrorists too?
(Seeing as how I'm a prison chaplain, meeting terrorists, or at least potential terrorists, is not as unlikely as you might think...)
Is there anyone I should regard as my enemy? Should I regard anyone or any ideology I might believe to be "inherently violent" as my enemy?
Or is regarding any individual (including individuals espousing potentially violent ideologies) as "inherently violent" the first step towards regarding them as our enemy? And thus an inherently wrong move?
(These are not rhetorical questions, by the way).
No-one is your enemy - though they might take a different view. But you can guess from what I've said about my admittedly limited experience that I have no problem with talking to Islamists. There are others, I am sure, on the Ship who have more recent experience with Islamists and even terrorists. They can be quite everyday. The way that the killer of Lee Rigby talked to camera as his bloody hands caressed his machete illustrated the banality and ordinariness of evil. It's not elsewhere, it is next to us.
[ 14. January 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
the banality and ordinariness of evil. It's not elsewhere, it is next to us.
Yup, crouching at the door of each and every one of us, from inside our hearts.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Leo clearly any text needs interpreting whether the bible, the Quran or a post on SOF. I am not sure I understand the point you are making though.
As the person who posted that verse first, let me address this (again).
On the parallel(ish) thread, Kaplan Corday (presumably trying to stave off a welter of violent verses from the OT) threw down the challenge quote:
Show me one verse from the NT which endorses violence on the part of Christians to defend, promote or extend their religion.
Matthew 10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", sprang to my mind this morning.
Now I could probably explain my way out of that without any help from Kaplan Corday, but I think it's safe to assume that a competent Muslim scholar could do just the same with any similar Qur'an surah apparently endosring violence.
The point is that Christians and Muslims alike have reinterpreted their sacred texts and managed to adopt non-violent stances in doing so, so pointing at apparently violence-promoting surahs to prove that Islam is inherently violent is not proof enough.
(I have already contended that ongoing reinterpretation of Scripture on many matters has been legitimized by historic Christian practice and is indeed legitimized by the canon itself.
It's not clear to me as to what proportion of Muslims think similar reinterpretation of the Qu'ran is legitimate, or what scope the Qu'ran itself grants for that; to make matters more complex, the Qu'ran does not occupy the same place in Muslim thought as the Bible does for Christians).
[edited for clarity]
[ 14. January 2015, 15:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Leo clearly any text needs interpreting whether the bible, the Quran or a post on SOF. I am not sure I understand the point you are making though.
It might be similar to one I tried to make upthread, that any text needs interpreting ...
That might sound like an obvious point to make, but the way you cited the 'I come not to bring peace but a sword' could imply that you thought that the interpretation that you put on that - Christ saying that persecution was inevitable - was somehow axiomatic or intrinsic within the text itself.
That's how it sounded to me, at any rate, but I'd be happy to stand corrected.
The point I was trying to make is that however we interpret that verse, we are interpreting that verse.
We are making some kind of hermeneutical judgement based on a whole range of factors.
We aren't just coming across a line of text and thinking, 'Right, that settles it ... there's only one possible interpretation possible ...'
Whilst I'm not suggesting that this particular verse can stand in isolation as a proof-text for religious violence on the part of Christians - I would certainly suggest that it is capable of more and different interpretations to the one you offered.
The issue then, becomes how we arrive at the 'correct' interpretation or even decide what it means.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The issue then, becomes how we arrive at the 'correct' interpretation or even decide what it means.
Decide what the verse means, or decide what the phrase "correct interpretation" means?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
As for Lil' Buddha look at your posts about the 'Christian West' and the sentence in which you directly compared 'extremist Islam' with 'Christianity'.
I've explained my intent, if you wish to ignore this, there is nothing I can do further.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I was using qualifying words to indicate that the problem of religious belief and violence was related only to a subset. I should not have to explain that.
It's a bit like saying you are only condemning bad black people. You are still putting an emphasis on black.
What I am saying is that it isn't really a religious thing. If Mohammed had instead spread Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism or one of the many 'heretical" sects of Christianity, the result would have been the same. Except you would now be decrying the "radical" members of one of them instead of Islam.
Liopleurodon here and ToujoursDan here, have very good explanations of the why of this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha
Interesting point there about bad black people, as very right-wing people have sometimes said that black men are intrinsically violent and/or criminal.
One interesting thing about this is the leap from a statistic, say, that more black men are arrested than white men for assault (proportionately), to some kind of 'intrinsic' explanation.
In fact, you can hear this sort of stuff in Europe now, that we are letting in criminal dregs from the third world, and we should stop them. I suppose it is quite a seductive message to some people.
I keep trying to grasp the shift in logic that goes on here, I think it is from 'accident' (or contingency) to essence; also from correlation to causation, of course.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It's a bit like saying you are only condemning bad black people. You are still putting an emphasis on black.
What I am saying is that it isn't really a religious thing. If Mohammed had instead spread Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism or one of the many 'heretical" sects of Christianity, the result would have been the same. Except you would now be decrying the "radical" members of one of them instead of Islam.
Liopleurodon here and ToujoursDan here, have very good explanations of the why of this.
One of the worst and most inflaming analogies you could have come up with. Belief and religious belonging is not the same as ethnicity. To suggest that it is would mean that we'd never be able to make any sort of value judgements about bad religion. I deplore the Westboro baptists and believe their version pf Christianity is extremist and evil. Am I guilty of hate speech for saying so?
What you are saying makes no sense at all.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
People treat religious belonging like ethnicity all the time. Whether it's Breivik and his 'cultural Christians' or the assumption that a Muslim has to have a darker shade of skin. People identify themselves as Christian or Catholic or whatever on the basis of the family they were born into, not on the basis of actually setting foot in a church on a regular basis.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People treat religious belonging like ethnicity all the time. Whether it's Breivik and his 'cultural Christians' or the assumption that a Muslim has to have a darker shade of skin. People identify themselves as Christian or Catholic or whatever on the basis of the family they were born into, not on the basis of actually setting foot in a church on a regular basis.
So now you're saying that Dawkins is not just anti-faith but racist to boot. I think I've heard just about evry possible excuse presented for the view that Islamism has nothing to do with Islamist terrorism. And now the racist card is played. Godwin here we come.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The other point to make, Spawn, is one that's been made a lot of times in various ways, which is there is all the difference in the world between criticising an entire religion, criticising the 'bad' elements of a religion, and criticising specific people or organisations.
If you talk about Westboro Baptist Church, you are talking about Westboro Baptists. If you launch into a criticism of ISIS or Hizb ut-Tahrir, then its something that the average Muslim can join you in doing.
It's specific.
This has been expressed in various ways. Demas has throughout this thread talked about there being various 'Islams' and the impossibility of making any meaningful statement about 'Islam'. And I think the problem with talking about 'Islamists' is that you end up just expressing the idea that you're only criticising 'Islamist Islam' without explaining what that is, beyond it being the particular variety of Islam that you don't like.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
I don't think the sword quote from Matthew 10:34 is that difficult to interpret or that the interpretation is highly contested because
1) of the context, Jesus is talking about not being afraid of people who want to kill you just before, and just afterwards about being prepared to pick up your cross and not clinging to your life. All of this speaks of being on the receiving end of persecution rather than meting it out.
2) The parallel passage in Luke refers to division in the family with no mention of a sword.
3) Overarching this is the context of Jesus' life - he isn't ever recorded as picking up the sword against anyone and when Peter cut off the ear of someone coming to arrest him he healed the guy. He explained to Pilate why his disciples didn't fight to protect him.
4) There is also the rest of his teaching to refer to where he talks about those "living by the sword dieing by the sword" and "not to resist the evil person but turn the other cheek".
5) There is also the evidence from Acts and the Letters about how the early Christian's understood Jesus in terms of none of them referring to taking up arms against those who were persecuting.
I think the interpretation is pretty clear. If there is another plausible interpretation thought there is such diversity of thought on the SOF site I am sure someone will offer it shortly!
What you are saying though gives a clear role to Islamic theologians. They should be loudly and clearly explaining why the verses in the Quran and sayings in the Hadith that Islamic terrorists take to support their actions, and which a large percentage of Muslims throughout the world (62% in Pakistan, 80% in Egypt per the survey quoted in the Washington Post) believe mean that people who change their religion from Islam should die; have been wrongly interpreted by others in the Islamic community. BTW this support for the death penalty for leaving Islamic is not an academic thing only rearing its head in surveys - Pakistan has relative freedom of religion in terms of laws and certainly no death penalty for apostasy but many people who convert from Islam still have to fear for their lives, particularly due to the risk from their own family.
No I don't think Muslim community leaders need to decry every act of terrorism. No I obviously don't expect Muslims that I work with or socialize to say that they disapprove of this terrorist act or that terrorist act.
However I think Islamic theologians and preachers have a duty to explain how and why verses that have been misinterpreted as supporting or encouraging violence in the Quran or Hadith have been misinterpreted and to provide credible explanations for the correct interpretation. I am not convinced this is necessarily as easy as with the saying of Jesus that you have quoted given the different contexts (Jesus was a rabbi who lived peacefully and was crucified; Mohammad was a military leader, not just a military leader, but he was a military leader) but if these verses or sayings have been misinterpreted or taken out of context they have a duty to ensure correct understanding and interpretation.
At the moment I believe that most Muslim people are peaceful and non-violent despite the teachings of many forms of Islam rather than because of the teachings of Islam but I am not closed to hearing other interpretations.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People treat religious belonging like ethnicity all the time. Whether it's Breivik and his 'cultural Christians' or the assumption that a Muslim has to have a darker shade of skin. People identify themselves as Christian or Catholic or whatever on the basis of the family they were born into, not on the basis of actually setting foot in a church on a regular basis.
So now you're saying that Dawkins is not just anti-faith but racist to boot. I think I've heard just about evry possible excuse presented for the view that Islamism has nothing to do with Islamist terrorism. And now the racist card is played. Godwin here we come.
I've got no idea how that came from what I'm writing. I was just pointing out to you that this is how people think of it. The fact that you can think of these things at a purely intellectual/theological level, divorced from any cultural or historical context, and treat a "Christian" as meaning a very specific thing about beliefs, is perfectly fine. I'm just saying that you can't expect this is how the world around you always treats it.
I would refer you, though, to my other comment, which is that the beliefs you're being 'very specific' about aren't really that specific, and that talking about Islamists really does just end up being about 'bad Muslims' unless you get some more specificity into exactly who you are talking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I think the interpretation is pretty clear. If there is another plausible interpretation thought there is such diversity of thought on the SOF site I am sure someone will offer it shortly!
You think the interpretation is pretty clear because that's the only interpretation you've been presented with. It's not about whether anyone on this site finds an interpretation 'plausible' The simple fact is that people HAVE pointed to that verse as a call to arms. It's irrelevant whether or not every single person on the Ship thinks that such an interpretation is a load of rubbish.
I pointed to the exact same verse when the challenged was originally laid down. Why? Because it's so obvious that someone could interpret the verse that way if they wanted to. You and I can agree all we like that this would involve removing the verse from the wider context of Jesus' teaching, and it doesn't stop someone else preaching a sermon that emphasises Jesus talking about division and conflict.
[ 14. January 2015, 21:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
What you are saying though gives a clear role to Islamic theologians. They should be loudly and clearly explaining why the verses in the Quran and sayings in the Hadith that Islamic terrorists take to support their actions, and which a large percentage of Muslims throughout the world (62% in Pakistan, 80% in Egypt per the survey quoted in the Washington Post) believe mean that people who change their religion from Islam should die; have been wrongly interpreted by others in the Islamic community.
This is exactly what they do. When it comes to terrorism it's reported in our media.
Although I do wonder why you think you, rather than other Muslims, would be the primary audience.
Secular people constantly say that Christians need to repudiate the inferior status of women. That Christians need to stop being homophobic. Usually, this is expressed as if there are no Christians already doing exactly that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I don't think the sword quote from Matthew 10:34 is that difficult to interpret or that the interpretation is highly contested because
[long piece of explanation]
I think the interpretation is pretty clear.
You're making my point for me. You need a whole wodge of interpretation to explain that verse. quote:
What you are saying though gives a clear role to Islamic theologians. They should be loudly and clearly explaining why the verses in the Quran and sayings in the Hadith that Islamic terrorists take to support their actions (...) have been wrongly interpreted by others in the Islamic community.
With this I agree, but to do so they need a platform. Moderates don't attract airtime the way lunatics do, and Muslims in the West are working from a position in which they don't have the institutional connections moderate Christianity has - even the non-conformists ride the wave of the historic churches in this respect. quote:
At the moment I believe that most Muslim people are peaceful and non-violent despite the teachings of many forms of Islam rather than because of the teachings of Islam but I am not closed to hearing other interpretations.
I honestly don't know, but I think the best way forward is to wake up, really wake up, to the fact that our societies are pluralistic (instead of hiding that reality in, say, the banlieues) and make space for those other interpretations to emerge, in the hope that they do.
A Muslim fellow prison chaplain agrees with me and is seeking my advice as to how they could, and I've been scratching my head for a while about what Jesus would advise him to do.
[ 14. January 2015, 21:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It's a bit like saying you are only condemning bad black people. You are still putting an emphasis on black.
What I am saying is that it isn't really a religious thing. If Mohammed had instead spread Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism or one of the many 'heretical" sects of Christianity, the result would have been the same. Except you would now be decrying the "radical" members of one of them instead of Islam.
Liopleurodon here and ToujoursDan here, have very good explanations of the why of this.
One of the worst and most inflaming analogies you could have come up with. Belief and religious belonging is not the same as ethnicity. To suggest that it is would mean that we'd never be able to make any sort of value judgements about bad religion. I deplore the Westboro baptists and believe their version pf Christianity is extremist and evil. Am I guilty of hate speech for saying so?
What you are saying makes no sense at all.
Page out of the Godfrey Bloom School of Debate handbook? Your retort avoids the main point quite nicely whilst twisting intent and attacking.
Your Westboro comparison; would you say they are radical Christians? Would you say that Christianity is partly at fault for their behaviour?
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
To be fair Eutychus the explanation of the interpretation for that verse was only long because there was so much evidence. If you are contesting the interpretation then please provide a different one; if you are saying its impossible to reach the correct interpretation then I would disagree; if you are just saying that a short verse or saying can't be understood in isolation from its context and can only be properly understood in context and considering the person who said it then I totally agree with you.
I also agree with you that moderate Muslims should be given more of a platform and I am surprised how little of what is written about news stories that involve Islam in the major newspapers in the UK (particularly in terms of opinion pieces rather than reportage) is actually written by Muslims.
When I have heard Muslims discussing these topics all I have tended to hear is counter verses/sayings so the equivalent of me saying "Jesus also said those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (usually "there is no compulsion in religion" or "someone who kills one man kills all of humanity") rather than any attempt to actually put the problematic sayings or verses in any kind of context that might limit their applicability.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would refer you, though, to my other comment, which is that the beliefs you're being 'very specific' about aren't really that specific, and that talking about Islamists really does just end up being about 'bad Muslims' unless you get some more specificity into exactly who you are talking about.
I've gone with BBC usage which is 'Islamist' to make clear that I'm not referring to Islamic in general, in association with the term terrorist and thereafter occasionally using Islamist as shorthand. Otherwise, I've also used qualifiers to
Islamist like extremists and radical or radicalised. I've also used the names of organisations like ISIL and Al-Qaeda.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Green Mario,
Did you read the link IconiumBound placed a few posts back?
Not as fun as listening down at the pub, but perhaps more informative.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
if you are just saying that a short verse or saying can't be understood in isolation from its context and can only be properly understood in context and considering the person who said it then I totally agree with you.
[tick] quote:
I also agree with you that moderate Muslims should be given more of a platform and I am surprised how little of what is written about news stories that involve Islam in the major newspapers in the UK (particularly in terms of opinion pieces rather than reportage) is actually written by Muslims.
I think I've supplied some reasons why. Terrorism and stereotyping sells more papers ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
And notwithstanding the lengthy recent debate here on the Ship on anabaptists and the evils of Constantinianism, established churches have given Christianity massive institutions that are now part of the cultural landscape that Muslims simply don't have.
As far as I'm concerned, my thinking has moved from "should be given" to "how, from near or far, can I give it".
quote:
When I have heard Muslims discussing these topics all I have tended to hear is counter verses/sayings
Step off this board and I fear you will find that in most other places, this is about exactly the level of debate in Christianity, particularly its more vocal bits.
[more x-posting]
[ 14. January 2015, 21:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, I suppose using the term "Islamist" with "terrorist" at least establishes we're talking about the kind of terrorist that spouts stuff about Islam rather than the kind that spouts stuff about a free Ireland.
I think it's much better when we talk about organisations. It's perhaps interesting to think about the way in which Western countries go about declaring an organisation to be a terrorist organisation, because it does involve pointing and being specific. There are cases on the borderline where there isn't universal agreement. For example, Hamas is sometimes banned in its entirety, sometimes only its military wing is banned (I believe that's the case here), and sometimes it isn't banned at all.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Page out of the Godfrey Bloom School of Debate handbook? Your retort avoids the main point quite nicely whilst twisting intent and attacking.
Your Westboro comparison; would you say they are radical Christians? Would you say that Christianity is partly at fault for their behaviour?
Bollocks, your analogy between faith and ethnicity is nonsensical and now you are not even trying to defend it.
The term, in the case of Westboro is probably fundamentalist rather than radical. And of course their version of Christianity is partly to blame for their behaviour though there will undoubtedly be other cultural factors in the mix.
[ 14. January 2015, 21:46: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I suppose using the term "Islamist" with "terrorist" at least establishes we're talking about the kind of terrorist that spouts stuff about Islam rather than the kind that spouts stuff about a free Ireland.
I think it's much better when we talk about organisations. It's perhaps interesting to think about the way in which Western countries go about declaring an organisation to be a terrorist organisation, because it does involve pointing and being specific. There are cases on the borderline where there isn't universal agreement. For example, Hamas is sometimes banned in its entirety, sometimes only its military wing is banned (I believe that's the case here), and sometimes it isn't banned at all.
I have some sympathy with the notion that even the term Islamist (because it contains the word Islam) plays into the hands of those proposing a clash of civilisations. But it is rather unfair to suggest that my use of the term is derogatory towards Islam in any way (it is widespread usage by organisations like the BBC in the UK). If we were limited to reference to organisations alone we could never talk commonly about militancy which is to be found all over the world and which has common roots in a political-religious philosophy arising out of Wahabi and Salafi schools of thought.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The point you seem to miss is that what people define as the very worst crime/s and how they believe these should be punished tells you a lot about their value system, their attitudes towards human life, their propensity towards violence and their respect for/understanding of or definition of human rights.
Are the Chinese inherently a very violent race? There are 55 capital offences in China.
No, I never made any claim about anyone being inherently violent. The Chinese justice system tells me a lot about their value system. I do certainly see a lot of claims that China commits a lot of human rights violations. so yes as a society the fact they have 55 capital offences tells me that their values system is different from that which exists in my country and that the fact they execute people for 55 offences tells me that their justice system has a strong strand of violence as a means of maintaining law and order.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Spawn,
First, it is not my comparison. But it is one I think makes sense. But, you brand it nonsensical without offering an explanation why. So I am horrible for not defending a position against a counter which has not been made?
But what is ethnicity?
quote:
An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.
I chose to emphasise socially-defined and cultural. Why? Because religion is culture to some people. And, should you read and attempt to understand the argument put forth by ToujoursDan, you might see why it would be to some Muslims.
And again you avoid. Regarding Westboro, forget "their brand'. Is Christianity to blame for their antics?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Spawn,
First, it is not my comparison. But it is one I think makes sense. But, you brand it nonsensical without offering an explanation why. So I am horrible for not defending a position against a counter which has not been made?
But what is ethnicity?
quote:
An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.
I chose to emphasise socially-defined and cultural. Why? Because religion is culture to some people. And, should you read and attempt to understand the argument put forth by ToujoursDan, you might see why it would be to some Muslims.
And again you avoid. Regarding Westboro, forget "their brand'. Is Christianity to blame for their antics?
I don't think you have read my posts. Tell me where i have said that Islam is to blame for terrorism? I haven't. So why should I say that Christianity is to blame for Westboro's fundamentalism!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here, here, here and here. You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals". But that still puts the burden on the noun those are modifying.
I read your posts as putting a burden on Islam for containing that which might be used to justify violence.
It is my contention that it is the nature of people that is the root problem and the behaviour of nations which has contributed to the violence associated with Islam. Not the nature of a particular religion.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's asymmetric. Christianity IS to blame. Islam ISN'T.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is my contention that it is the nature of people that is the root problem and the behaviour of nations which has contributed to the violence associated with Islam. Not the nature of a particular religion.
Do you think that any religious belief (or non-religious belief for that matter) ever causes people to act differently than they otherwise might have if they did not have that religious belief?
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Orfeo I understand the difference between rule of law and anarchy but c'mon mate that's not what was being discussed and you know it.
I was replying to a post of yours that referred to the law of the land. Why would I "know" that wasn't the relevant topic?
And why do you think I was talking about anarchy? I wasn't. I never mentioned the word. I was talking about values. I was talking about pretty much the same thing as Alan was after me, about the fact that it's far too easy for us to regard a whole bunch of things as 'obvious' and just be mystified when someone else doesn't share those 'obvious' things.
And your response actually reflects that exact point: your "huge concern" that other people don't share your same values as to which crimes are the worst. Well, sorry, but welcome to the planet. It's actually always been like this. You'll find a lot of isn't actually European Judeo-Christian and never was. You're just aware of it now, which is what you get for living in the 21st century where the connections are far stronger than they were before and we're exposed more to people who aren't in our 'club'.
Frankly, I spent a hell of a lot of time on that post, so for you to basically suggest that I was knowingly avoiding the topic at hand is not nice to hear.
1. You talked about people taking the law into their own hands as opposed to the rule of law. Taking the law into your own hands is close enough to anarchy for me to use 1 word instead of several.
2. I never disputed that people have different ideas about what constitutes the worst crime, what is concerning is how as a society we live together in one society where people have such wildly differing ideas. You might dismiss that concern but it sure seems to worry a whole load of other people. There's a lot of debate about the fact Charlie Hebdo would be fall foul of the law in Australia and is that a good or bad thing. Should we risk offending people on the basis of their race, colour or nationhood and to what extent in order to protect the value of free speech. I am fully aware that Saudi Arabia sits a very long way from France on this issue. What I find concerning is how we reconcile those 2 points of view and a myriad in between within MY SOCIETY. Surely you can see that, that's quite different from expecting everyone to agree with what I view as the worst crime.
3.I am genuinely interested in your views as, at times you seem to be saying that there is no such thing as good or evil, it's all in the eye of the beholder. When pushed you admit to having certain beliefs but your preferences re justice are no more worthy or worth defending than anybody else's. I do find that challenging.
I'm going to invoke Godwins law (hey if Allan Creswell got away with it on another thread, I'm going to)-what Hitler did was legal in Germany-so we should all just relax about the Holocaust and recognise that living in a connected world means we shouldn't be surprised that some people's values differ from our own. So the Germans believe they must execute a lot of people-well I might say that's horrible, but hey, that's life on the planet.
Why does anybody bother with the UN Human Rights Commission (of which I'm ot a fan as it happens), war crimes commissions (I mean if the people act within whatever law is happening at the time then that is fine) and Amnesty International. They would seem to be stupid organisations who at great expense, are just totally denying real life in today's world. These organisations seem to think you can define a "worst crime"-are they wasting their time? are they just imposing their narrow view of what's right on people who have, and are entitled to have an entirely different view?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Here, here, here and here. You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals". But that still puts the burden on the noun those are modifying.
I read your posts as putting a burden on Islam for containing that which might be used to justify violence.
It is my contention that it is the nature of people that is the root problem and the behaviour of nations which has contributed to the violence associated with Islam. Not the nature of a particular religion.
In my judgement, none of the posts which you linked to put the burden for terrorism on Islam in general. In fact I find it unbelievable that you think they do. I'll leave it to others to decide.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Again the qualifications, you say "in general".
Again that criticises Islam.
Why do I care? Because it does not help solve anything if we place blame on labels and ignore causes.
Not that I am majorly optimistic.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Again the qualifications, you say "in general".
Again that criticises Islam.
Why do I care? Because it does not help solve anything if we place blame on labels and ignore causes.
Not that I am majorly optimistic.
Certain elements or strands/interpretations of Islam shouldn't be off limits to discussion as a cause. No religion or ideology should be beyond criticism.
I've read a lot of books and journals that lay the blame for a lot of problems in the third world on "Christian missionaries". I don't say that that's blaming a label and not a cause-it is definitely a fact the Christian missionaries caused problems most places they went and I think most Christians own that history. I also believe that the manner in which Westboro Baptist operates is linked with Christianity-there's a link but it's not the be all and end all of why they act the way they do. There are other factors involved.
Where I do draw the line is saying all Christians are like Westboro Baptists or missionaries. In the same way I don't say nor do I see anyone saying Islam and all Muslims are to blame for terrrorism conducted by those claiming to do so on behalf of Islam or that the dislocation and wars in the middle east are solely to do with religion (altho some atheists would assert that).
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals".
Islamist and Islamism are technical terms for the particular movements within Islam that believe in restoring a single non-secular government over all Muslim territory. If there were such a thing as 'Christendomism' it would be the equivalent.
It is not I agree a helpful term to use, in that it does imply that it's merely committed Islam; whereas not all Muslims care, and many would oppose it (most governments in Muslim countries are against it). But it is the term in common use.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
If we were limited to reference to organisations alone we could never talk commonly about militancy which is to be found all over the world and which has common roots in a political-religious philosophy arising out of Wahabi and Salafi schools of thought.
True. And indeed, somewhere early on in this conversation I expressed my joy at the idea that people would actually talk about Wahhabism or Salafism rather than just about 'Islam'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I expressed my joy at the idea that people would actually talk about Wahhabism or Salafism rather than just about 'Islam'.
This is definitely better. But still has the potential to miss the the why or address the causes.
The most radical cleric would have no effect if the conditions were not ripe.
WWII. Hitler was the trigger, but anyone thinking he is the sole cause is a poor student of history.
And that, IMO, is what we do with violence connected to Islam. We point a finger at the spark whilst ignoring who helped pile the fuel.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Green Mario wrote:
However I think Islamic theologians and preachers have a duty to explain how and why verses that have been misinterpreted as supporting or encouraging violence in the Quran or Hadith have been misinterpreted and to provide credible explanations for the correct interpretation. I am not convinced this is necessarily as easy as with the saying of Jesus that you have quoted given the different contexts (Jesus was a rabbi who lived peacefully and was crucified; Mohammad was a military leader, not just a military leader, but he was a military leader) but if these verses or sayings have been misinterpreted or taken out of context they have a duty to ensure correct understanding and interpretation.
It's a worthy idea; however, if you believe, as I do, that jihadi violence is not caused by religion, it won't work. Well, it's still worth trying, as with other measures, such as helping families stop their kids going over there.
But all these suggestions as to what imams or the Muslim community should be saying in the way of counter-interpretation - they all hinge on the idea that the violence has religious foundations. I don't think it does.
This doesn't mean that there are no counter-measures available, however, that is another issue.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
2. I never disputed that people have different ideas about what constitutes the worst crime, what is concerning is how as a society we live together in one society where people have such wildly differing ideas. You might dismiss that concern but it sure seems to worry a whole load of other people. There's a lot of debate about the fact Charlie Hebdo would be fall foul of the law in Australia and is that a good or bad thing. Should we risk offending people on the basis of their race, colour or nationhood and to what extent in order to protect the value of free speech. I am fully aware that Saudi Arabia sits a very long way from France on this issue. What I find concerning is how we reconcile those 2 points of view and a myriad in between within MY SOCIETY. Surely you can see that, that's quite different from expecting everyone to agree with what I view as the worst crime.
Part of how we resolve it is by saying that it's completely unacceptable to resolve a conflict by views by gunning people down in their office.
Which is a rather key point. We don't actually stop people from believing that it's highly offensive or heinous to depict Mohamed or to say certain things about Islam. What we do is tell people they're not allowed to respond to the offence by killing.
You might say that this does nothing to prevent a person who's prepared to die in the course of handing out punishment, but that's actually true of any and every rule. A law that sets out a consequence is only effective against someone that actually fears the consequence.
quote:
Why does anybody bother with the UN Human Rights Commission (of which I'm ot a fan as it happens), war crimes commissions (I mean if the people act within whatever law is happening at the time then that is fine) and Amnesty International. They would seem to be stupid organisations who at great expense, are just totally denying real life in today's world. These organisations seem to think you can define a "worst crime"-are they wasting their time? are they just imposing their narrow view of what's right on people who have, and are entitled to have an entirely different view?
Whether they are wasting their time depends on what you think it is they're trying to do. Are they trying to enforce rules, or are they trying to change minds?
There's a difference between hard, enforceable laws and the 'soft law' of the weight of opinion and pressure to conform.
There's a subtle but important difference between saying that people are entitled to a different view, and saying that we don't care whether they have a different view. A message board like this one really only functions because people care enough about different views to challenge them in some way. Occasionally someone raises a point of view on a topic and Shipmates collectively go "meh, we don't really give a shit" and either the thread dies or it turns into a series of jokes and puns.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I perhaps should add that the whole question of enforcement of 'international law' is a big, fundamental problem with it.
Within a country you have a constitution and a whole system that sets up who has power and how they can use it, and that includes saying who has authority to punish the citizens of the country.
Between countries, you don't have that, or it's nebulous, or it's only there because a country has agreed to it being there and if they pull away later the other countries can't do much more legally than wag a scolding finger. It's a very different environment. My international law lecturer was fond of saying that international law is simply "what States do". It's a law if countries act like it's a law.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Countries enforce international law on each other by trade sanctions and war. Did I miss one?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No, that's pretty much it. But it's often darn hard to pin down exactly what the rule was that got broken and where it's written down. See: weapons of mass destruction versus regime change because Saddam is nasty.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But all these suggestions as to what imams or the Muslim community should be saying in the way of counter-interpretation - they all hinge on the idea that the violence has religious foundations.
Not necessarily. Rather, they include the idea that religious enthusiasm in the wrong hands can be exploited to achieve political ends through acts of violence.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
as can nationalist enthusiasm - as can the sheer energy and fearlessness of youth.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is my contention that it is the nature of people that is the root problem and the behaviour of nations which has contributed to the violence associated with Islam. Not the nature of a particular religion.
Do you think that any religious belief (or non-religious belief for that matter) ever causes people to act differently than they otherwise might have if they did not have that religious belief?
Belief affects all behaviour - but what is called religious belief does not necessarily go deep enough in each individual to be classified as Belief in the sense I am using here.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals".
Islamist and Islamism are technical terms for the particular movements within Islam that believe in restoring a single non-secular government over all Muslim territory. If there were such a thing as 'Christendomism' it would be the equivalent.
It is not I agree a helpful term to use, in that it does imply that it's merely committed Islam; whereas not all Muslims care, and many would oppose it (most governments in Muslim countries are against it). But it is the term in common use.
It's also not a particularly useful term as it would cover a range of options on at least two points. One, how this single non-secular government should be achieved - ranging from peaceful methods of convincing individual muslims to vote for parties in their countries supporting such an aim, to armed revolution. A second issue would be the extent of such a government and how to achieve that, ranging from just the territory of historic caliphate to a global ambition seeking to convert all nations to Islam and join that government.
Within those spectra there is space (whether or not those spaces are occupied by actual people) for totally non-violent Islamists, for Islamists who would consider it inappropriate to act outside their own nations, as well as those who would advocate violence in non-muslim nations.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
as can nationalist enthusiasm - as can the sheer energy and fearlessness of youth.
Indeed. But much as special measures were taken within the world of football in the UK to combat hooliganism, something could be done in the world of Islam.
These are pragmatic approaches that do not seek to decide whether football, or Islam, are inherently violent, merely to address the problem in the appropriate forum.
[ 15. January 2015, 07:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, that's pretty much it. But it's often darn hard to pin down exactly what the rule was that got broken and where it's written down. See: weapons of mass destruction versus regime change because Saddam is nasty.
...versus Saddam tried to kill the president's dad; and the president, who has major father issues anyway, comes into office determined to get rid of Saddam--no matter what.
So sometimes international politics are personal.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do qualify with -ists, isms, and "radicals".
Islamist and Islamism are technical terms for the particular movements within Islam that believe in restoring a single non-secular government over all Muslim territory. If there were such a thing as 'Christendomism' it would be the equivalent.
There is, at least in the US. It's called, variously, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, or Christian Reconstructionism (per TheocracyWatch).
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
as can nationalist enthusiasm - as can the sheer energy and fearlessness of youth.
Indeed. But much as special measures were taken within the world of football in the UK to combat hooliganism, something could be done in the world of Islam.
These are pragmatic approaches that do not seek to decide whether football, or Islam, are inherently violent, merely to address the problem in the appropriate forum.
Yes - and that is one area in which there is apparently some confusion in Islam in some countries. But how much you can specifically blame Islam? For instance in Iraq, there are entire militias based round a particular Imam. If they happened to pursue a different religion, would it really be any different? I suspect not. It's an entire culture
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But all these suggestions as to what imams or the Muslim community should be saying in the way of counter-interpretation - they all hinge on the idea that the violence has religious foundations.
Not necessarily. Rather, they include the idea that religious enthusiasm in the wrong hands can be exploited to achieve political ends through acts of violence.
The example that keeps leaping out at me recently is the shift from AQ to IS. It's not that long since Western commanders and politicians were saying that Al Quaeda were degraded, many of their leaders dead, they were on the run, and so on. But hello, suddenly an offshoot of AQ takes over large chunks of territory in Syria and Iraq and proclaims the caliphate and so on, and also, great hostility to AQ.
If the causes of this are religious, what striking theological insight did IS achieve, that have given it so much success?
I am really saying that IS capitalized on various social and political alignments; I am not saying there is no religious propaganda.
Just saying to European youth that Islam isn't like that, and is full of peace and mercy - I don't think that will work. Of course, the British imams are doing that anyway, but I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground. I don't know if bombing them is part of that or not; it might work; and it might be a recruiting sergeant.
The West has become part of the problem of course; how on earth we extract ourselves from that I don't know.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know if bombing them is part of that or not; it might work; and it might be a recruiting sergeant.
The West has become part of the problem of course; how on earth we extract ourselves from that I don't know.
It's not simple.
My old 'friend' Robert Pape is one of the contributors to
this article discussing the strategy, which you might find interesting.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS Back in the middle of 2014 he also wrote, solo, this article which was very strongly against military involvement.
I'm not sure whether his stance has changed a little, or whether what he had in mind in the earlier article was a 'troops on the ground' scenario. Being against troops on the ground but supportive of other strategies would certainly be consistent with his views some years ago when I heard him speak.
[ 15. January 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground.
I've said this is a political issue since my first post after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But the political ends are being clad in religious discourse. I can't do much about sorting out IS in Syria or wherever, nor can I do much about domestic security.
Where I, in terms of my current role, could conceivably make a difference is in helping to detoxify the religious landscape.
And where I as an individual can make a difference is in my default attitude to my fellow-humans.
Echoing Adrian Plass in his social work experience, as a prison chaplain I often feel that if the only contact with Christianity some marginalised youth has is "that bloke who smiled and said hello to me in the prison corridor" it might not be a complete waste of time.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Kaplan Corday (presumably trying to stave off a welter of violent verses from the OT)
Christianity interprets the OT in the light of the NT, and always has.
Your argument is not with me, but with orthodox, credal, historic Christianity.
quote:
Show me one verse from the NT which endorses violence on the part of Christians to defend, promote or extend their religion.
Matthew 10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", sprang to my mind this morning.
Golly, you've really nailed me with that one.
I'm going to have to bring all the exegetical and hermeneutical big guns to bear on it - just as soon as I've finished using them to decide whether, when Jesus said, "I am the door", he was or wasn't claiming to be an upright rectangle of wood with hinges and a handle.
[code]
[ 15. January 2015, 09:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Came across a news story that I think fits in well with trying to figure out how to handle public attacks with some grace and humor, rather than doing something regrettable.
"Ellen De Generes Responds to 'Gay Agenda' Accusations With Humor." Her response to the "OMG, gays!" pastor is priceless, and very Ellen.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Kaplan Corday (presumably trying to stave off a welter of violent verses from the OT)
Christianity interprets the OT in the light of the NT, and always has.
If you'd bothered to read anything else I've posted in this respect, you'd know I agree with you.
However, you cannot expect non-initiates to realise that, and that is the point at issue here.
quote:
Golly, you've really nailed me with that one.
I'm going to have to bring all the exegetical and hermeneutical big guns to bear on it - just as soon as I've finished using them to decide whether, when Jesus said, "I am the door", he was or wasn't claiming to be an upright rectangle of wood with hinges and a handle.
Very amusing, and entirely beside the point, which has already been addressed several times. Instead of attempting ridicule as a substitute for discussion, Green Mario actually went to the trouble of doing the explanation, and you can follow the interaction of several of us with him in that respect on this thread from there on (notably me, orfeo and Gamaliel).
I'm glad you've shown up though, because last night I came up with another NT passage that, without some explanation, could look like promotion of Christianity through violence. And you will have trouble bringing subsequent scripture to bear on it, because it's virtually right at the end, Revelation 19:11, 13-15: quote:
Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (...). He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Now again I can doubtless explain all that as well as you can, but the point is that it does take some explaining. And if you weren't familiar with the Bible, with relatively little tweaking you could probably be convinced that it came from the pen of some self-proclaimed jihadist, and indeed might well be using it to prove that Islam is inherently violent.
[ 15. January 2015, 09:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Eutychus, I went through all of that with Kaplan Corday on the previous thread.
It doesn't matter how many times we explain that the issue is whether it's possible to arrive at an interpretation, rather than whether the interpretation is correct or orthodox, we are still going to keep getting the response "that's a wrong interpretation".
It's bizarre because it seems to assume that somehow, when it comes to Biblical interpretation, being wrong is impossible, as if the Holy Spirit successfully prevents anyone from getting the wrong end of the stick. Which makes me wonder how anyone ever got labelled as a heretic.
[ 15. January 2015, 09:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the 'cure' for IS will be political and on the ground.
I've said this is a political issue since my first post after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. But the political ends are being clad in religious discourse. I can't do much about sorting out IS in Syria or wherever, nor can I do much about domestic security.
Where I, in terms of my current role, could conceivably make a difference is in helping to detoxify the religious landscape.
And where I as an individual can make a difference is in my default attitude to my fellow-humans.
Echoing Adrian Plass in his social work experience, as a prison chaplain I often feel that if the only contact with Christianity some marginalised youth has is "that bloke who smiled and said hello to me in the prison corridor" it might not be a complete waste of time.
Well, I wasn't really quarelling with you, as your ideas sound very good. I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
One odd thing about the idea that Islam is per se violent, is that IS would agree with this enthusiastically!
The other odd consequence is that it can't be changed, if it is intrinsically violent. This is the flaw in the argument that Western Muslims aren't violent because of the civilizing effect of the West - but then Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic. (Again, this is not directed at you). Most religions and ideologies are chameleons really.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
As explained upthread, to be honest I'm not 100% sure that "Islam" (whatever that is defined as) is not intrinsically violent (in other words, that the fundamental belief system, consistently followed through and acted upon, inevitably leads to violence).
But given that I'm really not at all sure it is and have yet to be swayed from that position, I'm very much prepared to give it the full benefit of the doubt.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
Can't really agree with that, for two reasons:
1. People can behave as if they were born into a religion just as much as they were born into a country.
2. You can change countries. If you do, in the long term you might end up going through a citizenship ceremony. You'll be asked to make commitments.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Islam isn't intrinsically violent, no more than Germans are intrinsically militaristic.
The difference is that practicing Islam involves signing up to a belief system, whereas being German doesn't.
As explained upthread, to be honest I'm not 100% sure that "Islam" (whatever that is defined as) is not intrinsically violent (in other words, that the fundamental belief system, consistently followed through and acted upon, inevitably leads to violence).
But given that I'm really not at all sure it is and have yet to be swayed from that position, I'm very much prepared to give it the full benefit of the doubt.
I suppose IS would agree with that to an extent, since presumably they would say that these peace-loving Western Muslims have betrayed the truth faith.
One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, and he was certainly 'God-intoxicated' or whatever word Sufis use, but very non-violent. He also loved Christianity and Jesus - strange world, isn't it? In fact, he used to explain some Christian ideas to me better than Christians! But the really ecstatic Sufis will say that they are neither Muslim, nor Christian nor Jew, hmm, sounds interesting.
And of course, Sufis have been violently persecuted by some militants, so maybe the militants offer the true Islam, (irony).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
orfeo, you are being downright silly. Are you next going to compare having a religion to having a job, or an intimate relationship, or going to a university, or picking up a new hobby, or what have you? Turns out that all major commitments people undertake have some things in common. That does not however mean that they are all the same sort of thing.
For one thing, what it means to be a Muslim invariably has to do with what a certain person said at a certain time, as it has been written down in a certain book. Variations are possible in what that means in detail, but in general this will hold as long as there is such a thing as "Islam". What it means to be German is much more difficult to define, but if there is a kind of "centre" to it, then it is a complex combination of geographical, linguistic and culture correlations. And history suggests that this is so much in flux as to not apply far back into the past other than in a very loose sense ("Germanic", not "German") and in all likelihood the current constellation will also not last more than a century or two into the future.
Likewise, we can find essential differences between a religion and a job, a religion and an education, a religion and a hobby, etc. There is a reason why we have different words for these, and the reason is that it rarely makes sense to treat them as the same. In particular, the question whether something is "inherently violent" cannot be asked in the same way about a nationality and a religion, simply because where such violence could inhere in is different.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
orfeo, you are being downright silly.
Nudging the C3 line IngoB.
"That's a silly post" = OK in Purg
"You are silly" = Not OK in Purg.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What it means to be German is much more difficult to define, but if there is a kind of "centre" to it, then it is a complex combination of geographical, linguistic and culture correlations. And history suggests that this is so much in flux as to not apply far back into the past other than in a very loose sense ("Germanic", not "German")
Of course, being a Christian also has some similar characteristics combining "geographical, linguistic and culture correlations", and historical flux. I would be very surprised if Islam also isn't influenced by geography, liguistics, culture and shows historical variations. In fact, from my perspective from outside Islam, it certainly seems to. Even in majority Muslim countries, where Western cultural influences would be less, there are considerable variations in what is considered appropriate clothing, as an obvious cultural phenomenum. There have been comments on the news recently that state that the current Islamic teaching on depicting animals, people, even the prophets in art is relatively modern and there are examples from the first few centuries of the Islamic faith of pictures of Mohammed himself used within Mosques and private residences. Which would indicate a substantial change in the interpretation of the Islamic texts over time.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
orfeo, you are being downright silly. Are you next going to compare having a religion to having a job, or an intimate relationship, or going to a university, or picking up a new hobby, or what have you? Turns out that all major commitments people undertake have some things in common. That does not however mean that they are all the same sort of thing.
But my entire point is that it's not really correct to say that having a religion necessarily involves a commitment. Plenty of people treat themselves as 'Christian' just because that's the religion they were born into. When people talk about being a 'Christian' country, that's what they're doing as well. And I already talked about, I think in this thread, Anders Breivik and his notion of being a 'cultural Christian'.
I wouldn't have thought you would have trouble with this idea, because it seems to me that people are especially prone at labelling themselves as 'Catholic' even if they haven't been to church in years or just go at Christmas. It's not really expressing a commitment, beyond still going to Mass when visiting Mum and Dad during the holiday season.
My converse point is that for a lot of people 'being German' just happens, but for some people it involves a commitment.
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice. I think both of those things can bleed into the other category.
[ 15. January 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice.
Perhaps not, but I think terrorists acting in the name of religion, especially those that put up videos detailing their "religious" motives, can be said to have made some form of deliberate choice about it over and above any milieu they were brought up in.
As it happens I became French by choice. At that time it didn't involve making any commitments. The whole thing was characterised by bureaucracy and a nationality formality - certainly not a ceremony - that positively dripped reluctance.
There have been times since then when I've unexpectedly found being French has given me a sense of national identity I didn't previously have (walking past a familiar memorial to executed Resistance fighters with a sudden awareness that "they died for my country", most odd feeling), but becoming French was not an ideological choice on my part in the way that, deceived or brainwashed or otherwise, we see some of these terrorists exhibit.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just don't think it's correct to simply characterise having a nationality as being automatic, and having a religion as being the result of choice.
Perhaps not, but I think terrorists acting in the name of religion, especially those that put up videos detailing their "religious" motives, can be said to have made some form of deliberate choice about it over and above any milieu they were brought up in.
I'm not at all sure about that.
The Kouachi brothers may well be a demonstration of the falsity of the idea that terrorists are particularly religious or devout.
It's already been observed how one of them did things like smoke pot and sleep with this girlfriend at the time that he first came to the attention of the authorities.
And today I saw an interview with the lawyer of the wife of one of the brothers (not sure if the same brother). She was detained initially and then released. Part of the story is that her husband just kissed her goodbye in the morning and said he was visiting his brother because he was ill - she had no idea what was happening. But the other part is that in her view he had no real interest in religion. He didn't stand out from the average person of the same background.
I've also observed before that the study of suicide bombers by Robert Pape came up with the rather startling information that suicide bombers frequently have no history of either notable religious devotion or of association with terrorism or violence. For many of them, their suicide has been their one and only criminal action. They essentially volunteer for that one task, having not been closely connected with the relevant group or its ideology before that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And if we're talking about ISIS, and people declaring their support for ISIS, the very idea of the 'Islamic State' is just as much a political one as a religious one.
It's supposed to be a state for Muslims to come to, free from the influence/control of the West, in exactly the same way that Israel is supposed to be a homeland for Jews.
[ 15. January 2015, 11:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the issue of interpretation of scripture, it would be quite easy to go off on a tangent - and potentially into dead-horses territory too ...
However, I think there are some cross-purposes discussions going on here.
It's not an issue of suggesting that Green Mario's interpretation of the 'sword' reference is right or wrong nor whether Kaplan, say, has a better exegetical approach than Eutychus or Orfeo or myself or whoever else ...
The point is that interpretation is required in the first place. It's not simply a matter of selecting a particular verse and saying, 'look, this is what it means, it's self-evident ...'
If that makes me all po-mo and relativistic in Kaplan's eyes, then so be it ... but that's not where I'm coming from.
As it happens, my own understanding of the 'sword' reference that Green Mario has been addressing hasn't involved the persecution element at all ... I've always tended to understand it in the context of divisions and challenges towards the status quo ... the religious status quo that Christ both endorsed and challenged in equal measure it seems to me ...
The same Christ who said that he came not to subvert the Law but to fulfil it, also said that the walls of the physical Temple would be torn down, that there would be emnity and division within families on account of his teaching and that unless we 'hated' our close relatives in relation to our love for him we couldn't be his disciples ...
So, I've not seen it in terms of a 'physical' sword or physical persecution as such - although there are clear references to the latter in the Gospels too, of course.
At any rate, how I interpret those verses isn't the point. The point is that they require interpretation and some people could interpret them in a way that differs from the way both Green Mario understands them and the way I've always understood them.
That's not to kow-tow to post-modernism or post anything else.
It's a simple statement of reality.
Green Mario has mentioned the need for imams to interpret and reflect on the apparently violent verses and injunctions within Islamic writings - and they are doing so. Some understand these in a more figurative way or apply them to inner struggles and inner battles rather than to physical jihadist violence.
The fact that these verses are apparently capable of being understood in that way tells us nothing about whether they are 'inherently' violent - although I'd agree that at face-value they appear to be.
These things don't work in isolation.
Those verses that Eutychus has highlighted from Revelation are a case in point. It's completely understandable - in my view - why some parts of Christendom were reluctant to accept Revelation into the canon of the NT for many years. They were concerned that it would be taken too literally or applied in a over-realised sense ... an over-realised eschatology.
Which is, of course, what has subsequently happened down the years - be it the fanatical behaviour of the Munster Anabaptists or the more peaceful yet odd and idiosyncratic eschatalogical speculations of the Dispensationalist variety.
That doesn't mean that we should excise the Book of Revelations from our NT, of course, but it does mean that we should look for consensus - and yes, to tradition (small t and Big T) in the way we tackle and approach these issues.
I can certainly see what Kaplan Corday is trying to do - and I respect what I take to be his motives (as I understand them). But it's not the point or issue that is at stake here.
Nor do I believe that asserting that one's own scriptures and belief system is essentially non-violent means having to accuse other people's of being intrinsically violent in order to provide greater contrast and difference between them.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Whether Islamism is the right word I don't know.- - there is some argument about that. But anyway, to pick up a point you made earlier, Salafism* certainly is relevant. Salafism is involved in every single one of the current violent manifestations of radical Islam.
We've also got a major problem here with people searching for single causes. If ever a subject were shouting "multiple causes", it is surely this one!
Historically, ignoring what went before (the dereliction of secular governments in largely Islamic lands) won't do. Many of these movements in Salafism arose as a response to that dereliction.
And as has been pointed out, identity has a big part to play. I'd be reluctant to use the phrase "identity politics" in its western sense here as it's not entirely the same thing. But there is definitely grief at having your borders laid out by remote historical colonial powers, and your internal affairs interfered with by those whose aims and morals you do not share.
These causative factors all seem to be involved. There are other causative factors involved in the recruitment of disaffected youth in "western" countries and in suicide missions. But given the above, it seems to me that many of the suggestions in this thread are relevant. Where they come unstuck is when people advance them as primary causes. There are multiple causes, and a proximate cause (a better idea surely) may just be some small thing that triggered a pent-up tide of resentment.
* Salafism is essentially an "ad fontes" (back to the source) movement. Currently it draws its inspiration from the Hanbali school of interpretation, which is currently centred in what is now Saudi Arabia. It points to an early saying of Mohammed that authenticity diminishes the further you get away from the source (I'd need to look up the exact words). This Salafism seeks to return to the situation where Sharia without any further developments from the prophet's time is the law of the land. Not all Salafism is violent - some Salafists deprecate the use of armed force to achieve their ideal of the Islamic state.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still tilting at the idea that Islam is the problem.
Tilt at that if you like. You are arguing with yourself. I can't see anyone currently making contributions to this thread arguing that Islam is intrinsically violent. I am opposing the opposite view that Islam has nothing at all to do with it. Culture minister Sajiid Javid called this view lazy. But it is more accurate to say that Islamism (a politico-religious ideology) plays a significant part in inspiring militancy and terrorism.
Whether Islamism is the right word I don't know.- - there is some argument about that. But anyway, to pick up a point you made earlier, Salafism* certainly is relevant. Salafism is involved in every single one of the current violent manifestations of radical Islam.
We've also got a major problem here with people searching for single causes. If ever a subject were shouting "multiple causes", it is surely this one!
Historically, ignoring what went before (the dereliction of secular governments in largely Islamic lands) won't do. Many of these movements in Salafism arose as a response to that dereliction.
And as has been pointed out, identity has a big part to play. I'd be reluctant to use the phrase "identity politics" in its western sense here as it's not entirely the same thing. But there is definitely grief at having your borders laid out by remote historical colonial powers, and your internal affairs interfered with by those whose aims and morals you do not share.
These causative factors all seem to be involved. There are other causative factors involved in the recruitment of disaffected youth in "western" countries and in suicide missions. But given the above, it seems to me that many of the suggestions in this thread are relevant. Where they come unstuck is when people advance them as primary causes. There are multiple causes, and a proximate cause (a better idea surely) may just be some small thing that triggered a pent-up tide of resentment.
* Salafism is essentially an "ad fontes" (back to the source) movement. Currently it draws its inspiration from the Hanbali school of interpretation, which is currently centred in what is now Saudi Arabia. It points to an early saying of Mohammed that authenticity diminishes the further you get away from the source (I'd need to look up the exact words). This Salafism seeks to return to the situation where Sharia without any further developments from the prophet's time is the law of the land. Not all Salafism is violent - some Salafists deprecate the use of armed force to achieve their ideal of the Islamic state.
Don't disagree with anything you say. The arbitrary or convenient drawing of lines on maps when Beitain, in particular, 'decolonised' ispart of the mix. Also the strong sense in Islamist ideology of the shame and humiliation of the Umma.
I differ from you in that I don't think that Salafism conveys comprehensiveness as a term for describing militancy and terrorism because virtually all militancy and terroism comes from groups and individuals which have an Islamist outlook but not necessarily Salafi connections.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Just to add, that Islamism includes Shi'ite political ideology. Salafism strongly rejects Shia Islam.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
Phil Spector was a killer. All of the records he produced are foundationally violent.
All of Rolf Harris' art is fundamentally evil.
You might think I'm being facetious but I seriously, seriously hate the way that people tend to take something about a person's life and treat it as summing up everything about them. As if human beings aren't complex and contradictory creatures. As if anyone who ever committed a crime therefore contributed nothing whatsoever to society.
Heck, you can get a dozen different conceptions of Jesus, one for every sign of the Zodiac, and he was perfect.
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
[ 15. January 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
Totally agree with you in opposing the nonsense posted by Martin, but remember playing the ball rather than the man next time you suggest that because a Muslim smokes pot or does not appear particularly devout they cannot simultaneously hold strong religious beliefs.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to show that Islam is 'foundationally violent' then you should be playing the ball not the man.
Totally agree with you in opposing the nonsense posted by Martin, but remember playing the ball rather than the man next time you suggest that because a Muslim smokes pot or does not appear particularly devout they cannot simultaneously hold strong religious beliefs.
I didn't say they cannot. I said it was not immediately obvious that they did. Which is entirely consistent.
I also referred to the testimony of his wife.
If we want to talk about playing the actual ball, how many people are actually aware of the content of the videos bin Laden used to make? Did he actually fill them with truly religious content?
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
[ 15. January 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If you want a NT passage that apparently endorses violence, I think I've a better one:
"Luke 22:35-39New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [a]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [b]whoever has no sword is to sell his [c]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [d]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”"
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Spawn wrote: quote:
Just to add, that Islamism includes Shi'ite political ideology. Salafism strongly rejects Shia Islam.
I think that Khomeini was very strongly influenced by Salafist thought. quote:
The first modern "Islamist state" (with the possible exception of Zia's Pakistan)[123] was established among the Shia of Iran. In a major shock to the rest of the world, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution of 1979 to overthrow the oil-rich, well-armed, Westernized and pro-American secular monarchy ruled by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi.
The views of Ali Shariati, ideologue of the Iranian Revolution, had resemblance with Mohammad Iqbal, ideological father of the State of Pakistan, but Khomeini's beliefs were placed somewhere between beliefs of Sunni Islamic thinkers like Mawdudi and Qutb: He believed that complete imitation of the early Muslims for restoration of Sharia law was essential to Islam, that secular, Westernizing Muslims were actually agents of the West serving Western interests, and that the "plundering" of Muslim lands was part of a long-term conspiracy against Islam by the Christian West.
So the links are there. I've just quoted that one at length as it also illustrates most of the other points conveniently (thank you Wikipedia!)
Also: quote:
I differ from you in that I don't think that Salafism conveys comprehensiveness as a term for describing militancy and terrorism because virtually all militancy and terroism comes from groups and individuals which have an Islamist outlook but not necessarily Salafi connections.
I hope from the above that by connections, I would understand followers of certain schools of thought that have their origins in Salafism. There's probably an issue of definition I need to tighten up on lurking in here somewhere.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've certainly heard this passage used by a US Christian who is something of a gun and knife enthusiast - he makes vicious looking Bowie knives and so on for a living - cite this passage to suggest that it is our 'God-given' right to bear arms to defend ourselves ...
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you want a NT passage that apparently endorses violence, I think I've a better one:
"Luke 22:35-39New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [a]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [b]whoever has no sword is to sell his [c]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [d]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”"
His argument was that back in antiquity and throughout the 'Dark Ages' and the medieval period, almost everyone would have been armed.
He cites the swords carried by Elizabethan gentry (for defensive as well as fashion purposes) as well as the quarter-staffs, daggers and cudgels that medieval people had readily to hand.
He takes this NT verse to suggest that Jesus was endorsing the right to bear arms for self-defence.
I'm not sure how to interpret this particular passage to be honest ...
If Jesus saying, 'That's enough ... we don't want any weapons around here ...'
Or is he saying, 'It is sufficient. We need a few sidearms to protect ourselves but not enough to give the impression we are embarked on armed rebellion ...'
At the risk of a tangent - how do Shipmates interpret these verses? And why?
Or is that a Kerygmania question?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At the risk of a tangent - how do Shipmates interpret these verses? And why?
Or is that a Kerygmania question?
Definitely a Kerygmania question. And, one that I would find interesting. I've never really thought about those verses before.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's a very good Kerygmania question, Gamaliel. Do you want to set up an OP there?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt, including his view that Muslims who weren't seeking to impose sharia law were themselves apostates. I was aware of the contents of his video and audio messages but you wouldn't expect his preoccupation to be pork and alcohol (a bit of a stereotype there). He was mainly addressing non-muslims and presented the strategic aims of his movement. Again you are guilty of secularising, or at least misunderstanding Islam in that the territorial is sacred - especially the presence of non-muslim military in proximity to Islam's holy sites.
About the Paris terrorists, it'll be a while before we can do more than speculate. I'd be taking the wife's testimony with a pinch of salt - no-one wants to admit that they might have a clue something was going on because it might make her an accessory. We can reasonably say that there is some evidence of radicalism and a link to Al-qaeda.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
orfeo wrote:
The major thrust of his grievances wasn't "stop drinking alcohol and eating pork", it was "get out of our lands". Despite the popular image, he didn't spend a heck of a lot of time talking about how horrible and sacrilegous the lifestyle of the infidels was. He spent far more time saying "you don't belong here". Which is not a particularly religious statement. It's the statement of self-determination movements everywhere.
Yes, some radical Islamists seem to fear (and envy), not so much Christianity, as the secular West, which they see as invading their lands, and polluting the ummah with its materialism and hedonism.
Thus, 9/11 didn't attack a Christian cathedral, but symbols of American power (Twin Towers, the Pentagon).
And it is complicated also by the Arab experience of 'pan-Arab secular socialism' which was not good, of course; I don't know whether or not this has turned Arabs against secularism; hopefully not in the long term.
Hence comparing Islamism with Christianity seems inaccurate to me; they are not pari passu.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad was a killer. Islam is foundationally violent.
God is a killer, Christianity is fundamentally violent.*
For those without the ability to discern, this is sarcasm to make a point, not a declaration of belief.
and the point is that people will use whatever tool they have to justify what they do, to draw others to do their bidding.
Folks are getting caught up on the violence in Islam; look at it from another angle. Buddhism has far less in it to justify violence than either Christianity or Islam and yet people have used it as a basis for killing and warring with others.
People are the problem, regardless of belief system. People and what we do to each other.
Do a tiny bit of research into the history of the Middle East and North Africa. And if you cannot see a causal link between what the west have done and terrorist violence; please step away from sharp objects, heavy machinery and important decisions as you are not qualified.
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Riiight. I'm not criticizing Muhammad in the slightest. It's a fact. He was a killer. That is enshrined in the religion he started. Epitomized by it.
It's epitomized by Christianity too. But not in Christ.
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry to cut through the pretentious pseudo-intellectual crap with my bet-a-buck simplisticity I'm sure.
[ 15. January 2015, 17:28: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry, not true. God is not separate from Jesus. And God was a bloodthirsty bastard in the OT. If you can reconcile this, you can reconcile Islam.
Focusing on Islam as the problem does not solve the real problem. It merely allows one to wash their hands of responsibility, to avoid addressing the real issues.
It makes one more the disciple of Dick Cheney than Jesus Christ.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
The Qur'an 5:51 'Believers have neither Jew nor Christian for your friends'.
The Qur'an 5:82 'You will surely find that the nearest in affection to believers are those who say ' 'we are Christians''.
Take your pick.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ha ha ...
Someone'll now come along and tell us that there are no apparent contradictions in the NT.
Or, as a preacher I once heard said, 'The Bible is full of contradictions ... and I believe them all ...'
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Riiight. I'm not criticizing Muhammad in the slightest. It's a fact. He was a killer. That is enshrined in the religion he started. Epitomized by it.
It's epitomized by Christianity too. But not in Christ.
And lilBuddha, the God we can only know in and through Christ is no killer.
Sorry to cut through the pretentious pseudo-intellectual crap with my bet-a-buck simplisticity I'm sure.
Jesus was a rabbi preaching pacifism. Not only that, but he was billing himself as the Messiah. Most religious leaders are going to fall short in comparison to someone held up as a divine or semi- divine being.
Mohammed was leading an army of people in exile. Of course that will impact the things he wrote. But not everything he wrote was about war. There is plenty of insight in the Koran that even the most rigid pacifist could appreciate.
Jesus himself had no problem discussing the spiritual value a sometime murderer/ warrior might provide. Abraham organized one of the most savage honor killings recorded in the Bible, and Moses lead tribal battles ( remember Aaron holding up his arm?) and Jesus cites them as authority. David abducted a woman and killed her husband-- one of his own soldiers-- and Jesus quotes him. He offers no " understand, these guys ate murdering scum and in no way do I endorse this" disclaimer, probably because he assumed most people were smart enough to understand how his new teachings incorporated the useful insights. He took what insight he could from them and used it to inform his own ideas.
If the forgod'ssake Son of God could be so humble, why the hell can't we? And if we really, really can't, can we at least back off of the many, many peace loving people who do draw insight from Islam and remain peace loving? Or the people who are genuinely trying to listen to them?
[ 15. January 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Believe me Muhammad and his followers have my every sympathy and respect. Every.
And I'm more than conversant with the stories of God the Killer I revelled in for 30 years and more and thank you for making my point again for me, Kelly Alves, that Jesus was completely, 100%, a man of His culture - and not - and used it against itself.
There is no comparison with literary tropes and being a killer.
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a killer.
Jesus, blessings and peace be upon His name, was not.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Jesus held up killers as examples of faith. How do you answer his decision to do so?
Especially if he is indeed the Son of God and the primary example we are to follow?
[ 15. January 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
No, (most) Christians can't do that. It is the same, unchanging God but the whole point of God sending Jesus was that the understanding of God reflected in the OT is wrong!
Yes Jesus referenced the OT and said he came to fulfil the prophecies but they WAY in which he did so was to turn the OT on its head. If the way God was depicted in the OT was what we should be following and believing about God-then God didn't need to send Jesus. Time and again Jesus subverts the OT rules, Moses said it's ok to divorce but Jesus said no it's not. The OT was strict about the Sabbath, Jesus said the Sabbath was designed for man not as a God pleasing thing, we should not cease from doing good on the Sabbath, the Ot said people should be stoned for adultery but Jesus said "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone/" You can't say that Jesus endorses the OT just because he references it a few times-he's here to reveal true God. The OT led Jews to believe the Messiah would be a warrior to free them from the oppression of the Roman empire, n'ah God sends them a peasant from a backwater who preaches peace and submission. Can't get less warlike and murderous than that.
Jesus is God revealed to us once and for all "in the flesh". This is not a warlike God who wants us to use violence it is a a God who calls on us to love our enemies and as he is being subjected to a cruel death he says "Father, forgive them they know not what they do." It is this message Jesus came to bring-a true understanding of God, in the only way that could be truly effective-cos there can be no competing prophets, no competing stories, Jesus is God revealed to us.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt
Why on earth do you think I'm trying to suggest his beliefs were in doubt?
I've never heard that George W Bush's beliefs were in any doubt, either, but people in the Western world don't generally try to paint him as a a religious crazy who was motivated to invade Iraq by his beliefs about God. They 'secularise' him just fine.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a killer.
Jesus, blessings and peace be upon His name, was not.
Well, he did do in a fig tree once, in what always read like a fit of pique to me. Ananias and Sapphira might count, too.
On the other hand, whatever his various followers have made of him, Muhammad has not been elevated to the status of 1/3 of a Triune God.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Good luck in trying to establish Bin Laden's secular credentials. I've never heard that his beliefs were in any doubt
Why on earth do you think I'm trying to suggest his beliefs were in doubt?
I've never heard that George W Bush's beliefs were in any doubt, either, but people in the Western world don't generally try to paint him as a a religious crazy who was motivated to invade Iraq by his beliefs about God. They 'secularise' him just fine.
Your comparisons are getting ever more desperate and absurd. Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko. But your problem with these unusual comparisons is that they reflect an outlook that essentially just views Christianity as being basically the same faith with a few modifications.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko.
Why then, do we have people insisting that there's no connection between Christianity and violence?
And you could actually address the point properly without throwing in the sneering commentary. Thanks.
[ 15. January 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Did He now? Did He uphold their killing? Or their faith? Or their faithful killing? He used the material He had.
And gave us NO example of killing, of how to kill faithfully, in His name.
Of the mythic figures Jesus invoked, less than half were killers.
•Moses X
•David X
•Abel
•Zechariah
•Daniel
•Noah
•Abiathar
•Elijah X
•Widow in Zarephath
•Elisha
•Naaman X
•Jonah
•Lot
•Queen of Sheba
•Solomon X
•Abraham X
•Isaac
•Jacob
•Isaiah
What point are you trying to make across categories Kelly?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I struggle to understand the parameters of this discussion.
It seems clear to me that although it is possible to construct a violent Jesus out of the NT, it involves a lot more special pleading and outright distortion of the texts than it takes to construct a violent Muhammad out of the Qur'an and Hadith.
I have said many times that I don't think that Islam is inherently violent, but I can't agree that the character and life of Muhammad has had no effect on the common Islamic views of God.
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko.
Why then, do we have people insisting that there's no connection between Christianity and violence?
And you could actually address the point properly without throwing in the sneering commentary. Thanks.
Sorry but the comparison was somewhat random which is why I sneered. But I really don't know what more I can say than constantly posting that there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence. First there is just war theory which in my opinion often justifies unjustifiable conflict and then there is other violence done in the name of the Christian faith be that reaction of the SPLA in Sudan, or the violence of ostensibly catholic or prot paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. And I haven't even touched upon religious involvement in Rwanda.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Christian armies haven't slaughtered each other and their grandmother and laid waste to whole civilizations for centuries then? Under their priests' blessings?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Did He now? Did He uphold their killing? Or their faith? Or their faithful killing? He used the material He had.
Did I say he did? Did I? Did I now? Because I believe I said he didn't.
quote:
Of the mythic figures Jesus invoked, less than half were killers.
•Moses X
•David X
•Abel
•Zechariah
•Daniel
•Noah
•Abiathar
•Elijah X
•Widow in Zarephath
•Elisha
•Naaman X
•Jonah
•Lot
•Queen of Sheba
•Solomon X
•Abraham X
•Isaac
•Jacob
•Isaiah
What point are you trying to make across categories Kelly?
The one I made twice-- Jesus did not let the flawed humanity of his subjects prevent him from appreciating their worth.
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
[ 15. January 2015, 23:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
Thanks, I was just going to tell him to piss off. You've got more patience.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Every self-respecting left-of-centre comic portrays George W. as a crazed religious, neanderthal whacko.
Why then, do we have people insisting that there's no connection between Christianity and violence?
And you could actually address the point properly without throwing in the sneering commentary. Thanks.
Sorry but the comparison was somewhat random which is why I sneered. But I really don't know what more I can say than constantly posting that there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence. First there is just war theory which in my opinion often justifies unjustifiable conflict and then there is other violence done in the name of the Christian faith be that reaction of the SPLA in Sudan, or the violence of ostensibly catholic or prot paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. And I haven't even touched upon religious involvement in Rwanda.
It's not a random comparison. It's a comparison with the leader on the other side of the conflict at a certain point in time.
My basic problem here, the more I think about it, is that in the West we have a tendency to want to separate political and religious power. We even pride ourself on it.
And so we put a leader in the 'political' category and any religious language he uses is just religious language. We don't emphasise that what inspired people to vote for him was based in religion.
The degree to which religion is overt in our systems varies considerably of course. It's far more overt in America than it would be in Australia or Europe, but right now we've got a thread on the UK election where people are talking about deciding their vote based on which party they think better aligns with their Christian principles.
In Russia we've got a situation where Putin and the head of the Orthodox Church are generally seen as being in cahoots. And this bothers us. But we still say Putin is the political leader and the other guy is the religious one.
Meanwhile, when we get to the Middle East and something like ISIS, we look and decide that it doesn't belong in our 'political' box and conclude that it must belong in the 'religious' one. It doesn't have the right trappings of a State to our eyes, and they talk about religion far too much, so 'religious' it is.
And we then try to view everything through that lens.
I'm not actually arguing for a complete ignorance of the fact there's Islam involved and the language of Islam involved. I'm arguing that we are going to end up barking up the wrong tree entirely if we focus on that and ignore the political side. If all our solutions are focused on 'fix Islam' or 'fix this brand of Islam' the solutions are going to fail.
ISIS claims to be a caliphate. Lots of historical claimed caliphates, we treat as political powers. I can't recall ever seeing anyone talking about the Ottoman Empire depicting it as just a religious power.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
Sure. I'm not reading anyone on this thread who disagrees with this.
However to reiterate my point, Jesus and Mohammad were different people who embodied and taught differing visions of God.
And as a matter of historical fact Mohammad did order executions, lead armies and own slaves as well as teaching about God.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am not prepared to write off the spiritual devotion of millions of peaceful, law-abiding folk as the sole product of a killer, killer, killer no matter how many times you use the word. The fact that most people are finding benevolent ways to use the Koran tells me that there are plenty of benevolent ways to use it.
Sure. I'm not reading anyone on this thread who disagrees with this.
However to reiterate my point, Jesus and Mohammad were different people who embodied and taught differing visions of God.
And as a matter of historical fact Mohammad did order executions, lead armies and own slaves as well as teaching about God.
One vital difference is that Jesus was and remains divine. I don't think anyone claims that of Mohammed.
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
[ 15. January 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, that's what I said. Who the heck is going to measure up to a religious figure portrayed as divine? To say (in a Christian perspective) that Mohammed doesn't measure up to Jesus is redundant.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
Yes indeedy. People have ingeniously constructed pretty evil Christianities. And evil Islams.
But at the risk of banging my head against a brick wall, only one of Jesus and Muhammad actually themselves lead armies, ordered executions and owned slaves.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
1. See the divine thing.
2. I am not an expert in World History, but is Mohammed the only religious leader that was a warrior, kept slaves, and was in a position to order executions?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Both have since inspired others to go to war, order executions and own slaves.
Yes indeedy. People have ingeniously constructed pretty evil Christianities. And evil Islams.
But at the risk of banging my head against a brick wall, only one of Jesus and Muhammad actually themselves lead armies, ordered executions and owned slaves.
The brick wall is of your own making. Even according to "their own" religions, Jesus and Mohammed are very different and there was never any need for Jesus to lead an army: that after all is why He was not generally perceived as the Messiah.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Also see: you can't please anybody. Sioni's right, Jesus was a disappointment to some folk because he didn't lead a revolution against Rome.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
1. See the divine thing.
I really don't understand what the relevance of this is. Because Jesus is divine therefore we shouldn't point out that he actually led a pretty blameless life, devoid of slave-owning, execution-ordering and army-leading?
quote:
2. I am not an expert in World History, but is Mohammed the only religious leader that was a warrior, kept slaves, and was in a position to order executions?
Of course he wasn't. My point is that unlike Muhammad, Jesus was not a warrior, did not keep slaves and when given the opportunity to approve of an execution talked everyone out of it.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Kelly and Sioni I was quite perplexed by your point. Are you saying that we shouldn't look at Jesus and Mohammed as being comparable revelations of God? I have to admit that although I understand nobody has claimed divinity for Mohammed, i suppose one does tend to view Mohammed as an "islamic Jesus" in practice even when you know the theory isn't quite right.
Should we see Mohammed as a prophet-to make a rough analogy in the same way Moses was a prophet-they have a message of God but do not reveal God in the way that Christians see Jesus as God and hence as "perfect' rather than part of flawed humanity but who has an insight into God. Is that closer to how some/many/most Muslims see Mohammed?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The fact that Jesus is portrayed as divine is important for two reasons -- 1. nobody but nobody can measure up to divine , so to say that Jesus was purer and closer to a divinely portrait of unconditional love and acceptance is-- redundant. In other words, why are we comparing this one religious leader to Jesus rather than every other religious leader that participated in a war, or the many that practiced slavery and polygamy and honor killing and so forth? They all fall short, and I would imagine all of them have some shady business in their closets that was culturally acceptable at the time. Even Siddhartha.
2. His example as that divine person tell us the ideal of how we should act, and Jesus very much had a thing about not discounting someone's worth based on their status as a sinner. whether it be a killer, killer, killer (army commander, that is), a Roman soldier (killer, killer, killer), or some serial monogamous hill-worshiping pagan with a smart mouth and a water jug.
My take on that as a Christian, is, in order to better love and serve my brothers and sisters who are Muslim, I must be humble enough to take a second or two to listen to them about what in Islam feeds them. This is the example I believe Jesus has set for me, and that I am striving to follow.
Not to shake my head and feel sorry for them because their cut-rate prophet is NotJesus. We've covered that. But now that we know Mohammed is NotJesus, what is he to his followers? I think it is common respect to ask that question.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
No, (most) Christians can't do that. It is the same, unchanging God but the whole point of God sending Jesus was that the understanding of God reflected in the OT is wrong!
Yes Jesus referenced the OT and said he came to fulfil the prophecies but they WAY in which he did so was to turn the OT on its head.
Once again, this is not the way Christians in general use the bible. The OT is used to justify ignoring Jesus injunction quote:
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Quit failing this and we will quit calling you on it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Mohammed would have freaked right the hell out of anyone suggested he was calling himself God.
I have read enough of the Koran to figure that out.
[ 15. January 2015, 22:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
On the subject of interpretation: the Bhagavad Gita happens when Arjuna is about to fight a battle, and decides that it would all be a senseless waste of human life. The Bhagavad Gita is where Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, talks him into going into battle anyway.
On Gandhi's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, it was an inspiration for his pacifism.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
why are we comparing this one religious leader to Jesus rather than every other religious leader that participated in a war, or the many that practiced slavery and polygamy and honor killing and so forth?
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation. Happy to compare Jesus with other religious leaders in other threads if you want.
quote:
My take on that as a Christian, is, in order to better love and serve my brothers and sisters who are Muslim, I must be humble enough to take a second or two to listen to them about what in Islam feeds them. This is the example I believe Jesus has set for me, and that I am striving to follow.
Sure. I agree. Many of our Muslim brothers and sisters have found beauty in Islam, in the same way that many of our Buddhist brothers and sisters have found beauty in the teachings of Siddhartha. I have been in conversations with ex-Muslims who say that the feeling of being part of a great universal brotherhood of the Ummah was the thing they miss most about Islam.
quote:
Not to shake my head and feel sorry for them because their cut-rate prophet is NotJesus. We've covered that.
No, we haven't covered that. We've squirmed and twisted and gone to extreme lengths of obfuscation to avoid covering that.
We owe our brothers and sisters who are Muslim love, empathy, humility, and also the truth as we see it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
IME Love, empathy, and humility is best expressed by shutting up and listening . I'm not being flip. We are not doing enough of that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Sure. I agree. Many of our Muslim brothers and sisters have found beauty in Islam, in the same way that many of our Buddhist brothers and sisters have found beauty in the teachings of Siddhartha. I have been in conversations with ex-Muslims who say that the feeling of being part of a great universal brotherhood of the Ummah was the thing they miss most about Islam.
Excellent. Good start. More.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
... and if the repeated comment is being made that the creation is reflective of the creator, it is only fair to ask if other people share similar characteristics to the creator.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, and he was certainly 'God-intoxicated' or whatever word Sufis use, but very non-violent. He also loved Christianity and Jesus - strange world, isn't it? In fact, he used to explain some Christian ideas to me better than Christians! But the really ecstatic Sufis will say that they are neither Muslim, nor Christian nor Jew, hmm, sounds interesting.
There's a branch of Sufism where you don't have to be Muslim at all. Something I've been meaning to look into.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re why people become Islamist extremists and jihadis:
On today's "Fresh Air" (NPR), Terri had along conversation with a former Islamist extremist. He joined up when he was 16, and is now working to keep other people from joining. Really interesting. (I'd heard him before, and was trying to remember enough about him to look him up, so I was glad he was the guest today.) Link has transcript, audio, download, and an article.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
I tend to think of Mohammed as something like Moses, with maybe Gideon and Joshua thrown in. (And there is a Muslim tradition of linking Moses and Mohammed.) I tend to see Mohammed as more of a social reformer than a religious teacher. Some of those reforms were religious (like focusing on one God, instead of the many worshiped in that area), and others more practical. (IIRC, he improved the inheritance rules for women--something Moses did, too.)
Mohammed isn't meant to be God. When he died, one of his disciples said, "if any of you worshiped Mohammed, he is dead; God is alive".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Jesus and Muhammad were different people who taught and embodied different views of God.
I tend to think of Mohammed as something like Moses, with maybe Gideon and Joshua thrown in. (And there is a Muslim tradition of linking Moses and Mohammed.) I tend to see Mohammed as more of a social reformer than a religious teacher. Some of those reforms were religious (like focusing on one God, instead of the many worshiped in that area), and others more practical. (IIRC, he improved the inheritance rules for women--something Moses did, too.)
Mohammed isn't meant to be God. When he died, one of his disciples said, "if any of you worshiped Mohammed, he is dead; God is alive".
Come to think of it, I think I look at Mohammed much the same way myself. That, and as a phenomenal poet.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Kelly--
Although, if Muslim tradition and interpretation of the Quran are right, then Muhammed was illiterate. So the poetry would've been given to him.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Well. somebody wrote it down, and the stuff I have read is phenomenal.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
I think I understand the point that is made about it not being fair to compare Mohammad and Jesus because Mohammad was just a prophet and his very life didn't wholly reflect God as far as Muslims are concerned.
Does this mean (some, many, or all) Muslims though are able to say "Mohammad did or said this but he we think he was wrong"? "Mohammad spread Islam with violence, we understand because of the culture he lived in and don't condemn him for it, but he was wrong?" If so it leaves the Quran intact but takes a lot of authority away from anyone who would justify violence using the hadith (which I think all the justifications for killing apostates come from)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm glad you've shown up though, because last night I came up with another NT passage that, without some explanation, could look like promotion of Christianity through violence. And you will have trouble bringing subsequent scripture to bear on it, because it's virtually right at the end, Revelation 19:11, 13-15: quote:
Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (...). He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Another one?
Quelle diligence!
Do you ever sleep?
Sorry, but although you think you have hit the jackpot, unfortunately this one doesn’t make the cut either.
As I explained upthread, people can and do read anything into anything, so it is possible that someone, sometime, somewhere, might read it as a command to Christians to go out and commit violence.
But it doesn’t.
In the same way, it is possible that someone might believe that Christ’s comparison of himself to “a thief in the night “ constitutes a call to Christians to go out and commence a career of burglary.
Don’t give up, though - I am prepared to assess each submission on its merits.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion, lilBuddha
The Hell Board exists for pissed off venting as you know. Looks like that particular vent is over here so keep it that way please. Others please note. Next warning will be with my Host Hat on and will get offenders a reference to Admin.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Martin, you're misreading what Spawn said.
Thanks, I was just going to tell him to piss off. You've got more patience.
Host Hat On
Spawn, that gets you a formal warning for an obvious Commandment 3 violation despite my prior line. It also gets you an Admin reference.
By saying you would have done it, you've done it. And dropped yourself in it to boot. That's an old rule here as well.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
GM--
I know next to nothing about the hadith, except that they're Mohammed's sayings. However, the Quran is believed to have come directly from God. So I would think that it would take priority, and the hadith might have a little more wiggle room. But that probably depends on the sect, etc.
As to how Mohammed's viewed: in Omid Safi's article on the Paris shootings, he said in point 8:
quote:
Let me put objectivity and pretense towards scholarly distance aside. The Prophet is my life. In my heart, Muhammad’s very being is the embodied light of God in this world, and my hope for intercession in the next.
The "embodied light" phrase caught my attention. I don't think I've ever heard Mohammed referred to that way before.
Maybe personal understandings of who the Prophet is vary as much among Muslims as do Christians' personal understandings of Jesus?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Don’t give up, though - I am prepared to assess each submission on its merits.
I'm going to assume, for the purposes of constructive debate, that you have inadvertently missed my point rather than deliberately missing it.
I'm having trouble doing this, because you appear incapable of responding without some sniping, but I'm doing my best.
I'm on this thread because I want to think through these issues with people prepared to engage sensibly with them. I don't know about you, but for me discussions here will have a bearing on what I actually do with my life and ministry.
I'll be going to the prison I'm chaplain at this afternoon, and I'll doubtless be bumping into Muslims, some of whom could potentially be radicalised (Muslim radicalisation in prison was a top concern in France before these attacks and and even bigger one now).
If all you're seeking to do is reassert that your mind is made up on this, then I'm not going to bother interacting with you about it.
If you actually want, as it says on the packet here, "serious debate", then you should start by reformulating the point you think I've been trying to make in quoting these verses.
Care to try? I'm happy to try reformulating yours if it helps.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eutychus, I went through all of that with Kaplan Corday on the previous thread.
It doesn't matter how many times we explain that the issue is whether it's possible to arrive at an interpretation, rather than whether the interpretation is correct or orthodox, we are still going to keep getting the response "that's a wrong interpretation".
It's bizarre because it seems to assume that somehow, when it comes to Biblical interpretation, being wrong is impossible, as if the Holy Spirit successfully prevents anyone from getting the wrong end of the stick. Which makes me wonder how anyone ever got labelled as a heretic.
You appear to think that if you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and running around shouting, “Everything in the Bible is merely a matter of interpretation”, that eventually everyone will believe you.
Instead, you will keep being corrected.
As a psychotherapist I know likes to say, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got”.
At the most trivial level, yes, everything, not just the biblical text, is a matter of interpretation – beginning each day with how you analytically respond to the first “Good morning” you receive.
When it comes to the Bible, as I have already pointed out, there are many things which undoubtedly are matters of (often competing) interpretation.
However, there are also many things which the Bible self-evidently, and without the need for sophisticated exegetical and hermeneutical techniques, teaches, and others which it just as self-evidently doesn’t.
The NT, in supersession of the OT (as Christianity believes), self-evidently does not teach holy war.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
But that's the point, KC--they aren't self-evident to everyone.
Even with a pure heart, a sound mind, and the best of intentions, people can perceive things differently--whether that's the Bible, the Koran, or the menu at McDonald's.
And *that's* all people are trying to tell you.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Kaplan Corday: You are mistaken in what I'm trying to say.
I'm not trying to reduce the message of the Bible to being in the eye of the beholder alone (i.e. all legitimately open to any interpretation).
I'm trying to point out that to someone who is wholly ignorant of the Bible, there are passages taken out of context (which was the challenge you laid down on the other thread, and I quote, "show me one verse") which, without supporting context and explanation, appear to endorse violence.
I've done so to argue that people who are as ignorant of the Qu'ran as practically everybody taking part here appears to be, myself first and foremost, cannot simply throw out random bits of the Qu'ran to argue that Islam is inherently violent.
Can you make a substantiated argument on the basis of the Qu'ran that Islam is inherently violent? If so, please do. If not, why does your default position on Islam appear to be so antagonistic?
[ 16. January 2015, 07:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT, in supersession of the OT (as Christianity believes), self-evidently does not teach holy war.
I think it does, but not a jihadist-type approach to other human beings. The NT moves the battleground to another place. Ephesians 6 puts it this way.
quote:
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
The armour of God is described in terms of metaphor, not literal armaments. And the stance is defensive, not aggressive. Stand your ground.
I agree with you that that is a clear New Testament distinctive. It coheres with the general thrust of the gospels about who or what the "real enemy" is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
It would also ignore the current geopolitical situation, since the Western powers are now secular, not Christian. So the violence being rained down on the Middle East by the West is not Christian, and the jihadists tend not to target Christians for that reason.
Hence, comparing Christianity and Islam misses this point - Christianity has largely become irrelevant today.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Come to think of it, I think I look at Mohammed much the same way myself. That, and as a phenomenal poet.
The prophet Mohammed has written poems? Where can I find those? Or are you considering the Qur'an itself, or parts of it, as poetry?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, and he was certainly 'God-intoxicated' or whatever word Sufis use, but very non-violent. He also loved Christianity and Jesus - strange world, isn't it? In fact, he used to explain some Christian ideas to me better than Christians! But the really ecstatic Sufis will say that they are neither Muslim, nor Christian nor Jew, hmm, sounds interesting.
There's a branch of Sufism where you don't have to be Muslim at all. Something I've been meaning to look into.
My friend's Sufi group had non-Muslims in it; I think some of the Muslims protested at this, but the sheikh insisted that this was his tradition. Also, quite a lot of them converted in the end.
'Chasm of Fire' by Irina Tweedie is a famous account of Sufi training, where Tweedie faces the 'ordeal of love'.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the subject of interpretation: the Bhagavad Gita happens when Arjuna is about to fight a battle, and decides that it would all be a senseless waste of human life. The Bhagavad Gita is where Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, talks him into going into battle anyway.
On Gandhi's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, it was an inspiration for his pacifism.
Ah - lots of rooms for interpretations. On one level, Arjuna is Consciousness, his Chariot is his body and Krishna is his higher/spirit self. On another the Hindu Caste system could be interpreted as being clearly defined because Arjuna has been born to be warrior king, and so has no option other than to fulfil his destiny as a warrior-king. Or one could take a softer line, saying where we are born is a function of reincarnation and we have important lessons to learn. Or it could just be taken as an analogy for the many manifestations of evil, with Krishna pointing out that one must "kill" even things that one has been taught to love because they are evil. Heck - if I then say this is literal physical way of interpreting the Baghdad Gita is true, then why not just kill anyone who gets in my way? Interesting that Ghandi took it as an inspiration, and that the vast majority of Hindus do not interpret it in a physical literal sense. If any spiritual text is entered via a dictionary rather than via love, we can get into all kinds of predicaments.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Because Muhammad is the founder of Islam, which is the topic of this conversation.
I've already commented once on the foolishness of basing your assessment of a creation on the perceived character of its creator.
I am not basing my assessment of a creation of the perceived character of its creator. I am merely commenting on that perceived character.
I haven't even started to talk about the complex ways in which the differing characters of Jesus and Muhammad have impacted on the religions which formed after them and I think it would honestly be impossible to do so in this thread.
It would also ignore the current geopolitical situation, since the Western powers are now secular, not Christian. So the violence being rained down on the Middle East by the West is not Christian, and the jihadists tend not to target Christians for that reason.
Hence, comparing Christianity and Islam misses this point - Christianity has largely become irrelevant today.
I really don't understand how your comment connects to mine.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
However, there are also many things which the Bible self-evidently, and without the need for sophisticated exegetical and hermeneutical techniques, teaches, and others which it just as self-evidently doesn’t.
There are a great many things that I feel are self-evident, and yet every now and then I find someone to whom the same things are not self-evident.
As Golden Key and Eutychus have said, that's all anyone is attempting to point out to you.
What do you think of the atheist who posted the list of 'violent' Bible verses I linked to? The list which you think is wrong, and in fact I think is pretty much wrong as well - certainly, some of his examples seemed ridiculous to me. Do you think that the verses are not violent is self-evident to him, and that he's just lying?
It's not just that I think that everything in the Bible is interpretation, by the way. It's that I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation. I made a perfectly standard rotatable "Clean/Dirty" sign for the dishwasher at work, the kind you can buy, and one guy managed to interpret it the exact opposite way to how it was intended. He thought "Clean" meant that the dishwasher was 'clean', meaning he had the all-clear to throw unwashed items into the dishwasher, in amongst the clean items that needed to be unloaded.
What he therefore thought "Dirty" would mean, I honestly don't know. I don't know if he'd thought the context through - which is kind of the point, when people don't look at context, they miss contextual signals.
Then there's the woman who raged against the wonderful silent sequence at the beginning of the Pixar movie "Up" because it depicted an abortion. 99.95% of the world would say WTF to this, as it clearly shows the wife being pregnant and then dreadfully sad because she miscarries and loses the baby, but this woman managed to see the wife as being sad because she was remorseful over having terminated her child.
Basically, I think you're underestimating the capacity of people to get the wrong end of the stick.
[ 16. January 2015, 09:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I made a perfectly standard rotatable "Clean/Dirty" sign for the dishwasher at work, the kind you can buy, and one guy managed to interpret it the exact opposite way to how it was intended. He thought "Clean" meant that the dishwasher was 'clean', meaning he had the all-clear to through unwashed items into the dishwasher, in amongst the clean items that needed to be unloaded.
Heaven thread started for some light relief.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
*and can we please end this OT v. NT bullshit? Same God throughout. Same unchanging God.
No, (most) Christians can't do that. It is the same, unchanging God but the whole point of God sending Jesus was that the understanding of God reflected in the OT is wrong!
Yes Jesus referenced the OT and said he came to fulfil the prophecies but they WAY in which he did so was to turn the OT on its head. If the way God was depicted in the OT was what we should be following and believing about God-then God didn't need to send Jesus. Time and again Jesus subverts the OT rules, Moses said it's ok to divorce but Jesus said no it's not. The OT was strict about the Sabbath, Jesus said the Sabbath was designed for man not as a God pleasing thing, we should not cease from doing good on the Sabbath, the Ot said people should be stoned for adultery but Jesus said "Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone/" You can't say that Jesus endorses the OT just because he references it a few times-he's here to reveal true God. The OT led Jews to believe the Messiah would be a warrior to free them from the oppression of the Roman empire, n'ah God sends them a peasant from a backwater who preaches peace and submission. Can't get less warlike and murderous than that.
Jesus is God revealed to us once and for all "in the flesh". This is not a warlike God who wants us to use violence it is a a God who calls on us to love our enemies and as he is being subjected to a cruel death he says "Father, forgive them they know not what they do." It is this message Jesus came to bring-a true understanding of God, in the only way that could be truly effective-cos there can be no competing prophets, no competing stories, Jesus is God revealed to us.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the accusations of Marcionism should be in within the day.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider [on previous page, to Evangeline]:
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the accusations of Marcionism should be in within the day.
Can they be taken to another thread? They are only tangentially relevant to this one.
[ 16. January 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the interpretation thing, it's pretty clear that nobody here is suggesting that the NT can be used to justify holy war without doing violence to commonly held standards of interpretation and exegesis.
I've not seen anyone arguing otherwise.
There's a thread in Kerygmania on the way we might understand some of the apparently 'violent' references in the Gospels - specifically the 'two swords' one.
What I would suggest, though, is that we none of us interpret these texts in glorious isolation.
Circumstances, culture and our own proclivities all play a role.
So, for instance, the American chap I mentioned who cites the 'two swords' reference in the Gospels to justify the acquisition of personal sidearms is more likely than I would be to interpret those verses in that way.
Why? Well, not only does he make a living by crafting hunting knives and weapons that could be used to kill other human beings, but living where he does and in the culture he inhabits there are factors like the Second Amendment and so on that don't apply in my particular case.
I'm not singling him out for censure, simply making the obvious point that culture, tradition and a whole range of other factors affect the way we handle scriptural texts.
I'm not qualified to comment on whether the Quran justifies holy war or not - but the fact that some Muslims don't use Quranic and other Islamic texts to sanction violent jihadi action suggests that it isn't 'forced' to do so (as they'd say in Yorkshire) ie. these texts are capable of alternative interpretation.
That's all.
To suggest as much isn't to launch a post-modern and relativist attack on the authority of Holy Writ.
It seems that my American friend is 'required' (or 'forced' as Yorkshire folk might say) to interpret the 'two swords' reference as a justification for the personal ownership of offensive weapons because that's in line with his culture and his way of earning a living.
On one level, unless one is an extreme pacifist, it is difficult to disagree with him in the context in which he lives.
The laws of his country permit the private ownership of firearms and other weapons.
But it's a big jump from that to suggest that he would use these verses to justify holy war. I don't think he would.
Nor is anyone on these boards from what I can see.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Does this mean (some, many, or all) Muslims though are able to say "Mohammad did or said this but he we think he was wrong"? "Mohammad spread Islam with violence, we understand because of the culture he lived in and don't condemn him for it, but he was wrong?" If so it leaves the Quran intact but takes a lot of authority away from anyone who would justify violence using the hadith (which I think all the justifications for killing apostates come from)
I think they say exactly that about the wedding of Fatima. Progressives, anyway.
I think progressives would say that Mohammed (and the rest of the people in the culture he lived in) was warlike, and (as the Bible puts it) "there is a time for peace, and a time for war."
(I am not going to touch the argument about war and general, because I consider myself a pacifist, and I know what a minority position that is in Christendom. Anybody who says it is easy to argue a pacifist position in Christianity hasn't tried it.)
But there are stories and teachings of Mohammed that really have nothing to do with whether one is or is not at war. (I recently read about a story cycle in which Mohammed runs into people who either don't know who he is and curse him, or know who he is and insult him to his face, but Mohammed still performs some sort of compassionate service to them. In one, a blind man who rails against the teachings of the Prophet does not know that it is the Prophet who is silently feeding him every day.)
Most civilized people agree that war is the exactly opposite of the way they want to live, so it is probably very easy for the average Muslim to view the violent verses as strictly referring to wartime activities, and finding a lot of other insight to inform their daily lives.
Also-- upthread (or maybe in an article I read) someone mentioned the hadith as carrying less weight than the Koran-- that is hadith is debatable "exegesis" or commentary on the Koran, at least for some folks.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think strictly a hadith is a story or bit of history of the life of Mohammed - either reporting acts or reporting his teachings. The accuracy of different hadiths is debated between groups.
The commentaries are known as tafsir and can include reference to hadith as well as the Koran.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I don't think the Hadith are considered as commentary, Kelly - there is another name for commentaries. The Hadith are principally reports of what Muhammed said or thought about various topics.
The different types of Islam (sunni, shia etc.) have different hadith.
I think the critiquing of Hadith is more a feature of later schools in Islam, especially in the modern era. I don't think the sort of people we are talking about here, who are not peaceable, would ignore Hadith.
(x-post with mdijon)
[ 16. January 2015, 17:08: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Demas, I'm not misunderstanding the absurd understatement 'there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence'.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Demas, I'm not misunderstanding the absurd understatement 'there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence'.
Any religion where the phrase "there is sometimes a link between ____ and violence" is "an absurd understatement" would seem to be a prime candidate for being banned by the secular powers. Certainly no decent person should connect themselves with it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Thanksfor the clarification, Honest Ron and mdijon. I guess what confused me was the idea that there were different schools of hadith.
Can hadith kind of be compared to midrash?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thanksfor the clarification, Honest Ron and mdijon. I guess what confused me was the idea that there were different schools of hadith.
Can hadith kind of be compared to midrash?
Not really. As I understand it, a typical hadith (I don't recall the singular form) has the basic shape of 'According to Imam 1, who heard it from his teacher Imam 2, who heard it from his teacher's companion Imam 3, who heard it from the Prophet's own nephew, the Prophet (while residing in exile in Medina) said...' followed by some allegedly true saying of the Prophet.
There are about eight different main collections of these, not all equally well-regarded. And the individual chains of sources are not all the same in each set, and can be validly subject to criticism, although not the bits involving the Prophet and his immediate companions. And the length of each chain is partly a function of when the collection was compiled, and partly of who was said to have happened to meet some old and well-informed teacher.
Does this make it any clearer?
t
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Ooohhh, now I remember hadith. Thanks.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you make a substantiated argument on the basis of the Qu'ran that Islam is inherently violent?
This is like Groundhog Day...
Here we go again:-
I have never said that Islam is inherently violent.
What I have argued is that, unlike the NT, the Koran contains a number of passages which unambiguously support religious warfare (you can find them anywhere online).
The majority of Muslims, including the ones I know, do not follow them, either because they are too lazy/cowardly/moderate/decent, or because they think they are overweighed by other non-violent or anti-violent passages in the Koran which present the real message of Islam.
In the same way, Christians reject the calls to holy war in the OT because they are are overridden (as are a number of other things eg animal sacrifices, polygamy) by the NT.
There is not a real parallelism here, however, because Christians believe that the OT is the inspired Word of God, but that parts of it were relevant in their day but have been superseded,
whereas for Muslims (in theory, at least) all the Koran is equally authoritative for all time.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
My favorite piece of Marcionism was a book I encountered in the heyday of UFOlogy, back in the '70s.
I think it was called "God Drives A Flying Saucer". Basic idea was that the OT God was a nasty alien. Then good aliens overthrew the bad, and we got Jesus and the NT view of God.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What do you think of the atheist who posted the list of 'violent' Bible verses I linked to? Do you think that the verses are not violent is self-evident to him, and that he's just lying?
As a believer who is, to quote Philip Yancey, constantly "rancid with doubt", I have a great deal of respect for honest atheism.
But there is also a great deal of militant, ideological and doctrinaire atheism out there which is mindless and dishonest, and will use anything, no matter how unreasonable, to discredit Christianity.
I suspect that this atheist is in this latter category.
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
What? Now you're making my exact point for me. The whole point is that things you consider obvious = things you take for granted.
I'm not suggesting that everything is a matter of conscious interpretation. Most of it's unconscious and not recognised as such. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. We simply never think about what we take for granted unless and until we encounter someone who doesn't take the same thing for granted.
[ 17. January 2015, 00:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think the Hadith might be a bit like stories passed down within particular church traditions (e.g. the account that when Jesus wrote in the dust he was writing people's names) except, as Teufelchen says, with a more formal pedigree for the account up to the time it was written down. The tafsir may be more like midrash.
(By the way in some languages influenced by Arabic "Hadith" literally means story or history, and tafsir means picture or translation. But I don't know if those parallel the actual use of the words in Arabic).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What I have argued is that, unlike the NT, the Koran contains a number of passages which unambiguously support religious warfare (you can find them anywhere online).
The majority of Muslims, including the ones I know, do not follow them, either because they are too lazy/cowardly/moderate/decent, or because they think they are overweighed by other non-violent or anti-violent passages in the Koran which present the real message of Islam
The part I have bolded in your quote contradicts this next part of what you say: quote:
for Muslims (in theory, at least) all the Koran is equally authoritative for all time.
It sounds to me like you are arbitratily applying one standard to Christian hermeneutics (where the OT is "overidden" by the NT, not that I'm arguing against this, mind) and another to Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
[ 17. January 2015, 06:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Paris attack highlights Europe's struggle with Islamism so the BBC new piece goes (see below for link). There is something violent and repulsive about some of the followers of Islam and it makes one question the liberal interpretation of Islam as a ''religion of peace'' surely?
Judaeo- Christian values can be interpreted in various ways. Indeed Christian vitriolic anti semitism e.g. in the so called enlightened Germany of 80 years ago shows us how wide of the mark an advanced intelligent ''Christian'' nation like Germany can fall.
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
Saul
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30717728
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Islam inherently violent? Hmmm!
As far as I can work out, this starts from when the local pagans rejected Muhammad's ideas, persecuted his followers, and eventually forced him into exile in Medina. There followed several years of skirmishes, and piracy against Meccan desert caravans, before Muhammad finally gathered an army and marched on Mecca, where a major battle and probable massacre was only prevented by Meccan surrender. 'Turning the other cheek' this definitely isn't. And at the beginning it wasn't exactly 'official' warfare either.
Muhammad seems to have started out with the belief that people would just follow his faith peaceably and that there would not need to be 'compulsion in religion'; even within his lifetime that clearly changed and what he eventually set up was an Islamic state with Islam clearly in charge and a limited tolerance of other monotheistic religions in a decidedly subordinate position.
OK, it's supposed to work on lines similar to Western 'just war' principles; but anyone who's considered the workings of that seriously knows that 'just war' isn't as cut and dried as its advocates would have you believe and almost anything can be justified in practice. If there ever has been a just war that fully followed the principles it was a very small one (WWII was about the nearest there's ever been to a big 'just war', and even that fails in many and various ways to meet the proper tests – and note that most of the Germans probably thought they were waging a 'just war' on their side). Accept the idea of warfare on behalf of a religion and it becomes very hard to set limits, and to those of another religion the result is likely to look like terrorism.
So yes, on the actions of Muhammad in raising an army for his cause, and in those caravan attacks, Islam is a violent religion – either that or Muhammad was a considerable sinner against the religion of which he was prophet, and you won't find many Muslims willing to accept that.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I came across an interesting article from the Telegraph the other day concerning western dialogue with Islam. It's worth a read and I think he makes some valid points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You lost me Demas. I obviously don't do compound irony.
I am a liberal and Islam is inextricably predicated on the violence of its founder. That is its and our problem. Despite the overwhelming restraint of the vast majority of its adherents, their human goodness despite their religion.
We Christians have the opposite problem.
As well as the problem of dealing with good people with a foundationally violent, coercive, imperialistic, extremely - that's ever so extreme kiddies, know what I mean? Ladies? Girls? - patriarchal religion.
I actually read every word you wrote Steve and agree with 99.9% of content and tone. That's GOT to be a bad thing.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
Or the term terrorist.
quote:
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
The old term used to be Guerrilla.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How many happened in Paris?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Some red herrings here.
Firstly, I don't think that any proponents of the 'just war' theory believe that it is anywhere near cut-and-dried. Far from it.
Secondly, of course everything's open to interpretation.
Including what I've just posted here.
I would hazard a guess that some might interpret what I've written here to suggest that I'm a proponent of the 'just war theory' or that by acknowledging that everything is open to interpretation I'm some kind of post-modern relativist with a low view of scripture ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Jat war theory is bollocks. War is always an evil, it's just a matter of degree.
[ 17. January 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
Or the term terrorist.
quote:
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
The old term used to be Guerrilla.
Absolutely.
It matters not whether a loved one is blown up by an extreme rightist or a returning Jihadi.
However, we would all condemn the crazy antics of Brevic and his Norwegian pseudo Nazi death spree. But whilst not wanting to downplay Brevic and his ilk, there is a much more organised threat that faces the West and other parts of the world. The extreme right in W.Europe is a far less potent force than many of it's adherents would like to posture. Take as an example the massive decline of the BNP in the UK over the last 5 years. Far right violence is an issue, but less so IMHO.
For example by returning Jihadis (just in the last couple of days - Belgium) and even lone wolf attacks (Rigby's killers) and of course the Paris killers (Al Queada Yemen possibly?).
We are in a very difficult situation. That so many of such killers adhere to one particular faith does raise some serious questions.
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
[ 17. January 2015, 12:20: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Absolutely.
'Just war' is bollocks and all wars are terrible.
I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.
The point I'm making is about interpretation.
Because I've posted a comment that the views of 'just war' proponents are nowhere near as clear-cut as opponents of this view can suggest (see Steve Langton's post) then such a comment could be interpreted to suggest that I support the idea of a 'just war'.
Taken out of context or in isolation rather than alongside other aspects of what I believe, it wouldn't be unreasonable to reach that conclusion.
In an analogous way, I am suggesting, the same thing happens with religious texts - whether those we consider to be inspired or authoritative or not.
We have to look at the whole picture. We can't simply isolate one or two verses and say, 'There you go, chapter and verse, Islam is inherently violent ...' any more than we can take a comment that I - or any one else - posts here and use that as completely representative of that person's beliefs and approach to life.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I am a liberal and Islam is inextricably predicated on the violence of its founder.
You used to be a conservative and said dismissive and absolutist things at liberals. Now all that's changed really is that you're saying dismissive and absolutist things in the other direction.
Ideally, if you're a liberal, you see value in being neither dismissive nor absolutist about other people's beliefs.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We have to look at the whole picture. We can't simply isolate one or two verses and say, 'There you go, chapter and verse, Islam is inherently violent ...' any more than we can take a comment that I - or any one else - posts here and use that as completely representative of that person's beliefs and approach to life.
Exactly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
So, several posters have outlined the reasoning behind why Islam is attached to a violence that is not driven by the religion and yet the "Islam is the source of the violence" folk fail to address this.
And you say that the same cannot be said for Christianity because Jesus magics away the OT naughty behaviour.
What then about Judaism? Judaism does not yet have anyone who mollifies the grumpy OT God. Israel is a Jewish state, Isreal are bastards in the treatment of the Palestinians: Judaism has some soul-searching to do.
Same logic, so you must agree with the conclusion.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And i'm gonna say what I said before-- the best example Christianity can show the world is providing a model of such soul- searching-- we need to acknowledge the ways Christendom has been misused in ways that has impacted the world-- God, Gold, Glory, anyone? -- before we can dictate who stands in need of soul searching.
Also as I said before, the Islamic "reformation" is underway. Remember that little thing called Arab Spring we were all so enthused about a while back? While not a specific Muslim movement, the movement began with a significant number of progressive Muslims at the helm. Instead of blaming all of Islam for the Talibaniness of the Taliban, why are we not reaching out toward moderates and progressives who could use our philosophical support?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
However, we would all condemn the crazy antics of Brevic and his Norwegian pseudo Nazi death spree. But whilst not wanting to downplay Brevic and his ilk...Take as an example the massive decline of the BNP in the UK over the last 5 years. Far right violence is an issue, but less so IMHO.
So the secular West and Christians get lots of apologies to cover them.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
But not Islam.
It is individuals that do soul searching, not abstract nouns. Most individual Muslims have no more need of soul searching than the individual Christians over the wrongs of Christianity. Individuals suggesting otherwise are the ones who would benefit most from soul searching. I've a safe guess that they won't engage though.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In fact, blaming Islam itself - as the right wing and some evangelicals are doing - will make things worse, as we will end up with Muslims themselves being demonized.
Very helpful!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Dafyd, apart from being dismissive. How? Of what? Of whom? But yeah Leopards. Spots. Irrelevant.
The toxic meme of redemptive violence is at the heart of ALL religion. By definition. Bar tiny, marginal exception. Including that, the exception, of Jesus. And even He wasn't above the odd threat, constrained by His culture.
I'm dismissing NO ONE. And Dafyd, in particular, I WANT to be challenged on this, believe me. Against my will, my old leopard. So please engage.
Islam is at heart, core, from its inception, violent, coercive, imperial, patriarchal. Just like Christianity reverted to and in so doing became a major substrate for Islam.
If I were a true Scotsman, sorry liberal, I wouldn't say that elephant in the room fact? In any context? And that's not a rhetorical question, no matter how sneering it looks.
My responsibility as a Christian to Islam in a non-Islamic society is to be tolerant, kind, accommodating, lay down my privilege; honour, serve strangers in a strange land, not stuff insulting cartoons in their faces. To bless. In a society where they have the whip hand my responsibility is to submit and bless the same.
So I'm failing to bless Islam by engaging with the subject of its foundational violence?
One that it cannot possibly escape any more than Judaism could?
Violence that re-infected Christianity so badly we aren't even aware of it?
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
The BBC documentary ( posted the link a few threads back) actually mentions the need for Islam to do a bit of a revamp.
It's certainly not just the right wing or evangelicals doing the questioning of Islam's credentials.
The danger of slapping the name of the thing then ''phobia'' at the end of the word is that the ''whateveryoulikephobia'' can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Islam is NOT the problem. At all. No matter what. Christianity is. The responsibility is ENTIRELY ours.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Much better to attack all the Muslims of the world to do some soul-searching, that's addressing the real problem and certainly not hiding or beating others.
[ 17. January 2015, 16:24: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Gamaliel's point seems to click a few ''yes'' buttons in my head at least.
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
This was amply illustrated by this last night on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
Panorama -The Battle for British Islam
Panorama investigates the battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims. John Ware hears from Muslims trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values.
Saul
This documentary? Because from what you've written, the discussion comes from Muslims discussing the reformation of Islam.
More power to them.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Gamaliel's point seems to click a few ''yes'' buttons in my head at least.
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
This was amply illustrated by this last night on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
Panorama -The Battle for British Islam
Panorama investigates the battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims. John Ware hears from Muslims trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values.
Saul
This documentary? Because from what you've written, the discussion comes from Muslims discussing the reformation of Islam.
More power to them.
and sooner the better.
I never became a Marxist/communist because it seemed to me in the 1980s any system that kept people in by force had the seeds of it's own destruction within it. The Iron Curtain was a wall that kept countless millions prisoner behind it's walls.
Islam threatens the death penalty to any of it's adherents that leave it. Not such a strong system that twists it members arms up their backs? Why so the violence to any that harbour doubts about Allah? IMHO.
Saul
[ 17. January 2015, 18:02: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I have a reasonable number of friends who have left Islam. And Islam didn't threaten them with death. Therefore Islam does not threaten apostates with death.
Yet I'm aware of countries in which ex-Muslims are threatened with death. Therefore Islam does threaten apostates with death.
Except I just said it didn't. On the other hand it does. Heavens, what a paradox.
Think, think, think....
I know, could it be that it doesn't make sense to talk about a single entity called Islam and ascribe it particular characteristics based on the actions of individuals?
If only someone had mentioned such an idea before we could have saved so much going round-in-circles. Why didn't anyone think of that?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The BBC documentary ( posted the link a few threads back) actually mentions the need for Islam to do a bit of a revamp.
It's certainly not just the right wing or evangelicals doing the questioning of Islam's credentials.
The danger of slapping the name of the thing then ''phobia'' at the end of the word is that the ''whateveryoulikephobia'' can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Saul the Apostle
This is becoming ridiculous. You start off with a kind of faux-naive OP, asking questions about Islam, and now it seems that you had from the beginning some kind of agenda, but which you are very coy about.
So what is the actual problem with Islam? Please be more specific.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Inherent violence, presumably. It seemed to go from a naive question to a conclusion somewhere in the thread. Presumably Saul was convinced by our arguments.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
and sooner the better.
When has any reformation happened quickly? Or do you think the Protestant Reformation was soley kicked off by the 95 Theses?
And since you missed my italics, I'll try caps. The documentary shows MUSLIMS discussing Islamic reform. That is exactly who should be, and we ought to either support their efforts or shut up and leave them to it. The sooner the better.
[ 17. January 2015, 19:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Inherent violence, presumably. It seemed to go from a naive question to a conclusion somewhere in the thread. Presumably Saul was convinced by our arguments.
Did anyone not expect this exact outcome? I can't recall a thread started by Saul that DIDN'T follow the same pattern.
I don't know why people frame a thread as asking a question when the purpose is just to tell some people giving answers that they are wrong. Just start with the position, it would save a lot of time.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
No great mystery here.
In theory they can't be, in practice they sometimes are.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
What? Now you're making my exact point for me. The whole point is that things you consider obvious = things you take for granted.
I'm not suggesting that everything is a matter of conscious interpretation. Most of it's unconscious and not recognised as such. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. We simply never think about what we take for granted unless and until we encounter someone who doesn't take the same thing for granted.
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
No great mystery here.
In theory they can't be, in practice they sometimes are.
If the theory is overridden by practice as often it appears to be in the world at large, then I think it's time to develop a new theory.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
So, several posters have outlined the reasoning behind why Islam is attached to a violence that is not driven by the religion and yet the "Islam is the source of the violence" folk fail to address this.
And you say that the same cannot be said for Christianity because Jesus magics away the OT naughty behaviour.
What then about Judaism? Judaism does not yet have anyone who mollifies the grumpy OT God. Israel is a Jewish state, Isreal are bastards in the treatment of the Palestinians: Judaism has some soul-searching to do.
Same logic, so you must agree with the conclusion.
Judaism does have some soul searching to do and yes, the treatment of the Palestinians has some links to the Jewish religion in that Jewish belief is tied up with the concept of the holy land, the gift of God and the temple in Jerusalem.
That's a complete tangent though, worthy of another thread, don't see what it's got to do with the question of whether or not Islam is inherently violent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Or whether bears ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there's some kind of cross-purpose thing going on here ...
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is something we do have to consciously think about. To arrive at that conclusion requires conscious thought.
How else would we arrive at that conclusion?
We don't read and understand things automatically. There's a whole web of conscious and unconscious mental responses and influences going on whenever we approach any text - even the plainest - learning, context, culture, personality ...
I don't think anyone here IS arguing that the NT teaches religious violence.
I don't believe it does.
But in order to arrive at that conclusion I've had to go through a whole series of mental processes - both conscious and unconsciously.
My mother-in-law has Alzheimers. Part of the condition means that she often misinterprets things that she'd not have had to think about particularly strongly or even consciously at one time.
Why? Because parts of her brain no longer function as well or in the way that they once did.
Interacting with my mum-in-law makes me realise how so much of what we take for granted and consider to be 'unconscious' is actually the product of a whole web of influences and factors.
It's the same when we deal with sacred texts.
That doesn't make them any the less sacred. Nor does it mean that we can make black white or white black.
All anyone is saying here is that texts are open to interpretation. The fact that the NT doesn't teach or provide a justification for religious violence may appear so obvious as to not require stating - to you. But to other people it might not appear so axiomatic.
That's not a post-modern jiggery-pokery observation. It's a statement of observable fact.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Dang ... I messed the code up again.
Also, I think I was at cross-purposes myself on some of the points I thought I was addressing ...
The point, though, is that even the most axiomatic issues still need to be processed and considered within a whole raft of responses, factors and contexts ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's axiomatic regardless.
[ 18. January 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One of the odd things about the idea of 'inherently violent' (or in fact, inherently anything), is that it seems to block change. If Islam just has the bacillus of violence roaming in its bloodstream, then the only solution is to stop being a Muslim, or possibly, lock up all the Muslims (or deport them).
It's also a puzzle that so many Muslims are not violent, although you could say (along with IS), that they are not true Muslims, and have somehow left the faith.
In fact, it seems to make the current situation worse, since the possibility of dialogue, or reaching out to moderate Muslims, is suspect, since we know that they too, are inherently violent.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
and sooner the better.
When has any reformation happened quickly? Or do you think the Protestant Reformation was soley kicked off by the 95 Theses?
And since you missed my italics, I'll try caps. The documentary shows MUSLIMS discussing Islamic reform. That is exactly who should be, and we ought to either support their efforts or shut up and leave them to it. The sooner the better.
The other thing that seems to be happening is secularization, by which I mean Muslims not going to mosque. Thus, it's said that in France, about two thirds of Muslims don't; of course, they may still be devout, I suppose.
Even odder is Iran, where the often cited stat is about 1-2% go to mosque; although here, there may be some other factor intervening, such as political opposition to the ayatollahs.
You would guess that this process is happening to young people more than old - they are being Westernized, and hence reject religion!
Maybe this is the real solution - Christianity has become less toxic, as it has become irrelevant.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's gone from strong hostile to weak hostile or weak benevolent. Islam isn't as far along that path. Islam cannot be strong benevolent and be true to its foundation. Christianity can in theory but not in practice. The only hope for Islam as for the world is strong benevolent Christianity.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's gone from strong hostile to weak hostile or weak benevolent. Islam isn't as far along that path. Islam cannot be strong benevolent and be true to its foundation. Christianity can in theory but not in practice. The only hope for Islam as for the world is strong benevolent Christianity.
This is a string of generalisations which make no sense at all except in your brain. Please make the attempt to explain. You've probably been told that you are a genius and that it is we ordinary mortals who must try and understand your wisdom. It is not true, okay. It really repays to make sense.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
My last post was intemperate and insulting to Martin. Sorry.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My last post was intemperate and insulting to Martin. Sorry.
That's true, but I'd also like Martin60 to come back and explain/expand on his earlier post.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wee-wee end Spawn, wee-wee end. Me not you. And none taken mate. Admins, please, lay nowt at his door. I'm a provocative old sod.
Christianity is predominantly weak and hostile with a side order of weak benevolent. Historically, since its institutionalization under the state, when strong, it has been hostile. Generally, not wholly, true generalizations.
In Russia now it is a strong, hostile tool of the state. I can't think of a single historical example of Christian power being benevolent. Not one.
Can you?
In the context of something as innocently, helplessly reactionary to Christian hostility as Islam, it must be strongly benevolent. Insist on being kind regardless.
It's the ONLY hope.
Meaningless I'm sure.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there's some kind of cross-purpose thing going on here ...
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them.
No it isn't.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is something we do have to consciously think about. To arrive at that conclusion requires conscious thought.
It takes conscious thought,too, to conclude whether or not Jesus taught paedophilia, or whether the events described in the NT took place in China.
Conscious thought lasting a squillionth of a second because the answers to them are so obvious, and the alternativs so silly.
Sure, someone might think that the NT teaches religious violence, but that "conscious thought to a conclusion" deserves to be taken about as seriously as the consciously thought-out conclusion that Jesus was really the guru of a magic mushroom cult.
[code]
[ 19. January 2015, 08:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
What? Now you're making my exact point for me. The whole point is that things you consider obvious = things you take for granted.
I'm not suggesting that everything is a matter of conscious interpretation. Most of it's unconscious and not recognised as such. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. We simply never think about what we take for granted unless and until we encounter someone who doesn't take the same thing for granted.
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them.
There's something of a logical error there.
If I were looking at it purely in terms of biology and brain function, everything is an interpretation
Also, it's only because we inhabit a culture that has a predilection to aristotelean logic that we fall into looking for clear yes/no answers
finally, it's not so-called rational logic (as the word is understood in 21st century culture) that can absolutely state that the NT is totally anti-violence. But rather it's the old version of rationality in which the heart has as much (if not more) say than the brain.
I'm not particularly disagreeing that the NT is against violence, but the path to that statement cannot be couched in terms of simplistic logic. This is one of the problems of modern interpretation - the heart part of rationality has been flushed down the plug hole, and after that it's all downhill on an increasingly slippery slope.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Conscious thought lasting a squillionth of a second because the answers to them are so obvious, and the alternativs so silly.
Is that your position on Islam and violence?
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:.
The other thing that seems to be happening is secularization, by which I mean Muslims not going to mosque. Thus, it's said that in France, about two thirds of Muslims don't; of course, they may still be devout, I suppose.
Anecdata – but I think this probably describes most of my Muslim colleagues. To my knowledge, not one of them ever sets foot inside a mosque. However, they do all fast for Ramadan.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nothing is obvious, Kaplan.
I'm finding that out the hard way in interacting with my increasingly senile mother in law.
Just because thee or me take certain things for granted doesn't mean that they are obvious.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Anyway, whether the NT sanctions violence or not (and I believe it doesn't) isn't the point at issue here.
The point is whether Islam is inherently violent.
Kaplan Corday says that he isn't suggesting that it is, but always comes back to a comparison between the Quran and the NT - saying that the NT doesn't promote the notion of religious violence but the Quran does ...
I might be dim, but I can't see much difference between this and asserting that Islam is inherently violent.
I'm sorry, but throughout this thread I've got the impression that Kaplan is going, 'Nurh nuh na-nah-na ... your holy scriptures justify religious violence but ours don't ...'
Which doesn't get us very far.
I'm not sure direct comparisons between the NT and the Quran are particularly helpful. We can draw parallels and indicate points of difference in the way the two texts are used or interpreted etc etc ... but we're not necessarily comparing like with like.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have a new (or refreshed) working theory which is that legalism, unchecked, can end up being violent.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Interesting item in today's Times about the report into the Muslim Brotherhood that should have been published last year "at the latest".
All the evidence points to huge embarrassment in HMG that the report's conclusions will indeed be what many foreign governments have been trying to tell Whitehall for years: that London is indeed the central hub for MB and for years has acted as a clearing-house for various terrorist groups to make links with other like-minded organisations banned in the middle east.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Sure, someone might think that the NT teaches religious violence, but that "conscious thought to a conclusion" deserves to be taken about as seriously as the consciously thought-out conclusion that Jesus was really the guru of a magic mushroom cult.
You don't seem to grasp that the issue isn't whether we take the conclusion itself seriously.
I don't have to take seriously that James Eagan Holmes is the Joker incarnate. But James Eagan Holmes appeared to take it sufficiently seriously to arm himself, go to a Batman screening and kill 12 people.
It feels like you would have stood there in the cinema saying to people "don't worry, this can't be happening because his reasoning process is stupid".
The fact that you think someone's conclusion is idiotic does not, in fact, stop them from reaching their conclusion. It's perfectly possible for someone to conclude the NT doesn't justify violence despite your rock-solid conviction that it doesn't.
Your entire argument appears to consist of "I'm a sane person, and I would never think that, so no sane person could think that". Which would be all very well, if only the world consisted entirely of these 'sane' people you're so sure about.
The original point of this line of argument was that it would be perfectly possible for the vast majority of the world's Muslims to conclude that the Quran doesn't justify violent terrorism, but this wouldn't stop a small proportion from concluding that it does. Which is why it is erroneous to work back the other way, and use the existence of a small proportion of violent terrorists as conclusive evidence that the violent terrorists are reaching the 'correct' interpretation of Islam.
[ 19. January 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It would also be bizarre to suggest that violent extremists are violent because they have read the Koran. Or, for that matter, that violent Christian militias have simply read the Bible.
This just leaves out the whole social, economic, and political contexts in which violence arises. Should we say that Western violence arises out of reading international law books on just wars?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Interesting item in today's Times about the report into the Muslim Brotherhood that should have been published last year "at the latest".
All the evidence points to huge embarrassment in HMG that the report's conclusions will indeed be what many foreign governments have been trying to tell Whitehall for years: that London is indeed the central hub for MB and for years has acted as a clearing-house for various terrorist groups to make links with other like-minded organisations banned in the middle east.
There was an article in the Financial Times about this back in August (sorry, link's failed) The government has asked an enquiry to decide whether the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organisation, it looked likely that the enquiry would say "no", and that would have made us unpopular with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, who are all busy killing members of the MB.
The current hot story is another intemperate letter from Eric Pickles demanding that Muslims speak out even more strongly. Notably Britain's Chief Rabbi understands why Muslims feel frustrated at the moment, while a Muslim spokesman states that radicalisation is more likely to take place on the internet than in mosques.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:.
The other thing that seems to be happening is secularization, by which I mean Muslims not going to mosque. Thus, it's said that in France, about two thirds of Muslims don't; of course, they may still be devout, I suppose.
Anecdata – but I think this probably describes most of my Muslim colleagues. To my knowledge, not one of them ever sets foot inside a mosque. However, they do all fast for Ramadan.
My observation as well, although I'm not really sure how to interpret it. You would think that this might be the start of secularization, especially among the young. As I was saying, maybe then the best hope is simply that Islam becomes irrelevant, as Christianity has. It might take a long time, of course.
But there is then the sobering thought, that humans will not become less violent, even if religion mainly disappears, since I don't think the causes of violence are religious. I suppose it will be one less identity to fight over, but there are plenty of others.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This ...
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would also be bizarre to suggest that violent extremists are violent because they have read the Koran. Or, for that matter, that violent Christian militias have simply read the Bible.
This just leaves out the whole social, economic, and political contexts in which violence arises. Should we say that Western violence arises out of reading international law books on just wars?
It also leaves out (or underplays) the complex web of social networks, tradition, culture, history, personal characteristics and disposition and a whole range of other stuff which accompanies us when we deal with texts ... be they religious ones or any other kind.
I keep making the obvious point that none of us approach scripture (or any other text) in a vacuum and I get accused of post-modernism for saying so ...
We can have a high view of the authoritativeness of scripture and still accept that we interpret it through a whole set of lenses and filters.
There is no such thing as neutral.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:.
The other thing that seems to be happening is secularization, by which I mean Muslims not going to mosque. Thus, it's said that in France, about two thirds of Muslims don't; of course, they may still be devout, I suppose.
Anecdata – but I think this probably describes most of my Muslim colleagues. To my knowledge, not one of them ever sets foot inside a mosque. However, they do all fast for Ramadan.
I don't even have any anecdata, just two points.
#1 - Friday is a regular working day in the Western world. My dentist, a Muslim, closes his practice on Fridays (and works alternate
Saturdays) but it's unlikely that the majority of working Muslims can get Friday off on a regular basis. (And I have no idea what he does on Fridays - for all I know, he golfs.)
#2 - AIUI, the rules for women attending mosque are slightly different, which means at least half of Muslims may not be expected to go every Friday.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
So serious Christians don't miss church ever?
(Not a response to Soror Magna of course, but to anyone using mosque attendance as a measure of devotion.)
[ 20. January 2015, 03:29: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It doesn't. Unequivocally.
It is. Unequivocally.
And there's no point saying that to 'them'. Only responding with the former to the latter.
No help there from Francis.
[ 20. January 2015, 07:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it is erroneous to work back the other way, and use the existence of a small proportion of violent terrorists as conclusive evidence that the violent terrorists are reaching the 'correct' interpretation of Islam.
Which is not what I have done.
What I have argued is that the "small proportion of violent terrorists" have adopted one possible interpretation of the Koran, and that the majority of Muslims either ignore this interpretation for various reasons, or genuinely believe it to be wrong.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Which I expect many people would agree with. The question for me is how we go from there to a statement on inherent violence (or inherent anything). Isn't what you have just said a sufficient statement of the problem without pushing further into areas that are difficult to define?
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
The "religion of peace" violent?
Yes... for the moment.
At some point though there will be an outrage that forces the west into more drastic measures to reduce the risk they represent. Anyone want to take bets that sometime, somewhere a politician will be elected on the strength of asking if Germany still has any Zyklon B showers left over?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyone want to take bets that sometime, somewhere a politician will be elected on the strength of asking if Germany still has any Zyklon B showers left over?
You're not actually Al Murray are you, Deano?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The "religion of peace" violent?
Yes... for the moment.
At some point though there will be an outrage that forces the west into more drastic measures to reduce the risk they represent. Anyone want to take bets that sometime, somewhere a politician will be elected on the strength of asking if Germany still has any Zyklon B showers left over?
Are you familiar with Britain First Deano? They seem to be about where you are politically. Fortunately they're seen as loony cockwombles by the vast majority.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
So you don't believe that a politician won't ever be voted in on the strength of taking such measures?
The heads are exactly where they were inserted the last time I was around here aren't they.
Nothing changes.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Only if people start believing the bullshit you and BF try to promote, Deano.
How many muslims are there in Chesterfield? How many of them have threatened you in the name of Islam?
Surely it's a significant proportion, if they're so inherently violent?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The "religion of peace" violent?
Yes... for the moment.
At some point though there will be an outrage that forces the west into more drastic measures to reduce the risk they represent. Anyone want to take bets that sometime, somewhere a politician will be elected on the strength of asking if Germany still has any Zyklon B showers left over?
Are you familiar with Britain First Deano? They seem to be about where you are politically. Fortunately they're seen as loony cockwombles by the vast majority.
On social media Britain First has built up quite a following using populist posts on topics like child abuse, cruelty to animals and war veterans' welfare to garner support. By nailing their colours to those masts they hope to broaden their support: on the basis of some who have 'liked' their posts, they have had some success.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Only if people start believing the bullshit you and BF try to promote, Deano.
How many muslims are there in Chesterfield? How many of them have threatened you in the name of Islam?
Surely it's a significant proportion, if they're so inherently violent?
How many Jews worked in banking in 1930's Germany?
At some point will it cease to matter how many are peaceful if the attacks on the west keep coming and keep getting reported on?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Only if people start believing the bullshit you and BF try to promote, Deano.
How many muslims are there in Chesterfield? How many of them have threatened you in the name of Islam?
Surely it's a significant proportion, if they're so inherently violent?
How many Jews worked in banking in 1930's Germany?
"Too many"
quote:
At some point will it cease to matter how many are peaceful if the attacks on the west keep coming and keep getting reported on?
So long as "The West" (whatever that is) continues to concentrate its attention on the ideologies behind terrorism rather than terrorist groups, governments will have a convenient excuse for their own shortcomings.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
So long as "The West" (whatever that is) continues to concentrate its attention on the ideologies behind terrorism rather than terrorist groups, governments will have a convenient excuse for their own shortcomings.
Huh? So you mean cure the symptom rather than the cause?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it is erroneous to work back the other way, and use the existence of a small proportion of violent terrorists as conclusive evidence that the violent terrorists are reaching the 'correct' interpretation of Islam.
Which is not what I have done.
What I have argued is that the "small proportion of violent terrorists" have adopted one possible interpretation of the Koran, and that the majority of Muslims either ignore this interpretation for various reasons, or genuinely believe it to be wrong.
Yes - I'd agree that is the case. Which makes a policy of marginalising moslems "because they are potentisal terrorists" incredibly stupid, because the vast majority can also decide to act like they are expected to behave. A basic principle of human behaviour - people will generally rise (or fall) to the level of behaviour that is expected of/projected onto them. Interesting (and totally immoral) experiments with school classes demonstrated this very clearly.
[ 20. January 2015, 12:09: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Yeah, I've noticed that muslims are queuing up at the local police stations to shop the local jihadis.
Oh, no hang on... I haven't.
Let's see, it's now been over thirteen years since 9/11 and the muslim community is still not obviously standing up to the jihadis in their midst.
Sorry, the muslim community is not fostering warm feelings of trust in my heart.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah, I've noticed that muslims are queuing up at the local police stations to shop the local jihadis.
Oh, no hang on... I haven't.
Let's see, it's now been over thirteen years since 9/11 and the muslim community is still not obviously standing up to the jihadis in their midst.
In the same 13 years how well has the militarily powerful West managed against terrorism?
The huge proportion of white, Christian, British people aren't doing much about racists either. They might not like racism and probably aren't racists, but do they actually do anything?
quote:
Sorry, the muslim community is not fostering warm feelings of trust in my heart.
What would they have to do to achieve that?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah, I've noticed that muslims are queuing up at the local police stations to shop the local jihadis.
Oh, no hang on... I haven't.
Let's see, it's now been over thirteen years since 9/11 and the muslim community is still not obviously standing up to the jihadis in their midst.
Sorry, the muslim community is not fostering warm feelings of trust in my heart.
I care far more about fostering feelings of trust in British Muslims' hearts. Feelings which are 'betrayed' by the system you want them to trust.
Also, how many EDL thugs have you shopped to the bizzies recently? They come from your community, after all.
Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on
:
Is Islam inherently violent?
The bigger question is what is Islam? I don't have a clue. It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Go look at a Quran. The chapters are arranged in order of length. Why? Because there is no more logical order to arrange the material...its a jumble of half written stories and quotes without context.
There is some horrifically violent material in the Quran. There is also some more tolerant stuff.
There is an argument which says the supposedly later revelations superceded the earlier ones. In most cases this would mean the the more violent verses superceded the more peaceful ones.
But not everyone agrees with that. Therein lies the problem. There are disagreements about how to interpret the Bible, but at least we have frameworks of how to approach understanding it. and the Bible sits within a historical context.
None of that is true of the Quran. It is a collection of text which has no context of its own, and sits in a historical void.
Should it be interpreted peacefully or violently? Well, there just isn't a meaningful way to perform exegesis on the Quran.
Perhaps the only guide is to look at how the early followers of Islam, and Mohammed himself, behaved.. That might give a clue.
The problem with that is that the earliest writings about Mohammed and his life date from 200 years after his death.
Some record him being peaceful, some record him being incredibly violent...radical and moderate Islamic scholars will simply cherry pick whichever suits their ends...and dismiss those that don't fit their view.
When Western politicians say that the radicals are "twisting" Islam they are wrong.
There are violent and non violent interpretations of Islam, but it's ancient documents, it's history and it's theology are all so haphazard and unsystematic that it's hard to call any one interpretation of Islam correct or incorrect.
P.s. See Tom Hollands book "in the shadow of the sword" for more on the hazy origins of Islam.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, the muslim community is not fostering warm feelings of trust in my heart.
What would they have to do to achieve that?
Hmm. More of them standing up in courtrooms saying "Yes your honour, I heard them plotting to..." would be a good start.
And also giving the mouth-breathing idiots in their own communities a good shoeing.
Stop putting up "no whites" signs in certain parts of towns and cities.
Quite a few things could be done really.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
And where are these signs of which you write? On Faux News?
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyone want to take bets that sometime, somewhere a politician will be elected on the strength of asking if Germany still has any Zyklon B showers left over?
You know the answer to both parts of that suggestion, deano. And perhaps you'd also like to refrain from suggesting the Germans are inherently murderously antisemitic? Because that's what you're implying.
quote:
Yeah, I've noticed that muslims are queuing up at the local police stations to shop the local jihadis.
Oh, no hang on... I haven't.
Maybe jihadis aren't that plentiful. And perhaps those that there are have become good at hiding from people who might shop them? I'd think that would be a top survival skill for a would-be terrorist.
quote:
Stop putting up "no whites" signs in certain parts of towns and cities.
Such as where? Get me evidence from a reliable source (ie not Stormfront). I'll wait.
t
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
FFS, Deano, there have been well-reported cases of teenage and 20-something jihadis whose own families hadn't a Scooby until they disappeared one day only to reappear a few weeks later in one of Jihadi John's latest Youtube offerings. How the hell are they meant to shop someone they themselves don't know is going to turn rogue?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Even if the occasional such sign has been observed (and there are idiots everywhere), how can the 99.9% of Muslims who don't put up such signs stop doing so when they already don't? Does Deano require that the outlying 0.1% of the Muslim population do everything he asks before he has any confidence in the other 99.9%?
This is like assuming that all football fans are hooligans until such time as there is never a single fight or act of vandalism connected with a football match.
[ 20. January 2015, 15:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add that I find the "good shoeing" remark amusing. I mean, if kicking the shit out of someone because you disapprove of their views doesn't teach them that violence is not an acceptable way to deal with opposing views, then nothing will...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So deano, assuming all that is one thousand and ten per cent true, how are you part of Jesus' solution?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
More of them standing up in courtrooms saying "Yes your honour, I heard them plotting to..." would be a good start.
Yes, because we all know that plots are invariably hatched in full view of all nearby Muslims, the concept of privacy being alien to that culture.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
3M Matt, don't want to select a quote from what you wrote, but just want to say it is one of the most sensible posts I have seen on this thread yet, and I hope everybody scrolls back to read it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And then there are violent Buddhist extremists (Tricycle magazine). They're "Bodu Bala Sena" ("Buddha Power Force").
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
More of them standing up in courtrooms saying "Yes your honour, I heard them plotting to..." would be a good start.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, because we all know that plots are invariably hatched in full view of all nearby Muslims, the concept of privacy being alien to that culture.
You are being silly and crass orfeo. It's much more subtle than that. They're a bit like the Borg, so what one knows all the others know, more or less. Even if the surrounding Muslims don't know the exact details they usually can pick up on it, and really there's no excuse for Muslim terrorism going undetected by Muslims. This doesn't work for the white friends or colleagues of terrorists since they aren't part of the Borg.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
3M Matt, don't want to select a quote from what you wrote, but just want to say it is one of the most sensible posts I have seen on this thread yet, and I hope everybody scrolls back to read it.
The one bit of 3M's post that I wondered about was whether the interpretation of the Bible was assisted all that much be a historical framework. I agree the document is different, but I suspect a lot of the themes in how we interpret our respective documents are similar.
There is a historical framework in the hadith, which many Muslim scholars and clergy spend a long time talking about. Also both groups I suspect rely a lot on tradition in their interpretations - either explicitly codified in some Christian denominations or implicit, shared understandings that we inherit from our church.
I would be interested in knowing what a previously unexposed Muslim's reaction to reading the Bible might be. Perhaps they would be just as perplexed regarding how some of our long narrative accounts could be considered spiritual instruction or how letters written to specific churches which don't claim to be the direct words of God could be useful to us now.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Kelly re 3M. As in the Beckett chip shop joke, I read it the first time. And yes it's good. A piece of the jig-saw. But cannot change the fact that Christians must respond as Jesus to foundationally violent systems. Starting with their own of course.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Is Islam inherently violent?
The bigger question is what is Islam? I don't have a clue. It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Go look at a Quran. The chapters are arranged in order of length. Why? Because there is no more logical order to arrange the material...its a jumble of half written stories and quotes without context.
There is some horrifically violent material in the Quran. There is also some more tolerant stuff.
There is an argument which says the supposedly later revelations superceded the earlier ones. In most cases this would mean the the more violent verses superceded the more peaceful ones.
But not everyone agrees with that. Therein lies the problem. There are disagreements about how to interpret the Bible, but at least we have frameworks of how to approach understanding it. and the Bible sits within a historical context.
None of that is true of the Quran. It is a collection of text which has no context of its own, and sits in a historical void.
Should it be interpreted peacefully or violently? Well, there just isn't a meaningful way to perform exegesis on the Quran.
Perhaps the only guide is to look at how the early followers of Islam, and Mohammed himself, behaved.. That might give a clue.
The problem with that is that the earliest writings about Mohammed and his life date from 200 years after his death.
Some record him being peaceful, some record him being incredibly violent...radical and moderate Islamic scholars will simply cherry pick whichever suits their ends...and dismiss those that don't fit their view.
When Western politicians say that the radicals are "twisting" Islam they are wrong.
There are violent and non violent interpretations of Islam, but it's ancient documents, it's history and it's theology are all so haphazard and unsystematic that it's hard to call any one interpretation of Islam correct or incorrect.
P.s. See Tom Hollands book "in the shadow of the sword" for more on the hazy origins of Islam.
I find this post interesting. I am not sure if the post author could inform us what the term: 'Jihad' fully means in Arabic? There does seem to be some difference of opinion between what some Western (non Arabic speaking commentators) say Jihad is: the inner struggle etc. and the warfare Jihad etc.
Contrast this with the understanding of what Arabic speakers feel the term Jihad is about. I was led to believe the latter would wholly interpret Jihad as holy war or righteous struggle? In other words a disparity of views between West and Arabic speakers possibly?
I'd be interested in the post authors views or other Ship Mates views too.
Saul
[ 21. January 2015, 07:19: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Saul, the Wikipedia page on Jihad covers more than adequately the fact that there is disagreement, both inside and outside Islam.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
More of them standing up in courtrooms saying "Yes your honour, I heard them plotting to..." would be a good start.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, because we all know that plots are invariably hatched in full view of all nearby Muslims, the concept of privacy being alien to that culture.
You are being silly and crass orfeo. It's much more subtle than that. They're a bit like the Borg, so what one knows all the others know, more or less. Even if the surrounding Muslims don't know the exact details they usually can pick up on it, and really there's no excuse for Muslim terrorism going undetected by Muslims. This doesn't work for the white friends or colleagues of terrorists since they aren't part of the Borg.
Very good point. But in addition, it's well known that some white folk have a special ability to detect what is going on in the Muslim community.
You might consider that this is guesswork - but no! We should consider them to be white (non-Muslim) lightning scourges of God, or WnMLSG, as they are known in Manchester.
We should be thankful that they exist; I believe that this is how the Muslim stronghold of Birmingham was detected, not by rational means, but direct revelation. Europe already feels a safer place because of them.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
True, but I don't think the WnMLSG are all that useful because although as you rightly say they can discern the general problems within the Muslim community through direct revelation, they seem unable to pinpoint the precise culprits. Allah (or the Borg, I lose track) reserves that ability as a test for Muslims only.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
3M Matt, don't want to select a quote from what you wrote, but just want to say it is one of the most sensible posts I have seen on this thread yet, and I hope everybody scrolls back to read it.
They certainly should, and they should also look carefully at the work by Tom Holland which was for a TV documentary using some far from mainstream historical interpretation.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
True, but I don't think the WnMLSG are all that useful because although as you rightly say they can discern the general problems within the Muslim community through direct revelation, they seem unable to pinpoint the precise culprits. Allah (or the Borg, I lose track) reserves that ability as a test for Muslims only.
We have the makings of a good enterprise here. The white European knights of the shining path (apparently, they have changed their name), are able to detect that Muslims are shirking their responsibilities, but it's the Islamic Borg who can detect the individuals. All we have to do is join the dots, and we'll have an efficacious Muslim-badness-detection-device, which I'm sure HMG will be interested in; for example, it could be trialed at airports - just point at somebody brown, or with a funny name, and bingo! Muslim badness will show up on the X-ray machine as a sort of dark unpleasant wodge within the body.
I don't want to seem mercenary, but can it be patented, and then sold for a vast sum?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
There was an explosives detection device widely in use along the same lines - maybe it wasn't detecting explosives after all?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If it's all right for Popes to smack friends in the mouth who bad mouth their mothers ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I copyrighted "Muslims are the Borg" as a bumper sticker several years ago. Mousethief can attest to this if I can't find the original post. Hands off my intellectual property.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I copyrighted "Muslims are the Borg" as a bumper sticker several years ago. Mousethief can attest to this if I can't find the original post. Hands off my intellectual property.
I have no idea what you're talking about this side of $50 greasing my palm.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My recollection is we were going to split the profits.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Oh, THAT bumper sticker!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I saw this cartoon in the Economist and for some reason I thought of this thread.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Mudfrog:
quote:
Can anyone tell me what the Christian or Jewish equivalent of these groups is, funded and supported by thousands, millions even, of people?
ISTM that both Tony Blair and George bush the Shrub were identified as "Christian" . They certainly had a lot to do with making the whole region east of the Mediterranean unstable, and gave the impression of attacking the Muslims, while supporting Israel's right to do what it damn well pleased.
Now ask how many Christians are left in the countries of that region. There is some cause-and-effect in all of that, without wishing to go into purely tribal issues.
And there certainly were "millions of followers" in favour of supporting the Iraq war, just as there were "millions of anti-supporters" trying to prevent it
Oddly enough, we haven't heard nearly so much about the Muslim origin of Obama now that he has started his version of "Christian" interference in the Middle East.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bliss. But as ever, only to the converted.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
It seemed surprising to me that in the wake of the murder of the Jordanian pilot that a debate followed discussing whether or not in Islamic tradition it was legitimate to burn a prisoner to death. The judgment itself to me was even more suprising
Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most prestigious center of learning, has called for the killing and crucifixion of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), expressing outrage over their murder of a Jordanian pilot.
In a statement after the burning alive of Moaz al-Kassasbeh, the Cairo-based authority called for the “killing, crucifixion and chopping of the limbs of ISIS terrorists.”
Head of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayib, expressed his "strong dismay at this cowardly act".
This "requires the punishment mentioned in the Koran for these corrupt oppressors who fight against God and his prophet: killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs."
"Islam forbids killing of the innocent human soul... It forbids mutilating the human soul by burning or in any other way even during wars against an enemy that attacks you," Tayib added in a statement.
ISIS itself has implemented such punishments against its own members for robbery at checkpoints or stealing funds from religious endowments in territories controlled by the group in Iraq and Syria.
That was on Al Arabiya and similarly reported elsewhere. That opinion is not not from a fringe group. There is something wrong.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
They believe in capital punishment.
Unlike the United States of America and the Bible Belt in particular, they don't pretend this isn't cruel.
[ 05. February 2015, 00:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
They believe in capital punishment.
Unlike the United States of America and the Bible Belt in particular, they don't pretend this isn't cruel.
Who are "they"? ISIS, Islamic scholars, or someone else? And what indicates "they don't pretend this isn't cruel"?
I suspect people who believe in capital punishment tend to think of it as "just", not "cruel."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Unlike the United States of America and the Bible Belt in particular, they don't pretend this isn't cruel.
It's certainly possible to kill people in a painless fashion. The Dutch seem to manage it with their legal euthanasia.
There is an obvious difference between killing someone painlessly and killing them in excruciating agony. To the extent that US executions are not painless, this is regrettable.
If capital punishment is de facto cruel (which I would dispute - I think capital punishment is wrong, but not in and of itself cruel) then all forms of execution are cruel.
If capital punishment is not de facto cruel, some methods of execution (eg. that cause extended pain and suffering) can still be cruel.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Unlike the United States of America and the Bible Belt in particular, they don't pretend this isn't cruel.
It's certainly possible to kill people in a painless fashion. The Dutch seem to manage it with their legal euthanasia.
Euthanasia is about people choosing to die. Which means that options that allow a person to drift off slowly are viable, because they won't be resisting.
I find the notion that it's somehow possible to take someone's life against their will, and for them to know that that is what you're doing, and yet for it somehow not to involve suffering a quite bizarre position. The psychological suffering alone is enormous.
Basically, most of the extensive American discussion is about making the process not physically painful, and time and time again a process of execution is abandonded when it's discovered that actually, it's capable of being painful.
OF COURSE IT IS. Why on earth would ANY process that is explicitly designed to stop the body from working not evoke the body's warning system for danger? Asking for something not to be painful is basically asking the nervous system "please don't do your job and alert your owner to the danger - especially when they're already primed for the danger".
The only way you're going to prevent a pain response is to put a bullet in the brain at point blank range so that there's no time for a pain response. And the psychological response is still going to be there.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I suspect people who believe in capital punishment tend to think of it as "just", not "cruel."
I don't have to agree with them.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I suspect people who believe in capital punishment tend to think of it as "just", not "cruel."
I don't have to agree with them.
Well, no. But you suggested there are people who believe in the death penalty, but (unlike some Americans) "don't pretend this isn't cruel."
I'd still like to know who "they" are, and why you say they think it really is cruel (or at least don't pretend it isn't.) I'd be surprised (and interested) to hear of people who describe as cruel a punishment of which they approve.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
OF COURSE IT IS. Why on earth would ANY process that is explicitly designed to stop the body from working not evoke the body's warning system for danger? Asking for something not to be painful is basically asking the nervous system "please don't do your job and alert your owner to the danger - especially when they're already primed for the danger".
The body doesn't know whether it's being executed or euthanized. There's no reason for the sensation of physical pain to be different in the two cases. You can't choose to resist anaesthesia.
If you were going to kill me and offered me the choice between the Dutch euthanasia protocol or being burned alive, I can assure you I would have no difficulty in making a choice.
I suppose I might refuse to choose out of a desire to not cooperate with my death, but I am not under any illusions that I would experience similar amounts of pain in the two cases.
And psychological pain? Well, sure, most people don't want to be executed, but most people don't want to be jailed for life either. I will note that a number of convicted criminals have explicitly asked to be killed, presumably because they find the psychological pain of remaining alive but jailed to be greater, or possibly because they can't cope with the pain and remorse of living with their crime. Others prefer to live in jail. So I don't think your assessment of the psychological pain involved is necessarily accurate.
[ 05. February 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd still like to know who "they" are, and why you say they think it really is cruel (or at least don't pretend it isn't.)
The people quoted in the post above mine. I thought that was obvious.
And well, if you want to mount an argument that crucifixion and chopping off limbs isn't intentionally designed to be unpleasant, be my guest. My point was that they're not trying to make execution nice in the way that the USA does, not trying to suggest that being killed as punishment is somehow compatible with dying with dignity.
[ 05. February 2015, 14:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The body doesn't know whether it's being executed or euthanized. There's no reason for the sensation of physical pain to be different in the two cases.
This shows a complete lack of awareness about neuroscience and how pain is experienced. It is not at all true that the same physical stimulation creates the same response no matter what. Your emotional and hormonal state makes an enormous difference. You can get everything from people who feel nothing because they're pumped on adrenaline through to chronic pain syndrome where touches that are innocuous to most people are painful.
quote:
And psychological pain? Well, sure, most people don't want to be executed, but most people don't want to be jailed for life either.
And most kids don't want to eat their broccoli, and most adults don't want to complete their tax return. We're talking about basic survival instinct here.
And yes, SOME prisoners with no prospect of release want to die, just as SOME people want to be euthanased. This is hardly the benchmark for everybody else, though.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
My point was that they're not trying to make execution nice in the way that the USA does
Should we think better of this particular clerics' advocacy of revenge killing and torture then? I am confused by the intention of your comparison.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My point was that they're not trying to make execution nice in the way that the USA does
Should we think better of this particular clerics' advocacy of revenge killing and torture then? I am confused by the intention of your comparison.
The intention of my comparison, as with many of the comparisons on this thread, is to say there's nothing particularly "Islamic" about killing people as punishment.
I don't know if you're familiar with the TV show 'Rectify', but in a brief scene recently it depicted people in favour of the death penalty standing outside a prison with Bible verses written on their placards. I've seen similar depictions enough times to suspect that the movies and TV shows aren't making this up.
I'm not suggesting anyone think better of the call for revenge killing. I'm suggesting that it's about time people recognised that calls for revenge killing are made in the name of Jesus Christ and think just as badly of that, instead of going "oh my goodness, look at those awful Muslims and what they do". Look at what WE do.
[ 05. February 2015, 22:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not at all true that the same physical stimulation creates the same response no matter what. Your emotional and hormonal state makes an enormous difference.
Well, OK. I was imagining that by the time a prisoner actually reached execution they'd be resigned to it, and so in a similar mental state to the euthanasia "patient". Maybe I'm wrong, and
prisoners go to their execution in a state of panic, and maybe they have the right kind of panic to accentuate any pain, rather than dull it with adrenaline.
But my understanding is that all the cases (and there have been several) of condemned prisoners visibly experiencing pain, or having an execution that takes hours or whatever, are due to failures of the process - the drugs have been injected intramuscularly rather than IV, the doses have not been calculated properly for the individual, anaesthesia has not been verified before moving on to the second stage drug.
That's a process error, not a conceptual error.
quote:
And yes, SOME prisoners with no prospect of release want to die, just as SOME people want to be euthanased. This is hardly the benchmark for everybody else, though.
If the question is whether execution is de facto "cruel", then surely it is exactly the benchmark. If the choice is between execution and life imprisonment, and some people who are in that position would prefer prison but others would prefer execution, that's some of the actual relevant people who would consider execution as less cruel. And surely we have to use the victim of the potential cruelty as the benchmark?
[I'm still opposed to capital punishment as a concept,but not because it's "cruel".]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But my understanding is that all the cases (and there have been several) of condemned prisoners visibly experiencing pain, or having an execution that takes hours or whatever, are due to failures of the process - the drugs have been injected intramuscularly rather than IV, the doses have not been calculated properly for the individual, anaesthesia has not been verified before moving on to the second stage drug.
That's a process error, not a conceptual error.
Emphasis added on 'visibly'.
Recent research has suggested that one of the drugs used in lethal injection doesn't stop the prisoner experiencing pain at all. It just paralyses them so they can't show it.
That's the thing about killing people. You can't really ask them afterwards, what was that like?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing about killing people. You can't really ask them afterwards, what was that like?
No, but we do know that we can anaesthetize people, cut them open, remove some bits, add some more bits, have a good rummage around, then close them up again, and (as long as the anaesthesiologist has kept the patient under), they don't tell you they've felt pain during the operation. The wound hurts afterwards, of course, but that's different.
That's pretty good evidence that people under anaesthesia are not conscious of pain. If you don't anaesthetize them properly, and then you inject the paralyzing drug then I think you're right - you'll get a person in pain who can't respond, but that's the process error - you're not ensuring adequate anaesthesia.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'd still like to know who "they" are, and why you say they think it really is cruel (or at least don't pretend it isn't.)
The people quoted in the post above mine. I thought that was obvious.
Could have been the people quoted, could have been the people they were talking about. Hence the question. quote:
And well, if you want to mount an argument that crucifixion and chopping off limbs isn't intentionally designed to be unpleasant, be my guest.
Most punishments are designed to be unpleasant, aren't they? That doesn't mean they're cruel. quote:
My point was that they're not trying to make execution nice in the way that the USA does, not trying to suggest that being killed as punishment is somehow compatible with dying with dignity.
Who in the US, exactly, do you think believes that the death penalty has, or should have, anything to do with niceness or dying with dignity? Supporters would probably say it's about justice, and opponents would probably agree with you. Neither side thinks it's "nice", and neither side thinks it gives the condemned "dying with dignity."
But let me ask you about Australian views (which may possibly be more familiar to you than those of Americans.) If the large number of Australians who support the death penalty in at least some cases (a majority, in this poll) were to get their way, do you think they'd be as namby-pamby as you portray Americans, or would they have the courage of their convictions and go for crucifixion, beheading, and immolation?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I think they'd be every bit as namby-pamby about it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Might I add, many Westerners aren't prepared to face up to how beef, lamb and pork end up on their dinner table, let alone the realities of killing a human being.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I wonder what Shipmates make of this quote from Franklin Graham which is doing the rounds on Facebook this morning:
quote:
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President--Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
A deeply cynical comment by a very unpleasant person.
He is wrong on so many levels - not least that Muslims are not supposed to emulate the Prophet, but to submit themselves to Allah.
On Obama, he is quoted as saying:
quote:
"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name."
I think we can discount everything that comes out of his mouth as the ravings of a fruitcake.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I wonder what Shipmates make of this quote from Franklin Graham which is doing the rounds on Facebook this morning:
quote:
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President--Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.
I'd start by pointing out that it's up to Muslims to define what Islam is, and whether it's about emulating Mohammed. Secondly, I'd question whether he's likely to be consistent and point to Jesus' example when faced with questions like eternal torment in Hell and the Joshua genocides; indeed the fact that there are some parts of the OT that read like a formative document for IS, and be willing to say that they are not representative of the will of God.
[ 06. February 2015, 11:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So Mr Graham would argue that those Christians who used to burn people were going against the spirit of Jesus? Then presumably, Muslims can make the same argument. Ah, but Mr Graham might tell them that they are wrong, since he knows better than them what Islam really means!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Here's a report of the National Prayer Breakfast. President Obama wanted to use this to condemn the use of religion as a pretext for violence, but sadly there are those who want to twist his statement to justify division between peaceful people of different faiths and none.
I'd rather not consider what Jesus makes of this.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
I don't know if you're familiar with the TV show 'Rectify', but in a brief scene recently it depicted people in favour of the death penalty standing outside a prison with Bible verses written on their placards. I've seen similar depictions enough times to suspect that the movies and TV shows aren't making this up.
I have not seen that, but don't doubt the veracity of the depiction. I also do not equate the actions or statements of those individuals (disagree with them as I may) as being of the same gravity or impact as the call of the head cleric of a respected, influential and mainstream Islamic religious institution for medieval style revenge killings "an eye for an eye".
I also do not believe the presence of problems/evils/issues in the West should lead us to self censor as you suggest (or couch every criticism with a "whatabout"). Introspection and self-criticism are alive here. The topic of capital punishment is probably a good example.
There appears to be a religious root to the violence in the Islamic world, especially in intra-Islamic violence. Nothing I have read in the thread is telling me otherwise. That seems like fair game for critical discussion, and should not be stifled through self induced silence or through the threat of intimidation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
There's nothing wrong with criticism. The problem that I and many others have is that the criticism is so frequently selective and biased.
There's a word for criticising in others what you do yourself. It's hypocrisy. And frankly, the "Christian" world is often deeply hypocritical in its criticisms of Islam.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most prestigious center of learning...
(and the people behind a few 'Muslim apostates must die' rulings, if I remember rightly)
quote:
... has called for the killing and crucifixion of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), expressing outrage over their murder of a Jordanian pilot.
This "requires the punishment mentioned in the Koran for these corrupt oppressors who fight against God and his prophet: killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs."
It surprised me that no-one has picked up on the 'daddy used to beat me, and now I'm going to kick the shit out of you' angle on all this.
It's almost Onion-esque - "Islamic court rules acts of extreme violence in name of Islam deserve retribution in the form of extreme violence".
I know, I know. Back to discussing Iraq war and US judicial killings.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a word for criticising in others what you do yourself. It's hypocrisy. And frankly, the "Christian" world is often deeply hypocritical in its criticisms of Islam.
That likely cuts both ways. I don’t think that’s an end to the discussion of where the violence stems from though.
I just happened to be reading V.S. Naipaul’s 1979 chronicle of Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia - Among the Believers . When talking about the erosion of existing tolerant Islam in Indonesia in favor of modern Fundamentalist thinking (what he terms “Malaysian disease”), he says this to quote from the text
quote:
The Islam that was coming to the villages — brushed with new and borrowed ideas about the wickedness of the machine, the misuse of foreign aid—was the Islam that in the late twentiethcentury had rediscovered its political roots. The Prophet had founded a state. He had given men the idea of equality and union. The dynastic quarrels that had come early to this state had entered the theology of the religion; so that this religion, which filled men's days with rituals and ceremonies of worship, which preached the afterlife, at the same time gave men the sharpest sense of worldly injustice and made that part of religion.
This late-twentieth-century Islam appeared to raise political issues. But it had the flaw of its origins — the flaw that ran right through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it offered nopolitical or practical solution. It offered only the faith. It offered only the Prophet, who would settle everything—but who had ceased to exist. This political Islam was rage, anarchy.
The themes he builds on as I read them are that the complexities of modern life and a feeling of inferiority when facing the West have created a movement to fall back on “simple” Islam with clear rules and guidelines. This movement decries the hollowness of the West and trumpets its imminent decline. While doing this however, there is a hypocritical acceptance or reliance on Western technology or the openness of its society as it benefits the believers (examples such as the Pakistani cleric who led a lifelong battle against the evils of the West only to end his life in a hospital in Buffalo when he needed the care provided there or the overall remittance economy that Pakistan relies on to sustain itself). There is always a desire to look for the “good man” who will lead the faithful and regenerate the community, but another of Naipaul’s themes is that of the redeemer (the good man) who unleashes chaos. Iran is an example and he interviews the cleric who ordered thousands of summary executions after the Revolution. He seems to believe the countries he visited in particular are susceptible to outbreaks of chaos and nihilism (and that these are easy to slip in to) because they have completely rejected the cultures and civilizations that preceded the acceptance of Islam. I think the end result he sees is basically a movement without a mind. The result is rage and anarchy as he states.
[ 08. February 2015, 19:43: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's trickle down for you.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
I quite like this Time article's take on it:
Why Obama Was Only Half Right to Call Out Christianity Over Jim Crow
(Slightly OT - It's worth noting what's happening with the government of Tunisia)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
I quite like this Time article's take on it:
Why Obama Was Only Half Right to Call Out Christianity Over Jim Crow
(Slightly OT - It's worth noting what's happening with the government of Tunisia)
The article is exactly pointless. Obama said Christianity has been used to justify ill, not that it was exclusively so used. The audience he was addressing do not need the "counterbalancing" good part of the story because they believe that anyway.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Alt Wally wrote: quote:
That likely cuts both ways. I don’t think that’s an end to the discussion of where the violence stems from though.
Well, indeed. In fact if you scroll back there was some discussion about what people thought actually were the sources of violence. The thing is that the OP specifically asked "Is Islam intrinsically violent?" and the answer "no" is directed at that. I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile question, honestly. It invites a yes/no response.
I wasn't aware of V.S. Naipaul's writings on the subject. But on the extract you quoted, I think I would have one disagreement. I don't think that the rage of the fundamentalists is nihilistic from within their own framework (though it certainly is from within ours). They see themselves as returning to a pure state of earliest Islam, where jihad is constantly waged, and which history shows as the time of explosive expansion.
It neatly sidesteps all the subsequent schools of Islamic scholarship which seek to explain who or what the jihad was actually being waged against in each instance, but I'm sure that along with other fundamentalisms, they would regard such scholarship as questionable at best, and possibly treasonable.
However, jihad and their understanding of it is clearly one of the keys to their thinking.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
In other words the failure of Christendom spawned Islam in bile and fed it bile and continues to. Gives it raison d'ętre.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Martin - with the best will in the world, I have no idea what you are talking about.
The genesis of Islam was well away from anything that could have been described as christendom, though of course it subsequently encountered it as it spread.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I thought that somewhere 400 or so posts ago it was stated that Islam may have originally risen from a branch of Christianity...?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Muhammad's first wife was Christian. Syriac Christianity bordered Arabia. The Byzantines - Orthodox Christians - and Persian Sassanids were at constant war, Islam arose below that exhausted crucible. That.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I heard something to the effect that the Prophet sought counsel from Christian and Jewish friends, when he was working out his faith. Maybe one of the Christians was his father-in-law??
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It makes me wonder how much distortion there is in both the Koran and NT - both were not really compited until maybe 200 or more years after the event
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad's first wife was Christian.
I think that's a minority view. It certainly isn't the traditional view in Islam.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
It makes me wonder how much distortion there is in both the Koran and NT - both were not really compited until maybe 200 or more years after the event
Everything in the NT was written by 100AD on a cautious estimate. The latest documents are probably the pastoral epistles, some of the other minor epistles, and Revelation. There is no official decision recognising it as a single collected body of work until the middle of the fourth century AD, although that decision was recognising de facto practice among a wide range of Christian communities.
The Qu'ran I know less about; but two hundred years seems highly unlikely. Shia Islam and Sunni Islam split definitively about fifty years after Muhammad's life - if there were any substantial development in the Qu'ranic text after that date one would expect one or other group to reject it as a corruption.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
Martin60 and itsarumdo - would it be expecting too much to ask you to provide sources for the extremely questionable claims you're both advancing here?
t
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
which particular claims? Dafyd has provided a very scholarly correction to my rather broad handwaving on dates (thankyou)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Muhammad's first wife was Christian. Syriac Christianity bordered Arabia. The Byzantines - Orthodox Christians - and Persian Sassanids were at constant war, Islam arose below that exhausted crucible. That.
Even if Mohammed's first wife was a Christian (looks doubtful), I'm not sure why that should lead to him "spawning Islam in bile".
Syriac christianity - specifically that part of the church of the east which came to be called Nestorian - not only bordered Arabia, but was actually present in Arabia - several Arab tribes on the Arabian peninsula were believed to have been Christians, and it is surmised (though hard evidence is another matter) that these were the Christians that Mohammed was in contact with. The input they had to the formation of Islam is vigorously debated at present. The more intriguing theories are probably those of Luxenberg and followers we had a thread on recently. Here's a link summarising them.
But central Arabia was never part of the Sassanian lands. The northern Arabs fought against the Sassanids (with the Romans) because they distrusted their expansionist aims. And at the time of their greatest success, they only ever conquered the north and south borderlands - roughly where Yemen and the Gulf States are now.
Yes, the continuous wars between Rome and its eastern successor Byzantium with the Sassanids served to weaken and enervate both. So much so that the rise of Islam as a religio-political force could not be resisted. But that surely is a case for Byzantium and the Sassanids ultimate feebleness being what facilitated Islam's initial sweeping out of the Arabian peninsula. I see no evidence for the genesis of Islam being in reaction (bilious or otherwise) to christendom.
(Christendom, I take it, means the relgious and political power as exemplified by Byzantium. This was not the christianity that Mohammed was in contact with. Nestorian christianity was effectively devoid of political clout, beyond, at the most, tribal influence.)
[ 10. February 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Islam arose against at least a backdrop of apostatic Christianity. That stew of bile. Of violence begetting violence.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Islam arose against at least a backdrop of apostatic Christianity. That stew of bile. Of violence begetting violence.
Again, I'm asking you for a source. And an explanation, in this case. Why is apostasy automatically 'a stew of bile'? Even if you believe the orthodox position to be uniquely correct, it is possible for people to be wrong peacefully and without malice.
t
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Apostasy is a religion renounced. The Nestorians were not apostates - they were heterodox and heretical (as judged by orthodox standards) but they had in no way renounced Christianity.
If the theories aired in the links I posted to earlier are correct, then you could say that Islam was an apostasy from Christianity. But that would be an entirely different proposal.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Qu'ran I know less about; but two hundred years seems highly unlikely. Shia Islam and Sunni Islam split definitively about fifty years after Muhammad's life - if there were any substantial development in the Qu'ranic text after that date one would expect one or other group to reject it as a corruption.
There is a divergence of opinion between Sunni and Shia about the formation of the Quran. One of the things Uthman (on the Sunni side) did as well was destroy competing texts. There is no original or codex that I think can even be dated to Uthman's time though. I think the scholarly consensus tends towards a later dating with incorporation of inputs from multiple pieces of oral and then written tradition within Islam, as well as usage of non Islamic and non Arabic sources (Syro-Aramaic for instance). That of course is counter to the "official" version, just as higher criticism showed that traditional understandings of Jewish or Christian sacred texts did not hold together. They are all very human creations.
The first account of Muhammad's life came something like 120 years after his death, and is only known through a text that itself was lost and recorded by a later author.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Christendom wasn't peaceful. It had left it's place. Assuming it ever had it. That's apostasy.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Now I'm confused, Martin60. Are you classifying as apostasy the processes (or at least some of the processes) of mainstream Christian development? Christianity was taken from its roots down a more violent path by the processes of codifying belief?
At this distance, and being a gentle soul, I'm not keen on declaring folks to be anathema because their beliefs were judged to be heterodox. Bad behaviour is another matter. But the necessity for some form of codification and boundary drawing seems pretty obvious from the history of those times. That's not intrinsically violent, surely?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I don't think it is quite right to see Islam as a reaction against 'Christendom' – rather that Muhammad only knew two versions of a Christianity, a local version which was theologically heterodox (Nestorian if I remember rightly), and the Roman imperial version of the faith which was orthodox in its teaching about God and Christ but practically heterodox in being a state church.
As far as I can see Muhammad reacted to the local heterodoxy by rejecting Trinitarianism which he never properly understood because of that heterodoxy. He didn't react against 'Christendom' but the problem was that version of Christianity wasn't giving him an alternative model of state-and-religion relations to counter the temptation to set Islam up as a state religion like the distorted Christianity of Christendom.
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent' in pretty much the same way, and following the same logic, as Christendom with its crusades, inquisitions, etc. The difference is that Islam was actually founded by Muhammad to be like that, as can be seen from his own involvement in warfare and state-based persecution of dissent. 'Christendom' in contrast is not an authentic version of Christianity but a centuries-later development which contradicts key NT teachings; thus the conflict between 'Christendom' and NT Christianity ultimately led to the kind of religious freedom we now see in most of 'Christendom'. In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
None of this sophistry helps the three Muslims murdered in their home yesterday, apparently for being Muslims. Would it be too much to ask that we - as Christians, or indeed just as human beings - regard adherents of other faiths as worthy humans and children of the living God first and foremost?
Supposing that we could somehow prove that Islam was 'inherently' violent - whatever that means? That would not excuse us from serving and loving our neighbours. It would not justify a single act of aggression. And yet we have people on this very site calling for 'mass graves' of Muslims.
Are we not ashamed of our own violence?
t
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
None of this sophistry helps the three Muslims murdered in their home yesterday, apparently for being Muslims. Would it be too much to ask that we - as Christians, or indeed just as human beings - regard adherents of other faiths as worthy humans and children of the living God first and foremost?
Note that these murders were (allegedly) committed by a man identifying as a militant atheist, who would presumably view nobody at all as children of the living God.
I'm not sure that there's anything fundamentally different between a militant Muslim who murders people and a militant atheist who murders people. (Or indeed murdering grievance-mongers of other faiths.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Then I'm in good company Barnabas62. Yes. No. Agreed. Indeed. Of course. No. It's got nowt ter do wi' codification. Christianity lost by winning. By becoming the state religion.
Steve. You contradict your first line disagreement with everything else you write there. With which I mainly agree.
Little devil. It certainly doesn't. No. Prove it isn't. True. Agreed. People? What apart from deano? Yes.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Martin; I think I tried to say something complex too briefly. The relationship of Islam to Christianity isn't simple and developed over some years. My basic point remains that Islam developed in a world that didn't have strong Christianity in the NT style; Muhammad I think did not consciously model his new faith on Imperial Christianity, the trouble was that as he developed Islam, he didn't have another model of Christianity to provide an alternative to the 'religious state' model of Islam that he ended up with.
Parallel to that view, Imperial Christianity and its derivatives through to the CofE etc are like Islam in ways that neither is like NT Christianity; when those who do 'Christendom' and other forms of 'Christian country' look at Islam and see jihad and other violence, they are effectively looking in a mirror. Neither historic nor modern Christendom have a good answer to Islam because on several important issues Christendom is actually on the same side of the argument as Islam, and using the same logic.
Teufelchen; I hope I'm not just dealing in 'sophistry' - I care a great deal about getting this stuff right. The incident you refer to - IF it is about religion (and there does seem to be some dispute about that) it seems to be an atheist who objects to exactly the same thing in Islam that I object to - and also like myself seems to object to the same kind of thing when it is done in the name of Jesus. Where that atheist seems only able to find the destructive solution of violence and killing on his own part, I'm trying not to simply blame Islam, but to offer to all sides a constructive alternative in considering the ideas of NT Christianity.
At 100am however, I'm not really up to exploring this in more detail right now - I'll see how the thread develops overnight....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton, emphasis mine:
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent'
That was carefully worded, but I'm not sure I agree with the implication you seek to give it. Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort - and according to Paul in Romans 13, is ordained by God, is it not? It's hardly peculiar to Islam.
If you want to get rid of state-associated violence, what you need to get rid of is not Islam or "Christendom" (sic), you will need to get rid of the state and government. In discussions on that topic you have yet to present a credible, contemporary alternative this side of the eschaton. quote:
In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
That is quite a different and weaselly-worded proposition from the one above, and with it you are on far shakier ground. For one thing, it is a nonsense to talk in terms of something being "inherent from". It is either "inherent in" or it is derivative, in which case it is not inherent.
I think the subtle difference between your opening and closing statements above reflects the backwards mindset at work here. People look at the violence of ISIS et al. and work backwards by dint of slight changes in vocabulary to conclude that "Islam", taken in the broadest or most fundamental sense possible, is inherently and peculiarly violent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No Eutychus, you need to get rid of religion, our religion, Christianity that is apostatic. That is complicit in state violence in all its forms. Islam isn't apostatic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Maybe I do, but what do you make of Romans 13, then?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think Eutychus is right. States need to assert themselves against challenges to law and order. They can't do that with some degree of physical force. This is true whether or not you do away with religion.
States are inherently violent. And the empiric evidence behind that is way better than the empiric evidence on Islam and violence. There are billions of non-violent Muslims in the world, I don't know of any non-violent states.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Paul was shortly after the inversion point of the arc of the moral universe that was Christ. The point where it reached escape velocity. Like the rest of us, he lagged in his response. And Caesar has loved that ever since. The Christians who followed in the next three centuries went further along the arc. Caesar didn't like that. Until he realised he could use it.
We've been Caesar's puppets ever since in the very main. 'Civilized'. Tamed. Complicit. Blessing his wars for 1700 years. Fighting them. (Significant by our absence as in Ferguson, the Ukraine, Syria-Iraq AND whinging about it: 'Something must be done'.) Islam innocently arose three hundred years in to that example.
[ 12. February 2015, 12:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
By Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton, emphasis mine:
Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent'
That was carefully worded, but I'm not sure I agree with the implication you seek to give it. Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort - and according to Paul in Romans 13, is ordained by God, is it not? It's hardly peculiar to Islam.
I agree that the state 'inevitably has a degree of “inherent violence”', though I would regard some of that rather as 'legitimate force', as the word 'violence' does carry implications of violation and illegitimacy. Yes, the state authority is 'ordained by God' – but you should bear in mind that Paul was talking about an imperial authority which wasn't simplistically 'good' and indeed not so far down the road would execute Paul himself – he is talking about God's providential arrangements rather than necessarily saying God actually approves of the authority in question and of everything it does. He is advising Christians how to live in a 'kingdom of this world', rather than giving a prescription for government.
“It's hardly peculiar to Islam”. Agreed – the point is precisely that a religion which becomes the state religion, which in effect becomes a 'kingdom of this world', will take on this violence and the (apparent) 'need' to persecute and war on behalf of the religion. If you go back to my previous post you'll note that in full I said “Islam set up as a state religion is 'inherently violent' in pretty much the same way, and following the same logic, as Christendom with its crusades, inquisitions, etc”.
quote:
By Eutychus;
If you want to get rid of state-associated violence, what you need to get rid of is not Islam or "Christendom" (sic), you will need to get rid of the state and government. In discussions on that topic you have yet to present a credible, contemporary alternative this side of the eschaton.
As I understand it we are indeed NOT, 'this side of the eschaton' to get rid of the state and government. What we are also very much NOT meant to do is ally Christianity with the state/government so as to produce the violence of a religious state in the name of Jesus. What we (Christians) are meant to do is live in the various states of the world as peaceable representatives of God's peaceable kingdom. In the context of a sinful world that is a thoroughly credible alternative.
quote:
By Eutychus
SL: In Islam there is no such conflict to ultimately moderate jihad and persecution so such violence is truly inherent from the original teaching.
EU; That is quite a different and weaselly-worded proposition from the one above, and with it you are on far shakier ground. For one thing, it is a nonsense to talk in terms of something being "inherent from". It is either "inherent in" or it is derivative, in which case it is not inherent.
SL: Sorry, supply the ellipsis “Such violence is truly inherent ... in Islam ... from (ie, as a result of) the original teaching”. That is, Islam by its original teaching is a state religion and therefore the violence is inherent, as it is also inherent in the 'Christendom/Christian country' form of Christianity.
The distinction is that the violence is not inherent in Christianity itself, as originally taught, because NT Christianity is not supposed to be a state religion. Thus when the Roman Empire set itself up as a nominally Christian state, there was a conflict between the original NT teaching and the different version of church/state relations in the Empire – a conflict between original Christianity and 'Christendom' as a 'kingdom of this world'.
That conflict has eventually considerably moderated the behaviour of 'Christendom' to produce the kind of religious freedom we now see in most of former 'Christendom'. In Islam, the original teaching is of Islam as a religious state which Muhammad set up by warfare and conquest and enforced in a 'kingdom of this world' way. Thus there is no conflict between the original Islamic teaching and the fact of an Islamic state.
To put it another way – truly fundamentalist Christianity will not be a state religion but will produce a peaceable international 'holy nation' living as peaceable resident aliens in the world. Fundamentalist Islam teaches itself as a state religion and will end up doing whatever it takes to sustain that and to expand the worldly rule of Islam.
quote:
By Eutychus;
I think the subtle difference between your opening and closing statements above reflects the backwards mindset at work here. People look at the violence of ISIS et al. and work backwards by dint of slight changes in vocabulary to conclude that "Islam", taken in the broadest or most fundamental sense possible, is inherently and peculiarly violent.
I don't know about 'people', but that certainly isn't my thought process here. I'm actually applying things I worked out in dealing with the problem of violence in the name of Christianity, and showing that Islam is indeed not 'peculiarly violent' but an example of the same kind of thing.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Martin, I think you and I are at different points on the "now and not yet" spectrum.
I empathise with your heart, but my head says that pending Christ's return, we have to get on in this world as it is - and this, I believe, is very much where Paul, ever the pragmatist, is coming from in Romans 13.
Nation states look (to me) like having the potential to restrict the use of force and the need to resort to it, and being able to create the space for religious diversity in which Christianity can prosper in a healthy manner.
They often fall short of this, but as citizens of states (as well as "strangers and pilgrims") we can make a difference in this respect.
I have continued to think long and hard about the OP and had the benefit, off-board, of theological reflection from Christian experts in the Muslim world; I am also to be making my small contribution to the ongoing debate about post-Charlie Hebdo laďcité by appearing before a specially appointed commission in my city.
The upshot of all this is that I don't believe Islam is inherently violent; I think the best way of countering any violence it may nurture is to give religion in general, including Islam, a place in the public sphere that it does not yet enjoy. In other words, to replace secularism by secularity (laďciser la laďcité).
That involves acknowledging the state as a potential force for good in all this, rather than pretending it doesn't exist or is unfit for purpose.
[x-post]
[ 12. February 2015, 12:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Possibly tangentially, Melanie Phillips was trying to make the case that there is something inherently violent about Islam on the Moral Maze yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11
She was pulled up by Giles Fraser when she said that Judaism had contextualised scriptural violence in a way that Islam and Christianity had not.
I think this is a weak argument by Phillips, most forms of religion have some elements of violence within their ancient scriptures.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paul... is talking about God's providential arrangements rather than necessarily saying God actually approves of the authority in question and of everything it does.
I think Rom 13:4 quite clearly implies that Paul saw the use of force to uphold the rule of law as both legitimate and God-sanctioned, if not God-ordained, irrespective of how justly (or otherwise) any particular state implemented this principle. quote:
What we are also very much NOT meant to do is ally Christianity with the state/government so as to produce the violence of a religious state in the name of Jesus.
Of course not. The argument on that issue revolves around what we variously mean by "ally", but we have done that to death already elsewhere. quote:
Islam by its original teaching is a state religion and therefore the violence is inherent
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
There seems to be a fair bit of consensus about the context of violence in which Islam arose; the big disagreement is about whether this context defines what Islam looks like for all its followers for ever after; the evidence is that this is not the case.
quote:
The distinction is that the violence is not inherent in Christianity itself, as originally taught, because NT Christianity is not supposed to be a state religion.
You have conveniently avoided the OT.
It's hard to get much of an understanding of the NT without the OT, which is largely about nationhood and territoriality, esablished by the sword.
If you want to be allowed to distance Christianity from its foundational context (by throwing away large chunks of the OT), why won't you extend the same courtesy to Islam?
quote:
truly fundamentalist Christianity will not be a state religion but will produce a peaceable international 'holy nation' living as peaceable resident aliens in the world. Fundamentalist Islam teaches itself as a state religion and will end up doing whatever it takes to sustain that and to expand the worldly rule of Islam.
You implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable. This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
[another x-post]
[ 12. February 2015, 13:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Mr. Cheesy wrote - quote:
... Melanie Phillips...
No thanks!
Eutychus wrote:- quote:
You implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable. This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
Agreed. There is always a case to be made for re-examining the foundations of any movement, religious or otherwise. Real live fundamentalisms, however, rather resemble ahistorical reconstructive projections.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Eutychus. As St. Brian said, we have to work it out for ourselves. I'm just representing the bit we always seem to miss out. The 'ideal' for Christians in the face of violence.
God bless you in that vastly responsible work.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly tangentially, Melanie Phillips was trying to make the case that there is something inherently violent about Islam on the Moral Maze yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11
She was pulled up by Giles Fraser when she said that Judaism had contextualised scriptural violence in a way that Islam and Christianity had not.
I think this is a weak argument by Phillips, most forms of religion have some elements of violence within their ancient scriptures.
Much as I loathe Phillips and like Fraser, that isn't quite true - she said that the violent quotations in Torah were 'contextualized' - there wasn't time for her to develop her argument but what she must have meant was that the ongoing commentaries in Talmud and Mishnah do not condone violence.
The most ridiculous thing that Fraser said, at the end, was that those who think theologically would never condone violence - methinks he has not remembered the likes of German theologians like Kittel who supported the nazis.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
All the peoples of the Book are united in justifying, 'contextualizing', the myth of redemptive violence.
Even Jesus couldn't escape it in language and thought. But at LEAST He did in deed.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All the peoples of the Book are united in justifying, 'contextualizing', the myth of redemptive violence.
Even Jesus couldn't escape it in language and thought. But at LEAST He did in deed.
No they are not. To claim that they are is bearing false witness, which is itself a well-known first step on the spiral into violence. By all means blame the guilty, but please stop demonizing the innocent.
Though at the risk of endorsing yet another cliché, all have a track record of embracing or condoning violence certainly, and the "state religion" link is a potentially fruitful source of this I agree. But this is now quite a long way from your original statement that quote:
...the failure of Christendom spawned Islam in bile and fed it bile and continues to.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Everything in the NT was written by 100AD on a cautious estimate. The latest documents are probably the pastoral epistles, some of the other minor epistles, and Revelation. There is no official decision recognising it as a single collected body of work until the middle of the fourth century AD
Does that prevent each individual book having recognised authority an d divine inspiration even from the outset?
M'lud, I present to you Simon Peter, whose testimony is relevant to the case at this point:
"2 Peter 3:15-16New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
15 ... So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
Peter regarded Paul's letters as Scripture.
Who needs a council - except to decide what is out (rather than what should be brought in).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
M'lud, I submit that diverting this thread into proof-texting discussions of inspiration of Scripture and the canon will bring out the hosts' inherent violence...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
In reply to Eutychus about my last post;
It's tempting to try a point-by-point response – but I suspect everyone else would be a bit bored by it. But picking key items and starting at the end (I always was a contrary so-and-so)....
quote:
by Eutychus
Perhaps your mistake is to think that "fundamentalism" is the noblest approach to one's religion.
I've elaborated on my approach elsewhere but broadly while I accept the idea of doctrinal development I also think there comes a point where people are not truly developing the original but simply changing it to suit themselves and ending up with something which isn't really the original at all. Influences on my approach included Jim Packer's “Fundamentalism and the Word of God” and CS Lewis – see Purtill's book on CS Lewis and Scripture, and Lewis' essay 'Fernseed and Elephants'.
Anyway, why is 'fundamentalism' such a problem to you in this case ? It actually produces the best answer of a peaceable non-domineering Christian faith. My point in this thread of course is that in the case of Islam fundamentalism produces the opposite and there is no easy way round that stubborn and very solid fact.
by Eutychus
quote:
This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
You joined the 'offenderati' or something??
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your implication here is that if Muslims took their religion as seriously as you would like all Christians to, they will end up as jihadists whereas Christians will end up nice and peaceable.
My implication is that ANY religion that does the 'religious state' thing, whether they succeed in attaining that state or whether they remain merely people attempting to set up such a state for their religion, will, as that guy Eutychus put it, “inevitably have a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort ". As has been repeatedly shown in Christendom as well, this can remain relatively last resort or it can go all the way to crusades/jihads and/or inquisitions and similar forms of persecution. What it ain't gonna do is end up just peaceable....
My secondary point is that both in the Qur'an and in the acts of the prophet Muhammad, that 'state religion' approach seems to be inherent in Islam from the very beginning – certainly from within the period during which the Qur'an was being revealed (circa 610-632CE). In contrast, that approach is NOT inherent in Christianity from the beginning, but was a centuries later import/distortion in a religion which Jesus and the apostles set off in a very different style. Attempts to make Christianity a state religion will result in war/persecution/etc., but are not part of the original/fundamental teaching.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You have conveniently avoided the OT.
Er, no.... I don't need to avoid it anymore than the NT does (see, as a major example, the epistle to the Hebrews). But the NEW Testament/Covenant, foretold and promised in the OLD Testament/Covenant, please note, does change things. The Christian people of God are not nationally or geographically limited like the OT Hebrew people of God.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
Surely it is anything other than the 'original teaching' that would constitute a 'qualification' of Islam????
I'll leave it there for now....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes they are HRB. The rare exceptions prove the rule.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anyway, why is 'fundamentalism' such a problem to you in this case ? It actually produces the best answer of a peaceable non-domineering Christian faith.[...]
No it doesn't. You think your version of 'fundamentalism' does. quote:
My point in this thread of course is that in the case of Islam fundamentalism produces the opposite and there is no easy way round that stubborn and very solid fact.
As far as I know, the word "fundamentalist" was originally used by some Christians to self-define; this is not the case for Islam, for which the original term has been applied, disputedly, by outsiders. To argue that "Islam fundamentalism" means "this is what Islam is really about if you get to the core of it" is a misapplication of the original term.
(And, it seems to me, often used precisely to imply that Islam as a whole is intrinsically violent).
quote:
by Eutychus
quote:
This strikes me as rather a slur on serious-minded, peaceable Muslims.
You joined the 'offenderati' or something??
I am pointing out that the existence of serious-minded, peaceable Muslims is a stubborn and very solid fact to which your best response appears to be "well, they can't be proper ('fundamental') Muslims then, so they don't count".
You prefer to impose your own judgement of them and their beliefs rather than take their self-description and lifestyle into account. Which, I venture to suggest, is in its own way inherently violent.
quote:
My implication is that ANY religion that does the 'religious state' thing [...]
You argued elsewhere that aspiring to statehood inevitably leads to violence, yes, but your implication in the part I was addressing was that 'proper' Christians would inevitably be peaceable, whereas 'proper' ('fundamental') Muslims would inevitably be violent. Do you dispute that, or retract?
quote:
As has been repeatedly shown in Christendom as well, this can remain relatively last resort or it can go all the way to crusades/jihads and/or inquisitions and similar forms of persecution. What it ain't gonna do is end up just peaceable....
In a fallen world in which nation states exist, irrespective of any religious component, the potential for violence exists because the use of force remains - as a last resort in the least bad cases and as a first resort in the worst.
The fact (unpalatable as it may be for anabaptists...) is that nation states exist; they are part of the world we live in. Moreover, the idea of the state - and its right to resort to the use of force - appears to be at least accepted and quite possibly even endorsed in the NT, notably by Paul in Romans 13. Do you acknowledge that?
quote:
My secondary point is that both in the Qur'an and in the acts of the prophet Muhammad, that 'state religion' approach seems to be inherent in Islam from the very beginning – certainly from within the period during which the Qur'an was being revealed (circa 610-632CE).
Perhaps, but I think your mistake is to try to understand Islam through the lens of your personal biblical hermeneutic. Apparently, you think "getting back to the Bible" is the road to Christian orthodoxy. I'm not saying I disagree with that, but I think it's a mistake to apply the same logic to Islam and especially to contemporary Islam. As I understand it, views on Mohammed's legacy differ widely across Islam.
quote:
quote:
You have had to qualify "Islam" ('by its original teaching') again.
Surely it is anything other than the 'original teaching' that would constitute a 'qualification' of Islam????
This just highlights what I'm saying above.
To me, the issue is not about the original historical context of Islam but about whether what Muslims believe today is inherently violent.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, I don't believe it is, or that there is any sense in which it inevitably will become so.
I think that is a lie, and one that easily lends itself to racist, nationalist and indeed violent dialectics. Countering those requires engagement in civil society, not just being a "peaceable Christian".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And Steve, how do you explain Romans 13?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You argued elsewhere that aspiring to statehood inevitably leads to violence, yes, but your implication in the part I was addressing was that 'proper' Christians would inevitably be peaceable, whereas 'proper' ('fundamental') Muslims would inevitably be violent. Do you dispute that, or retract?
I stand by what I said. NT Christianity builds from the foundation of the 'Old Covenant' of Judaism to produce a peaceable faith for those who follow Jesus; and does so to a large extent by breaking the 'religion/state' link. Unfortunately the issue is clouded by later Christians who were tempted to retrogress from that position and bring in, as a novel development, the idea of 'Christian countries'. Christians following the original teaching will be peaceable.
Islam, whether consciously imitating 'Christendom' or simply not being properly aware of the original Christian idea, starts its ideas on religion-and-state from that retrogressive position, with Muhammad very much setting up, and the Qur'an teaching, the idea of an Islamic religious state. As with Christendom this can produce, does produce, and has repeatedly historically produced, all kinds and degrees of violence, some by the Islamic state, some by people aspiring to that.
As you said yourself
quote:
Islamic or otherwise, state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort
and as is clear from Christendom as well as Islam, once in that way of thinking it is in practice difficult to put limits on that violence.
In comparing Christianity and Islam we seem to be looking at two movements in opposite directions, in a way. In Christianity, initial peaceableness was illegitimately developed into 'Christendom' with war and violence in disobedience to Jesus and the NT teaching, though over time the original has reasserted itself even within 'Christendom' and more so where Anabaptists and similar groups have more fully returned to the original.
Islam clearly starts from the 'religious state' position very similar to Christendom, but many Muslims have later developed a more peaceable teaching. The problem is that anyone attempting a return to the original will be returning to the original warfare/violence/persecution/etc. This means that the peaceable version of Islam you talk of is always fragile and always open to the accusation from other Muslims that it is heretical, that it goes against the original.
In effect, Muslims who aspire to peaceableness should be asking if they are in the right religion. BUT, a balance I've kept making and that you seem to keep ignoring, many Christians need to be asking a similar question - not quite whether they are in the right religion, but whether, in following a 'Christendom' version of Christianity, they are following a legitimate development of Christianity or whether they are following a distorted and improper form.
Christians who follow any form of 'Christendom' thinking are on very dodgy ground when they criticise Islamic violence.
In both cases you have sounded, Eutychus, whether you quite mean to or not, as if you are supporting the 'revisionist' version of both faiths, against the original version and in serious contradiction thereof. This seems a rather odd position...?
To both Martin and Eutychus;
However else I interpret Romans 13, I interpret it in the context of a Christianity separate from the state or nation, with Christians in that position I've mentioned more than a few times of being 'resident aliens'. As I pointed out earlier, Paul is not being prescriptive about government, but is advising those resident aliens how to live in a kingdom very much 'of the world'.
It should also be noted first, that Romans 13 is very much in the context of Romans 12; and second, the issues are actually dealt with at greater length in I Peter, not only in the closely parallel passage but in the context of that epistle as a whole.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What a lot of words with which to ignore the simple point that you don't have the insight to determine what "real" Islam is.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In comparing Christianity and Islam we seem to be looking at two movements in opposite directions, in a way.
Again, I think that's where you go wrong, and stray further by seeing Islamic fundamentalism as mirroring, negatively, a Christian return to fundamentals (by which you mean anabaptism). This is attractively simple but also simplistic and binary. quote:
In both cases you have sounded, Eutychus, whether you quite mean to or not, as if you are supporting the 'revisionist' version of both faiths, against the original version and in serious contradiction thereof. This seems a rather odd position...?
Just what exactly do you mean by "revisionist"?
As to Christianity, I certainly don't believe that the Bible in general or the NT in particular provides an exact blueprint for how Christian life is supposed to be lived today. I think it provides some core values whose implementation needs to be assessed in the light of the world as it is today.
I'm not sure whether imagining that contemporary anabaptism is somehow closer to NT Christianity than any other contemporary expression is revisionist, but I certainly think it's in strong danger of being anachronistic. However, that's off-topic.
quote:
Paul is not being prescriptive about government, but is advising those resident aliens how to live in a kingdom very much 'of the world'.
That's not all he's doing. You must have missed the bit where he says that rulers are "ministers of God" who "bear the sword" as "avengers for him that doeth evil" (Rom 13:4, NASB). 1 Peter 2:14 makes much the same point. They both describe governments as divinely ordained. The use by rulers of force as a last resort also appears to be accepted in the NT.
While we may aspire to be resident aliens who have nothing to do with the state, the same passages make it abundantly clear that we are also called to be responsible citizens. On that basis, over time, there is bound to be intermingling of the spiritual and the political, and a range of Christian responses to that, none of which is perfect.
None of this makes Islam, especially as an issue today, inherently violent.
[ 14. February 2015, 12:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon;
quote:
What a lot of words with which to ignore the simple point that you don't have the insight to determine what "real" Islam is.
So what, in your understanding, is 'real Islam' if it's not what the Qur'an teaches and Muhammad (rather violently) practiced?
The 'lot of words' here is mostly to do with Eutychus and trying to clarify what he's on about in challenging my point. And turning to Eutychus -
by Eutychus;
quote:
Just what exactly do you mean by "revisionist"?
Trying to find a simple summary of how you seem on the one hand to reject the straightforward NT teaching for a modified later at least semi-Christendom version which as far as I can see is bound to be less peaceable, while on the other hand rejecting the original form of Islam for again a later but in that case less violent version. In both cases you seem to reject the original for a later version which significantly contradicts it. Also oddly, where NT Christianity and original Islam contradict each other one way round, your 'revisionist' versions seem to contradict each other the opposite way round.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You must have missed the bit where he says that rulers are "ministers of God" who "bear the sword" as "avengers for him that doeth evil" (Rom 13:4, NASB). 1 Peter 2:14 makes much the same point.
NO I have not 'missed' that bit; just that as I said, I interpret it in the context of the wider teaching. I've noticed you've done this to me before - assuming I've 'missed' or overlooked something rather than understanding that I'm reading it in a different overall context as I have stated. Perhaps in future you could try not to jump to the conclusion I've 'missed' things, but rather assume that (after having studied these issues since the mid 1960s!) I AM aware of them, and try and work out why I see them differently to you?
(See above for my comments when you accused me of 'conveniently avoiding the Old Testament'....)
by Eutychus;
quote:
While we may aspire to be resident aliens who have nothing to do with the state, the same passages make it abundantly clear that we are also called to be responsible citizens.
I'm not saying we have 'nothing to do with the state' - but we do it as 'resident aliens', whose first duty is to 'obey God rather than men'. Of course we are called to be responsible citizens - but that may not look the same from a Christian viewpoint rather than a 'kingdom of THIS world' viewpoint. And given that there can be such a difference of viewpoint, it's rather important that the Christians will be doing 'difference' peaceably rather than raising an army to 'resist (antitassO)' the authorities.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Again, I think that's where you go wrong, and stray further by seeing Islamic fundamentalism as mirroring, negatively, a Christian return to fundamentals
Perhaps it might have been clearer if I had said "In comparing the historical developments of Christianity and Islam respectively since their origins" we are looking at trends moving somewhat in opposite directions.
When I mentioned 'mirrors' my point was that 'Christendom Christianity' and original Islam (clearly set up as a state religion), are positively mirror images of each other and therefore similarly violent/persecutory/etc whereas NT Christianity is a radically different approach to how God's people are supposed to live in and relate to the surrounding world.
And that is my basic case; not that Islam is specially inherently violent, but that in attempting the idea of an Islamic state and the idea of 'jihad' to bring about/support/defend such a state, Islam is inevitably going to produce the same kind of inherent violence as the similar ideas in Christendom have over the centuries, and indeed over the centuries Islam has produced such effects.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What's that about Romans 13 Steve?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Steve L, in short and in haste:
You think Islam is inherently violent. You think so because it sets out as a state religion and as such will lead to violence just like any other form of the state.
You think Christianity took a wrong turn when it got itself mixed up with the state and that provided it doesn't, and reverts to its NT origins, it will be peaceable.
What you do not do, as Martin seems to have noticed and despite your protestations, is explain what you make of states (or at least rulers) being apparently being God-ordained and as such permitted to employ force if needs be.
I don't see anything in what you write to deter me from opting to facilitate, inasmuch as I can, the practice of Islam along with other religions in the public sphere of a properly secular state, and I think that doing so will on balance decrease, not increase, violence in the name of Islam.
(You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I think on plenty of matters, by the way, but that is beside the point).
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
As a minor aside, a number of the questions being posed are similar to the questions posed in the other thread that Steve Langton started.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You think Islam is inherently violent. You think so because it sets out as a state religion and as such will lead to violence just like any other form of the state.
You yourself made the point that "state authority inevitably has a degree of "inherent violence" even if only as a last resort". Combine that with the religion being a state religion, whether a 'Christian country' or an 'Islamic state' and that religion will be violent like the state it associates itself with. May I remind you yet again that I'm NOT regarding this as ONLY applicable to Islam, and so not saying that Islam is specially inherently violent. Even Buddhism can get violent when it becomes a state religion, in case you hadn't noticed more than a few relevant news items over the last many years.
Islam as originally taught (and practiced remember) clearly seeks to be a state religion; so violence is 'inevitable' by your own logic, from the state authority acting on behalf of the state religion.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You think Christianity took a wrong turn when it got itself mixed up with the state and that provided it doesn't, and reverts to its NT origins, it will be peaceable.
Wish I could guarantee perfect peace, but even Christians are human! Nevertheless Christianity done according to the NT will simply not have the state power or the aspiration to it which causes the war/rebellions and persecutions associated with such state religion.
by Eutychus;
quote:
What you do not do, as Martin seems to have noticed and despite your protestations, is explain what you make of states (or at least rulers) being apparently being God-ordained and as such permitted to employ force if needs be.
What God providentially ordains/permits - including for example Pharaoh back in Exodus (Romans 9v17) and Pilate and Co's involvement in the Crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 4vv27-8) is one thing. How he has told his people to behave in the world is a different thing. What God permits the state to do is for him - our concern is to do what he has told us to do; which is that the church operates in that 'resident alien' mode. It should be pointed out that the context of Paul's words is not a nice pluralist secular government but pagan rulers like Caligula and Nero - ditto for the parallel passage in Peter.
Paul's advice is not on how Christians are to be part of the government; it is how Christians behave relative to that non-Christian government. That is, they are to trust God that such governments are not beyond God's control even when they appear to do wrong and even to persecute God's people.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I don't see anything in what you write to deter me from opting to facilitate, inasmuch as I can, the practice of Islam along with other religions in the public sphere of a properly secular state, and I think that doing so will on balance decrease, not increase, violence in the name of Islam.
The problem here is that your 'secular state' (France? Yes?) is an ex-Christendom state and has benefited over the years from the gradual though still incomplete erosion of Christendom's bad side. That erosion has to a large extent happened because of the inherent tension between the original teaching of Christianity and those bad practices of Christendom.
Islam does not have that tension, or insofar as it does, it has that tension the other way round; that is, in Christianity the peaceable 'kingdom not of this world' teaching is the original, but in Islam the aspiration to being a state religion is there right from the start.
As I've said earlier, in Christianity going fundamentalist (or more accurately and less loaded a phrase, back to the original teaching) leads to the peaceable conclusion; that is not so in Islam. Your proposal to 'facilitate' may therefore be misguided.
by Eutychus;
quote:
(You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I think on plenty of matters, by the way, but that is beside the point).
If so, sorry.Please feel free to enlighten me on your views perhaps by the less adversarial route of a PM? I was a bit nettled by the closely following accusations first of 'ignoring the OT' and then of 'missing' things in Romans 13.
Posted by Ultima Thule (# 18347) on
:
Like many others, I have been tempted to lump the followers of Islam into the same category -- mindlessly violent and unabashed in their rejection of decency.
Yet, like so many others, I know and have known very pleasant, perfectly balanced Muslims.
It is akin to the belief that some dog breeds are inherently violent. But I believe the truth is closer to the notion that it is not the clay but rather with what one makes of the clay that makes the difference.
It is an immutable truth that when you plant a demon seed, you inevitably reap a flower of fire. And those who do so deliberately...they will not be satisfied until Armageddon is at their door.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you yet again that I'm NOT regarding this as ONLY applicable to Islam, and so not saying that Islam is specially inherently violent.
Well, that is actually the topic under discussion on this thread... quote:
Islam as originally taught (and practiced remember) clearly seeks to be a state religion; so violence is 'inevitable' by your own logic.
Whatever the historical facts may or may not be, this conception simply does not appear to be the case for a sizeable chunk of contemporary Muslims. How do you explain that, and how do you address that?
quote:
It should be pointed out that the context of Paul's words is not a nice pluralist secular government but pagan rulers like Caligula and Nero - ditto for the parallel passage in Peter.
Which makes it all the more stiking that they both emphasise how the authorities are there, not simply to achieve some specific divine end in spite of themselves (like Pharaoh or Pilate), but are divinely ordained to maintain law and order - up to and including the use of force. quote:
Paul's advice is not on how Christians are to be part of the government; it is how Christians behave relative to that non-Christian government.
This is still a tangent, but it became clear in the mega-thread discussion that you think no Christian can ever engage in government, and anyone in government who becomes a 'proper' Christian should automatically leave on principle (up to and including the Queen). I disagree, but if you want to pursue this tangent I suggest you do so on another thread. quote:
As I've said earlier, in Christianity going fundamentalist (or more accurately and less loaded a phrase, back to the original teaching) leads to the peaceable conclusion; that is not so in Islam. Your proposal to 'facilitate' may therefore be misguided.
I'm not proposing to facilitate 'fundamentalist' Islam. I am proposing to facilitate the public practice of Islam in a secular state, France, which has of late been secularist rather than secular, as one way of defusing so-called 'Islamic' radicalisation, which is where this thread started.
I may be misguided, but I've decided that being a Christian requires me to do more than "be peaceable" (i.e. withdraw in my small corner), it requires me to engage. I would like to know what practical position you take in this matter, especially on the basis of your conviction that Islam is inherently violent.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
...although peaceableness can be a form of engagement, if you try to live that way in your encounters with other people.
There's a Buddhist idea about resolving conflict: "Making a cup of green tea, I stop the war". As in sitting down with your enemy, over a cup of green tea. For that particular moment, the war is stopped.
Not saying everyone should do that all the time, but it's an interesting idea, IMHO.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's a certain blithe hypocrisy about Paul hiding behind Caesar and Christianity ever since: I can't kill you but as a good citizen tax payer of Caesar I've got the RIGHT to get him too. As St. Francis II has implied twice. Which is a habit.
At least Islam is true to its foundation.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
to ... sigh
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Says you. I says it isn't.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I agree. The overwhelming majority aren't superb warriors like Muhammad.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus (initially quoting me)
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you yet again that I'm NOT regarding this as ONLY applicable to Islam, and so not saying that Islam is specially inherently violent.
Eutychus;
Well, that is actually the topic under discussion on this thread...
Yes. And my point is that what I'm saying is the answer to that topic; i.e., Islam IS inherently violent because of its aspiration to be a state-religion/religious-state, but is not specially inherently violent compared to other religions which also follow that pattern.
In contrast Christianity (and Buddhism, but few others among the older religions) is not inherently violent on the basis of its own teaching, but can be improperly developed into a violent religion if it is used as a state religion against that original teaching.
I'll let you absorb that before coming back on some of the other points raised since I last posted.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, I'm glad we've clarified you believe Islam is inherently violent.
In the light of that, what's your practical response to the Muslim and Muslim communities around you? If that community feels itself to be under threat or marginalised by surrounding society, what would you consider your appropriate response to be in the light of your conviction?
[ 15. February 2015, 21:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
I for one have been moved by the grief and anger of Egyptian Muslims over the murder of their Coptic Christian compatriots by ISIS today. I'm not about to doubt the sincerity of their faith in order to trust the reality of their emotional response, nor vice versa.
It would do us all good to do as they have done, and ISIS apparently do not, and view our fellow people as sacred regardless of faith.
t
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Amen t.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Can I ask why Islam has so many extremists, and why the violent minority is so large, and growing through the influx of Westerners going to fight?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Well, I'm glad we've clarified you believe Islam is inherently violent.
What needed clarifying? I made the basic point way back. Just sorry but you've been rather obtuse about it. And BTW not just 'I believe' - Muhammad appears to have believed it too, given the way he set up, essentially by violence, the first Islamic state in his own lifetime.
How I deal with Muslims depends on the individual's position. I'm also dealing with these issues on a wider field by trying to establish for Christians and other fellow-citizens the proper relationship between Christians and the state. Again how I deal with that depends on all kinds of factors in the particular situation. No simple answers at that stage of things.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why Islam has so many extremists, and why the violent minority is so large, and growing through the influx of Westerners going to fight?
I previously calculated that the 'influx' of Westerners represented 0.02 to 0.03% of the Muslim population of the countries concerned.
We are talking about a religion with about a billion followers. The most recent estimate I can find of the size of ISIS is 20 to 30 thousand people (although one Kurdish leader responded by saying no, he must be fighting against 10 times that number). That is still a drop in the ocean.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The history of Christianity is full of violence. Let me leave the tired and probably inaccurate example of the crusades to one side and look at the Protestant vs Catholic history of Europe over the last thousand years. Would it be reasonable to ask why this is so?
I accept that has changed in the last 100 years or so, but I don't think that reflects a fundamental change in our religion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
How I deal with Muslims depends on the individual's position.
I have a Muslim prison chaplain colleague who I have known for over a decade, who exudes every visible sign of peaceableness, distress at radicalisation, and proclaims Islam as a religion of peace. He is asking me what I think the way forward for Islam in France is.
Next week I will be appearing before a special commission set up by my city's mayor tasked with considering the implications of religious diversity in public life - this is an unprecedented step by a historically secularist administration that has been given an added sense of urgency by recent events.
These are real issues for me and I am in a situation where my words might conceivably contribute to changes in real life.
If you were in my position, based on your premise that Islam is inherently violent, what would you say?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why Islam has so many extremists, and why the violent minority is so large, and growing through the influx of Westerners going to fight?
I think your perceptions are skewed by media preferences which tend to exaggerate the scope of violence.
As to Westerners going to jihad, I think this says a lot more about the failures of Western society than it does about the intrinsic nature of Islam.
In my view, would-be jihadists are not so much converting to Islam as seizing on a cause that looks like giving them an opportunity to enact violence against those they perceive as embodying their alienators.
The leaders of such radical groups are simply using Islam as a fashionable hook to hang their thirst for power on.
Any ideology can be made to justify violence. According to Wikipedia, the first Christian to use the term "fundamentalist" in a positive, self-referential way used it to describe Christians willing quote:
to do battle royal for the Fundamentals
I think violence is inherent in people.
[ 16. February 2015, 05:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon
quote:
The history of Christianity is full of violence. Let me leave the tired and probably inaccurate example of the crusades to one side and look at the Protestant vs Catholic history of Europe over the last thousand years. Would it be reasonable to ask why this is so?
I accept that has changed in the last 100 years or so, but I don't think that reflects a fundamental change in our religion.
It is not strictly speaking 'the history of Christianity' that is full of violence; it is the history of 'Christendom', the idea, in various forms, of having 'Christian nations/states/countries'. That idea goes very much against the original NT Christian teaching.
Throughout the history of 'Christendom', from its beginnings in the mid-to-late 4th century CE, there has been tension between that original teaching and the acts of the various forms of 'Christendom' in the name of Christianity. What has changed in the last century has been that 'Christendom' has become increasingly weak and has been challenged by events like the two world wars; while there are still substantial numbers of Christians and nominal Christians who would seek to restore the 'Christendom' way, increasingly Christians are returning to the original teaching and its inherent peaceableness. OK, we're human, it's still imperfect, but where it is applied it at least takes Christianity out of the wars of worldly nations, and takes us out of using state power to discriminate and persecute those who disagree with us.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That idea goes very much against the original NT Christian teaching.
A valid opinion, but we don't need to redefine words based on that opinion. You can think that most Christians though most of history have got it wrong, but they are still Christians and their history is the history of Christianity. Christendom has no definition outside of Christians and Christianity in any case.
When I open a book and read about the history of the Catholic Church I'm reading about the history of Christianity. I'm not a Catholic and don't agree with their views but so what - it's still Christian history.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You can think that most Christians though most of history have got it wrong, but they are still Christians and their history is the history of Christianity. Christendom has no definition outside of Christians and Christianity in any case.
Of course, one can state this, but there are various groups who would dispute it - namely that those who engaged in the acts of violence were clearly not Christian.
And there is a whole stream of thought that suggests Christendom was, by definition, not an expression of Christianity.
I can understand that some regard this as rather ludicrous revisionism, but I'm not really sure it helps to assert the contrary opinion as if it is simply inarguable fact.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The mistake is to get drawn into an argument, on this thread, about Christianity versus Christendom.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Any ideology can be made to justify violence. According to Wikipedia, the first Christian to use the term "fundamentalist" in a positive, self-referential way used it to describe Christians willing
quote:
quote:
to do battle royal for the Fundamentals
I think violence is inherent in people.
Look, we are in a battle for our faith, and Paul and others in the NT use martial imagery; BUT this is done in a context that 'our warfare is NOT with physical weapons' (II Cor 10) and that our 'sword' is 'the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God'.
It is possible to do that so long as we avoid the 'Christian country/state/nation' idea and keep to the NT teaching of Christians as 'resident aliens' who do not 'lord it over' others.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I have a Muslim prison chaplain colleague who I have known for over a decade, who exudes every visible sign of peaceableness, distress at radicalisation, and proclaims Islam as a religion of peace.
I'm not denying that Islam also has aspirations of peace. There is for example that text about 'no compulsion in religion'. Unfortunately Muhammad also chose to violently fight back against his Meccan opponents and finally to go and conquer them, with major violence only avoided, it seems, by Meccan surrender. He also of course set up an Islamic state. He let loose from its bottle the genie of violence and made that also part of Islam.
Because that happened in Muhammad's lifetime and during the revelation of the Qur'an, it is inherent in the original teaching. It is not like the situation in Christianity where 'Christendom' and its violence are clearly a centuries later aberration; you can't pretend that the Islamic state religion and its violence are a later aberration. Either it is part of the original revelation, or the Prophet was himself a major sinner against his own revelation....
Islam, like 'Christendom' is a religion with a built-in contradiction between its peaceable aspirations and its aspiration to a religious state. Sometimes one side of that is uppermost, sometimes the other. In the past the violent side led to the conquest of North Africa and for a while much of the Iberian peninsula, and also conquests in the east eventually halted in Hungary and the Balkans.
Unlike 'Christendom', in Islam there is no simple way to get out of that contradiction. Christianity can return from 'Christendom' to a clear original teaching; in Islam that contradiction is actually in the original.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
I'm impressed by your knowledge of what one can and can't do from within Islam, Steve. How long did you spend as a Muslim to come to these conclusions?
t
[ 16. February 2015, 10:50: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can understand that some regard this as rather ludicrous revisionism, but I'm not really sure it helps to assert the contrary opinion as if it is simply inarguable fact.
It's not ludicrous revisionism, its just not the point. It is perfectly possible that most Christians have got it wrong about the NT and about Jesus, I freely admit that and don't assert tha contrary as inarguable fact.
What I do assert though is that the way we determine the expression of Christianity is by looking at the group of people calling themselves Christians. They might be misguided, mad, manipulated and stupid but they are the people in the world called Christians that we have to observe. Likewise the expression of Islam is the group of people calling themselves Muslims.
If I say that the Christians murdering and butchering throughout most of history aren't really Christians, in my world only a relatively small sub-group are real Christians... and then on the other hand most Muslims aren't actually being true to Islam, the small sub-group shooting French cartoonists are then it becomes a nonsensical argument.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
in Islam that contradiction is actually in the original.
This seems like an odd argument given that the religion to which Jesus Christ claimed to be the fulfilment was clearly involved in various forms of state violence. Show me where Jesus Christ in the gospels said that those portions of scripture were unsound.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If I say that the Christians murdering and butchering throughout most of history aren't really Christians, in my world only a relatively small sub-group are real Christians... and then on the other hand most Muslims aren't actually being true to Islam, the small sub-group shooting French cartoonists are then it becomes a nonsensical argument.
Seems pretty logical to me: reading of Jesus Christ's words in the gospels lead to pacifism (so the argument goes), so those who do not practice pacifism are not Christian.
One might also be able to make an argument that the only true Muslims are practising violent jihad (and, y'know, some do make that claim).
But, I don't really see that the argument about pacifism in Christianity has any particular relation to violence in Islam or vice versa. The two things are quite separate arguments.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon;
quote:
A valid opinion, but we don't need to redefine words based on that opinion. You can think that most Christians though most of history have got it wrong, but they are still Christians and their history is the history of Christianity. Christendom has no definition outside of Christians and Christianity in any case.
When I open a book and read about the history of the Catholic Church I'm reading about the history of Christianity. I'm not a Catholic and don't agree with their views but so what - it's still Christian history.
I'm not denying that most of the inhabitants of the 'Christendom' states and even most of their leaders were basically Christians and ultimately 'saved'. 'Christendom' was still an aberration that needs to be corrected.
As a concrete example, I regard Ian Paisley as a real genuine Christian - but his good intentions were undermined by his misguided adherence to a 'Christendom' way of thinking, which through him and others on both 'sides' of Ulster has had terrible effects over the centuries.
I think the above basically answers mr cheesy's points as well.
by Eutychus
quote:
The mistake is to get drawn into an argument, on this thread, about Christianity versus Christendom.
Yairbut... unfortunately your current problems are taking place in a former 'Christendom' state which still has a lot of thus-minded people in it; and Muslims will use the faults of Christendom in various ways including as justification of their violent side. As Christians in a nominally Christian forum discussing the issue, 'Christendom' is rather inevitably part of the context and part of the problem you now face since the Charlie Hebdo incident.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the above basically answers mr cheesy's points as well.
Doesn't make any sense to me - so you are saying that those who may be said to have been 'cultural' Christians as a result of being part of Christendom (who then went on to commit acts of violence) were actually Christian?
If so, I'm not sure why you've brought in the idea of Christendom as being relevant: you appear to be agreeing with mdijon that as they were acts of Christians they should be regarded as part of the history of Christianity.
quote:
Yairbut... unfortunately your current problems are taking place in a former 'Christendom' state which still has a lot of thus-minded people in it; and Muslims will use the faults of Christendom in various ways including as justification of their violent side. As Christians in a nominally Christian forum discussing the issue, 'Christendom' is rather inevitably part of the context and part of the problem you now face since the Charlie Hebdo incident.
Nope, I can't make sense of this either: you are suggesting that the vestiges of Christendom are the thing that the Muslims are reacting against?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Perhaps because there is no sense in SL's argument?
Not being sarcastic, but there isn't. People will pick and choose the bits they want to justify their actions.
Islam and Christianity have fair chunks available for violence.
Buddhism has far fewer such bits, but people still find a way.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
This thread is going a bit faster than I can easily keep up with and anyway I'll shortly need to return to so-called real life! I think my last post does also answer some of what turned up in the meantime x-posts.
A few further comments; first Teufelchen;
quote:
I'm impressed by your knowledge of what one can and can't do from within Islam, Steve. How long did you spend as a Muslim to come to these conclusions?
But then again, given that the contradiction to which I refer is actually obvious from outside, why would I need to go within? Especially when NT Christianity does not have that contradiction!
by mr cheesy;
quote:
This seems like an odd argument given that the religion to which Jesus Christ claimed to be the fulfilment was clearly involved in various forms of state violence. Show me where Jesus Christ in the gospels said that those portions of scripture were unsound.
He didn't and they aren't; BUT they are part of a process of preparation leading to Jesus, and after that the people of God are not limited to one nation, and are defined not by earthly birth but by spiritual rebirth. Remember that the scriptures which record the history of Israel also record the promise of the 'New Covenant' through Jesus the Messiah, including it's peaceable nature.
But I think going more deeply into that might be a tangent too far on this thread.
by mr cheesy
quote:
Doesn't make any sense to me - so you are saying that those who may be said to have been 'cultural' Christians as a result of being part of Christendom (who then went on to commit acts of violence) were actually Christian?
I'm saying that one of the problems of 'Christendom' is that it creates confusion between 'cultural' nominal Christians and real Christians, and also creates a confusing situation in which even the real Christians may do very misguided things.
There must actually be a similar problem in the 'mirror image' Islamic state - that is, many Muslims must be 'cultural Muslims' in your sense.
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Nope, I can't make sense of this either: you are suggesting that the vestiges of Christendom are the thing that the Muslims are reacting against?
I'm suggesting that at least for Europeans the fact that we live in 'Christendom' as was, and how we interpret that, is likely to be relevant to how we deal with the problems of Islam/Islamism.
And yes, to some extent at least Islamists are reacting against the past and the ongoing 'vestiges' of 'Christendom'. Consider how often the word 'Crusader' is used to refer to westerners - for example when extremists attacked that N African oil facility and told the native Muslims not to worry "We're here to kill the Crusaders", by which they meant the westerners working on the site, who fairly certainly didn't think of themselves as 'Crusaders' and may not even have been Christians at all. That reaction to 'Christendom' isn't the whole thing, but it's clearly a significant part....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Islam and Christianity have fair chunks available for violence.
Buddhism has far fewer such bits, but people still find a way.
Having obviously over the years discussed this with many Christians, I can only say that in my experience 'Christendom-style' Christians have very few 'chunks' available, and even for most of them they have to ignore huge bits of the NT and retrogressively use the OT to justify their position, as if the NT didn't make any difference or advance on the OT.
It is interesting that the 'way' found in Buddhism to justify violence is usually the same as in 'Christendom' and Islam - that is, the setting up of or the aspiration to a "Buddhist state/nation".
Sorry, must now go back to that pesky real life stuff....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The trouble is, as Eutychus has pointed out and is so bleedin' obvious in hindsight and why the hell had I never seen it, Paul blurred Christianity in to Christendom by invoking the state's right to use lethal force.
The poor Copts have done that in Egypt overnight. Echoing Francis' over IS in Iraq.
This is NOT the Way. It's heartbreakingly understandable all round. But we've GOT to break the cycle of violence. At least Francis justified it on the other side too!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Steve Langton wrote:
And yes, to some extent at least Islamists are reacting against the past and the ongoing 'vestiges' of 'Christendom'. Consider how often the word 'Crusader' is used to refer to westerners - for example when extremists attacked that N African oil facility and told the native Muslims not to worry "We're here to kill the Crusaders", by which they meant the westerners working on the site, who fairly certainly didn't think of themselves as 'Crusaders' and may not even have been Christians at all. That reaction to 'Christendom' isn't the whole thing, but it's clearly a significant part....
It certainly isn't the whole thing. I think you have to address the whole trauma of the post-colonial Middle East and Arab world, and also the radicalization going on in both the Islamists and the Western allies. Both sides are using military spectacle and intensified violence. The West uses shock and awe, torture and drone strikes; the jihadists use decapitations and burning. It seems to be a kind of ratcheting up and atrocity competition, as often happens in war.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How Beastly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Steve, I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which Muslims perceive Christendom as the enemy.
Apart from that, I can't find anything in your latest posts (before you rushed off to real life...) that addresses the real-life question I've put to you twice now: quote:
If you were in my position, based on your premise that Islam is inherently violent, what would you say?
History lessons will not do. Blaming Christendom will not do. How, practically, would you as a Christian respond, here and now?
Martin, maybe Christianity and states' use of force is worth another thread?
[ 16. February 2015, 15:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
History lessons will not do. Blaming Christendom will not do. How, practically, would you as a Christian respond, here and now?
Mennonites in Canada have taken what seems to be a practical and helpful step. They run peace making workshops, peace and justice seminars, publish a peace and justice magazine, support public lecturers on peacemaking. They invite the public to all of these. This is an approach that (a) people are interested in (b) doesn't hector, scold, and turn people off. Rather than yelling at people, they are showing them 'a still more excellent way'. Peace in our homes, peace in our hearts, peace in our communities... these are the themes they emphasize and teach skills toward these goals.
Steve Langton, I would heartily encourage you to adopt this approach. So far, yelling at people whom you perceive to be state co-opted not-real-Christians has the effect of making people alienated, defensive, or bored and turn away. Teach a still more excellent way, and people themselves may see the inadequacies of previous approaches, forgive the past, and move on.
You can test the effectiveness of your own current methodology by admitting that what you have been doing so far has been The Wrong Thing, and that you will immediately adopt my much more sensible approach. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Since I have thus enlightened you, you will no doubt instantly repent of the way you've been doing things before. If not, why not?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Thank you Leaf, those all sound like great initiatives.
In addition to that kind of approach where resources allow, I think the context in France also requires adherents to various faiths to be "co-belligerents" (in a purely peaceable way of course ) to promote, for instance, the idea of religious expression in the public sphere.
I'm thrashing through my ideas because the possibility of reaching out across religious divides without engaging in syncretism, and having official opportunities to do so, are relatively new to me.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin60
quote:
Paul blurred Christianity in to Christendom by invoking the state's right to use lethal force.
OK, I'll have a go at further explanations of Romans 13 - but maybe not on this thread.
quetzalcoatly, I think I basically agree with your point - but the 'Christendom' past is still significant on the western side as well as in Islam.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve, I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which Muslims perceive Christendom as the enemy.
Hmmm... of course it is also true that to many in the West 'Christendom' is a friend, in the sense that the 'Christendom' paradigm kind of justifies and supports their own 'religious state' approach. The issue is complex; but one way or another it's not likely to be solved by ignoring either the 'Christendom' or the Muslim versions of having a religious state.
And clearly some Muslims very much consider 'Christendom' the enemy but are more than a bit out of date on the way 'Christendom' isn't what it was!!
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
If you were in my position, based on your premise that Islam is inherently violent, what would you say?
I haven't forgotten that; but you should bear in mind that I'm not just saying Islam is inherently violent, I'm offering an argument as to the major reason why that is so; and I'm relating that to other religions. Including I'm relating it to a Christianity that needs to repent of Christendom if it is to be truly useful in speaking to Muslims.
Leaf, thanks. What has happened Shipboard is not exactly typical of me, actually. I am in fact advocating the kind of thing you suggest and I've been surprised by how negative the Shipboard reaction has been. I've particularly been surprised by people who don't seem to listen to what I actually say and spend a lot of time telling me what they think I think and then rejecting me for views that are their invention rather than my own views.
Part of the trouble is that forums like this are places of argument, and not places where I can do or show the more practical stuff.
back later, hopefully
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
you should bear in mind that I'm not just saying Islam is inherently violent, I'm offering an argument as to the major reason why that is so
This appears to be a distinction without a difference. Can you clarify, please?
t
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Now you're blaming everyone else for your inability to express yourself clearly.
Thanks.
More seriously, Steve, if you took a leaf out of Leaf's book and stopped tarring other Christians with a very broad and out-moded 'Christendom'-brush you might actually find more people agreeing with you here than has happened hitherto.
I was once taken rather too seriously when I joked that a particular fundamentalist Shipmate was driving me so far to distraction that I was going to abandon my faith entirely and join the National Secular Society ...
I'm not for a moment suggesting that your posts are sufficient to induce me to form an 'Anti-Anabaptist Pro-Constantinian Society' ...
But the temptation has sometimes been there ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It's not what you post but the tone that can irk at times ... it can come across as overly binary and judgemental ... as if Christians who engage in politics say - and I'm standing for my local council elections this time round - are somehow apostate or flying in the face of what you take to be self-evident NT Christianity.
Plenty of people are involved with peace-initiatives - not just the Mennonites - and where I am many such initiatives are led by nasty so-called 'Constantinian Christians' rather than those lovely, fluffy, cuddly Anabaptists you knock around with.
Ian Paisley's dead, King Charles II is dead, Mary Tudor is dead. We've all moved on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Has anyone actually demonstrated that Islam is violent? I use the word 'demonstrated' as opposed to 'asserted', which is an easy position to take.
I take it that Steve Langton's argument is this: states are inherently violent; Islam proposes a theocratic state; therefore Islam will end up being violent.
I think one of the problems with this is that it's too powerful, since it can be applied to any kind of state. Thus: states are inherently violent; Western democracy proposes a certain kind of state; therefore Western democracy is inherently violent.
I was reading some Arab journalists at the week-end who were making a rather similar argument! But it's rather empty.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
This conversation is getting a bit violent itself. Let's all step away from our rhetorical weapons and breathe for a moment, please.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
The Atlantic Monthly has a new article: "What ISIS Really Wants". The header says:
quote:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
I just heard the author, Graeme Wood, on NPR's "Here and Now". The article's long, so I've only had time to skim it, but it looks worth a read.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Atlantic Monthly has a new article: "What ISIS Really Wants". The header says:
quote:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
I just heard the author, Graeme Wood, on NPR's "Here and Now". The article's long, so I've only had time to skim it, but it looks worth a read.
I do wonder if a lot of the ways of stopping it, are in fact, fuelling it. But then how do we stop doing the things that we do?
I was reading an Arab journalist who complained about the intense radicalization of the West! Well, it would be funny in other circumstances.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes ... macabre ...
We're living in uncertain times and these always fuel fundamentalism and fanaticism.
People want certainty and so gravitate towards the black-and-white.
Not all fundamentalisms are violent though.
There's a school of thought that suggests that Islam will become increasingly 'interiorised' and pietistic over time ... much as Christianity has done, particularly in the West.
Like Eutychus, I am all for Christian engagement in the public sphere. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming some kind of escapist, head-in-the-sand, let's all sing songs until the Lord returns type of faith ...
The difficulty is, as Steve and the tradition he represents reminds us, engagement with the public sphere can lead to compromise and to less than perfect results ...
But then, we are in a fallen and imperfect world ... which doesn't justify using violence to try to correct it, of course.
I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that Islam is somehow inherently violent. In some ways, I think this is the wrong question to ask in the first place. It rather 'flattens' the discussion and makes the debate rather binary - it strengthens the kind of 'them and us' aspects that are inherent within various forms of fundamentalism.
At worst, it's a form of de-humanising people we disagree with.
I'll agree with Steve that we need to work on issues and problems within our own midst - and links between the US religious right and the US industrial/military complex is clearly an issue and a problem.
More so, I'd suggest, than questions around Anglican disestablishment or Patriarch Kyrill's buddy-buddy approach to Putin - which isn't to side-step the issues involved with either of those.
The fact that not all of Islam's billion or so adherents are going around beheading Copts or shooting satirical cartoonists should give some pause to those who believe that faith to be intrinsically violent. But that's been said many, many times on this thread but to no avail.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Atlantic Monthly has a new article: "What ISIS Really Wants". The header says:
quote:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
I just heard the author, Graeme Wood, on NPR's "Here and Now". The article's long, so I've only had time to skim it, but it looks worth a read.
It's well worth a read. The eschatological component of the movement is not something I appreciated. I share with the author the hope that we take a measured approach to how we deal with them and not get drawn in to the confrontation as they would like to see it played out.
The article states correctly we are facing a learned and considered brand of Islam; deeply rooted in tradition and very much keen to make clear it views the obscene violence it engages in as serving a religious end.
Roger Cohen wrote an Op-Ed piece in the
New York Timestoday stating obvious. Our political leaders are either wrong or not being honest about the fact that we are not in conflict with a vague, we are in conflict with a particular strand of Islam.
[ 16. February 2015, 20:16: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
There are disturbing similarities between the activities of ISIS and the mindless violence perpetrated by followers of Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah in the 19th century: this was the self-proclaimed Mahdi who besieged Gordon in Khartoum.
The ISIS black flag, in particular, is almost identical to that of Abd Allah.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There are disturbing similarities between the activities of ISIS and the mindless violence perpetrated by followers of Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah in the 19th century: this was the self-proclaimed Mahdi who besieged Gordon in Khartoum.
The ISIS black flag, in particular, is almost identical to that of Abd Allah.
There certainly are, and they are both responses to interventions by a foreign power.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
I think the reason that western leaders don't specify and name the brand of Islam they are warring against is because they try to avoid any public discussion which exposes their hypocrisy on this matter. Wahabbi Islam, as practised and promulgated in Saudi Arabia, is the immediate source of the vast majority of Islamist violence, both against Muslims and non-Muslims. And as Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter, and western powers are addicted to the black gold, the last thing they want to admit is that our oil purchases indirectly (but fairly plainly) fund the terrorism which plagues the modern world.
And the military actions of the western powers - acting as allies to Saudi Arabia, and opponents to secular dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi - has created vast swathes of poorly controlled territory into which ISIS have poured.
I'm definitely not saying it's all the fault of Western governments. I largely blame the House of Saud and their fellow-travellers. But the actions of the western powers have done little to curb the rise of Wahabbism and its attendant violence, and a fair bit to fund it.
Of course, we could always try to burn much less oil. We'd slow down climate change, and cut off the single biggest source of funding for terrorism anywhere in the world.
But apparently our cars and aeroplanes are more important than the terrorism that our leaders swear they're trying to combat.
t
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That Atlantic Monthly article by Graeme Wood strikes me as insightful and helpful. I'm still mulling over the implications for foreign policy, should the analysis stand.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm far worse than Steve.
Of course Islam, just like Christianity immediately post-Jesus AT LEAST and Judaism before them, is inherently, fundamentally, foundationally, inextricably violent. What's the problem with that? Ask ANY orthodox Muslim. The people of the Book are all conceived in its myth of redemptive violence, the oldest coherent myth that there is.
If one can't be intellectually honest enough to start there, for whatever weird reason, there is no discussion. One is asking whether pigs have wings.
[ 16. February 2015, 21:32: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course Islam, just like Christianity immediately post-Jesus AT LEAST and Judaism before them, is inherently, fundamentally, foundationally, inextricably violent. What's the problem with that?
That it's meaningless bollocks?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm sorry? Have you read the Old Testament? The New? The Quran?
[ 16. February 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm sorry? Have you read the Old Testament? The New? The Koran?
Ever looked at man? The human condition? History?
Religious texts are far more aspirational than factual. We should learn from them, rather than abuse them in futile attempts to justify evil.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
(that's God btw)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As meaningless as the opposite?
Of course Islam, just like Christianity immediately post-Jesus AT LEAST and Judaism before them, is ABSOLUTELY NOT inherently, fundamentally, foundationally, inextricably violent IN THE SLIGHTEST, YOU'D HAVE TO BE AN UTTER MORON WITH SOME NASTY FASCIST AGENDA TO READ THAT IN TO IT, MAD AND BAD. What's the problem with that?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And Johnny, your non sequitur (or is it three?) is a nice juicy peach.
[ 16. February 2015, 22:14: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm sorry? Have you read the Old Testament? The New? The Quran?
Of course. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
What is "Islam" to you? Presumably you don't believe it is true - that Muhammad was the final messenger of Allah and the Qur'an is the perfect uncreated words of Allah dictated to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel.
So what is it? If there is not a true objective Islam defined by Allah himself, if 'Islam' is just a human creation like 'communism' or 'socialism' or 'fascism', then why are you talking about the Qur'an and not about the actual beliefs of the actual people who self-identify as Muslims?
If the Qur'an wasn't dictated by the Archangel Gabriel but was instead the product of a human society, then in what way is it determinative of "true Islam" except in so far as individual Muslims consider it determinative, and in the ways that they consider it determinative?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think you have managed to articulate why I feel uncomfortable with a 'Christian' or 'mirror' approach to Islam that starts with the unconscious assumption that Muslims approach the Koran the way Christians approach the Bible.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes, I think Demas' point shows why that would be misguided, and also deals with something I was failing to nail in my discussion above about discerning "true" Islam.
If several billion followers of an uninspired document believe x, how do we go about saying there is another separate entity within them that we call "true" Islam.
Unless there is a foundation with some basis (i.e. genuine divine inspiration or something like that) then what influence does the life or thoughts of Muhammed have that is more powerful and that we should notice more than the reality of several billion modern-day followers?
I can see Steve or Martin's points that the majority of Christ's modern-day followers might have got him wrong and departed from the "true" way. To talk of the true way distinct from the modern reality makes some sense if you believe in a divinely inspired beginning.
But it is tricky to translate that to thinking about a religion which you believe has no divine inspiration behind it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
You might find this interesting.
There are both parallels and profound differences with Christian exegetics in the various means of interpretation of the Qu'ran.
What is significant for violence are the interpretative methods used by violent groups, the meanings they derive to justify their violence and the success of these groups in gaining adherents.
Rather than look for inherent violence in a faith, its traditions and holy texts, it might be better simply to consider the human tendency towards violent behaviour first. If we start from the basis that all of us are capable of violent behaviour towards others, that we can be triggered to violence by various threats or provocation, that might be helpful. If we also recognise human variation, including the reality of psychopathic behaviour, we might be on more objective ground.
Solzhenitisyn observed (in Gulag Archipeligo Vol 2, in the chapter called The Ascent) that all religions wrestle with the evil inherent in human beings. I think it is also legitimate to argue that some religious movements channel natural human aggression in profoundly unhelpful and dangerous ways. They "enemise" others, reify groups as "the enemy", with baleful results.
Most of my life as a Christian, I have pondered over the practicality of Jesus' command to love our enemies. Bertrand Russell argued that as a moral precept there was nothing to be said against it, only most people found it too difficult. My own reflections have led me to believe that the holy texts are themselves a problem in this context, since they do seem to me to reflect innate human tendencies to violence and the way we can justify them to ourselves. But that is by no means the whole story. The texts also contain much which is good and valuable and helpful in guiding us towards more peaceful and loving ways of behaving towards one another.
So I think the wrestling within religion itself (of which Solzhenitsin wrote) requires both a recognition of our violent roots and a consideration of the best means of encouraging us to put them aside in favour of a better way. The painful process of dealing with our toxic tendencies needs to be at work both on an individual and group level. So far as inter-faith relations are concerned, there seems much to be said for searching out individuals and groups who are prepared to be clear-eyed about our toxic tendencies and the dangers of encouraging them which may be found in the roots of our various faiths. There is an ongoing need to purify the heart.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That Atlantic Monthly article by Graeme Wood strikes me as insightful and helpful. I'm still mulling over the implications for foreign policy, should the analysis stand.
Don't reinforce their story? E.g., don't have a great showdown on the plains of Debiq(?). They're looking for their version of Armageddon--they WANT it. (I noticed, while searching, several articles comparing apocalypse details between ISIS and Christian prophecies/stories.) They expect certain signs and happenings, just as many Christians do.
I still boggle at the idea of Peoples of the Book trying to force God's hand, whether it's Christians shipping a roan/red cow to Jerusalem, or Muslims forcing an international fight where their prophecies say one will take place. I have a couple of theories:
1) They're sick and tired of the world as it is, kind of like waiting for the end of the school year, so they're forcing school closure. They want out.
2) They want to be part of a grand story, and of ending it.
3) They don't really believe in God and whatever plan--if they did, they wouldn't dare try to force God's hand.
4) It hasn't occurred to them that God may be delaying the plan, out of compassion for non-believers, in hope that they'll believe and not go to hell.
ISTM that, if you think your neighbor is going to hell, you can compassionately befriend them; show them the way; worry about them; leave them up to God; or ignore them all together. You do not get to send them to their fate early.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
GK, these are all interesting thoughts - but I wonder if the believers really think that they're 'forcing God's hand' in the way you describe.
I suspect they would think that they are willing tools of the deity to bring about the change that he desires, no?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I thought that occurs to me: whilst it must be true that the Muslim understanding of the Koran as the Word of God must be different to the Christian conception of the bible - in that (I think) they believe these were literally the words written by the finger of God in heaven and revealed to the prophets..
it cannot also be true that all Muslims understand all verses to have equal weight. Otherwise surely they'd all believe the same thing, and clearly they don't.
For Christians, it seems most would say that the Holy Spirit and/or Tradition were powerful counterweights against the idea that the scriptures can ever be swallowed without some kind of interpretation, it must also be true for the Muslim.
Maybe I am arguing myself into a corner, but maybe Islam can only truly be described as a 'violent' religion if the verses which describe or encourage violence in the extremists are impossible to contextualise by all other Muslims.
It would be interesting to discuss this some more with someone who knows more about it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
GK, these are all interesting thoughts - but I wonder if the believers really think that they're 'forcing God's hand' in the way you describe.
I suspect they would think that they are willing tools of the deity to bring about the change that he desires, no?
Yes, I think that is the rationalisation. "We are the instruments of Divine purpose. What God wills is good. This is what He wills". In the hands of manipulative and charismatic leadership, the submissive, scared, sincere and gullible can be set up to do a lot of bad things. Plenty of evidence of that about.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon
quote:
Yes, I think Demas' point shows why that would be misguided, and also deals with something I was failing to nail in my discussion above about discerning "true" Islam.
If several billion followers of an uninspired document believe x, how do we go about saying there is another separate entity within them that we call "true" Islam.
Unless there is a foundation with some basis (i.e. genuine divine inspiration or something like that) then what influence does the life or thoughts of Muhammed have that is more powerful and that we should notice more than the reality of several billion modern-day followers?
I can see Steve or Martin's points that the majority of Christ's modern-day followers might have got him wrong and departed from the "true" way. To talk of the true way distinct from the modern reality makes some sense if you believe in a divinely inspired beginning.
But it is tricky to translate that to thinking about a religion which you believe has no divine inspiration behind it.
We don't believe Islam has divine inspiration behind it. The trouble is that Muslims do believe it has divine inspiration. And unfortunately in the case of Islam that 'divinely inspired' teaching includes the setting up of an earthly religious state with the resulting problems of persecution and warfare on behalf of the religion in question.
As I've pointed out, in Christianity if you go 'fundamentalist' you will find a teaching that precludes a religious state on behalf of Christ in which Christians 'lord it over' others or in which they are 'allotriepiskopoi/managers of other people's affairs'. Instead you find a scheme in which faith is voluntary and believers take a humbler place among their variously 'other-believing' or unbelieving neighbours. In Christianity warfare in this world, this side of the apocalypse, is spiritual, not literal; and even come the apocalypse, it is God who fights for his beleaguered people if you read the relevant texts closely.
In Islam, if you go 'fundamentalist', you end up following a prophet who fought literal wars to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for his religion - indeed with himself as effective king of that kingdom during his life. That is bound to lead to a different pattern of how that religion operates.
Humans being human, they will not always live up to their religion's teaching; Christians fail in all kinds of ways including all too many who have gone against the NT teaching and attempted to set up 'Christian countries' which then operate in all too 'this world' a manner.
Muslims being human, they often don't live up to the full implications of their teachings; the trouble is, if they are challenged about this and try to live up to it ... well as I say, they're trying to live up to a prophet who warred and persecuted.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Muslims being human, they often don't live up to the full implications of their teachings; the trouble is, if they are challenged about this and try to live up to it ... well as I say, they're trying to live up to a prophet who warred and persecuted.
This is the second time you've said something like this.
Your unshakeable position is that any Muslim who is serious-minded and committed, 'mirroring' the way you would like Christians to be, will end up embracing violence in the cause.
Apart from the fact that this flies in the face of plenty of conversations I've had with serious-minded Muslims, it allows you to dismiss any Muslims you might run into who are not inclined to violence as not serious-minded or committed.
It's "no true Scotsman" in reverse. No matter how much your interlocutor claims to be serious-minded and committed, if they don't fit your stereotype, you will simply reason that they are being disingenuous and are to be approached with suspicion.
In short, you appear to approach peaceable Muslims with a degree of contempt that's all too familiar.
I don't care how much you claim to eschew physical violence in your pursuit of piety, I have to say that I don't find your attitude winsome in the slightest.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Muslims being human, they often don't live up to the full implications of their teachings; the trouble is, if they are challenged about this and try to live up to it ... well as I say, they're trying to live up to a prophet who warred and persecuted.
To my mind, if you believe that Islam is impossible to contextualise (contrary to any historical evidence otherwise), then the only logical conclusion that can emerge is that Islamic terrorism can only be eradicated by eradicating Islam.
ISTM that this is the conclusion a number of people in the public sphere wish us to come to - without ever stating it as such.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Demas, Eutychus, Sioni, ... chaps.
We are violent monkeys and our narratives, no matter how inspired, are poisoned by that. Justify that.
And that holds us back. ALL of us. All people of the Book.
The glimpse of pacifism that can be seen in Christ is not dominant in Christianity and the seeds for that lack are in Paul: Romans 13. Whence Christendom within three centuries.
Resulting in the Crusades within ten when we ended up eating Muslims.
I know there are de facto pacifist Muslims in my city, I heard one on the Moral Maze last week, defending the utter, unquestionable moral perfection of the violence of Muhammad's timeless AND contextual teachings and life.
Most sympathetic. Most orthodox. How does a Muslim go BEYOND that to true (Scots?) pacifism and remain a Muslim?
Whereas for Christians the question is reversed.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Your unshakeable position is that any Muslim who is serious-minded and committed, 'mirroring' the way you would like Christians to be, will end up embracing violence in the cause.
Apart from the fact that this flies in the face of plenty of conversations I've had with serious-minded Muslims, it allows you to dismiss any Muslims you might run into who are not inclined to violence as not serious-minded or committed.
Even if the analysis Eutychus is critiquing here is true, I still can't see that it is very helpful..
1. Mahmed says he is a faithful Muslim.
2. Mahmed says he believes violence is against Islam.
3. Steve says true Islam would lead Muslims to be violent
4. Therefore, according to Steve, Mahmed is not a true Muslim.
5. Mahmed does not hold Steve in any particular regard when speaking of Islamic theology
6. Therefore it makes no difference to Mahmed what Steve thinks is authentic, real Islam.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve has also got it wrong when he claims that if Christians 'go fundamentalist' the less likely they are to act violently or espouse violence.
I would have thought the opposite was the case. The more fundamentalist a position someone takes the more likelihood there is - as far as I can see - of them becoming violent - either verbally or physically - to defend their views.
This applies whether or not we bring 'Constantinianism' into the equation.
Was Cromwell being 'Constantinian' when he wrote, 'God made them as stubble to our swords' or was he being 'fundamentalist? Or both?
I'm not saying that fundamentalism - of whatever stripe - automatically leads to violence. Of course it doesn't. There have been, and are, plenty of fundamentalists around who would never espouse violence or act violently towards others.
However, whilst agreeing with Steve that what he calls 'Constantinianism' does muddy the waters - and I don't think anyone here is advocating a 'Christian state' whether in Calvinistic Genevan terms, New England Puritanical terms or even what Steve takes to be the Anglican position on these things (which is actually somewhat different to how he has tended to portray it in his posts) - I think it is axiomatic that fundamentalism leads to binary and dualistic positions.
I submit that Steve Langton's attitude to Islam is an example of a fixed, binary and dualistic position. Just as his view of so-called 'Constantinianism' is another.
It would be oh so pleasant to have such a cut-and-dried one-size-fits all view of the world.
Unfortunately, the world is a lot messier than that, people are a lot messier than that, faith is a lot messier than that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The glimpse of pacifism that can be seen in Christ is not dominant in Christianity and the seeds for that lack are in Paul: Romans 13. Whence Christendom within three centuries.
Martin, in similar vein to what I said before, I think the answer is along the lines of "Paul permitted states because your hearts are hard".
Like divorce, states can be life-saving - or particularly nasty. They remain the least bad way humanity has found, this side of the eschaton, to mitigate our primeval propensity for violence (whichever religious or non-religious, organised or non-organised garb it is dressed up in).
I think a modern, secular state that allows multi-faith expression in the public sphere offers the best hope for minimum recourse to violence.
The Bible enjoining us to be good citizens of such states is not to condone violence or rule out other approaches at other levels (as Leaf has suggested). It can be a way of ensuring they don't turn nasty; refusal to engage could lead to them becoming nastier.
Paul's pragmatism can be alarming (just ask Timothy when Paul turned to him with a glint in his eye and a circumcision knife in his hand) but it does offer a way for Christianity to be embedded, relevant... in short, incarnate.
Steve Langton might even be relieved to hear that one of the key proponents of the modern secular state was anabaptist-influenced Roger Williams (The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience), 1644.
And even the historic anabaptists were tagged Stäbler (staff-bearers): not in favour of violence, but willing to use a minimum of force in self-defence.
[ 17. February 2015, 13:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It would be oh so pleasant to have such a cut-and-dried one-size-fits all view of the world.
Unfortunately, the world is a lot messier than that, people are a lot messier than that, faith is a lot messier than that.
It is because things are messy that it is desirable to have a solid foundation - a faith built on rock not sand, as some 1stC Jewish Rabbi put it in a parable. Even the theory of relativity does necessarily involve a 'constant', a factor which is fixed and to which other things can be meaningfully 'related'.
As a Christian I regard the words of Jesus the Son of God as being that rock. I do, mind you, understand that in talking to non-Christians I have to justify what the words mean, not just wave a Bible and go "It says here...." And I understand, because I follow the words of Jesus and his close disciples, that faith in Jesus is a voluntary choice which must especially NOT be coerced by the worldly power of a state, Christian, Islamic, or otherwise.
Cromwell clearly hadn't quite got himself out of the Constantinian mire, whence his involvement in warfare etc. ; he was nearer out of the mire than the Anglicans were to get for a few hundred years after him. He was aiming at 'fundamentalism' but as he had started from a position in a 'Constantinian' society he had some trouble finding his way out of the confusion that engenders.
And BTW one of the problems in modern discussions is that we seem to have reached a point where in some people's eyes even friendly persuasion is regarded as 'violent'. To return to an earlier point by I think Demas, I would regard much of what a state does as being 'legitimate force' even if perhaps beyond what Christians should do. My point is that a 'religious state' goes beyond the legitimate because
a) It can't be legitimate for a Christian state because there isn't supposed to be such a thing, and
b) It can't from a Christian viewpoint be legitimate for any other religious state because any other religion is untrue anyway.
This is where the peaceableness of Christianity becomes important because it means we don't react to states we disagree with in the way that Islamic State does; or if we do, we are not acting in a properly Christian manner but in a disobedient manner.
I've more to say about various points but I'm also busy with other things right now; back later.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
6. Therefore it makes no difference to Mahmed what Steve thinks is authentic, real Islam.
I think this is the important conclusion for my money. It becomes doubly nonsensical for Steve to have a view on what real Islam is when he believes there is no real basis to Islam. The fact that Mahmed thinks there is a real basis should be irrelevant to Steve.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My case still stands, Steven. I am not making invidious comparisons between Cromwell's Independency and Anglicanism's 17th and 18th century Erastianism. Both were features of their time.
Nor am I saying that religious affiliation of any kind should be anything other than voluntarist.
Nor is anyone else here.
I can't speak for Islam as I'm not a Muslim. Neither are you.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Cromwell clearly hadn't quite got himself out of the Constantinian mire [...]as he had started from a position in a 'Constantinian' society he had some trouble finding his way out of the confusion that engenders.
So Cromwell gets a let-off but we who are in a post-Constantinian society just get reproof?
quote:
My point is that a 'religious state' goes beyond the legitimate because
Can you see anybody here arguing it's legitimate? quote:
This is where the peaceableness of Christianity becomes important because it means we don't react to states we disagree with in the way that Islamic State does;
For the nth time, Islamic State /= Islam, as denounced by the vast majority of Muslims. Enough of the straw men, already.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Steve - that sounds all well and good, except that when Christians do not participate in the politic then things often get worse not better.
A case in point: William Penn. Clearly there was something screwy about the fact that he 'inherited' a state containing people, but the steps he made were towards freedom. It wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than anything else in the vicinity.
Anyway, it seems to me that this is quite a long way from discussing the nature of Islam and violence.
On the general point, I guess I would stand up for the kind of secular society where people with different (and contradictory) faith positions are able to live out their profession without undue interference from the state or their neighbour.
Whilst one might appreciate your faith position, it is also true that a Muslim might hold something else equally strongly. The question for me is less about which of you is right, and more about how we build a society where all can live in peace even whilst the views are opposite.
And frankly, I don't see a lot of reason to suppose that Islam necessarily is any more violent than any other form of religion.
Personally, I'm a pacifist (but crucially not an absolutist pacifist) but I think the anabaptist critique is about 500 years out of date.
That said, having observed local politics for many years, there is something seriously broken about it. Even those with strong beliefs tend to become corrupted by the power and the monotony of the meetings, so it is very easy to find burned out idealists who found that local politics crushed their ideals.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That said, having observed local politics for many years, there is something seriously broken about it. Even those with strong beliefs tend to become corrupted by the power and the monotony of the meetings, so it is very easy to find burned out idealists who found that local politics crushed their ideals.
Hmmm ... we'll see if this happens to me if I get elected to my local council ...
Meanwhile, on the 'classic' Anabaptist thing ... yes, it rings true on a number of levels but I agree it's seriously out-of-date - and, if pursued too rigorously can become very 'single-issue' and unnuanced.
It has to have a convenient enemy. 'Constantinianism' provides that neat enemy - even though the kind of Constantinianism they rail against only exists in a few small pockets worldwide.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't know, Eutychus, I think Steve has a point - to the extent that many Islamic states, particularly in the Middle East operate as if they are princely states of the pre-reformation era.
And I think it is true that there are a sizeable number of Muslims who are looking for a kind of Caliphate leadership (albeit, perhaps, not of the Islamic State form).
Of course, the important thing here is to underline that there are many different types of Islam and many different ways it has been influenced by contemporary Western society.
It seems to me that many Muslims living in the UK, France, the USA etc must feel pulled in many different directions - in a way that Christians (if you like) post-reformation do not feel. 'Christian' states have largely devolved into more-or-less secular states in a way many Islamic states have not.
I'm sorry if that is a bit garbled..
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But some of these comments about Islam and Islamic states seem very abstract to me. You have to look in a more fine-grained way at events on the ground.
For example, if you take Iraq, where IS have held some ground, you have to take into account the tribes in the Sunni triangle, who are supporting IS or at least tolerating them, partly out of deep anger and resistance to the Baghdad government.
Of course, Iraq itself was ruled by the Ba'ath party, which was largely secularist, as with other Arab countries, such as Syria.
One of the problems with Arab secularism - apart from becoming very corrupt - was that it tended to ignore the rural and urban poor, who tended to support various Islamist parties.
Of course, once the Ba'ath party was removed from power (by Western forces), there was a free for all, with many different groups and militias contending for power.
Incidentally, some of these tribes in Iraq had fought against Al Qaeda, and had joined with US forces in evicting them.
One reason that IS have been able to occupy and hold so much ground is because of political developments like this.
Hence, it strikes me that talking about 'Islam and violence' seems far removed from these events on the ground. Whether or not Western politicians, military leaders and intelligence staff have a better understanding is a moot point. But then they seem addicted to violence themselves. As I was saying on another thread, I have been reading some Arab journalists who talk with dread of the extreme radicalization of the West!
[ 17. February 2015, 17:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the problems with Arab secularism - apart from becoming very corrupt - was that it tended to ignore the rural and urban poor, who tended to support various Islamist parties.
In many cases because the secular regimes had removed or co-opted all secular competitors - which meant that more space opened up for religious groups via the offering of some basic social services etc, and so they became the only functional opposition.
Plus the Western support for Saudi Arabia hasn't helped - as they have kept stability by exporting instability.
[ 17. February 2015, 17:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
by Steve Langton;
quote:
This is where the peaceableness of Christianity becomes important because it means we don't react to states we disagree with in the way that Islamic State does;
For the nth time, Islamic State /= Islam, as denounced by the vast majority of Muslims. Enough of the straw men, already.
I didn't actually say it did =Islam! I just quoted it as a rather obvious example of how Christians DON'T (or at any rate shouldn't) behave.
and again Eutychus;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Cromwell clearly hadn't quite got himself out of the Constantinian mire [...]as he had started from a position in a 'Constantinian' society he had some trouble finding his way out of the confusion that engenders.
So Cromwell gets a let-off but we who are in a post-Constantinian society just get reproof?
And again you're being far too touchy. I'm not giving Cromwell a 'let-off' at all, just trying to assess him fairly in the context of his time. He was clearly badly wrong in absolute terms; but not doing all that badly given the context and culture he lived in.
And the comment is purely about Cromwell; there is nothing in it about any modern 'we' at all - you included - nor is it implied. Just "That is my attempt at a fair assessment of Cromwell". Likewise, to take a more modern figure, I regard Ian Paisley as having been terribly wrong and caused/perpetuated terrible troubles, but I also try to be fair that he was, I believe, ultimately a genuine Christian sadly misguided because of the culture he lived in.
Hang on - I'm not being very 'binary' and what-have-you there, am I, Gamaliel; who am I and what have I done with the real Steve Langton? (or more accurately, I am the real Steve Langton, will you stop adding implications etc to what I say and turning me into a 'straw man')
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
It has not been twenty-four hours since I've warned this thread, and it's already getting heated again.
Steve Langdon, telling people that they're being touchy is personal. You don't have to show "Christian self-restraint," but you do have to take it outside.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Chris Stiles;
quote:
the only logical conclusion that can emerge is that Islamic terrorism can only be eradicated by eradicating Islam.
ISTM that this is the conclusion a number of people in the public sphere wish us to come to - without ever stating it as such.
To the first sentence, yes that is the logical conclusion. Don't blame me, blame Muhammad for setting it up as that kind of religion in the first place.
Thing is, I definitely want to eradicate Islam - BUT ONLY BY CONVERTING MUSLIMS BY PEACEABLE PERSUASION. Part of that is to recognise and analyse Islam correctly to show to its adherents the faults... and also to present a Christianity with a clearly different approach.
And I similarly want to eradicate non-violently the people Chris refers to who want to violently eradicate Islam.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Gwai, I can get quite 'touchy' about people who misspell my name and suggest I might be related to the Da Vinci Code bloke!
Removing tongue from cheek - seriously, sorry, Gwai, but my comments re Cromwell were just that and I had no intent to chuck 'reproof' at others. I didn't comment on anyone else at all, or intend to.
I shudder to think what you'll make of my last post....
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Haven't read Da Vinci Code, but sorry about getting your name wrong.
Your last post seems completely Purgatorial. Thanks.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thing is, I definitely want to eradicate Islam - BUT ONLY BY CONVERTING MUSLIMS BY PEACEABLE PERSUASION.
This sounds oxymoronic to me.
quote:
And I similarly want to eradicate non-violently the people Chris refers to who want to violently eradicate Islam.
So does this.
The first definition Google offers for "eradicate" is quote:
to destroy completely
Coping with 21st-century Islam is going to involve more than hoping all Muslims can be converted by peaceable persuasion.
[ 17. February 2015, 19:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Coping with 21st-century Islam is going to involve more than hoping all Muslims can be converted by peaceable persuasion.
Not disagreeing - except perhaps to point out that a Christian hope based on what God may do alongside us if we faithfully obey him comes with more certainty than a merely secular hope.
Also some of the 'more' involved will be sorting out the proper position on Christians-and-the-state so as to present a better alternative to Islam rather than the too-much-like-Islam mirror image of 'Constantinianism' with its superficial attractiveness but massive practical problems.
And again;
quote:
The first definition Google offers for "eradicate" is
quote:
to destroy completely
OK, a Muslim turned into a Christian is not actually annihilated - but he is certainly 'destroyed completely' as a Muslim; and if that is achieved on a sufficient scale, Islam will be eradicated, surely! OK, that may be a big ask and it may take many years, but I can't see why it should be ruled out as an aspiration (and an aspiration with NT backing, I'd suggest).
Oxymoronic? Well a bit paradoxical I guess, but what is the problem in aiming at peaceable eradication of Islam rather than fighting a Crusade/Christian-jihad with the physical weapons Paul says we aren't to use?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To the first sentence, yes that is the logical conclusion. Don't blame me, blame Muhammad for setting it up as that kind of religion in the first place.
Conversely. If over a billion people on this planet were actually really violent (or even a good fraction of them) then the world would be in a much much much worse state than it is (and would have been in a much worse state over the last 1000 years).
So I don't actually believe the initial premise.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
what is the problem in aiming at peaceable eradication of Islam
The problem is firstly, that "eradication", to my mind at least, suggests an essentially aggressive mindset that I just can't identify with.
I think we are to aim at seeking the Kingdom, and I note once again that for now at least, the Kingdom has good fish, bad fish, wheat and tares, and a whole lot of stuff about meekness and humility.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Only Islam can reform Islam. It has NOTHING to do with us. The West. And Christianity. Christianity's duty is to SUBMIT to Islam. To eradicate it by subverting it with love ONLY. To count it greater. To respect it, honour it, protect it. To confront it is to lose, especially by winning, What kind of monsters would we have to become to annihilate it?
And Eutychus. A most audaciously subtle and original point about Paul there. But ultimately a failed analogy for me. It was Paul's own heart that was hard. Or at least pragmatic in the way I used to argue that God's was.
And you're right, we need a whole new thread on that.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re responses to my post on forcing God's hand:
I don't think that most of them (Muslim or Christian) are consciously trying to do that. But that's what it comes down to.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Only Islam can reform Islam. It has NOTHING to do with us. The West.
I agree that ultimately Islam can only be reformed from the inside, but not that this has nothing to do with 'us'.
'We' can, by contributing to the debate and in some cases by action, act to nurture an environment that gives Islam room to reform - or not.
France's Muslim community has long been stigmatised in many ways. It comes as little surprise that alienation finds people identifying with it as an alienated community and thus radicalizing.
As I understand it, the thinking behind secularity as expounded by Christians like Williams is that, Adam Smith-like, space is created in which religious beliefs can freely compete.
That is certainly not the prevailing case in France's current secular approach, which is steeped in secularism i.e. a denial of religion in the public space altogether. Muslims suffer more than most other faiths in this respect.
The Charlie Hebdo attacks have served to call the prevailing French approach into question and, I think, given Christians a window of opportunity in which to pursue the right kind of secularity, first and foremost for Islam just now, but by extension, for all other faiths, including Christianity.
So for all its faults, I think the secular state, properly understood, represents a valid instrument with which Christians can pursue the kind of attitude you talk about ("respect... honour... protect" - although I think I'd draw the line at "submitting" to Islam...).
I really don't see much danger here in France of the state falling into Constantinianism. I see much more scope for groups that reject the state as a legitimate instrument through which these values can be pursued ending up seeking to "annihilate" rival religions by other more violent means, whether in terms of actual actions or in terms of discourse that translates into rather nasty political choices like the Front National.
[ 18. February 2015, 05:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems to me that it is totally unrealistic to imagine that Christianity can 'outcompete' Islam in the the evolution of ideas. As far as I can establish, the numbers of conversions from Islam to Christianity (in the West) are around the same as those from Christianity to Islam.
If Christianity is so great, why has it failed to make much inroads into Islam in 1500 years? If Anabaptist theology is such a great contribution, why is it still a minority view even within the whole of Christianity?
And if Anabaptism hasn't managed to do much to Islam in 500 years, why would anyone believe that it will in the future?
Secondly, I'm not even sure it is desirable to want to destroy Islam.
Thirdly, even if I did, I think the language used here by Steve Langton is extremely misguided and misjudged. Such sentiments would be unwelcome from Islamists (never mind all the other religious people one might disagree with from a missionary faith), why are they suddenly acceptable when you say them, Steve?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Wild idea:
Treat Muslims, and people of other faiths, and of none as equals. Have compassion on them as fellow journeyers, trying to get through life. Don't try to convert them. Don't try to destroy their beliefs. Just be a good neighbor.
I'm a universalist, so I'm not worried about them going to hell or missing out on Christianity. But if they were in danger, ISTM more good would be done by simply, quietly treating them well, without any agendas. If they're treated well and they see something good in our lives, they might be interested in hearing about Christianity. But if we don't treat them well, if there isn't anything good standing out in our lives, why in the world *would* they become Christians???
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there are grades and sliding-scales of dualism and binariness ... and all of us fall somewhere or other along that continuum irrespective of what branch of Christianity or tradition we come from or represent.
As far as Anabaptism goes, its 'mark' is set somewhere further towards the more binary and dualistic end - although I believe there to be sufficient latitude within the tradition for it to slide up and down the scale to some extent or other - depending on what the issues are.
Steve may not like me saying this, but the sense I pick up from his posts is that of a very 'fixed' world-view with a them-and-us, saints and sinners, good guys and bad guys view of the world.
If it were to be compared to a Hollywood film, it would be rather like a 1950s Western - the good guys (Anabaptists) in white hats, the bad guys (almost everyone else) in black hats.
Of course, Anabaptism isn't the only Christian tradition that does this - one could suggest that the RC and Orthodox views of themselves as the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and everyone else as somehow 'lacking' is part and parcel of the same tendency.
It just depends on where we draw the boundary lines.
So, for Steve, someone like Cromwell is wrong, but not as wrong as Charles I ... whereas the stance I'd take would be that the pair of them had their good, bad and indifferent points. That whilst Charles I was wrong on particular issues, so Cromwell was wrong on others - and vice versa.
I'd imagine Steve would agree with that to some extent, so I'm not out to 'misrepresent' what he's advocating here. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that Steve's view is completely black-and-white, there are shades of grey in there of course, as there is with almost every other view that we might consider.
I get as irritated by 'King Charles, King and Martyr' type Anglicans just as much as I do by full-on Puritans.
'We cannot revive old factions
We cannot restore old policies
Or follow an antique drum.'
T S Eliot, Little Gidding
As for why Anabaptism remains a minority position within Christianity as a whole ... I'm not sure its influence has been minimal. Far from it. The early Anabaptists and some of the other radicals of the Reformation and the later Commonwealth period pioneered freedoms and stances that we all of us tend to take for granted today ... freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly and so on.
I think we have to acknowledge our debt to them in plenty of respects.
I think the issue that keeps coming up whenever we discuss these things with Steve is that his position is so idealistic - and there's nothing wrong with that - that it is difficult for him - or anyone else - to articulate.
Who was it who said that Christianity hasn't even been 'tried out' yet?
It's all very well to say that if we lived out the Sermon on the Mount and love thy neighbour as thyself then the world would be transformed ... and yes, I believe that if we did live like that then the world would be a better place.
We live between the now and the not yet - the Kingdom is among us and also yet to come.
In the meantime, it behoves us to get on with thigns and try to live the Gospel ... to overcome evil with good.
I can see what Steve is trying to say, that if we live such good lives among the heathen, as it were, they will see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven ...
As far as Islam goes, does that mean Muslims abandoning their faith and converting to Christianity?
Of course, on one level that would quite something - and I'm sure Muslims would say the same in reverse - they'd be chuffed if Christians were convert en masse to Islam.
But let's get real. That ain't going to happen either way. I can no more see vast swathes of Muslims converting to Christianity than I can whole swathes of Christians abandoning their faith and adopting Islam.
Sure, there will be trickles of converts going in both directions - I think we can see that already.
We'll also see plenty of both Christians and Muslims becoming more secularised and indifferent to matters of faith too. That we can also see.
So, what then are we to aim for? Rather than straining for an over-realised eschatological approach - an 'over-egged' one, to use a term that Eutychus dislikes ... sorry - I would have thought that the platform Eutychus describes would be the one to find a place on which to stand.
As he says, there's a window of opportunity in France at the moment as there are some doubts as to the efficacy of its secularist stance. I hope and pray that Christians like Eutychus would be able to stand on that platform and articulate a better way - a third way if you like.
It's often been said that the Christian churches can oscillate between 'assimilation' (with the world and its values) on the one hand and 'tribalism' on the other - where it abandons the public arena and withdraws into sectarian holy huddles of no use to either man nor beast ...
There is a better way.
It's not to be found in a kind of lowest-common denominator 'state' or cultural Christianity - although these things may have some value in creating an atmosphere and forum - nor, I submit, is it to be found in the kind of world-abandoning withdrawal of the pietistic sect.
There's a lot of talk of Deep Church at the moment ... and that's going to be the topic of my Lenten reading and study this year.
How all this works out in practice is hard to articulate - but we have to start somewhere and at the risk of embarrassing him, Eutychus gets my vote on this one ...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I didn't actually say it did =Islam! I just quoted it as a rather obvious example of how Christians DON'T (or at any rate shouldn't) behave.
Strangely, ISIS is also a rather obvious example of how Muslims DON'T (or at any rate shouldn't) behave.
Or is this simply a matter of "Islam is bad and wrong, and should go away; Christianity is true, no matter what we do"?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes, Christians ate the Muslims they burned in the First Crusade.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the problems with Arab secularism - apart from becoming very corrupt - was that it tended to ignore the rural and urban poor, who tended to support various Islamist parties.
In many cases because the secular regimes had removed or co-opted all secular competitors - which meant that more space opened up for religious groups via the offering of some basic social services etc, and so they became the only functional opposition.
Plus the Western support for Saudi Arabia hasn't helped - as they have kept stability by exporting instability.
Yes, it's often said that there has been a huge political vacuum in the Arab world, as the old secularists ruthlessly persecuted opposition groups. In Iraq, for example, the left were basically wiped out.
The Islamists hung on, partly because of their support from the urban and rural poor, and also, as you say, because of their basic welfare programmes in many areas.
After that, we have had a perfect storm - the massive violence of the old secularist rulers (witness Assad dropping barrel bombs on civilian areas); the semi-psychotic violence introduced by the West (shock and awe, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, drone-strikes); and latterly, the semi-psychotic violence of IS.
It's a long way from Nasser's 'secular pan-Arab socialism', yet in some ways, I blame the secularists most of all, as they began to destroy their own society, and turned on their own people, so that they have been left with chaos and civil war. They also left secularism as a kind of stinking dead dog on the Arab street.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
By the way Golden Key, your penultimate comment.
Perfect.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another interesting point, is that people working on the ground to help fight IS, are probably not talking in terms of violent Islam. I mean, for example, those people working to turn the Sunni tribes away from IS, back to some kind of reconciliation with Baghdad (and indirectly, the West). Or if not that, at least back to their own autonomy, not relying on IS.
Of course, those Sunni tribes themselves are quite ready to use violence to defend their interests - for example, some of them fought against Al Qaeda, and drove them out at the point of a gun.
Is this Islamic violence? The question is rhetorical, by the way.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
just got home from a day out to find a lot of stuff here on the thread waiting for me; hopefully a fairly considered view tomorrow, rather than an instant and perhaps not well-thought-out response.
I do want to comment on something back up-thread where Eutychus and Gamaliel said similar things;
I am NOT saying that many people Shipboard are 'Constantinians' - though there are certainly a few, for example one who on another thread made a comment about 'Convert the king, convert the kingdom'.
I am saying the following (inter alia);
First, that 'Constantinianism' in various degrees remains a significant ongoing problem in the world outside the Ship. Sometimes it is very emphatic, sometimes rather incoherent, but it is there, it's a real problem, and it needs discussing both in terms of its effects among Christians and because it affects how others view Christianity - in the current time particularly Muslims, but also atheists/agnostics many of whose 'objections to Christianity' are actually in reality 'objections to the past and present behaviour of Christendom'. Just because most people Shipboard may have 'moved on' doesn't mean it's gone away in a wider context.
Secondly, most on the Ship may have moved on - but to what? It seems to me all too often that Christians have moved on from the worst of Christendom but in a rather incoherent way that owes more to secular liberalism than to Christian/biblical teaching on the issues in question. Often this is done in a way that suggests the bad side of Christendom is original Christianity which our nice modern liberals have somehow 'improved'. Whereas I am trying to assert that there is an NT or 'original Christian' alternative to 'Constantinianism/Christendom' which Christians should positively follow.
This is in some ways a tangent to the thread; I'm trying by this statement to avoid further unnecessary tangents by clarifying my position, since Gamaliel and Eutychus seem to have misunderstood it, so that we can concentrate on the proper issues of the thread.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Steve, they haven't misunderstood.
What your looking for in the Bible, the NT, the gospels, isn't there except by disposition.
It certainly isn't there beyond the example of Christ as Acts 5 & 12 and Romans 13 and Revelation demonstrates.
And it ISN'T clear in Christ's threatening words.
And I'm a pacifist all but universalist because of my disposition toward Christ's overall and above all behavioural example, despite the odd threat.
And I smile in His presence as I say that. At my audacity. We'll see.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
your?! Shoot me in the face someone.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Helpfully throws lemon meringue pie in Martin's face.}
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You might think the tangents are unnecessary, Steve Langton, but I'm not sure I do. I can't speak for Eutychus but I would imagine he doesn't either, otherwise he wouldn't interject in a similar way to how I have done.
You accuse me of misunderstanding your position. I might equally say the same in reverse. I'm not entirely sure you understand my objections.
But as we only have one another's written words to go on, I'm prepared to let that slide.
I can see the parallels you are drawing between 'Constantinian' Christianity and Islam - but one might equally draw comparisons and parallels between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.
Not so much on the violent aspects - although some forms of Christian fundamentalism can incline towards violence - but on the adoption of a rather one-size-fits all reductionist view of the world.
That's solely the point I'm making.
The more reductionist we are the greater the scope for problems.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile, custard pies in everyone's faces all round ... then we can soberly get on with Lent ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And no, I'm not a theological liberal - and nor are some of the other Shipmates who have taken issue with some of your points, Steve.
Just thought I ought to clarify that.
There's more than one way to skin a cat and I'm suggesting that there are more nuanced ways than a kind of full-on 'secularised' liberalism on the one hand and a kind of pietistic or reductionist sectarianism on the other.
There are not just two choices. It's not that binary.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin 60;
quote:
Steve, they haven't misunderstood.
What your looking for in the Bible, the NT, the gospels, isn't there except by disposition.
It certainly isn't there beyond the example of Christ as Acts 5 & 12 and Romans 13 and Revelation demonstrates.
And it ISN'T clear in Christ's threatening words.
Ah, right, you're struggling with the idea that God can be a just God who judges sin and yet tells his church to be peaceable.
God's love is not slushy sentimentality which will let evil and untruth get away with it forever. God's love is a deep caring which is rightly indignant at evil and positively responds to it.
Because of that deep caring, God doesn't want us to suffer the natural consequences of our sinfulness and has offered a forgiveness which takes sin and its cost seriously. That forgiveness involves not God arbitrarily punishing Jesus for our sins, as 'PSA' theory can imply, but 'God in Christ' lovingly taking those consequences on himself.
I'm not going to go booklength here on all the implications of that. But the gospel is definitely a message that God cares about human sin and that nobody just 'gets away with it'. To present it otherwise sounds really nice and warm and fuzzy but if you think deeper that view also basically means a God who doesn't care, who is appallingly indifferent to sin.
The NT point is that in an unbelieving world Christians are to spread the gospel peaceably; we are not charged with doing the judgement ourselves, as both 'Constantinian' Christians and 'religious-state' religions like Islam think should be done, we are specifically told to leave that to God.
Instead of taking over the state and being involved in its inevitable use of at least force if not outright 'violence', we are told to form a different community outside that framework, a community without worldly power, a community which is international and therefore neutral in the world's wars, and we are told to call people out from the world into a 'kingdom not of this world'.
And that teaching, I submit, very much IS in the Bible. The alternative, whether in the form of 'Christendom' or 'Islamic State', of compelling people by use of worldly power, is not 'fit for purpose' in terms of leading people to true reconciliation with God and free acceptance of his kingship in their lives. That kind of coercion simply doesn't do the job.
The balance involved in this is not easy to keep - but we must come at it from that understanding that as Christians we are 'resident aliens' whose job is to preach God's reconciliation.
And I repeat - Romans 13 is in that context; it's not a prescription for Christian rule, and to try and apply it to a so-called 'Christian country' in a 'Constantinian' context is to distort it. It is (especially when read in the full context of also Romans 12 and of the wider NT including I Peter), advice on how to relate to a non-Christian government which we are NOT meant to control, but which we can be sure is nevertheless under God's providential control.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
PS - my last was x-posted with Gamaliel's comments. Back later....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies for the tangent, but could not God's 'providential control' involve Christians becoming involved in government and the political process?
You see, this is where the binariness and other-worldiness comes in ...
What are you saying here?
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I repeat my earlier point, nobody, but nobody on these boards that I can see - no matter how 'Constantinian' you take them to be - is advocating religious coercion or compulsion.
Yes, that certainly existed within Christendom at one time.
I'm not aware of anywhere where it still does. I'll certainly accept that certain traditions and churches can be more Erastian that both you and I would like them to be ... but that's another issue.
I'm not sure where this 'original' Christianity you're talking about actually happens to be. Whatever tradition we are involved in we've all had 2,000 years of development to draw on ... not to mention however long it specifically happens to be since our particular tradition - whether Reformed, radical reformed, RC, Anglican, Orthodox or whatever else - developed.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's fun that this thread has turned into 'Christianity and violence'. After all, it is a Christian forum! Islam - well, who knows.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
What I'm saying is that the appropriate Christian involvement is to do what God has told us to do and not kid ourselves that we 'know better' and should do something else.
When we so kid ourselves, as Constantine and Theodosius did, it tends not to end well for anyone. It harms the world instead of contributing to saving the world, it harms the Church which becomes distorted in all kinds of ways, and it harms Jesus by distorting his reputation and confusing his intentions which the Church is supposed to be carrying out.
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
It's fun that this thread has turned into 'Christianity and violence'. After all, it is a Christian forum! Islam - well, who knows.
I do see the irony; the problem, of course, is that the temptation to avoid God's way and do our own 'easier' thing applies to Christians as well as Muslims. It is also a general problem affecting many religions. The difference which I'm pointing out is that from the original teaching of the NT, Christians should know better. Islam had an at best confused beginning which makes it difficult for them to know better; that they depart from the NT at this point demonstrates that they are not truly the successors of Christianity that they would claim to be....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I repeat my earlier point, nobody, but nobody on these boards that I can see - no matter how 'Constantinian' you take them to be - is advocating religious coercion or compulsion.
Again, I have seen a few; my point is that
First, as I said above, Constantinianism and its analogues in other religions are still alive and well off the Ship, and they won't go away just because it's ignored as not happening on the Ship, and
Second, as Christians we shouldn't be rejecting coercion etc just because to do so is a warm and fuzzy attitude; we should be rejecting those because that's what Jesus and the Apostles taught and because we've made the effort to know what they said and to understand it, and to positively follow the Jesus alternative. That is, our approach should be based on following Jesus; which in turn means following the NT.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ah, right, you're struggling with the idea that God can be a just God who judges sin and yet tells his church to be peaceable.
Ah, right you're struggling with the reality that God is a child-murdering, genocidal, hypocritical, vacillating, passive aggressive bastard who sets up his creations for suffering and psychologically tortures his favourites.
There are some sick and twisted directions for violence in the bible. Check.
Jesus confirms he does not supplant the OT. Check.
The bible is a continuous work and all this "but Jesus" stuff is sophistry.
Now, one can take the route that the whole work is contextual and interpretive, but that is the same thing the rest of us are saying about the Quran.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Neat stuff, lilBuddha.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So what if someone were to tell you that they believed God was 'calling' them to political involvement in some way? Would you say that you 'knew the mind of Christ' better than they did themselves?
I can think of some more Erastian Shipmates here but none that conform completely to your 'Constantinian' stereotype. Unless I am missing something I suspect it's in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That it's ok for God to somehow providentially and sovereignly govern and direct human affairs in some kind of unseen, behind the scenes way ... but it isn't alright for Him to do so by actually having Christians - as agents of the Kingdom - involved in these things?
What I'm saying is that the appropriate Christian involvement is to do what God has told us to do and not kid ourselves that we 'know better' and should do something else.
Steve - in the stories in the NT featuring the conversion of various people who wielded the sword of Romans 13 (Cornelius, the jailer at Phillipi etc), do you have any indication that they actually gave up doing what they were doing, or any indication that they were called to do so?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Jesus confirms he does not supplant the OT. Check.
The bible is a continuous work and all this "but Jesus" stuff is sophistry.
Jesus does not 'supplant' the OT; he does FULFIL it, which makes a considerable difference. The Bible is indeed a continuous work; and it develops towards that fulfilment. In a world with developing history, 'but Jesus...' is a great deal more than sophistry.
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Now, one can take the route that the whole work is contextual and interpretive, but that is the same thing the rest of us are saying about the Quran.
Yes, contextual, interpretive, whatever - but note that in the NT, the interpretation/contextualisation is being done by God who raised Jesus from the dead, not just by human self-interest; and also by a Jesus who gives us some reason to doubt your view of God.
And as for the Quran, it claims to be a follow-up and supposed improvement on Jesus, yet goes massively backwards on the principles from Jesus that give us a foundation of peace, so that peace-desiring modern Muslims have to invent a whole new interpretation/contextualisation to achieve that peace in Islamic terms, as Muhammad's/the Quran's teaching has effectively deprived them of the teaching of Jesus on the issue. In this case comparing Bible to Quran is really NOT the 'same thing'.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So what if someone were to tell you that they believed God was 'calling' them to political involvement in some way? Would you say that you 'knew the mind of Christ' better than they did themselves?
I can think of some more Erastian Shipmates here but none that conform completely to your 'Constantinian' stereotype. Unless I am missing something I suspect it's in the eye of the beholder.
To answer the last first again (very NT, that!), I don't have a "'Constantinian' stereotype". The problems Constantine/Theodosius started have over the centuries taken many and varied forms but there are common factors.
But I'd also point out that in this particular thread I've mostly avoided using the word 'Constantinian' till others were using it so freely it was difficult to avoid. I concentrated rather on the notion of 'Christendom' in contrast to its 'twin' of an Islamic state (and in this case it's not the good twin and the evil twin, both twins are decidedly problematic even though well-meaning).
I wanted to make the point that the violence of Islam and of Christendom are similar and come from the same kind of thinking, and in particular the idea of a 'religious state' built into Islam from the beginning, but in Christianity clearly a later imposition. I wanted to contrast both with the NT teaching to give actually a quite nuanced and sophisticated
view of the Islam/violence connection.
I also tried purposely to avoid the word 'Anabaptist' in describing my views, and concentrate on simply pointing to the biblical foundations. In fact I may be wrong but I'm not sure I've personally used the word yet, though others like Eutychus have brought it in.... I wanted if possible to avoid the limitations of the label and the baggage it might bring with it, and just get at the foundational ideas.
As regards your political intentions, I'm honestly somewhat uncertain. I and other modern Anabaptists do recognise that a plural democratic state is not quite the same as an old style Empire or kingdom; though perhaps we recognise as others don't that coercion by a democracy is still coercion, and that Christians may still need to 'obey God rather than men' (though not militarily rebel). Ideally, I'd like to see the CofE establishment cleared up so that at least Christians going into politics are in a properly pluralist situation rather than a still nominally 'Christian' country. The history of Anglican establishment, and that it is still nominally there, does distort this kind of issue.
May I suggest that that's matter for another thread specifically on the place of Christians in the democratic/modern state. We are as I understand in basic agreement here even though you are currently connected to an Anglican church.
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries; and I also know that in those situations there was a simple two-way choice, without the confusing third alternative provided by a 'Christian state'.
I'm also aware that these days among Mennonites, no longer needing to be quite so separate due to persecution, and being more evangelistic, there are cases of soldiers joining the Mennonites and at least being given room/breathing-space to work out the answers as their situation develops. Some such was probably also the case for the early church?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've certainly heard it said that Islam can't really go back on being 'political' - in the broader sense - without somehow losing its 'heart' ...
So, in that sense, and if this is the case, then it is always going to be more politically engaged than, say, more quietist forms of Christianity are.
Whether this means it's necessarily more violent is a different point, I'd suggest. Involvement in the murk and grime of politics may well corrupt, but I don't see how it always necessitates some kind of violent response.
Then there are always the more 'mystical' elements within Islam - such as Sufism, which I know is very much a minority thing but it is there nevertheless.
I'd agree that comparing the Bible and Quran isn't comparing 'like with like' ... but the point about context and interpretation applies equally to both.
The NT didn't simply 'plop' down ready-made from heaven like Joseph Smith's tablets ...
Nor is a high view of scriptural inspiration necessarily the same as the approach adopted by conservative Muslims - that the Quran is nothing other than the very words of God dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel.
I would by no means defend or condone some of the actions of a Constantine, a Justinian or any of the other Christianised Roman Emperors - but I would place their actions in some kind of historic context rather than entering into some kind of moral judgement based on post-Enlightenment principles. They were of their time, just like we are of ours.
Besides, we can't turn back the clock and act as if Constantine and Christendom had never happened.
I think it's axiomatic, though, that Christendom has had its day and we're unlikely ever to see the social conditions which led to is development ever again.
How we go about creating 'plausibility structures' and operating 'as church' in a post-Christendom paradigm does intrigue and exercise me, though. Because whatever our views on these things we're all heading in the same direction - to an increasingly post-Christian and secularised future.
In that context, withdrawal from the public domain doesn't strike me as an option. I don't see anything to be gained from withdrawing from the public arena into a completely privatised form of faith.
That doesn't mean that I want to see some kind of resurgence of the 'religious right' or anything of that kind - I'd far rather see a resurgence of the religious left ...
Nor do I believe that comparisons between Christianity and Islam are particularly helpful under the terms in which they've largely been framed here on this thread ...
I'd say that the 'darker' aspects of both share certain characteristics - but then, the darker side of human nature in general does. Whatever faith or persuasion we adopt, we are all still people and we all still make mistakes.
More positively, I think there is common ground that both Christians and Muslims can co-operate on. I'd rather consider those than whether one or other belief system is intrinsically violent.
That's not to sell-out to liberalism or adopt a wishy-washy set of vaguely do-gooder principles based loosely on the Judeo-Christian tradition. No, I believe it's possible to walk and to work within the traditional understanding of orthodox, creedal Christianity within the context of a more pluralist society.
For all its faults and imperfections - and every system has those - I think the US model has shown that it's possible for faith to thrive in a pluralistic environment ... although there is the issue of a steady decline in church attendance etc there ...
It might appear like there's a tight-rope at times between the vaguest of vague liberalism and the more full-on types of literalism and fundamentalism - but this is the way to walk, it seems to me.
We will teeter at times and sometimes tumble from the rope onto one side or the other - but this is the rope we have to walk, I believe.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Steve Langton wrote:- quote:
I'm also aware that these days among Mennonites, no longer needing to be quite so separate due to persecution, and being more evangelistic, there are cases of soldiers joining the Mennonites and at least being given room/breathing-space to work out the answers as their situation develops. Some such was probably also the case for the early church?
I'm speaking from memory here, so please make allowances for that. But as I recall, I don't think you were allowed to be a full baptised member of the early church if you were in a military occupation. Though back then they had a much higher view of the catechumenate which could last for several years, and I think you could join that. Presumably they anticipated you would change your way of life as a result of what you learned. Was this perhaps what you were thinking about, Steve?
It all changed later of course.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, I cross-posted with Steven Langton ...
To clarify: I wasn't necessarily thinking of myself when I mentioned Christians feeling 'called' to engage with politics. I was talking in more general terms.
I don't tend to use that kind of language - 'I feel called to this ... I feel called to that ...' but I wouldn't criticise anyone who did - unless they were being annoyingly 'illuminist' about it ...
For me, it's more a sense of 'whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might ...' as well as the conviction that Christians ought to be involved in every aspect of life - be it sport, the arts, politics, health or whatever else.
The issue of Establishment in terms of the privileged status of the Anglican Church here in England (but not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) is a different one - I don't see how that impinges at all on the kind of local town/borough council politics that I'm looking to be involved in.
Nor, as has exhaustively been argued on other threads, do I see Establishment as any real threat or hindrance to religious pluralism ... and I say that as someone who has been involved with an independent 'house-church' network and with the Baptists. Other than certain dorkish and stuck-up Anglican clergy, who undoubtedly exist, I don't see how Anglican Establishment adversely affects any of the other churches or denominations in any real sense ... although I'd certainly say there was room for improvement in some quarters in terms of attitude etc.
Whatever the case, on the level of local 'parish pump' politics it's hardly likely to be an issue.
Anyhow, this is getting away from the main point, which is about Islam ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's right, Honest Ron - there were reservations about admitting soldiers to full communion in the early Church.
I believe I'm right in thinking that there are still certain stipulations about that in the Orthodox Church to this day - if anyone takes someone else's life in battle as a member of the armed forces they are automatically excommunicated until after repentance and confession.
One of the Orthodox Shipmates may be able to shed some light on that.
Of course, from an Anabaptist perspective they shouldn't be serving in the armed forces in the first place ...
Early Christianity was also antagonistic towards gladiatorial combat - although less so towards chariot racing it would seem from the popularity of that sport in Byzantium ... although I have heard it said that the situation in the arenas actually became worse for a time as the Empire became Christianised as there were suddenly more sins and crimes that were deemed worthy of capital punishment ... and those partaking in the bloodier 'games' tended to be condemned criminals ...
I'm not sure whether that's right, though ... I suspect the situation was pretty mixed. From what I can gather, though, the broad and default Patristic position tended towards pacifism - albeit with certain caveats and 'economeia' and so on to reflect messy realities ...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries;
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Holy battle of the tl;dr.
SL,
Way to miss or dance around the point.
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles, I don't know the answers to your question about people like Cornelius and the jailor. I do know broadly that ideas on that developed over the next few centuries;
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
whole lot of irregular verb in his arguments, so good luck.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I would by no means defend or condone some of the actions of a Constantine, a Justinian or any of the other Christianised Roman Emperors - but I would place their actions in some kind of historic context rather than entering into some kind of moral judgement based on post-Enlightenment principles. They were of their time, just like we are of ours.
I do my best to be understanding of those 'Christianised' emperors. But I would point out that in terms of Church/State relations the position they should have taken was not some far future 'post-Enlightenment principles' - the relevant principles were already there in the NT. It's the modern Church that tends to have the problem of acting on such 'post-Enlightenment principles' rather than following the NT.
by chris stiles
quote:
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Where only tradition is available, yes; but ipso facto, I'm not drawing an authoritative conclusion from it to impose on others, as some followers of 'Tradition' would, especially in a case like this where the tradition is negative rather than positive. The Bible remains authoritative.
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
And your alternative?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
just a further point;
by Gamaliel;
quote:
To clarify: I wasn't necessarily thinking of myself when I mentioned Christians feeling 'called' to engage with politics. I was talking in more general terms.
OK, sorry; but today I've been replying in sporadic haste and I connected your comment with your mention of your intention to stand for your local council. I think most of my comments were pretty general anyway.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't struggle at all mate. Ancient human rationalization resulting in stories of sin, judgement, justice, condemnation, damnation, all the nonsense that goes with the myth of redemptive violence, that is no different from that, that allows God to do it while us not, is that. Nonsense. And hypocrisy. On the part of those who can square that circle and God Himself, were He not to be solely revealed in Christ.
For you and me and Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Richard Rohr and Phyllis Tickle etc, etc (MLK, Spurgeon, The Quakers, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Aristides, Tatian) to assert pacifism is an act of faith.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin60;
quote:
all the nonsense that goes with the myth of redemptive violence
For me, the primary image of the atonement is of payment of debt, or more accurately, forgiveness through the creditor footing the bill. That I think is a slightly different thing to that myth of redemptive violence.
Also by Martin 60;
quote:
to assert pacifism is an act of faith.
Agreed; but an act of faith in the teaching of the NT, not just what we might want.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Both Christianity and Islam have peace and violence in their source material. Both Christians and Muslims have drawn from both those sides.
God of the OT is a straight-up bastard. Jesus is God therefore.......?
And your alternative?
Once again, point missed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's no different at all in that we made it all up and compound it since to explain our contingently being and feeling like dirt.
As there is no difference at all in the faith we make up in the teaching of the NT - whatever that is - and what we want.
We don't want to feel like struggling dirt. Whilst knowing that's what we are.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Steve Langton - sure, I understood your points to be pretty general and not specifically addressed at my particular case - so please don't misunderstand me, I wasn't at all irritated by your allusion to my own possible political involvement.
To an extent, I was trying to distance myself from the kind of overly pietistic 'God told me to stand in my local elections' type of approach that one may hear from time to time from more illuminist types.
I think it is pertinent to the topic at hand - because - as I'm sure we'd both agree - God gets dragged into the equation to take the blame or credit for all sorts of things we actually do ourselves ...
On the Constantine thing, without either condemning or condoning, I think his actions are only what we could or should expect from a 4th century ruler. That applies as much to his superstitious belief that God had given him the sign of a cross in the clouds in order to assure him of victory at the Milvian Bridge as much as it does to anything else he got up to - good, bad or indifferent.
My own take would be that the notion of 'signs' and portents arose after the event and were applied retrospectively to give some kind of divine sanction for Constantine's victory.
We can get all prim and Puritanical at this point and see that as quasi-pagan - if not downright pagan - but the fact remains that everyone thought like that in those days - whether Christian or pagan.
In fact, I'd suggest that we can similar dynamics in the pages of the NT itself. Herod being 'struck down by an angel' in Acts 12:23 - http://biblehub.com/acts/12-23.htm
What's all that about? Was it an observable occurence? Did people see a winged seraph?
Or was it some kind of post-mortem rationalisation on the part of the early Christians to account for how their inveterate enemy had suffered an untimely death?
I suspect the latter.
Why? Because, by and large, that's how these things work.
So saying that pacifism and plurality were somehow already enshrined in the pages of the NT in a post-Enlightenment kind of way is anachronistic.
Sure, the balance of the NT is towards love and peace towards all men and I'm as convinced as you are that the way of Christ is the way of peace.
However, to suggest that Constantine or any other ruler or personality from the 4th century was somehow acting 'against' the NT doesn't make a great deal of sense in the context of the time.
It only makes sense if you say, 'Constantine was acting in a way that went against NT teaching as I understand it ...'
Which is what you are doing.
Which is fair enough, provided you realise that's what you are doing.
We cannot disentangle the NT from interpretation of the NT. The NT doesn't 'stand above' interpretation. It's meaning isn't self-evident in and of itself without the whole panoply of interpretative frameworks that we bring to bear.
That in no wise diminishes its status as the word of God. Why should it?
Context, context, context.
The same with the Quran. Even if we accepted, as conservative Muslims do, that the text was dictated verbatim to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel, there would still be the need for interpretation.
At any rate, whatever was good, bad or indifferent about Constantine - and one could argue that the calling of the Council of Nicea was a 'good thing' - others might say otherwise - the fact is we can't turn back the clock and 'de-Constantinise' history.
Where we're at now is at a point where the concept of Christendom is crumbling and we are going to have to salvage things from the ruins - some aspects we may choose to leave beneath the rumble ...
Other elements we may need to burnish and blow off the dust ...
We'll end up with some useful things, some bad things, some indifferent things ... it has ever been thus.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
So in other words, you rely on tradition?
Where only tradition is available, yes; but ipso facto, I'm not drawing an authoritative conclusion from it to impose on others, as some followers of 'Tradition' would, especially in a case like this where the tradition is negative rather than positive. The Bible remains authoritative.
Except that the actual text militates against the principle you propose (and in other cases where a change of life is part of repentance, scripture is quite clear in making this point), so the only positive support you can get from your principle is from extra-biblical sources.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
So saying that pacifism and plurality were somehow already enshrined in the pages of the NT in a post-Enlightenment kind of way is anachronistic.
Except that's NOT what I'm saying; I'm saying that a distinctive Christian view is enshrined in the NT, which is significantly different from the 'post-Enlightenment' stuff which many modern Christians thoughtlessly follow. Starting with it isn't a general call for 'freedom of religion'...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It only makes sense if you say, 'Constantine was acting in a way that went against NT teaching as I understand it ...'
Which is what you are doing.
Which is fair enough, provided you realise that's what you are doing.
We cannot disentangle the NT from interpretation of the NT. The NT doesn't 'stand above' interpretation. It's meaning isn't self-evident in and of itself without the whole panoply of interpretative frameworks that we bring to bear.
That in no wise diminishes its status as the word of God. Why should it?
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
chris stiles, I do see what you mean - but I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
quote:
I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
As far as I can see, you haven't managed to put forward a single practical action that you personally might engage in, with respect either to the actual topic (Islam and violence) or the topic you are trying to impose (dealing with vestigial Constantinianism).
All you can do is assert - or at least imply - the inherent moral and intellectual superiority of your position, without any actual evidentiary basis, and pour scorn on the rest of us.
Every time somebody asks you a direct practical question, you strenuously avoid it by posting walls of the text-based equivalent of hand-waving.
Which is why I have dropped out of this discussion for now.
[ 20. February 2015, 10:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Fine. So instead of just making vague woffly noises about it all being interpretation, how about actually doing some interpretation. At least we might be able to rule some options out.
quote:
I also see that the NT teaching is quite revolutionary and it took a while for the implications to work out.
As far as I can see, you haven't managed to put forward a single practical action that you personally might engage in, with respect either to the actual topic (Islam and violence) or the topic you are trying to impose (dealing with vestigial Constantinianism).
All you can do is assert - or at least imply - the inherent moral and intellectual superiority of your position, without any actual evidentiary basis, and pour scorn on the rest of us.
Every time somebody asks you a direct practical question, you strenuously avoid it by posting walls of the text-based equivalent of hand-waving.
Which is why I have dropped out of this discussion for now.
Well, quite. I have been dismayed by the way in which this thread has been violently wrenched off-topic, towards a discussion of Christian views of state and violence.
Talk about parochialism and narcissism - hopefully it is not characteristic of Christian attitudes to Islam and Muslims. If it is, then we are in worse trouble than I thought.
[ 20. February 2015, 11:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Gamaliel. Superb.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nice of you to say so, Martin, but it's not at all deserved ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
@quetzacoatl - I'm sorry you feel that this thread has become narcissistic and parochial - playing out concerns that are primarily Christian rather than Islamic. I suspect that this was always going to happen given that:
- There are no Muslims contributing to this thread as far as I'm aware.
- We are most of us Christians and therefore inevitably view the world through that particular lens.
- Some of the issues that have cropped up have derived from 'unfinished business' on other threads - particularly, perhaps, those where Steve Langton, Eutychus and others - including myself - have been discussing the relationship between church and state and 'Constantinianism' and so on and forth.
So, apologies for that.
I think, though, that there are parallels to some extent between those kind of discussions and the main one here - which is about Islam and violence - although I fully accept your point and can understand why you have been so 'dismayed' by it.
@Steve Langton - the thing is, all of us are approaching the scriptures as well as anything and everything else from a post-Enlightenment perspective. Even the Orthodox, who didn't experience the Reformation and Counter-Reformation are, of course, aware of these things and they critique the influence of the Enlightenment on Western theological thought.
Evangelicals do too, of course, but we have to remember, as D H Williams observed, that evangelicals are as much children of the Enlightenment as they are grandchildren of the Reformation.
Ok - so Anabaptism predates evangelicalism but its stance both challenges and reflects the Enlightenment and - in some ways - both anticipated and fed into its development. Not that there's anything 'wrong' with that - there is light in the Enlightenment - but, as our Orthodox and RC brothers and sisters remind us, the rejection of tradition which was the love-child of the Reformation could very well lead us astray ...
There's a lot of untangling to do ...
Meanwhile - that's enough about 'in-house' Christian concerns ... on the issue of Islam, it has indeed been suggested that it is - or will be - more difficult for Islam to develop a more privatised, interiorised modus operandi without somehow compromising its own integrity ... I don't know enough about Islam to pontificate or even speculate about that.
I would certainly welcome a more interiorised, privatised form of Islam rather than the most radical, jihadist form - but as has been said, any reforms or re-jigging within Islam is a matter for the Muslims themselves. The fact that not all Muslims are violent jihadists suggests that there are ways of living out 'political Islam' in ways that are not intrinsically violent - unless one believes that ALL or any form of politics are intrinsically violent, of course ...
I think we do have to be aware of inbuilt 'coercion' within any of our communities and political systems - there is always, in any society, some kind of pressure to conform.
If that is what Steve Langton is referring to in terms of the way Anabaptists can perhaps better critique democracy than the rest of us, then perhaps he has a point ...
However, I certainly take issue with his assertion that Christians are 'unthinkingly' imbibing post-Enlightenment principles - many who have done so have certainly thought long and hard about it.
I would also suggest that Steve Langton - like all of us - has also imbibed some of those principles. How can he not have done so living where and when he does? I'm more than happy to put my hand up to that one. Why? Because I acknowledge that I live in a society which has been shaped by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment values against a background of broadly Judeo-Christian ones ... and one could argue that 'Constantinianism' and Christendom supplied some of the glue to bring that about - for better or for worse.
Now, 'as things fall apart, the centre cannot hold' we need to retrieve those things that can best help us as we move forward into post-Christendom and post-Christian times ...
Which is probably matter for another thread rather than this one.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talk about parochialism and narcissism - hopefully it is not characteristic of Christian attitudes to Islam and Muslims. If it is, then we are in worse trouble than I thought.
Well, it was 'wrenched' off track by an assertion on the part of some that there was a qualitative difference between Christianity and Islam in a way in which made violence inherent to Islam in which it wasn't in Christianity.
We are the tail end of arguing about the second point - so maybe we can go back to debating the first.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
But there is. Real Islam is foundationally violent. Real Christianity, in the person of Christ, isn't. Go a step beyond Him and ... it's really violent. And ideally not.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
No. No and No. No again. And yes to the last one.
They are just assertions Martin, I don't think making and countering them really achieves much do you?
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
To return to the original subject of debate: "Is Islam intrinsically violent?"...
I have just read an article written by a Muslim responding to this very question. It is worth reading since, as as been pointed out, there do not appear to be any Muslims contributing to this thread. It might be interesting to interact with the opinions expressed.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Use and misuse of Holy Books again. Personally I'm very glad that a Muslim who is familiar with both biblical and Qu'ranic texts can make such a case as the one quoted in Gracie's link.
The real issue is whether such readings are regarded as normative for Muslims in the standards of behaviour they set. I would like to believe that they could be so regarded, and that mullahs and Islamic scholars would, generally, even overwhelmingly, say so. Also that they would condemn as un-Islamic interpretative approaches which produce more aggressive, more warlike conclusions. But that is a matter for Islam.
I was impressed with this assertion from the article.
quote:
I choose to defend Islam not because I’m embarrassed or want to be politically correct, but because I love my religion. This understanding of Islam is not a “cotton candy” view of my faith, as some may naively suggest. Rather, the verses in this article get to the heart of Islamic belief.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
They are facts mdijon. Elephant in the room, ridden by a naked emperor facts. Not for you I realise, in this game of rhetoric. Muhammad and his God, texts, followers, acolytes, adherents, successors, the faithful, the religion, the history are killers. Jesus wasn't, His God WAS. The religion He founded, the text, the stories, the history, 'us' more so, almost immediately, going through a phase where the first and second circle of followers, as in Peter (and John) and Paul justified violence by God without being direct agents of it.
These things are so. Not debatable. Not questionable. So. Self-asserted. Nowt ter do wi' me.
But not for you in your side of the circle of assertion. That's fine. God bless you. Peace be upon you.
[ 21. February 2015, 09:38: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I don't think you are distinguishing between facts and conclusions. That Muhammed killed people seems very likely to be true. That we conclude a thing is therefore foundationally violent isn't a fact. What we conclude about Muhammed's God rests a lot on whether we believe Muhammed's God was the real God, a version of the real God, imaginary, demonic or the same other entity. None of these views could be described as a fact.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Muhammad's violence is an historical fact. His story of his violent God is also an historical fact. God in Christ, the only God we've ever known, wasn't violent.
Fact.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It's likely that Christ wasn't violent, I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact. It's likely that Muhammed was violent, it's likely that he told stories about a God who supported his violence, but I notice already you are phrasing things differently - the telling of the story is a fact now, not the substance of what he said. To talk about foundational violence implies something rather more strong than simply observing that violence was part of the early story of Islam.
Judaism was equally violent, I wonder how you would react to a description of Christ as "foundationally violent" - since that, afterall, was his culture and scripture that he preached from.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Oi, well done. Most engaging and gracious of you mdijon. Keep it up.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's likely that Christ wasn't violent,
For you. For me He wasn't. Period. Ever. Although I'd like to know what it was like for Him growing up. What he had to experience up to thirty in fact. He would have seen a lot of violence.
quote:
I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact.
Aye, it's a FACT. It's the non-negotiable foundation of our reality. It makes no difference and all the difference.
quote:
It's likely that Muhammed was violent, it's likely that he told stories about a God who supported his violence, but I notice already you are phrasing things differently - the telling of the story is a fact now, not the substance of what he said.
I didn't change. Muhammad was violent. A killer. A mighty warrior. Like his admirable follower half a millennium later, Saladin. Like our mutual mythical spiritual ancestor Abraham. That's unquestionable for me. I have no rational reason to question it until someone gives me one based on the historical, scientific method.
There is no substance to what Muhammad said about God for me bar a man caught up in a powerful story. Like Abraham. Moses. But historical where they are not.
quote:
To talk about foundational violence implies something rather more strong than simply observing that violence was part of the early story of Islam.
Now THAT'S intriguing. How so? For me foundational violence is a given for being human and EVERY story bar one.
quote:
Judaism was equally violent, I wonder how you would react to a description of Christ as "foundationally violent" - since that, afterall, was his culture and scripture that he preached from.
I completely agree and have said everything BUT that explicitly. You've said it for me.
Again, thank you VERY much for persisting in sharpening my iron, friend.
En garde.
[ 21. February 2015, 11:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
I believe he is/was God but that's not a fact.
Aye, it's a FACT. It's the non-negotiable foundation of our reality. It makes no difference and all the difference.
You appear to have confused the Incarnation with the laws of thermodynamics.
Martin, I'm pleased with your (relatively) new political stance, but you are as hard to debate with as ever.
t
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I completely agree and have said everything BUT that explicitly. You've said it for me.
Except for your "bar one" which seems to contradict this. But assuming you meant your agreement then saying that Islam is foundationally violent is, for you, absolutely no different from saying Martin60 is foundationally violent or that Christ is foundationally violent.
Which makes it a meaningless statement - it is a way of making a weasel-worded specific negative statement while keeping up one's sleeve the caveat that the negative statement could be general.
Its a bit like referring to someone as "a rather fallible human being" and then when challenged on whether they are really worse than anyone else saying "oh well we're all rather fallible". This is technically correct but if you make a statement about a specific person you are usually taken to mean something more than indicating a subset of the universal set.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
foundational violence is a given for being human
I think this is a better way of looking at this topic. We can trace it back to Cain and Abel, at least.
Rather than asking "is Islam inherently violent", a better question might be "what are the best ways of mitigating humanity's inherent violence?".
The answers to that are multiple; they might include a state that bears the sword.
They might even entail making a whip of cords at times.
[ 21. February 2015, 11:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They might even entail making a whip of cords at times.
Thanks for the reminder. But is it a fact I wonder? Or a bit of foundation peeping through an incomplete first floor?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not a bad parry, but you're missing the glaring point. And the point beats the blade.
We are 110% bloody AND empathic monkeys. We use empathy to kill. That's why we're the masters of creation. Round here and thank God for the impossibility of space travel.
Jesus was born such. 110% bloody monkey. AND 110% God. That's the ONLY exception there is. The only weasel in the pack. And His divinity could not transcend His enculturation literarily, even psychologically and creedally in many, m.any ways. But it did do it beatifically and by being truly islamic.
I am NOT dissing Islam. I embrace it. ALL of it. I understand it. ALL of it. IS, everything. It's all completely understandable, forgivable, 110% human. Emracable. Embraced, redeemed, forgiven.
And must therefore be submitted to when it comes to it - Eutychus please note - as Martin Luther King submitted to racism.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not a bad parry, but you're missing the glaring point.
It wasn't a parry at all - I'm not playing that game. I'm simply pointing out to you the contradictions in what you said. Some more obscurantist dressing up of a relatively simple rehash of your previous argument is neither here nor there.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Whether it's a fact or a piece of foundation showing through an incomplete first floor, mdijon, we still have to deal with it ...
However we cut it, irrespective of the Jesus Seminar and the Quest for the Historical Jesus and so on, we really only have the Christ of Faith to go on ... which primarily involves the Gospel accounts, of course ...
So, this is where tradition and interpretation come into the equation yet again ...
Even if we air-brush out the whip of cords, we still have to deal with it in some way.
I think Eutychus's point is well made - the problem is the intrinsically human capacity and apparent propensity towards violence - and how we deal with and mitigate that.
This remains an issue whether we are Christian, Muslim or anything else - or - if we are Christians, whether we are so-called 'Constantinian' or so-called 'non-Constantinian' or anything else ...
And yes, as Eutychus indicates, there are likely to be a range of answers and responses - none of them ideal, necessarily, but all of them pragmatic.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whatever mdijon. There's no re-hash. There's only one proposition. One point. So what game are you playing?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'm not playing any games. I'd like to have a discussion, that's all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see anything in your most recent post that isn't simply an assertion that you've made before. I don't see reasoning, an attempt to explain the apparent contradiction I saw, and don't see any attempt to show the train of thoughts. Whatever indeed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye. Your disposition does that. That's the game it plays. It can't be overcome. Externally.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Perhaps comparing Mohammed with Jesus is tripping us up? Moses makes for a better parallel, and Islam does compare them.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mdijon. Come on 'man'. Put up your sword. WHAT contradiction? You know I'm a dumb brute. I see NO contradiction.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However we cut it, irrespective of the Jesus Seminar and the Quest for the Historical Jesus and so on, we really only have the Christ of Faith to go on ... which primarily involves the Gospel accounts, of course ...
So, this is where tradition and interpretation come into the equation yet again ...
Even if we air-brush out the whip of cords, we still have to deal with it in some way.
The three Synoptic gospels do not mention a whip of cords; they only say he drove them out, without specifying how.
John's gospel mentions the whip of cords. Here is the passage. Note that it does not say Jesus hit any human being with the whip of cords; for that matter it does not say he hit any animal. Animals are used to be driven and the crack of a whip behind them is usually enough to make them move. If the animals were driven out, the owners would follow their property.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What about this whipcord: Matt. 10:28 And fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. ?
[ 21. February 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Matt. 10:28 And fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. ?
I always assumed that referred to Satan.
Moo
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Moo: I always assumed that referred to Satan.
Really? In most exegeses I've read, this refers to God. This is also visible in the fact that most translations capitalize the word 'Him'. Having this refer to Satan also would be rather inconsistent with what the Bible says in other places about his role in Hell.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Exactly. Even Love incarnate wasn't, couldn't be, immune from the pragmatic threat of violence.
[ 21. February 2015, 23:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I am NOT dissing Islam. I embrace it. ALL of it. I understand it. ALL of it. IS, everything. It's all completely understandable, forgivable, 110% human. Emracable. Embraced, redeemed, forgiven.
And must therefore be submitted to when it comes to it - Eutychus please note - as Martin Luther King submitted to racism.
I understand you to be referring to what I might term extreme non-violence; to be saying "if IS turn up in my house and start decapitating my family, I will not defend them or myself and welcome our martyrdom as a witness to the Gospel by which we are called to lay down our lives".
That line of thinking works at an individual level, and in some circumstances may scale up ŕ la MLK (although I have yet to get my head properly round the politics of non-violent activism, which is of course not exclusively Christian).
"Extreme non-violence" may apply to us with our "Christian" hats on. But we are also called to be citizens - otherwise we would have to leave the world. I'm not sure you can apply the same thinking to the nation states in which we find ourselves enmeshed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, as I have applauded you for doing so and continue to. A most Pauline position.
And yes, like the priest in Michener's The Source, I probably wrongly recall, who encounters a North Korean soldier shooting women and child refuges, I hope I would have the courage to pick up the rifle abandoned at my feet and shoot him dead. The trouble is I know easily I would AND elate over it.
God nods at it all.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Here's one contradiction;
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For me foundational violence is a given for being human and EVERY story bar one....
quote:
Judaism was equally violent, I wonder how you would react to a description of Christ as "foundationally violent" - since that, afterall, was his culture and scripture that he preached from.
I completely agree and have said everything BUT that explicitly. You've said it for me.
It isn't bar one. All the stories are foundationally violent.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I am NOT dissing Islam....
And must therefore be submitted to when it comes to it - Eutychus please note - as Martin Luther King submitted to racism.
You're not dissing it except to liken it to racism?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
All exclusivism is wrong.
There is NO contradiction.
Jesus didn't teach violence. Regardless of His enculturation.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Moo: I always assumed that referred to Satan.
Really? In most exegeses I've read, this refers to God. This is also visible in the fact that most translations capitalize the word 'Him'. Having this refer to Satan also would be rather inconsistent with what the Bible says in other places about his role in Hell.
I would view the interpretation of the passage as referring to Satan as at least a distinct possibility. N.T. Wright in one of his books ('Jesus and the Victory of God'?) interprets the passage in this way.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Then he's wrong.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Maybe not. Care to discuss? (Ditto for both posts)
[ 22. February 2015, 09:33: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What's discuss? Apart from how he gets to be wrong? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jack o' the Green: I would view the interpretation of the passage as referring to Satan as at least a distinct possibility. N.T. Wright in one of his books ('Jesus and the Victory of God'?) interprets the passage in this way.
Thanks for pointing me to Wright's position, I found a blog post about it. Yes, I guess gramatically it's a possibility that it refers to Satan, but it seems to be very much a minority position. The blog article admits that. Just for fun, I searched dozens of commentaries for that verse yesterday, and they all have it referring to God.
Having it refer to God is also consistent with what the Bible says in other places. I don't think it ever says we should fear Satan, but it tels us to fear God numerous times (fear doesn't just mean 'being afraid' here). Also, I don't think Satan is ever portrayed as the one who tortures souls in Hell (that seems like a Medieval image to me). Instead, he and his demons will be thrown in Hell to burn there.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I hope you don't mind that I opened a thread in Kerygmania about this. I'm interested in hearing opinions on this from a Kerygmaniacal viewpoint.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So LeRoc, what do you disagree with me about on this thread, as you say elsewhere?
You agree with me that Tom Wright is wrong, that he fails the dialectical test, his proposition doesn't even equal the obvious understanding synthesis in rhetorical terms within an antithesis; it doesn't have the either the logos, ethos or pathos, let alone have superiority over it forcing a new synthesis.
So you must disagree with my sole proposition that despite all cultural foundation without exception and virtually all interpretation - INCLUDING His - justifying violence, Jesus doesn't justify it by example.
Which part? That ALL significant religions bar NONE are founded on the myth of redemptive violence? Or that Jesus didn't de facto repudiate that? That in His case, despite the myth being there, He NEVER acted congruently upon it? NEVER enjoined it? He was ALWAYS orthogonal to it?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
To be honest, I don't always understand you well enough to determine whether I disagree with you (often I think I do), but I don't think that you can cite Matthew 10:28 to show that Jesus was endorsing redemptive violence (or however you formulate it). The way I read Matthew 10:26–31 is very much like Jesus is trying to soothe the disciples' nerves:- You are afraid that people will kill you (26)
- But they can't really hurt you. The only One who could is God (27)
- And He has your best interests in mind (28–31).
I'm not saying that this is the only possible interpretation of these verses, I'm just trying to show that they can be read in a non-violent way.
But I've become Kerygmaniacal again.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ah. Thank you LeRoc. That IS interesting. To me there is no question that Jesus is threatening the twelve and by extension us, which conservatives beat themselves up with or worse, try and proclaim that 'The kingdom of heaven has come near' as He commanded.
I feel He was being pragmatic, using psychology to motivate them.
Did He believe what He said? Well, yes, minimally God IS capable of annihilating us. Going out of His way to. Waking us up from oblivion and then consuming us to psychological and then physical ash. It's all a bit hyperbolic though, I'd agree.
And no, I don't believe He believed it for a moment. But He said it for effect: if you're going to be afraid, be more afraid of ME than the opposition.
Pretty basic Sar'nt Major motivation.
Soooooo, do you think He never really meant the hard things He said? That He didn't believe in God the Killer and that He HAD to fulfil the dread prophecies for our sake?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Frankly, we seem to be saying the same thing now. I'm not sure of where the difference of opinion between us lies at this moment.
Note that Jesus says that God can finish us off, not that he will. There is a difference here. "I could kill you but I have your best interests in mind" might sound like a threat when coming from the mouth of a maffioso, but I don't think this is what Jesus is going for here.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeahhh. So what was He going for? For me, if it quacks like a threat, it's a threat, even if it's an "I'm only kidding really guys, if you call me on it, I won't torment you to death if you let me down." kind of duck. As in ALL of the culturally appropriate nasty hard parables and teachings and the hard nasty allegory.
Ah HA! Just talked me way round to agreeing with you! Although I don't know what you could mean by reaching for what He was going for.
His hard sayings were from and for a hard culture. To soften it. They have NOTHING to do with how Judgement works out, which is for universal good: that all will be well for ALL, which Julian DIDN'T believe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I wonder if this thread gives some insight into the mind-set of some Western politicians, such as Bush and Blair. The Christian chauvinism and narcissism shown here, may well infect politicians, even those not avowedly Christian.
This might lead them to treat Middle Eastern countries and other Islamic countries likewise, as alien, and Other, and viewed irrevocably through a Christian prism. God help us all indeed, if this is the case.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'd agree completely q if you could point any out?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
A major problem I am having right now is that this thread is about Islam and Violence. It's a subject I am interested in understanding better. I have valued the input of shipmates from different perspectives.
But right now that's on hold due to this excursion that quetzalcoatl refers to. Side-alleys and tangents are to be expected, but surely we have overcooked this one by now?
This is simply a personal plea, from me alone, that we might soon find our way back to the topic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If I was in an English-speaking country I would grab one of my muslim acquaintances and try and persuade them to join the Ship and the discussion.
Failing that, the article referenced in this post looks like a good place to resume on-topic discussion.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I tried that, deliberately, in response to Gracie's post and was hoping for some follow up. I thought the article she linked was thought-provoking and well intentioned.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Yes, that was an interesting article.
Let me try and pick things up from there. I wasn't really aware of the fact (and hadn't really thought about it), but IS is not primarily justifying its actions in Islam. Here is a short article by Fawaz Gerges from last year which mentions that in passing.
But anyway, I've long been uneasy about taking people's ascription of things at face value when the claim is that they are acting "in the name of" some cause or other. Whilst it may be right in some cases, it also strikes me as likely that if I had some dubious action to promote, I would try to bolster its credibility with exactly this sort of claim. It's probably heard more often in the field of politics than anywhere else, but by now you won't need convincing that many people see the fields of religion and politics as overlapping.
In any event, it's the job of historians to laboriously unravel the tangled threads of causation in retrospect. The least we can do contemporaneously is to start by acknowledging the multiple factors that preceded particular violent outbreaks. Taking claims about doing things in the name of some cause at face value is really pretty naive.
The problem, then, is where does Islam come into the picture when we discuss violence in a specifically Islamic context? Before turning in, let me just leave you with a link to a second article - this time on a humanist website. I think he is saying in other words what has been said earlier in this thread. I don't think it's the end of this story, but it may be an entrée in some future suggestions as to how the issue could be addressed.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Oh - PS - don't bother reading the comments after that latter article. It's the usual self-congratulatory combox bollox.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'd read the former definitive article and the second is excellent all round.
I was reading about Saladin before this. My high opinion of him went higher. An honourable man.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
This is just part 1....
First, Eutychus, I agree that 'humanity's inherent violence', or at any rate that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” is the ultimate reason for Islamic violence. The snag is that as a reason it's a bit too universal – it's like saying airplane crashes are caused by gravity rather than by all the more detailed human and other vagaries which allow gravity to get its claws into planes.
I proposed above something a little more specific with better possibilities for useful discussion. Namely that the warfare/violence is linked to that part of Islamic teaching which seeks to establish an 'Islamic state' (now where have I heard that phrase recently?), and in some places at some times has achieved that goal.
Point is, because of its obvious risks violence generally requires some reason, or some excuse/justification. As in, even if the reason is greed, the would-be violators are likely to be looking for a more socially acceptable excuse....
As reasons/excuses go, 'religion' has quite a lot in its favour, and the notion of the 'religious state' even more so, whether in terms of establishing such a state or defending it, and whether sincerely believed or a hypocritical excuse. Even those who get killed in this world over the issue are usually thought to get a free pass to the luxury afterlife. Even, if the idea of the religious state is accepted, the (supposed) 'necessities' of that can provide a reason/excuse to go against or have an exception to the regular/everyday teachings of the religion....
Because 'religion' is potentially so powerful a motivation/reason/excuse, it's rather important to establish what the religion itself teaches. And to be blunt, Islam teaches the idea of an Islamic religious state. Muhammad carried on quite a lengthy war against his former home city of Makka/Mecca, including land piracy against Makkan desert caravans. Eventually he gathered a large army and actually attacked Makka and it seems that essentially a massacre was avoided only because the city surrendered. One still rebellious group were formally put to death, it seems. Then Muhammad set himself up as effective king in a decidedly 'of this world' style (indeed he had already effectively done so in Medina), ruling until his death. It says something about what he set up that the earliest 'heresy' of Islam was not a 'doctrine' in Christian terms, but a split over succession to the 'Caliphate' or successor to Muhammad. Typically for state religions, there tends to be war/persecution over the heresy.
Muhammad seems simply not to have seen the implications of his state religion, and whether or not you believe in its inspiration, the Quran doesn't 'get it' either; which seems to me to be a considerable black mark against the claimed inspiration right from the start.... He also BTW doesn't seem to spot the problems of the religious state version of Christianity – another black mark given how much Islam is supposed to be integrated with Judaeo-Christian tradition.
The Saba Ahmed article posted by Gracie is interesting in that it doesn't mention Muhammad's violence against his pagan opposition, which was a long way from 'turning the other cheek'.
And the issue is wider than Christianity and Islam. As I pointed out, Buddhism as a state religion becomes 'unnaturally' violent; I could also have referred to pre WWII Japanese 'Shinto' as another 'violent' state religion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Once again you are insistent on locking contemporary Islam, and by extension all contemporary Muslims, into what you see as its core historical roots, and essentially repeating your mantra that state religion is bad.
What are you going to say to a family like this? "Haha, told you so, I've been right all along. It's only to be expected, you're the ones who are inconsistent, why waste your time trying to practice peaceable Islam in the UK, Islam is fundamentally violent so it's normal your girl has run off to Syria"?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I was reading about Saladin before this. My high opinion of him went higher. An honourable man.
I've had a vague admiration for him, too. Not sure where I first heard of him.
Side-note: Saddam Hussein wanted to be another Saladin, among other role models. He ran away from a messy home situation, when he was a kid, and went to live with an uncle--who filled him with "you have a great destiny". Wonder if Saddam knew Saladin was of Kurdish ancestry?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What are you going to say to a family like this? "Haha, told you so, I've been right all along. It's only to be expected, you're the ones who are inconsistent, why waste your time trying to practice peaceable Islam in the UK, Islam is fundamentally violent so it's normal your girl has run off to Syria"?
On a slight tangent - in other circumstances, the kind of contact that led up to the girls going abroad would be treated as a form of grooming - which shifts the balance of agencies assigned to the various parties.
The steps taken to prevent the same thing occurring would also vary quite a bit.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
However they were recruited, their families appear to be "peaceable Muslims" who are horrified at the prospect of their daughters going off to embrace a state-ised form of Islam.
It seems to me that retorting that this just reveals the true colours of Islam and enjoining the family to recant of their moderate Islam is not going to be helpful.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
The reason I raise the issue is that I think vocabulary matters - I think it makes a difference if you see a certain group as being vulnerable to threat from elsewhere, as opposed to seeing them as potential radicals.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I don't think that the rest of the girls' families, at home (home being the UK), weeping for their lost children, are in any sense in danger of radicalisation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think we have to be careful not to jump to assumptions as to what has happened to these schoolgirls. That they've gone to join IS is only one of the possible explanations:
For example at yesterday's press conference, one of the family members suggested that the girls had travelled to Turkey to try to persuade a friend to return home.
Of course this might be a vain hope, and the mind boggles at what might have happened to them - but it isn't an established fact that they are radicalised nor that they've gone to join a radical Islamic group.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I guess on the other hand it is a fact that some young people do get radicalized and it isn't clear why. Well, it isn't clear to me anyway. Some of them are brought up as Muslims, others are converts. Some have been born abroad, many are born in the UK. Sometimes they have been exposed to a radical preacher in a local mosque, sometimes it appears that's not the case. They often seem to have kept this secret from their parents - as teenagers do.
I suspect the answers to how this happens are similar to the reasons that some young people become committed fascists, or committed Jehovah's witnesses, or football hooligans. In other words, a variety of personal difficulties, random choices, emotional vulnerability and not a lot to do with the foundations of the sixth/seventh-century prophet of their religion.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Steve Langton, the problem with your analysis is that if true all Islamic majority countries would be oppressive. And it leads further - that all people 'of good will' should actively resist any form of Islam because it inevitably leads to the kinds of violent Islamism we are all familiar with.
If we are to accept what you say, there is no space for religious freedom in the UK (the Islamists are just using it as an excuse to eventually enforce a caliphate), Muslims should not be allowed to stand for parliament or have positions of responsibility etc and so on.
I'm sure you are aware that these kinds of scare stories have been around for thousands of years and have been used to oppress minorities in the UK from Jews to Roman Catholics, anabaptists and others. The motif of the 'enemy within' working to corrupt the purity of 'God's people' is pretty commonly recurring idea.
It seems to me that Islamic-majority countries are often oppressive and corrupt, but I see very little evidence that this is primarily due to them being Islamic and everything to do with human nature. Many Christian-majority countries are as horribly corrupt, as are Hindu-majority and even Buddhist-majority countries.
Of course, we're are at a significant disadvantage in arguing against an anabaptist dominated political system, because one doesn't exist - we are arguing against an imaginary blue-sky idealism.
And, y'know, the only time that anabaptists were ever in charge in Europe, it ended badly (and with violence). Even Penn's idealised Quaker regime in the American colonies fairly quickly disintegrated.
From this it seems to me that there is no system which is impervious to corruption, anabaptist included.
Anyway - on Islam, it seems to me that you are still trying to typecast billions of people into the straightjacket of your own theology. Ultimately many/most Muslims in Europe are engaged with Western Enlightenment culture (with some obvious Islamic tints) and support the freedoms allowed for in the same way that most Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and everyone else does.
Of course, if they didn't, they'd be leaving in droves.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I guess on the other hand it is a fact that some young people do get radicalized and it isn't clear why. Well, it isn't clear to me anyway. Some of them are brought up as Muslims, others are converts. Some have been born abroad, many are born in the UK. Sometimes they have been exposed to a radical preacher in a local mosque, sometimes it appears that's not the case. They often seem to have kept this secret from their parents - as teenagers do.
I think these things are being blown out of all proportion. A small handful of people are known to have joined IS. Others have travelled to Turkey and disappeared.
Many people, particularly religious people, are looking for meaning in their lives. Young people often are experimenting with ideas and are influenced by the drama and excitement of charismatic rhetoric. There is nothing here to be surprised about.
quote:
I suspect the answers to how this happens are similar to the reasons that some young people become committed fascists, or committed Jehovah's witnesses, or football hooligans. In other words, a variety of personal difficulties, random choices, emotional vulnerability and not a lot to do with the foundations of the sixth/seventh-century prophet of their religion.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. These guys have been brought up with a mindset which is influenced by, but subtly different to, the general western mindset.
For example, these guys are being taught to go deeper into their religion to find truth and meaning (which is not something teenagers are usually taught). Given that the words of the Prophet are held to be in such high regard by everyone in the community, it isn't so surprising that some are influenced by preachers/teachers who are offering something romantic, exciting and different.
I am not sure that this is so different to mainstream Christianity in (for example) pre-Nazi Germany.
Not the 'fault' as such of the religion, but that the religion has supplied the building-blocks upon which the ideology is built and which enables the virus to replicate.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think that the rest of the girls' families, at home (home being the UK), weeping for their lost children, are in any sense in danger of radicalisation.
And that is my point. Our view of Islam should be informed as much by their anxiety and grief as by IS, regardless of what's actually happened to the girls.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The entrapment of adolescents is not a new thing and the techniques (appeal to idealism, pandering to resentments, romantic appeal, utopian prospects, use of peer group members) are well known. Some will fall for it. The truth is a moving target in adolescence; the tendencies to discount family advice, keep secrets, explore making up one's own mind, are also well known.
I feel for those families, who must be worried to death about what has happened, and what will happen, to their daughters. I do not think this story (or similar ones) tells us anything specific about the religion of Islam. It may teach us something more general about the potential for young people to be deceived by "glittery" blandishments, and the means of deception used by cults of various kinds.
Entrapment is a subject worth teaching and discussing in schools, in whatever civics courses are available these days. I wonder if that happens?
A bit of a tangent to the main thread, of course, but possible more constructive than some of the others?
[ 23. February 2015, 10:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Entrapment is a subject worth teaching and discussing in schools, in whatever civics courses are available these days. I wonder if that happens?
Not that I'm aware of as a parent of a teenager in the UK school system.
But what would it look like even if it did? What counts as entrapment? It seems to me that could include all kinds of things - from joining a very charismatic or conservative group (of many different types), joining a religious community, leaving family to join the circus..
This whole rubric of Islamism-bad, other religious stuff good seems to me to be utterly flawed.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Mr. Cheesy wrote: quote:
This whole rubric of Islamism-bad, other religious stuff good seems to me to be utterly flawed.
It is, but to be fair I don't get the sense that many (or any?) are peddling that one exactly.
Many of the flaws in argument here on this thread fall into the categories of confusing the general with the particular, or vice versa. I've been around the traps long enough to recognise that those are the quickest ways to derail any argument. People feel they (or others) are getting accused of something they are entirely innocent of, and start to play rough.
Actually, that confusion seems to me to be implicit in the OP itself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wasn't talking about this thread though - I was thinking about the wider notion of entrapment teaching in schools, which seems to be solely discussed with reference to Islamists.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
OK - fair enough!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This whole rubric of Islamism-bad, other religious stuff good seems to me to be utterly flawed.
I agree, which is why I'm suggesting that the more general topic of entrapment, its techniques, dangers, and how to recognise it, might be a more constructive approach.
I think a syllabus could be developed. Obviously there is a proper freedom to persuade, to advance causes, encourage group relationship. And equally obviously there are abuses of these freedoms which can confuse and entrap the naive and unwary. How do you tell the difference? What measures of verification make sense? In short, how do young people develop good judgment over these things?
Isn't that a proper educational topic?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree, which is why I'm suggesting that the more general topic of entrapment, its techniques, dangers, and how to recognise it, might be a more constructive approach.
I think a syllabus could be developed. Obviously there is a proper freedom to persuade, to advance causes, encourage group relationship. And equally obviously there are abuses of these freedoms which can confuse and entrap the naive and unwary. How do you tell the difference? What measures of verification make sense? In short, how do young people develop good judgment over these things?
Isn't that a proper educational topic?
Dunno, you tell me. Where is the line between (say) charismatic, energetic religion and dangerous entrapment? Is joining a religious order a form of entrapment?
Who decides?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
There aren't any lines. What may be just acceptable to me may be strongly unacceptable to you, even if we both give it our best consideration.
I'd love to endorse reason as a final determinant - and of course I still do endorse properly informed reason - but some of the reasoning I've seen about these days would make the angels weep.
I think a habit of critical thinking is the best one can hope for in these circumstances, and part of that criticism must be a regular review of one's own suppositions.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Dunno, you tell me. Where is the line between (say) charismatic, energetic religion and dangerous entrapment? Is joining a religious order a form of entrapment?
Who decides?
If you set up the kind of Barnabas describes, there is no need to draw the lines right there. Just teach the students to think critically, and hopefully they'll be better able to draw the lines for themselves.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well, sorry, I don't think that works.
Religious people are not only motivated by logic, because religious faith is not logical.
Of course teenagers understand that it is not logical to leave the safety of family and the UK to heed the call of the Islamists.
There is no reason to imagine these people are stupid, they have just been spoken to in a way that bypasses the normal logical processes and taps into a deeper language of religion.
Teaching religious people to act on a logical basis is like trying to teach a fish to cycle.
[ 23. February 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Teaching religious people to act on a logical basis is like trying to teach a fish to cycle.
Now you're just spouting standard anti-religious crap.
Educational programmes like this won't be the end-all solution. Some children will still be entrapped, sadly. But if they can reduce entrapment a bit, that would be a good thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Now you're just spouting standard anti-religious crap.
Hahahaha
Saying religious belief it not logical is crap?
Oh well, bang goes almost all existential philosophy then.
quote:
Educational programmes like this won't be the end-all solution. Some children will still be entrapped, sadly. But if they can reduce entrapment a bit, that would be a good thing.
If there is no understanding about the non-logical nature of religious belief, it will have zero effect.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Saying religious belief it not logical is crap?
That's not what you were saying.
quote:
mr cheesy: If there is no understanding about the non-logical nature of religious belief, it will have zero effect.
Of course, part of this education can be that there are aspects of belief that aren't guided by logic.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's not what you were saying.
It wasn't? Oh right, thanks for telling me.
quote:
Of course, part of this education can be that there are aspects of belief that aren't guided by logic.
What does that mean? Genuinely cannot see what on earth one could teach in a secular school to a Muslim child about the dangers of so-called religious 'entrapment' given there are no accepted norms about what 'entrapment' means.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting that this thread has gone off in another direction - entrapment - although I am not critical of that.
'Islam and violence' as a topic, tends to run into the sand, for two good reasons.
One, which is the elephant in the room, is essentialism - the idea that Islam is intrinsically violent. Sometimes people assert this, (maybe some of the atheists do, such as Sam Harris), but I have never seen anybody able to demonstrate it. So it tends to fall by the wayside.
The other problem is that the Middle East has been astonishingly violent for at least 50 years, and probably longer.
In that time, the secularists have been violent against their own people (Assad is still doing it), Western forces have used 'shock and awe', the Islamists have used violence, the national armies obviously have (including the Kurdish forces), the so-called 'moderate' groups have also.
Anyway, to go into that perfect storm, and isolate Islam as a precipitating factor for violence seems a difficult proposition to me. Obviously, humans are violent, and humans in conflict, particularly so. After that, the political and historical analysis of the Middle East becomes bewilderingly complex.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Genuinely cannot see what on earth one could teach in a secular school to a Muslim child about the dangers of so-called religious 'entrapment' given there are no accepted norms about what 'entrapment' means.
I think we can have a pretty clear definition of what 'entrapment' means without the necessity of drawing the line of which groups practice entrapment and which don't. By focussing on the civil and psychological aspects of it for example.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think we can have a pretty clear definition of what 'entrapment' means without the necessity of drawing the line of which groups practice entrapment and which don't. By focussing on the civil and psychological aspects of it for example.
So a young woman planning to join a Roman Catholic order - is she being entrapped? Explain how your lesson would help a young person distinguish a genuine religious vocation from a dangerous entrapment.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: So a young woman planning to join a Roman Catholic order - is she being entrapped? Explain how your lesson would help a young person distinguish a genuine religious vocation from a dangerous entrapment.
By focussing on the kind of pressures that have been applied for example. Did you join freely, or did someone pressure you? Is there a charismatic leader that influences you? Can you leave if you want to? Did they take your family's opinion into account? Are they concerned with the person who you are, outside of your faith? (I'm just making some questions up here, a detailed study can come up with better questions.)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's interesting that this thread has gone off in another direction - entrapment - although I am not critical of that.
'Islam and violence' as a topic, tends to run into the sand, for two good reasons.
One, which is the elephant in the room, is essentialism - the idea that Islam is intrinsically violent. Sometimes people assert this, (maybe some of the atheists do, such as Sam Harris), but I have never seen anybody able to demonstrate it. So it tends to fall by the wayside.
The other problem is that the Middle East has been astonishingly violent for at least 50 years, and probably longer.
In that time, the secularists have been violent against their own people (Assad is still doing it), Western forces have used 'shock and awe', the Islamists have used violence, the national armies obviously have (including the Kurdish forces), the so-called 'moderate' groups have also.
Anyway, to go into that perfect storm, and isolate Islam as a precipitating factor for violence seems a difficult proposition to me. Obviously, humans are violent, and humans in conflict, particularly so. After that, the political and historical analysis of the Middle East becomes bewilderingly complex.
I think that focussing on "entrapment" in this context is veering dangerously close to pre-supposing Islam is inherently violent. We're not there yet, but if I flag it up before we get there, then hopefully it won't happen.
But specifically this bit of your post:- quote:
The other problem is that the Middle East has been astonishingly violent for at least 50 years, and probably longer.
In that time, the secularists have been violent against their own people (Assad is still doing it), Western forces have used 'shock and awe', the Islamists have used violence, the national armies obviously have (including the Kurdish forces), the so-called 'moderate' groups have also.
- highlights perfectly why clinging to reason as a salvation isn't going to work. Every one of them thought that their actions were reasonable. Stalin reasoned that starving Ukraine was reasonable. Hitler reasoned that invading Poland was right. Shout "Rah!" for reason!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Right, exactly. And talk of 'free choice' obviously becomes nonsense when you are talking about people who are interested in submitting to the will of Allah.
- "so, did you voluntarily submit to Allah or did someone tell you that you had to..."
- "errr..."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: Right, exactly. And talk of 'free choice' obviously becomes nonsense when you are talking about people who are interested in submitting to the will of Allah.
- "so, did you voluntarily submit to Allah or did someone tell you that you had to..."
- "errr..."
You seem to have a strange view of how education works. This is not the kind of questions they ask. But having a discussion with teenagers in the classroom about religion and free will can be very fruitful.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I was just trying out a discussion motif which might avoid the sterile polarisations which have to a large extent characterised this thread. Avoiding the perpetuation of cycles of violence and educating the young about the dangers of getting sucked into the mire (via idealism or alienation or inexperience) seem to me to have something in common.
And, to repeat. I don't think Islam, Judaism or Christianity are intrinsically violent. They reflect to some extent the violent tendencies to be found in human behaviour. Particularly when we perceive we are threatened.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Our texts are. Our history is. But we are not? Riiiight.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Not intrinsically, no. There is violence - both historical and present, and texts which could be interpreted in a violent way. However, there are also counter texts or ways to interpret violent passages which mean they don't have to be normative or an intrinsic part of a religion.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm outta here...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Our texts are. Our history is. But we are not? Riiiight.
I think I'll join you, Honest Ron.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Something I said? This is very odd. The road we keep travelling, never the same road twice, nonetheless has a dangerous bend in the deconstructed form that is the same for all of us. A bend we built when we were all young and savage. And NONE of us is really, hardly out of the bend.
Some of us enshrine the bend, not its victims. We want to be decent road users, we really do. But the bend was there and it was an awesome bend.
OK, as with all intrusive, captivating thoughts, it's best to get on with something else. Break the spell.
How are we to do that?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Something I said?
Yes. The bend in the road that we're stuck on here is advancing a discussion without a return to blunt and unexplained re-assertions of your general view. It's not going anywhere.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mr cheesy: So a young woman planning to join a Roman Catholic order - is she being entrapped? Explain how your lesson would help a young person distinguish a genuine religious vocation from a dangerous entrapment.
By focussing on the kind of pressures that have been applied for example. Did you join freely, or did someone pressure you? Is there a charismatic leader that influences you? Can you leave if you want to? Did they take your family's opinion into account? Are they concerned with the person who you are, outside of your faith? (I'm just making some questions up here, a detailed study can come up with better questions.)
... all these points could be applied equally - it's just that as external observers we judge that convent is good, ISIS is bad. You can make a distinction on what the influence will lead to - one hopes that going into a religious order has a good outcome, and one assumes that entering a violent organisation rarely has a happy ending. The process itself is not a lot different. I wonder what the three girls were looking at. Hearing the family's pleas to their daughter to return, I would guess that excitement, lots of virile men, a chance to do something in the real world, and an escape from family dynamics come fairly high up on the list. So maybe motivation is also a way to differentiate. But it's not one that can be policed until after the event.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
itsarumdo: ... all these points could be applied equally - it's just that as external observers we judge that convent is good, ISIS is bad.
Are you sure? I have quite a lot of contact with Catholic centre here in Brazil which is part of the preparation process for novices around the world, and I have a far more nuanced impression of it.
quote:
itsarumdo: So maybe motivation is also a way to differentiate. But it's not one that can be policed until after the event.
It isn't about policing here, I was talking about some kind of educational programme.
Let me give an example. Here in Brazil, I've worked a lot in educational programmes with young girls, to try to prevent them from falling into prostitution. So, one of the things we need to do is prepare her to make the distinction between Fulano, who is going to be a loving boyfriend to her, and Beltrano, who just pretends to be interested in her in order to force her into prostitution.
What we don't do, is give these girls a checklist, where they just have to cross the answers, and it will give them an unambiguous outcome to distinguish between Fulano and Beltrano. It doesn't work like that.
But questions like the ones I mentioned in my earlier post can be a great discussion starter with young people. Especially if you work on their self-esteem at the same time (there are various methods for doing that), they become much better at critical thinking, and much more resilient against peer pressure.
That's what we want, that when she meets a Beltrano, she's much better prepared. That doesn't mean it's the end-all solution (we still need to put Beltrano in jail if he does something bad), but results have shown that this can help a lot to keep girls out of prostitution.
I'm thinking about the same thing when it comes to educational programmes to prepare teenagers against entrapment (which really is the same process). The issue isn't to provide a 100% fail-safe dividing line between good and bad influences. The issue is to provide them with the tools so that they won't fall for the tricks, and can ultimately make the decision for themselves.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Assertions of the blindingly obvious that I can't see for you?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Ah - LeRoc - if you're talking self esteem education, it's a different matter entirely.
That sounds really satisfying work you do - I read Paolo Friere about 25 years ago, and I think it's still something of an influence today in my own work.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
A couple of interesting links.
--Theocracies take many forms. Some Republican officials want to declare Idaho a Christian state.
-- "Muslims Predict Jesus Will Defeat ISIS In 2015"--Huffpost. The author, Dr. David Liepert, is a Muslim leader from Canada. Really good article, basically saying that mainstream Muslim eschatology is widely thought to be kicking in, and ISIS is on the wrong side. Towards the end, he talks about Muslim and Christian ideas about Jesus. Then:
quote:
Can anyone conceive that that person --or Person-- when he --or He-- descends to lead us, could conceivably countenance the despicable and deplorable acts of ISIS?
God Forbid, it could never happen, not even if the world ends tomorrow or lasts for another thousand years.
Bottom line, I have served God and loved Jesus my entire life, and I followed Jesus into Islam when I realized I became a worse man by worshipping Him and a better man by following him. And my greatest hope for today is that Muslims and Christians are all starting to look forward to his return, because regardless of when that happens his example and his words can guide all of us to a better place together, with the help of God.
Because regardless of what the next years bring or which faith we follow, we are all waking up and realizing that we all need Jesus, peace be upon him.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One strange and ironic aspect of the 'intrinsic violence' argument about Islam, is that Al Qaeda and IS would probably agree. They tend to denounce non-violent Muslims as apostates, and it's quite likely that Muslims are the largest group of victims of their violence.
No doubt they can cite quotations from the Koran which back up this view, although they presumably ignore other parts, which do not.
It leads one to think that there is no such thing as Islam, but a number of different Islams, as with Christianities. To say that one is 'true Islam' seems to lead to a No True Scotsman (informal) fallacy.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Anonymous quote I read, long ago, in a Buddhist context:
A thousand monks, a thousand religions.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A couple of interesting links.
--Theocracies take many forms. Some Republican officials want to declare Idaho a Christian state.
-- "Muslims Predict Jesus Will Defeat ISIS In 2015"--Huffpost. The author, Dr. David Liepert, is a Muslim leader from Canada. Really good article, basically saying that mainstream Muslim eschatology is widely thought to be kicking in, and ISIS is on the wrong side. Towards the end, he talks about Muslim and Christian ideas about Jesus. Then:
quote:
Can anyone conceive that that person --or Person-- when he --or He-- descends to lead us, could conceivably countenance the despicable and deplorable acts of ISIS?
God Forbid, it could never happen, not even if the world ends tomorrow or lasts for another thousand years.
Bottom line, I have served God and loved Jesus my entire life, and I followed Jesus into Islam when I realized I became a worse man by worshipping Him and a better man by following him. And my greatest hope for today is that Muslims and Christians are all starting to look forward to his return, because regardless of when that happens his example and his words can guide all of us to a better place together, with the help of God.
Because regardless of what the next years bring or which faith we follow, we are all waking up and realizing that we all need Jesus, peace be upon him.
Thankyou for that
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm mystified, I really am. We are the most effective predator the Earth has ever seen. We are the best hunter to which the domestic cat comes second. We and all our works are soused in violence. It peaks at the age of TWO. Islam is no worse than many of our other works of that scale. Religions, cultures, civilizations, societies. And we are nurturing and altruistic and decent and merciful in no less measure than our violence.
So what should we do? Pretend that we're not violent? Intrinsically, at the drop of a hat violent? Any excuse violent? Or worse, even believe it? That our veneer of the oxymoron of 'civilization' - achieved by violence - is soul deep?
Or, like Jesus, embrace it, acknowledge it and transcend it. See it and raise it as a poker hand with our lives on the table?
I imagine, at best, Islam will mellow, secularize, become more humanistic as Christianity has despite its equally nasty violent beliefs, still believed incoherently by the vast majority, So I take comfort from that.
Christianity's failure to live up to it's founder's example from the word (Peter's, Paul's, John's) go has created a ghastly history of violence and a civilization full of institutionalized, acceptable, respectable violence - often the same violence, ghastly and respectable. I suspect Islam will do BETTER than that in Western societies, despite its foundational violence, it's holy, pure, true, perfect, righteous, redeeming violence, which Judaism and Christianity enshrined before it.
And perhaps because of it. Because violence is foundational explicitly in Islam, as it was in Judaism two and a half thousand years before it, that has to be wrestled with more openly than Christianity's almost instant slide in to having its cake and eat it. Maybe there's self-interested wisdom in that even, being pacifist and defending the state's right to violence.
It seems close to what Jesus did after all, more than once. But without His courage.
Ah well. We'll muddle through I'm sure. Like the Jews. Through de facto pacifism to irrelevance.
[ 25. February 2015, 23:14: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I think that you are making quite a few confusions there, Martin - one of them being equating predators with random mindless and vindictive violence. Take a look at this documentary about Anna Breytenbach - particularly the interviews with bushmen hunters - there is clearly a loving empathy between the hunter an the prey. And although the act of death is violent, the spirit it is in is also one of love. We have a very sentimentalised view of nature and what it means to take part in it, partly because our society has removed most of us from the pointy end.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No confusion here mate. 1 in 30 of us is a psychopath. Why does evolution select for that?
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
It's probably nearer 1 in 100. 3% is usually the figure given for the incidence of psychopathy in positions of leadership.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed. I sit corrected. Although the fact that it's 3% in leadership and around 1% for the rest of us is still evolutionarily fascinating.
We LET them.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Maybe we should all look at the results of the ComRes polling undertaken on behalf of the BBC into Muslim attitudes: some of it makes sobering reading, for example:- 20% felt Western liberal society couldn't be compatible with Islam [7%/ 1%]
- only 55% felt the Muslim Council of Britain does a good job representing the views of Muslims [16%/ 1%]
- 11% felt that organisations which published images of Mohammed deserved to be attacked [3%/ 1%]
- 62% had some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo [8%/ 2%]
- 32% weren't surprised the Paris attacks happened [5%/ 0%]
- 17% feel it is appropriate that muslims who convert to other faiths are cut-off by their family [5%/ 1%]
- 31% would like their children to go to a muslim state school if they had the choice [3%/ 0%]
- 11% felt sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests [3%/ 1%]
- 49% thought that muslim clerics who preach that violence against the west can be justified are out of touch with mainstream muslim opinion [6%/ 1%]
* figures in brackets [don't know/ refused to answer]
In particular, I find it very disturbing that less than 50% of the sample thought that preaching in favour of or promoting violence against the west was out of touch with mainstream muslim opinion, especially given that more than 10% felt sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests.
Food for thought for us all.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
L'Organist--
Link, please! And what are the numbers after each result? I'm guessing the last in each pair is margin for error?
Thanks.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Last in each paid - I assume you mean the figures in square brackets?
As I explained [don't know% / % who refused to answer].
I just put BBC ComRes poll into my search engine and there it was - with a link button onto the full survey results.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Sorry, I missed that bit.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Reminds me of the rivalry between Lancashire and Yorkshire that still exists - based on a nasty little war 600 years ago.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It is food for thought, but that 62% sympathetic to Charlie attacks, should be 27%, I think.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is food for thought, but that 62% sympathetic to Charlie attacks, should be 27%, I think.
Whatever the percentage, it represents those that are sympathetic to the motives behind the attacks. That isn't the same as those who would line up, shoulder to shoulder, with those who murdered the staff and others at the Charlie Hebdo offices.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Sioni Sais: Whatever the percentage, it represents those that are sympathetic to the motives behind the attacks. That isn't the same as those who would line up, shoulder to shoulder, with those who murdered the staff and others at the Charlie Hebdo offices.
Here in Brazil, Islam is far removed from the reality of most people. They don't have the almost daily contact with Muslims that people in most other Western countries have. What I'm mostly hearing in Brazil is "I don't condone the violence, but they had it coming". If you'd ask this poll question in Brazil, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd come up with 62% too.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Forgive me if this has been touched on before, I haven't waded through this thread, but it seems to fit in here. On yesterday's story on the identity of a terrorist the BBC TV coverage showed a man who told us what a lovely boy this was, and blamed us the dreadful British for driving this wonderful young man into joining the people who hate us.
Today, we're gazing at our security services and government, as if it could really be all our fault after all, nothing to do with internet grooming or incitement to hatred.
Is it only in Britain where not only would we show such a ludicrous interview, but take any of it seriously? I like it that we're always looking to ourselves to try to meet people half way, but surely at some point we must realise that sometimes others are not doing the same. When there's no more leeway, we either have to stand up for ourselves or allow ourselves to be trampled upon.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Today, we're gazing at our security services and government, as if it could really be all our fault after all, nothing to do with internet grooming or incitement to hatred.
Is it only in Britain where not only would we show such a ludicrous interview, but take any of it seriously?
Well, in this particular case neither of the security services involved would comment - so the vacuum was filled by the group Cage and a particular interview dominated a news cycle - that's the nature of rolling news coverage.
I can find articles in all the major papers poking holes in that interview, so not sure where you get the idea that the interview per se is being taken seriously.
At the moment there is a general feeling that the PTB and the security services in particular are bungling (which is probably in most cases unfair) and unaccountable (which may have a certain amount of truth to it), so it's not surprising that some news stories will take that angle.
I don't see general support for the proposition that MI5 'caused' 'Jihadi John'.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Maybe we should all look at the results of the ComRes polling undertaken on behalf of the BBC into Muslim attitudes: some of it makes sobering reading, for example:- 20% felt Western liberal society couldn't be compatible with Islam [7%/ 1%]
- only 55% felt the Muslim Council of Britain does a good job representing the views of Muslims [16%/ 1%]
- 11% felt that organisations which published images of Mohammed deserved to be attacked [3%/ 1%]
- 62% had some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo [8%/ 2%]
- 32% weren't surprised the Paris attacks happened [5%/ 0%]
- 17% feel it is appropriate that muslims who convert to other faiths are cut-off by their family [5%/ 1%]
- 31% would like their children to go to a muslim state school if they had the choice [3%/ 0%]
- 11% felt sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests [3%/ 1%]
- 49% thought that muslim clerics who preach that violence against the west can be justified are out of touch with mainstream muslim opinion [6%/ 1%]
* figures in brackets [don't know/ refused to answer]
In particular, I find it very disturbing that less than 50% of the sample thought that preaching in favour of or promoting violence against the west was out of touch with mainstream muslim opinion, especially given that more than 10% felt sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests.
Food for thought for us all.
It'd be really nice if occasionally things were reported by saying things like "80% of Muslims think Western liberal society is compatible with Islam" and "89% don't think organisations which publish images of Mohammed deserve to be attacked".
Or "83% of Muslims don't think it's appropriate to cut off a person who converts to another faith".
It's actually not that common to see numbers THAT high in opinion polls. So why aren't we reporting that the vast majority of Muslims have those views? Oh that's right, because it's usually far juicier to emphasise any view that "we", the average person (ie non-Muslim) might find disconcerting.
[ 27. February 2015, 12:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I wonder how many Christians think that liberal Western society is compatible with Christianity.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think that many people would say that MI5 'caused' Jihadi John. But the idea of blowback has been discussed extensively in relation to the Middle East, and elsewhere. The relative effects of a whole number of factors are very difficult to establish - for example, how much damage was done to the social fabric by the old secularist regimes? I don't know.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that many people would say that MI5 'caused' Jihadi John. But the idea of blowback has been discussed extensively in relation to the Middle East, and elsewhere.
Of course, but I was responding to Raptor's specific post, and he wasn't positing things via the framework of 'blowback' neither was Cage (other than in a highly simplistic manner).
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder how many Christians think that liberal Western society is compatible with Christianity.
That would be a very interesting poll. Very interesting indeed.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think I'd be even more interested to see the reasons. For instance, for those of us who are liberal Christians and said no, the reasons might be very different from those a conservative Christian would give.
If others are interested, maybe we should get a thread. I'm not starting one because I can't think of a way to word it that wouldn't turn into a liberal echo chamber. There probably are many though, so I hope someone else does.
[ 27. February 2015, 14:51: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder how many Christians think that liberal Western society is compatible with Christianity.
That would be a very interesting poll. Very interesting indeed.
Useless. All we would get would be an awful lot of people, pointing fingers and declaring that this, that or the other is or is not real Christianity.
Then again, given the debate about what Islam is, it could shake not a few people out of their self-congratulatory slumber.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One common argument is that just as Christianity went through the Reformation and the Enlightenment, Islam needs something similar.
Well, possibly, but arguably Christianity became largely irrelevant in the process. There are signs of secularization among Muslims.
Also, it would be a bad idea for the West to engineer an Islamic Reformation - blowback haunts us.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think I'd be even more interested to see the reasons. For instance, for those of us who are liberal Christians and said no, the reasons might be very different from those a conservative Christian would give.
And of course the same arguments might apply to Muslims but all we have is the poll.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All we would get would be an awful lot of people, pointing fingers and declaring that this, that or the other is or is not real Christianity.
The parallels keep on growing.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Mdijon, definitely! I also thought of mentioning that I have some sympathy with the bombers. That doesn't mean I approve in the slightest, but if I thought people were intentionally insulting my god's honor and my own, I can sort of imagine wanting to hurt them.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Ha! And I was accused of being an apologist for murderers some time ago. Yes - there is some sympathy, but
a) God is big enough to take care of Himself
b) breaking a fundamental tenet of a religion (thou shalt not kill - I assume that the OT is also a holy book for Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism) is perhaps not the best way to register disapproval of people who despise your beliefs
c) all this mockery an the violence that surrounds it is evil - the best way to deal with evil is to look to the good/God rather than becoming fixated by the evil and therefore becoming part of it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A lovely false dichotomy. All things are true. What the lawyer said (he HAS to be a lawyer) about Emwazi and the insane, causeless, obscene innocent, contingent, evil reality of him which NOTHING to do with UK society or MI5.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mdijon quote:
I wonder how many Christians think that liberal Western society is compatible with Christianity.
Might I suggest that this is the wrong question in that Christian attitudes towards any state have been less whether any particular state is compatible with Christianity but whether any particular state is prepared to tolerate Christianity within its confines? It could, therefore, be argued that no state is compatible with Christianity but some states are more tolerant of Christianity than others.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bugger ... , ... is
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A lovely false dichotomy. All things are true. What the lawyer said (he HAS to be a lawyer) about Emwazi and the insane, causeless, obscene innocent, contingent, evil reality of him which NOTHING to do with UK society or MI5.
You have been called to Hell for persistently posting <hellish content deleted>.
Cheers
Sioni
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that this is the wrong question in that Christian attitudes towards any state have been less whether any particular state is compatible with Christianity but whether any particular state is prepared to tolerate Christianity within its confines?
I would imagine some Muslims would have reasons as to why the questions in the poll weren't the right questions also. Yet those were the questions and here we have the blunt percentages.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Chums. Sorry for the alcohol exacerbated gnomic wossname:
Raptor Eye said:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Forgive me if this has been touched on before, I haven't waded through this thread, but it seems to fit in here. On yesterday's story on the identity of a terrorist the BBC TV coverage showed a man who told us what a lovely boy this was, and blamed us the dreadful British for driving this wonderful young man into joining the people who hate us.
Today, we're gazing at our security services and government, as if it could really be all our fault after all, nothing to do with internet grooming or incitement to hatred.
Is it only in Britain where not only would we show such a ludicrous interview, but take any of it seriously? I like it that we're always looking to ourselves to try to meet people half way, but surely at some point we must realise that sometimes others are not doing the same. When there's no more leeway, we either have to stand up for ourselves or allow ourselves to be trampled upon.
I said:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A lovely false dichotomy. All things are true. What the lawyer said (he HAS to be a lawyer) about Emwazi and the insane, causeless, obscene innocent, contingent, evil reality of him which NOTHING to do with UK society or MI5.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Bugger ... , ... is
I can't establish that Asim Qureshi is a qualified lawyer, but he is a CAGE advocate.
I was reacting to Raptor Eye's Daily Mail inspired paranoid post by embracing all the real extremes, epitomized by Emwazi, which is what I'm trying to do on this thread and failing.
Whereas others here, mdijon in particular, seem to be engaged in denying the polarized realities.
Which, Sir, is an open challenge to do your worst. I.e. best
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What are polarized realities? People make decisions to be polarized or polarizing or not. I decide not to. Others decide to. These are just choices, not realities.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
postted by Chris Stiles quote:
At the moment there is a general feeling that the PTB and the security services in particular are bungling (which is probably in most cases unfair) and unaccountable (which may have a certain amount of truth to it), so it's not surprising that some news stories will take that angle.
1. "PTB" - meaning what?
2. I don't think there is a feeling that they're bungling: I think there is concern that it is so hard for them to keep an eye on terror suspects, particularly since the much-reviled control orders were discontinued.
3. It is very easy for organisations - News providers and others - to pour contempt on the police and MI5: it would be better if they came up with sensible suggestions as to how they think things could be done to prevent people like Mr Emwazi (a) deciding to try to join a terrorist organisation, and (b) having done so, decided to be filmed beheading someone and boasting about the fact.
CAGE as an organisation seems to have been able to persuade various charities - the Joseph Rowntree Trust, the Roddick Foundation and Amnesty International are three - to give them grants so that they can spread their poisonous message.
The support from Amnesty caused Gita Saghal, until then the head of Amnesty's gender unit, to leave the organisation: Saghal described CAGE as a 'jihadi organisation' and was particularly scathing of the casuistry employed by some people at Amnesty to justify links with the organisation and Moazzam Begg, its founder.
It is unfortunate but trying to give organisations such as CAGE the benefit of the doubt - whether from genuine belief in their innocence or because of a liberal tendency to defend those who would seek to destroy us - doesn't result in them deciding there is something good to be said for Western values, rather it just confirms their belief in the moral bankruptcy of those beliefs.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mdijon. The story of the person of Emwazi is one of impossible extremes, polar realities, a lovely angry evil kind sick sadistic sweet ruthless murderous merciless killer. I accept that that is true of him. It works for me.
That symbolizes, caricatures the religions of the people of the Book to me. To deny their violence is absurd. To deny their peace is absurd too. We are an empathic super predator. We couldn't be the one without the other evolutionarily.
So, that's a given for me.
I've progressed my thinking thanks to this thread, at the thread's expense I'm sure: that Jesus' threats fit with His use of violent parables and hyperbole. That violence is as violence does and He didn't nor teach it.
And I see that Christianity has had a problematic attitude to violence, regardless that one can resolve the difficulties of Jesus' words of violence, immediately the baton was passed, although it took a couple or three centuries for that violence to go from passive to active.
This compares with Islam somewhat, although its founder was violent almost from the beginning and got more so. His successors too. That is the sharp bend in the road in that superb link HRB posted upstream*. Christianity has a similar, less acute bend which nonetheless has warped its trajectory very badly.
So acknowledging we all have the myth of redemptive violence in common and where do we go from here? And I see Jesus' peerless example in the woman caught in adultery. Acknowledge, respect, embrace it and transcend it IMMEDIATELY.
Pretending it isn't there is ... useless, pathetic, weak for all concerned.
We need strong benevolence in dealing with this. Not denial in weak benevolence. That just empowers weak (like Raptor Eye's) and strong - Muslim AND Christian - hostility.
*
[ 28. February 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Strong benevolence may be perceived as weak hostility, Martin, depending on our own standpoint.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I see nothing but strong benevolence in Jesus in the woman taken in adultery. I don't see how acknowledging pious violence is hostile.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, in this particular case neither of the security services involved would comment - so the vacuum was filled by the group Cage and a particular interview dominated a news cycle - that's the nature of rolling news coverage.
I can find articles in all the major papers poking holes in that interview, so not sure where you get the idea that the interview per se is being taken seriously.
At the moment there is a general feeling that the PTB and the security services in particular are bungling (which is probably in most cases unfair) and unaccountable (which may have a certain amount of truth to it), so it's not surprising that some news stories will take that angle.
I don't see general support for the proposition that MI5 'caused' 'Jihadi John'.
The Beeb are still going on about it, the questions about his treatment by the security services continuing. Those who groom young minds into terrorism may well be capitalising on this. We can take blaming ourselves for everything too far, is all I'm saying.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Raptor Eye;
quote:
We can take blaming ourselves for everything too far, is all I'm saying.
I think I'm with you on that, but there has been and still is plenty in 'the West' which is likely to put young Muslims off our ways and lead them to believe that an extreme and militant form of Islam would be the answer.
And in my experience people like MI5 (and MPs) don't really understand religion in general and probably would be heavy-handed in dealing with young Muslims.
I'm not a believer in the inherent peaceableness of Islam; but I also recognise the faults of 'Christendom', the distorted Christianity which led to horrors like the Inquisitions, Crusades,and other supposedly Christian violence.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Beeb are still going on about it, the questions about his treatment by the security services continuing.
Well, why shouldn't there be legitimate questions asked about the specific ways in which the various services deal with terrorism? After all, it's not like they are keeping it in the news in a total vacuum - various fairly senior politicians have commented on it also, in part its continued presence in the news cycle is based on this.
quote:
Those who groom young minds into terrorism may well be capitalising on this.
So therefore we should stop democratic oversight ? This rationale could be equally applied everywhere - as it has been, from Abu Gharib to the current use of drones.
[ 03. March 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
'PTB'?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So what experience do you have of MI5 Steve?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: So what experience do you have of MI5 Steve?
He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The anabaptist version of MI5 don't kill anyone, they voice Biblically supported righteous disapproval.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
So then you just wish they'd kill you.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Like the rest of us, I don't have direct experience of MI-anything that I'm aware of - but I did say 'people like...' I do have some direct experience of MPs' attitudes in this area and they can be really ignorant; and they ought to be better-informed IF MI-etc were doing their job properly.
What does come out publicly about the secret services doesn't suggest much understanding in this kind of area....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And how could 5 do its job better?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I see ... so the Anabaptist plan all along has been to reduce the so-called Constantinians' will to live ...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The people who made the approaches to Emwazi may well have said they were from MI5 but by the crassness of the cack-handed nature of the approaches have the fingerprints of Special Branch all over them.
Since the decision was made at the end of WWII for MI5 to continue their has been ongoing turf war between the police (Special Branch) and the spooks which, because so much of MI5's work is in and around the capital, is worse in London than elsewhere in the UK.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I was stopped by Special Branch re-entering the country from the Irish Republic, after inter-railing all round Europe - including journeys through the DDR and Yugoslavia. Apparently that made me a prime suspect for smuggling in semtex, or something.
Inept wouldn't be the word I'd use. Crass, insensitive, and frankly barking, perhaps. I hope he enjoy rummaging through a month's washing as much as I enjoyed his boorish questioning and retrieving my belongings from the places he threw them.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My husband is given an orange folder and a second interview, often very unpleasant in tone, every time he goes to the US (at least 3 times a year)
Why? His name is John Smith and he has long hair
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
PTB = "Powers that be" - a euphemism for the Establishment (which is another kind of euphemism).
Or if you watch WWE, then it's "The Authority".
And as an illustration ..
Steve Langton
Welcome back. And do try to avoid diverting the thread again. There's a relatively small gap between sticking to your guns and campaigning; make sure you don't bridge it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 04. March 2015, 16:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My husband is given an orange folder and a second interview, often very unpleasant in tone, every time he goes to the US (at least 3 times a year)
Why? His name is John Smith and he has long hair
A good way to collect orange folders, then I guess.
During 8 hours of "interrogation" (mostly waiting) in Israel, I didn't get a cup of water, never mind a folder.
I am as Nordic looking as they come.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Thanks, Barnabas62
As a Buffy fan I should have realised 'PTB', I guess; I'm a bit slow at tthe moment with an annoyingly persistent cold.
On 'diverting the thread' - I thought I'd stuck pretty well to the Islam and violence theme?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This solecism has been reproaching me for days: So acknowledging we all have the myth of redemptive violence in common [and] where do we go from here?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
]
On 'diverting the thread' - I thought I'd stuck pretty well to the Islam and violence theme?
A "word to the wise", Steve. What you got was a gentle hint to mind your Ps and Qs in this thread in view of your posting history. If you want to dispute the need for that hint, the Styx is the right forum.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And mdijon, how are choice and reality mutually exclusive?
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
During 8 hours of "interrogation" (mostly waiting) in Israel, I didn't get a cup of water, never mind a folder.
I am as Nordic looking as they come.
Are you saying that you wished they had racially profiled you?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And mdijon, how are choice and reality mutually exclusive?
That's a funny way of putting it. What I said was that one can either accept the situation is polarized, or make a choice to not be part of the polarization.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I too was once kept waiting for hours by IDF/Border Staff.
Transpired that a relative had been rather high-up in the Mandate police force - apparently this is their way of saying 'we know your family and we don't like them'.
Strange then that my relative went on to marry a local Jewish girl, hence my orthodox cousins...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
L'organist: I too was once kept waiting for hours by IDF/Border Staff.
This is what normally happens to me. I worked in Palestine for a while, and whenever I had to go through Tel Aviv airport, I arrived 8 hours early.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And mdijon, how are choice and reality mutually exclusive?
That's a funny way of putting it. What I said was that one can either accept the situation is polarized, or make a choice to not be part of the polarization.
I do both.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
In which case the reality is a bit less polarized than it was before.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I too was once kept waiting for hours by IDF/Border Staff.
Transpired that a relative had been rather high-up in the Mandate police force - apparently this is their way of saying 'we know your family and we don't like them'.
Strange then that my relative went on to marry a local Jewish girl, hence my orthodox cousins...
I am convinced that it took so long partly because I couldn't answer one of their questions. They wanted to know about one of my paternal grandparents, who died in the 1960s, long before I was born.
I knew very little about him, they kept asking the same questions, which I would answer and they then went away for a few hours and then ask the same questions again (same answers, I still didn't know much about him). Maybe they were trying to establish if there was any connection between me and Mandate era police or army, I hadn't thought of that.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My husband is given an orange folder and a second interview, often very unpleasant in tone, every time he goes to the US (at least 3 times a year)
Why? His name is John Smith and he has long hair
For those of us who haven't been through US customs, could you explain what the orange folder is all about?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If your summary interview at US Border Control doesn't produce satisfactory results, you get escorted off to an interview room to undergo a more thorough interrogation by a guard clutching one of these folders.
I learned this arriving at Miami once behind an unfortunate man missing a couple of fingers, thus making him unable to undergo the biometric scan. He was marched off thus and I've always wondered what happened to him since (except that his folder was red ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
)
Now that anecdote's told, maybe it's time for this thread to get back on topic or have this major tangent removed to Heaven, with or without hostly orange folders...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mdijon. Now that we are less polarized, in another place it was mentioned that my contribution here was a wisdom free 'stuck-record whine about Islamic violence, all our violence and avoiding discussion'. I accept that as perception is all, so even though I'd like you to analyse that perception - and I don't mean justify it, it doesn't have to be justified: the failure is mine - how can I go forward in form and content without repudiating the content of what I've said? Or is there no content once the form is dispensed with? Was I just saying 'Islam is violent as we all are'? Seriously, did I not ask, where do we go from here?
My premiss is that there must be a radical, positive, respectful, pacifist Christian response to foundational violence. That we can't engage with foundationally violent culture by criticising it, but by acknowledging and embracing it and transcending it. I said that above and I'm probably failing to communicate it again. It's that that I do want to discuss.
Eutychus engagement with the realities is certainly going forward.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Martin60
I think I would rather say that the tendency to violence is a problem for all humanity, rather than seek to identify it with particular religious or political beliefs.
The temptation to identify scapegoats outside of our particular group is always with us. "They are that way because they believe this stuff". I don't think that kind of partial generalisation actually helps.
Personally, I do think that becoming more Christlike involves a more peaceful, more other-directed approach to living. The Romans 12 guidance about love in action has always struck me as the right way to go and it is prefaced by the warning not to be conformed to the patterns of this world. Those patterns do often seem to me to involve finger-pointing, demonisation of other groups. I think that's destructive and we do well to avoid getting sucked into that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I completely agree Barnabas62 and nothing I have said was meant otherwise. Your perception appears to be otherwise. Again, that is my fault, my failure. I utterly repudiate that another group is to be blamed for the way I and we are or that 'they' are beyond the pale, to blame for ANYTHING. My thinking DID change along the thread as I differentiated between Islam and Christianity on the basis of foundational violence, I now see that that is virtually impossible to sustain and meaningless for most Christians any way. It is only imputable to a particular view of Christ.
A superior one, mousethief, of course Which makes me considerably righteouser than yow.
And yes, it's Fridee ni' an' I 'ave bin darn the only Axe and Square in the world (although I'm certain there is only one Fox And Vivian and Hark To Bounty too).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Barnabas 62;
quote:
I think I would rather say that the tendency to violence is a problem for all humanity....
YES....
B62;
quote:
….rather than seek to identify it with particular religious or political beliefs.
And somewhere in there you made a slip in the logic. This part of your sentence just doesn't follow from the first part. Part of the trouble, as I pointed out above when Eutychus said summat similar, is that a general human tendency to violence is also so vague and universal an 'explanation' as to be no practical use. As I said, it's a bit like blaming air crashes just on 'gravity' and ignoring factors like human error, weather, mechanical failure, sabotage, etc. It is the 'particular' that causes the actual, real-world, non-academic air crash, and it is the 'particular', religious or political, which causes/excuses/justifies the 'particular' violent action, while other 'particular' beliefs can limit violence.
B62;
quote:
The temptation to identify scapegoats outside of our particular group is always with us.
Yes; so what? This is kind of the wrong question here....
B62;
quote:
"They are that way because they believe this stuff".
If there is a logical connection between “this stuff” that they believe, and “that way” that they are, then understanding that connection is not 'scapegoating' but valid analysis, and potentially helpful.
B62;
quote:
I don't think that kind of partial generalisation actually helps.
What I just said.... Plus, as Christians don't we actually have an obligation to have far more than 'partial generalisation'?
Actually the more I've thought about this, the less happy I am with this Eutychus/Barnabas line of argument. Being dismissive of people's beliefs, and so of their conscious reasons for their actions, their own understanding of why they act as they do, seems very strange and a denial of the most personal and rational part of their conduct.
Referring instead to the general “tendency to violence (which) is a problem for all humanity....” is indeed an unhelpful 'partial generalisation'; but it's kind of deliberately so, deliberately downgrading the important 'particular' of the situation in favour of something which is neither a proper explanation, nor helpful or useful to understanding what is going on. This seems to me to be profoundly dehumanising....
Being concerned with the beliefs, and what those beliefs might imply for actions, and whether those actions are good or bad, and whether the beliefs are true or false – that it seems to me is treating the people involved as people, as rational beings with meaningful ideas and intentions. And on that I'm more than happy to 'stick to my guns' and if Hosts don't find it acceptable, so much the worse for the Ship.
Oh, Martin 60; I am for some strange reason under the impression that Christians do not believe in the 'myth' of redemptive violence, but in the FACT of redemptive suffering for others - a very different matter....
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm actually making a more general point, Steve Langton. It skirts the issue of inerrancy and indeed it may end up being continued there.
Holy books give evidence in their content of the human tendency to violence. They contain texts which eschew violence and they also contain texts within which violence is justified to serve some greater purpose. They may therefore be used today by some groups, indeed are so used, as authoritative support for violent actions. That is a problem for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
So, pointing the finger at one of the three "people of the Book" religions simply ends up with fingers pointing back at ourselves. We need rather to encourage exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to interpretation which avoid perpetuating cycles of violence, which recognise the problem in the Books themselves. And it is a good idea not to be partial about that. "My Holy Book is less violent than your Holy Book" doesn't exactly help any dialogues intended to promote greater peace and better mutual understanding.
I appreciate this may offend your own understanding of how Christian scripture is inspired (and how the Qu'ran is not inspired) and that kind of issue can certainly be discussed separately (possibly under the DH inerracy heading?), but that is really where I'm coming from in this part of the discussion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually the more I've thought about this, the less happy I am with this Eutychus/Barnabas line of argument. Being dismissive of people's beliefs, and so of their conscious reasons for their actions, their own understanding of why they act as they do, seems very strange and a denial of the most personal and rational part of their conduct.
But this is precisely what you appear to do.
I talk to quite a few Muslims, most of them in prison. They appear genuinely upset that Islam is being used as a vehicle for violence today. I talked to a Christian convert from Islam last week who agreed that some Muslims in prison seek to radicalise others, but (despite his conversion to Christianity) also agreed that violence was not what Islam was essentially all about.
I find reports of your interactions with Muslims singularly lacking. It seems to me that your position is based on your intellectual problems with state-based religions and not on any actual conversations with Muslims; you certainly haven't mentioned any. Can you?
The stuff that suicide terrorists believe appears to be a DIY smorgasbord of beliefs with Islam being a convenient hook on which to hang them. One of the sources of that convenience, I believe, is the marginalisation of traditionally Islamic peoples (especially in France) and their demonisation in the media.
I'm increasingly convinced that the media has little or no bearing on reality, certainly not on individual realities that count.
I think many future terrorists are attracted to Islam not because it's inherently violent, but because a certain media-fuelled stereotype of violent Islam embodies a vent for the kind of violent alienation they feel.
Another time, another place, and Christianity could (and has been) a similarly convenient hook.
The investigation should not be into whether this or that religion is inherently violent but into the sources of this sense of alienation.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve, I can see where you are coming from but - forgive me for my bluntness - I'm not sure it's an adequate position.
I'd go further.
Rather than respecting the humanity of those who take a contrary position, I would contend that if we take your stand-point to its logical conclusion - and probably further than you would be prepared to go, I must say - we actually end up doing the opposite. We dehumanise them.
By all means stick to your guns, but in doing so be aware that they aren't the only artillery pieces (to borrow your military metaphor) at our disposal ...
I'm not a Host but I did flinch when I read your challenge, 'if Hosts don't find it acceptable, so much the worse for the Ship.'
Why?
In what sense would your sticking to your guns make it any better or any worse for the Ship?
The Ship can cope with all manner of views, it seems to me - yours included.
I agree with you on the need to focus on the 'particular' - rather than the general. But we move from the general to the specific.
In terms of this discussion, the general and the 'common' is the tendency towards violence that human beings - and societies indeed - can and do display.
In the instance of particular religions - Islam, Judaism and Christianity - we can find examples of that tendency - and the way to deal with that is to acknowledge it and work towards alleviating those tendencies ... both within ourselves and with those around us.
In terms of your particular concerns - then yes, I think we are all agreed that close Church/State relationships can and do lead to all manner of problems - including violence. I don't see anyone denying such a thing.
Equally, with more 'voluntarist' or 'separatist' forms of church there are equal and opposite problems - not a lack of problems, just a different set of problems ...
That's the nature of it. That's the world we live in and we are all going to have to get used to ideals remaining unfulfilled to some extent or other this side of the Parousia.
I really don't see what can be gained by claiming that this, that or the other religion or sacred text is somehow intrinsically violent compared to our own. What does that achieve?
As Christians our aim should be to let the light of Christ shine and illuminate this present darkness ... not to go around picking holes in anyone else's world-view or approach.
How we do that on a practical level is where the hard bit starts.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Gamaliel;
my 'sticking to my guns' comment was effectively quoting something B62 had said earlier; no literal guns or other weapons involved, just that I preferred to continue with a line of argument that gave people credit for their expressed specific beliefs/reasons for their actions rather than an explanation which seemed more abstract and a lot less personal in its implications.
I had a distinct impression that I was being told that "You can't say that..." for reasons which didn't seem to be about the truth or logic of the situation; and I don't think it is in the Ship's interests that such attitudes should replace arguments about the truth of things, or 'partial generalisations' replace more useful specifics.
I'm not arguing about that underlying human tendency to violence - in my circles it tends to be called 'original sin' or 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' - but I'm also saying that is too general an explanation to be useful here. What people believe does affect their actions, and those beliefs can be usefully analysed/discussed/challenged etc in a way that can help in dealing with situations.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
In the instance of particular religions - Islam, Judaism and Christianity - we can find examples of that tendency - and the way to deal with that is to acknowledge it and work towards alleviating those tendencies ... both within ourselves and with those around us.
I thought that was what I was doing....
I'll go back a bit and post some stuff I prepared earlier - this will involve a bit of repetition but I think justified because it shows my thinking being worked out, and it also in passing partly answers one of Eutychus' questions. I started by commenting on Quetzalcoatl...
quote:
By quetzalcoatl;
It leads one to think that there is no such thing as Islam, but a number of different Islams, as with Christianities. To say that one is 'true Islam' seems to lead to a No True Scotsman (informal) fallacy.
I guess it is arguable that there are two Islams, and a bit of a period of development between them. In early days an optimistic Muhammad seems to have thought everyone would gladly voluntarily accept Islam, not only his own Arab peoples but Christians and Jews also.
Naturally it didn't work out that way, and Muhammad didn't have a strong theology of forgiveness/turning-the-other-cheek/etc such as exists in Christianity based on the cross. If there is one thing clear in the Quran and in Muslims I talk to, it's that they really don't get the cross. By the way he (mis)interpreted Jesus Muhammad ruled out the application of Christian ideas like 'turning the other cheek'. I discussed this with a Muslim I know, and his response about Muhammad's warfare was on the lines of “...and if he had a chance to get his own back....”
So on the one hand Islam is contradictory and divided about peace; unfortunately the final version both in terms of the Quran and in terms of Muhammad's conduct is the violent version which cannot therefore be claimed to be a later false development but is an integral part of Islam. QED....
'Christianities' – as regards the 'peaceableness' thing, there is only one Christianity, found in the NT; the later violent version is centuries later and massively contradicts the original.... And BTW, before we go any further down the road to Glasgow than some have already tried to take us above, I've commented before on the point that when one is discussing the development of religious ideas, and what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate development, the last thing the argument needs is some supercilious superficial twerp raising the 'no true Scotsman' spectre. Religious beliefs do develop, some developments are legitimate, some not, that can and should be discussed as an issue on its merits – the Scotsman fallacy is a completely different chain of logic and absolutely not needed on this voyage.
[back to a 'here and now' comment - the Muslim I mention would love to convince me of Islam's peaceableness - but he clearly doesn't have a good answer about Muhammad's own warfare]
I moved on to Barnabas62
quote:
And, to repeat. I don't think Islam, Judaism or Christianity are intrinsically violent. They reflect to some extent the violent tendencies to be found in human behaviour. Particularly when we perceive we are threatened.
Putting the last first as usual, 'the violent tendencies to be found in human behaviour' are indeed part of the issue. The trouble, as I pointed out above when Eutychus said summat similar, is that it's also so vague and universal an 'explanation' as to be no practical use. As I said, it's a bit like blaming air crashes just on 'gravity' and ignoring factors like human error, weather, mechanical failure, sabotage, etc. In asking about the implications of a religious state or the attempt to have such a thing, I'm raising that more useful kind of explanation. Because it is not just a 'mantra' as Eutychus put it, to say that religious states are bad; the idea of such a thing creates really problematic very real-world dynamics which are clearly likely to result in violence eventually, either by said religious state (or would-be religious state), or in reaction by those who have been provoked thereby.
B62 again;
quote:
“I don't think Islam, Judaism or Christianity are intrinsically violent”.
The relationship here is complex. But essentially Judaism and Christianity as its 'fulfilment' or completion follow a trajectory which leads from normal human ways of thinking about these things to a 'new covenant' which brings in radical new ideas. Where this starts is humanly intrinsically violent; where it ends under divine leading is decidedly not so at least for those who trust God and follow the NT teaching. Of course there are still those who don't get it, but it's there in the NT for all who care....
Islam breaks from that trajectory; it rejects the Cross (remember that in Islam Jesus doesn't even get crucified, he's supposed to be too holy), and it goes backwards from Jesus' insight and instruction that his kingdom is 'not of this world' to set up an Islamic kingdom which is very much 'of this world' and which, in the real world inevitably leads to violence despite Muhammad's own aspiration to the contrary. Also note very emphatically that by that retrograde movement Islam declares itself clearly a false religion.
by Eutychus;
quote:
by Eutychus;
Once again you are insistent on locking contemporary Islam, and by extension all contemporary Muslims, into what you see as its core historical roots, and essentially repeating your mantra that state religion is bad.
Once again you're insisting on shooting the messenger instead of the guy who's really responsible. You did this on another thread when I drew attention to the implications of 'Christendom' states treating their kings as 'second Davids' and anomalously anointing them to become in real terms 'rival Messiahs' or 'antiChrists'. You had a real go at me over that, but I didn't make that anomaly, it was made by 'Christendom'; I just analysed it. For a detailed version look on my blog. (stevesfreechurchblog)
Likewise here; I didn't set up Islam as it is, I'm just logically analysing. Despite initial aspirations of peace, Muhammad established his faith by warfare and that stands as the example his followers now go with. He created an inherently violent religion because the kind of religious state he set up can only be done violently. It is likely Muhammad would be appalled by some of what IS and other modern Muslims are doing; he didn't understand what he was setting up.
by Eutychus
quote:
By Eutychus
What are you going to say to a family like this? "Haha, told you so, I've been right all along. It's only to be expected, you're the ones who are inconsistent, why waste your time trying to practice peaceable Islam in the UK, Islam is fundamentally violent so it's normal your girl has run off to Syria"?
And;
It seems to me that retorting that this just reveals the true colours of Islam and enjoining the family to recant of their moderate Islam is not going to be helpful.
I don't recall any bit where I retorted thus, and if I were dealing with such a case 'Haha, told you so...' would certainly not be my opening gambit. Nevertheless, Islam is not a divinely given religion, it is a human invention, and a falsehood – not to mention 'inconsistent'. It needs to be recanted of. Because of the origin in Muhammad's own warfare, and in the flawed idea of a religious state, a 'peaceable' Islam can never be a stable proposition. Islam doesn't have a sound theology of peace because it rejects the Cross; at best it has an aspiration to peace which is contradicted by other aspects of the religion. In the end, for other families not to suffer as the families of those runaway girls, it is necessary to defeat and eradicate Islam; and the only legitimate way for Christians to defeat Islam is by following Jesus' instructions and eschewing warfare in favour of peaceable persuasion. That also means preaching the peaceable NT version of Christianity, and against the (Islam-like) inconsistency and anomaly of 'Christendom'.
Back to today; as I said, do bear in mind the above is a bit unpolished and was actually composed prior to my recent response to B62. And I've deliberately NOT altered/updated it. After so long a post I'll back off to let you digest it, before coming back with some answers to the more recent posts....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Islam is not a divinely given religion, it is a human invention, and a falsehood – not to mention 'inconsistent'. It needs to be recanted of.
So how do you suggest going about this, practically? Are you going to "compel them to enter"...? quote:
bear in mind the above is a bit unpolished and was actually composed prior to my recent response to B62. And I've deliberately NOT altered/updated it.
If you're treating this thread as a medium in which to publish pre-written installments of your pontifications, it might go some way to explaining why this feels so little like a discussion; and discussion is the vocation of this board.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Religious beliefs do develop, some developments are legitimate, some not, that can and should be discussed as an issue on its merits
And it seems to me that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't a "legitimate development" of Islam, viewing it through your approach to the Christian scriptures. quote:
I didn't set up Islam as it is, I'm just logically analysing.(...) In the end, for other families not to suffer as the families of those runaway girls, it is necessary to defeat and eradicate Islam
This problem won't get solved by sheer cerebral logic, especially not sheer logic that uses vocabulary like "eradicate" in the name of non-violence. The problem with your approach, which your response doesn't mitigate in the slightest, is that you appear to overlook the human element entirely.
People - even the most radicalised - are not just sets of ideological beliefs that they can simply be argued out of or made to "recant". They are individuals with emotions and histories and families; they are flesh and blood. Like you, they may well be seeking to be God-fearing. I don't get any feel for any of that at all in your approach.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
"People - even the most radicalised - are not just sets of ideological beliefs that they can simply be argued out of or made to "recant". They are individuals with emotions and histories and families; they are flesh and blood. Like you, they may well be seeking to be God-fearing. I don't get any feel for any of that at all in your approach."
Yes - except that ISIS is waging total war. They want to KILL US!
They have already massacred Christian and other civilians minding their own business, and they want to overthrow other states violently.
It could be argued that if they want total war - that a proportionate response that they WOULD understand would be to send in the B52s, and in the words of some commenters out there - "carpet-bomb the fuck out of them".
It continues...
They want to take on the full force of NATO and ex-WARPAC...
Give it to them. in spades. Rolling Thunder, MOABs...
For the record, ISIS declared war on EVERYONE else.
Follow up with humanitarian efforts - but deal with the military threat first. but F/A-18s nibbling away at the edges may not help.
OK - I'm thinking conventional military... but Jordan seem to be doing a pretty good job at the mo.
ISIS also take Surah 9 as a standing order. Basically "force people to conver or blow the fuck out of them".
Sometimes hitting a foe hard is needed. Roosevelt had it with "speak softly and carry a big stick".
Some threats cannot be appeased... of course there's the fact that Jesus WILL be laying an almighty smackdown when He returns....
[ 09. March 2015, 07:47: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Firstly, ISIS is an organisation, not an individual.
Secondly, much as chunks of the media and the political spectrum would like you to believe it, ISIS is not representative of the whole of Islam, which is what this thread is about.
Thirdly, I think I can safely claim to have met and interacted with more killers, torturers, and psychopaths than most Shipmates, and I reiterate my claim that they are still flesh-and-blood individuals with emotions, relatives, and so on.
To consider even the Jihadi Johns of this world as somehow of a different, inhuman species to us is to negate our own inherent human propensity for evil and violence (or original sin if you prefer) and believe we are of a superior moral race. I think this runs entirely counter to the New Testament and ultimately results in the worst forms of atrocity against other humans.
Of course it is much easier to demonize the "enemy" than engage with them.
The point of this thread as far as I'm concerned is to discuss how I as a Christian can or should engage with Muslims on an individual basis and with Islam in general.
I am not a theologian, still less a scholar of Muslim theology, so I have little chance of contributing to the debate on that level. I do a) have some ideas about the Kingdom of God and the role of the Christian in society, and b) opportunities for personal interaction with Muslims.
The upshot of this is that a) I am using the opportunities I have to encourage the inclusion of Islam in the public sphere here in France, because I believe that the inclusion of all religions in the public sphere is fundamental to protestant-inspired secularity (laďcité) and the relationship of Church and State, and one way of combating Islamic radicalisation b) I am attempting to love my Muslim neighbour as an individual, not see them as a potential threat.
I personally don't rule out military intervention against ISIS, but I think it will take more than that to quash violence in the name of Islam. I'm not very interested in discussing the military aspects simply because there's not much I can do about them. I will be interested to see whether Steve Langton interacts with you on that issue though...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Good post, Eutychus. (The one just above this.)
One thing that the (American) media has gotten right is consistently referring to ISIS as "the self-proclaimed Islamic state". IE, they're on their own power trip, and do not speak for Islam nor most Muslims.
Now, if we could just figure out how to stop ISIS in its plans to bring forth the End Times.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
It continues...
They want to take on the full force of NATO and ex-WARPAC...
Give it to them. in spades. Rolling Thunder, MOABs...
WTF do you suggest these be targeted at? ISIS is a regime of a few people terrorising the majority of the population - even in their heartland.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, why not bomb some of the Sunni tribes - what possible harm could it do? Save us from armchair warriors.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Steve Langton ...
I'm entirely sure you've understood the point I was trying to make but that's more likely to be my fault rather than yours ...
However, just as a matter of historical record, there wasn't ever just 'one Christianity' - you can see hints of variations even within the pages of the NT.
What eventually emerged was a consensus on what was orthodox and what wasn't - and the NT scriptures played a key role in that, of course - but they weren't the only means used. If you read the Fathers they are forever protesting that the schismatics and Gnostics are the ones who quote the scriptures - and who quote them out of context ... the context of the tradition (small t or Big T) out of which the scriptures emerged.
It's one of those both/and things ...
As for Islam, there are more than 'two' varieties of it ... and, as within Judaism and within Christianity, a wide range of varying views.
I will agree with you on the cross aspect - a key aspect that Islam has overlooked ... alongside the Trinity too, of course.
You can't isolate the cross from the entirety of the 'Christ-event' - the whole thing is 'of a piece'. But you knew that already.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So how do you suggest going about this, practically? Are you going to "compel them to enter"...?
No, any compelling is up to God, not me. Although my arguments/reasoning should be as 'compelling' as possible in a non-violent way. To be 'compelling', the arguments need to be consistent with the 'New Covenant' so that they can carry their full weight and divine power. Therefore they need to be arguments which reject the 'religious state' idea for Christians as well as Muslims, and advocate instead Jesus' 'kingdom not of this world'.
by Eutychus;
quote:
If you're treating this thread as a medium in which to publish pre-written installments of your pontifications, it might go some way to explaining why this feels so little like a discussion; and discussion is the vocation of this board.
No, I'm not, and I hope that what I did above will remain a one-off. I had a backlog of things I'd been preparing as discussion responses and been delayed in putting out - they seemed to answer some of the points you'd raised and it seemed useful in making some of my points to post them as they were rather than do an up-to-date summary. OK, yes, I'm sometimes going off-line to prepare responses in an effort to avoid some of my aspergic communication problems, which tend to show more in more instant responses - it's a bit of a compromise and I suppose does take away some of the immediacy of discussion, but hopefully reduces misunderstandings.
by Eutychus;
quote:
And it seems to me that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't a "legitimate development" of Islam, viewing it through your approach to the Christian scriptures.
In the comment you're responding to there, I'm simply trying to ensure we do get discussion on a proper basis without the irrelevant and inappropriate 'Scotsman fallacy'. That is, I made the point that religions do develop in various ways and some are good and consistent developments, some are bad and ultimately inconsistent with the original. Such developments should. for the benefit of everyone involved, be discussed on their merits and the discussion not derailed by glib references to the completely different 'logic' of the Scotsman fallacy.
No, I'm not the 'arbiter' - I'm just saying how things look to me and you're welcome to discuss it. Accusing me of 'setting up as an arbiter' is NOT a discussion of the issue. In this case 'how things look to me' is that Muhammad had indeed an aspiration to peace but also built into Islam the contradictory idea of an Islamic state which metaphorically and literally fights against that aspiration to peace. I've only had time for a quick scan, but Alex Cockell seems to be making a fair point in quoting Surah 9....
by Eutychus;
quote:
This problem won't get solved by sheer cerebral logic, especially not sheer logic that uses vocabulary like "eradicate" in the name of non-violence. The problem with your approach, which your response doesn't mitigate in the slightest, is that you appear to overlook the human element entirely.
People - even the most radicalised - are not just sets of ideological beliefs that they can simply be argued out of or made to "recant". They are individuals with emotions and histories and families; they are flesh and blood. Like you, they may well be seeking to be God-fearing. I don't get any feel for any of that at all in your approach.
The only reason you're not feeling that is because I'm basically assuming it - and tackling the problem, which is the 'sets of ideological beliefs' that fight against the humanity; and by their nature need to be defeated in argument as well as countered in other ways. The point you seemed to be missing is that rounded humanity in this case involves the rational as well as the sentimental etc.
('vocabulary like "eradicate"' - You must have problems with Jesus and Paul as well, as they also use 'violent' language yet about the peaceable - e.g., 'the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God')
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm entirely sure you've understood the point I was trying to make but that's more likely to be my fault rather than yours ...
I have the impression that you've missed a 'not' there!
by Gamaliel;
quote:
However, just as a matter of historical record, there wasn't ever just 'one Christianity' - you can see hints of variations even within the pages of the NT.
Christianity is certainly not narrow; but there are limits. My comment on 'Christianities' concerned the point that for the issue on this thread, there is effectively only one 'Christianity', the peaceable version; that the non-peaceable 'Christendom' version is clearly a late development with at least a very,very strong argument that it is an illegitimate development. I contrasted this with Islam where the physical this-worldly warfare goes right back to the beginning and it is hard to convincingly argue that it's an illegitimate development.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Steve Langton
You appear to have ignored this post in which I make a quite specific (not vague) connection between the human tendency to violence and the extent to which Holy Books may sometimes reflect that, as well as resisting that.
Your repeated dismissal of the value of acknowledging the universal human tendencies towards violence (too vague to be of any use) seems to ignore the more general problem of Holy Books, their contents and the use and abuse of them, in favour of a critique of one of the "people of the Book" religions. I think that's partial, ignores the more general root problem, ignores the need for both self-criticism and better inter-faith understanding.
Rather like Eutychus, I come from the nonconformist, renewed, evangelical wing of the church, so I think we both have a high view of the inspiration of scripture. It may be a puzzle to you that our views diverge radically from yours. I think we're both trying to explain that divergence as best we can.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
You appear to have ignored this post in which I make a quite specific (not vague) connection between the human tendency to violence and the extent to which Holy Books may sometimes reflect that, as well as resisting that.
Not ignoring, still pondering. Some partial answers in my earlier long post....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
PS:
@B62;
Note this from my long post above;
quote:
The relationship here is complex. But essentially Judaism and Christianity as its 'fulfilment' or completion follow a trajectory which leads from normal human ways of thinking about these things to a 'new covenant' which brings in radical new ideas. Where this starts is humanly intrinsically violent; where it ends under divine leading is decidedly not so at least for those who trust God and follow the NT teaching. Of course there are still those who don't get it, but it's there in the NT for all who care....
Islam breaks from that trajectory; it rejects the Cross (remember that in Islam Jesus doesn't even get crucified, he's supposed to be too holy), and it goes backwards from Jesus' insight and instruction that his kingdom is 'not of this world' to set up an Islamic kingdom which is very much 'of this world' and which, in the real world inevitably leads to violence despite Muhammad's own aspiration to the contrary. Also note very emphatically that by that retrograde movement Islam declares itself clearly a false religion.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Islam breaks from that trajectory; it rejects the Cross
So what.
You can just as easily say 'Christianity rejects Islam.
[code]
[ 09. March 2015, 15:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well spotted Steve Langton ... I had missed out a 'not' ... it should have been 'not entirely sure' ...
I think Barnabas62 is making a similar point to the one I was struggling to make.
You appear to be applying your own standard for assessing scriptural texts to the Islamic approach - which might not be comparing like with like.
What Christianity, Islam and Judaism have in common - as the three 'Abrahamic' faiths - is a commitment to particular sacred texts - 'People of the Book'.
That doesn't mean that each approaches those texts in the same way. I'm certainly not qualified in any way to comment on Judaism but I've read sufficiently and met enough Jewish people to come to realise that they don't necessarily approach the scriptures in the same way as Christians do.
I would imagine that it would be the same with the way different traditions within Islam approach their texts.
What you appear unable to appreciate is that your particular 'take' on the NT is just that - a particular 'take' ...
Not everyone takes the view that it was all lovely and wonderful in the 1st century then it all went horribly wrong so by the time we get to the 4th century things have become horrendous.
Ok - I know that's a very condensed and unnuanced summary of your actual position but essentially that's what you're saying.
Not only that, you're turning it into a lens through which to view Islam. They don't have a 'Turn the other cheek', Sermon on the Mount /Beatitudes heritage so therefore they are inherently violent ...
I don't see how that follows.
Of course, as a fully Trinitarian Christian with a high view of the scriptures and the historic creeds, I'm going to say that Islam is 'deficient' in a way that Christianity isn't - Christianity has the fullness of the Truth as it is in Jesus.
That doesn't mean that I have to conclude that there is no truth in it whatsoever nor that it is inherently violent as a belief system.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's also reifying Islam to a prodigious degree. Surely, there is no Islam, but Islams, yes. My oldest friend was a Sufi, non-violent, loving, God-intoxicated. Ah, maybe he was No True Muslim!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I find myself agreeing with Gamaliel.
As a protestant I find I'm still getting to grips with how Catholics and Orthodox approach the Christian scriptures, let alone understand how other faiths view theirs.
That said, I'm really not convinced that to be internally coherent, Islam has to tie everything back to verses in the Koran in the way an evangelical systematic theology would seek to for the Bible.
Plenty of Muslims argue that Islam is not inherently violent. Let's give them the space to try and prove it is my wager.
(And while Jesus and Paul may talk about swords, I think words like "eradicate" and "recant" are in another league).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by leo;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Islam breaks from that trajectory; it rejects the Cross
So what.
You can just as easily say 'Christianity rejects Islam'.
No, not 'just as easily' because Christianity and Islam are 'asymmetric' with each other (or something very similar). Christianity (and Judaism) comes first, Islam is effectively dependent on its forerunners. Christianity is initially simply 'there', and had been for centuries, when Islam comes along and rejects a whole string of Christian beliefs. After Islam has done that, Christians may reasonably look at Islam's claims and say that they don't accept that Islamic rejection, and therefore, reasonably, that they reject Islam itself as not a legitimate extension/development of the Christian tradition.
Fact; Christianity includes Jesus dying on the Cross, and many things which flow from that, including the Trinity, the 'New Covenant' and the resulting 'kingdom not of this world'.
Fact; Islam denies that and most of the other implications of the Cross including the Trinity, a coherent theology of divine forgiveness, and also denies the 'kingdom not of this world' in favour of a 'this-world' Islamic state.
Where is your sense of historic perspective?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That doesn't mean that I have to conclude that there is no truth in it whatsoever nor that it is inherently violent as a belief system.
I'm not concluding there is 'no truth in it whatsoever'. Clearly there is quite a lot of truth; truth is truth wherever it comes from. BUT once Muhammad led his community in war, it gets a bit difficult to claim 'inherent peaceableness'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Granted. But "inherently violent / inherently peaceable" would be a rather binary way of classifying what is an obviously much more complex reality.
And while the message of Christianity might, arguably, be "inherently peaceable", the same cannot be said of Christianity as practised.
[ 09. March 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Granted. But "inherently violent / inherently peaceable" would be a rather binary way of classifying what is an obviously much more complex reality.
And while the message of Christianity might, arguably, be "inherently peaceable", the same cannot be said of Christianity as practised.
If you read back I think you will find I'm not being simplistically binary; I'm seeing the reality in terms of aspiration of peace brought down by the contradictory aspiration of setting up an Islamic state. Quite a complex situation....
'Christianity as practiced' Yes, Christianity has been wrongly practiced - but isn't that rather the point? Christianity is indeed inherently peaceable, precisely because Christianity rejects the religious state approach. Just because someone comes along later (3-4 centuries later) and distorts it does not alter that basic fact. Sorting that out involves comparing and going back to the original, which can be straightforwardly done via the NT. (And note that the tension between original Christianity and distorted 'Christendom' has in fact significantly corrected the distortion over the years anyway, making most modern Christianity very different to the medieval version)
How do you sort it out with Islam, where the original prophet supplies both the peaceable teaching AND the example of warfare, and the 'Holy Book' contains both aspects totally interlaced?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It is because you keep posting stuff like this: quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity is indeed inherently peaceable, precisely because Christianity rejects the religious state approach.
that I end up taking stuff like this quote:
Islam, where the original prophet supplies both the peaceable teaching AND the example of warfare, and the 'Holy Book' contains both aspects totally interlaced?
as not being a serious challenge.
You are arguing (again) as if the only thing that has ever made Christianity violent is a religious state approach, and ignoring (again) those Muslims who seem to manage to extract a peaceable religion out of their Book and subsequent teachings, or dismissing them as inconsistent.
And besides, the same charge applies to your Holy Book, however much you seek to emphasise the NT or contextualise the OT - unless you want to redefine the canon.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Christianity as practiced' Yes, Christianity has been wrongly practiced - but isn't that rather the point? Christianity is indeed inherently peaceable, precisely because Christianity rejects the religious state approach. Just because someone comes along later (3-4 centuries later) and distorts it does not alter that basic fact. Sorting that out involves comparing and going back to the original, which can be straightforwardly done via the NT. (And note that the tension between original Christianity and distorted 'Christendom' has in fact significantly corrected the distortion over the years anyway, making most modern Christianity very different to the medieval version)
Steve, allow me to remind you of the gentle warning given here.
The Ship's Ten Commandments includes Commandment 8:
quote:
8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
Very often, that's not a commandment that is broken by one specific post. It's broken if the same agenda is raised by the same poster, on several threads, even if they are only tangentally related to that agenda.
There are threads where a repeated insistence that this-or-that interpretation of Christianity is the only true version and the others are distortions, but this is a thread specifically about Islam and violence, not Christianity and nationality/politics. Obviously comparisions between other religions and Islam are on-topic, but the continued diversion of the thread away from the main point and onto the “What is true Christianity?” question is beginning to make it look as if you are using the Islam angle as a peg on which to hang your usual colours.
There's nothing to stop you from starting a thread on the true nature of Christianity and its relation to national statehood, and if you can find takers for that discussion, you can discuss all your points there. Please do not divert this or any other thread on a different topic for that purpose. To do so risks being seen as crusading.
If you do not understand this warning, or disagree with it, please raise that issue in the Styx.
Eliab
Purgatory Host
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You are arguing (again) as if the only thing that has ever made Christianity violent is a religious state approach, and ignoring (again) those Muslims who seem to manage to extract a peaceable religion out of their Book and subsequent teachings, or dismissing them as inconsistent.
And besides, the same charge applies to your Holy Book, however much you seek to emphasise the NT or contextualise the OT - unless you want to redefine the canon.
Individual Christians and occasionally churches have sometimes shown violence without the idea of a religious state being involved; as you say yourself, this is general human sinfulness. It remains true that the vast bulk of Christian violence has involved the religious state idea and such events as Crusades and the Inquisition are pretty much impossible except on such a basis. And it remains true that if you analyse the idea it clearly has that potential in multiple ways, including that the 'Christian state' idea provides excuses/justifications for nominally peaceable Christians to behave violently and believe it to be God's will.
Islam presents similar problems and for similar reasons. The difference is that in Christianity there are reasons in the faith to be peaceable, there is a positive theology of peace going back to the NT and even to OT promises and prophecies. In Islam all the distinctive reasons that exist in Christianity have been rejected and violence exists from square one with Muhammad's own warfare.
No, the same does not apply to my Holy Book (which I thought was also yours) precisely because over that long history there is development which leads to that 'New Covenant' and a different view of how people can be "God's holy nation" in the world. I have no need at all to change the 'canon' to come to my conclusions. But when another religion comes along claiming to be related to Christianity but demonstrably going retrograde on this key point, I draw the rather obvious conclusions....
I wish I could believe the peaceable Muslims would win the argument; the trouble is that when faced with alienation, the violent option is simply there and will be taken up. There is no counter-theology as opposed to mere aspiration.
Having said that, Eliab, I give up pro tem. I don't think I can realistically avoid the problems you're worried about precisely because the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition is thoroughly intertwined and it's hard to discuss any of it in isolation as you seem to be requiring. Right now there is no likelihood I could sustain a thread dealing directly with the church/state issues as such; I've been struggling a bit to keep up on this one.
It's a pity the 'crusading' rules are so strict, given the life-and-death nature of this particular issue; but as I say. pro tem I yield.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To an extent, I think Steve Langton is right insofar that - on the surface at least - it appears to be more difficult for Islam to extricate itself from a 'caliphate' mentality - to whatever extent that is held - without compromising or doing damage to what appear to be its intentions ...
I've not expressed that very well ... but I think you'll get my gist.
From what I have gleaned about Islam, the focus is on living out one's faith in the public sphere - although I accept that there are more mystical or 'interiorised' forms of Islamic spirituality - such as Sufism.
Whether this necessitates some kind of caliphate or 'Islamic state' run on apparently Islamic principles - such as sharia law etc - is a moot point. My own view - which is one in which I'm open to correction - is that over the centuries Islam will indeed become rather more 'interiorised' and 'personal'/individualistic than it generally is now ... and I think that's a pattern you can see across all major religions - including Christianity.
At the risk of pontificating/diagnosing what's going on here on this thread - I would suggest that it is equally as difficult for Steve Langton to stop 'crusading' as it would be for certain types of Islam to abandon the idea of a caliphate ...
Why do I say that?
Because it seems to me that the dichotomy between what Steve sees as 'true Christianity' and 'Christendom' is part and parcel of his spiritual make-up. On one level, he cannot but 'campaign' and 'crusade' ... it's part of who he is and how he defines himself in spiritual terms.
To that extent, I'd agree with him that there are analogies to be drawn between the kind of religious violence demonstrated during the Crusades and so on and the kind of jihadi violence we've seen within Islam.
There are parallels and analogies, certainly - but that's about as far as I'd go. All analogies are by their nature incomplete attempts to 'nail' something and with the Christianity = good / Islam = bad or not so good dichotomy I'm not sure we're always comparing like with like.
Steve also believes that any church/state or religion/state connection is a matter of 'life and death' because such connections can and do lead to persecution of unbelievers/heretics or religious violence a la the Crusades of jihadist campaigns.
Well ... sure, but it's equally true that arrangements of this kind can have a positive effect ... the whole thing is a mixed economy.
Anyhow, that's matter for another thread rather than this one - although I can understand how the two aspects are entwined in Steve Langton's 'take' on things.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I also think it's likely that Islam will become more secularized; and maybe this is already happening. I can't remember the stats, but in France, mosque attendance is quite low, and also in Iran. Some Arab countries had a long period of secular government, so I don't see why this should not happen again. The events in Egypt showed that many people are unhappy with Islamist government.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, I think Steve Langton is right insofar that - on the surface at least - it appears to be more difficult for Islam to extricate itself from a 'caliphate' mentality - to whatever extent that is held - without compromising or doing damage to what appear to be its intentions ...
The issue I have with Steve's thought is that he is trying to map the trajectory of Islam on that of Christianity.
It's like those who say that 'Islam needs a Reformation'; to which the answers are "yes it does", "no it doesn't" or "it's already had one" (if by Reformation you mean 'ad fontes' then you could argue that Qutb and his fellow travellers have done just that - or you could argue that they've taken a modernist/literalist angle on the whole thing that owes more to John Henry Darby than Luther - if you mean something like a wholesale embracing of Higher Criticism followed by a retrenchment then you may be waiting a while, and one could also argue fairly convincingly that these things were only possible in Western Europe because Christianity was in a position of strength, Strauss came from within a Christianized nation after all).
I'd argue that Steve ignores (no surprise) tradition, and the role Islamic tradition plays in the formation of the Islam. After all, it's not as if the Quran exists in a vacuum. We have hundreds of years of Islamic thought alongside the Quran itself, which has tried to wrestle with the various perspectives one can get out of the Quran, and the teachings that are particular to the various periods in Mohammed's life.
On a simplistic level, people are generally fairly ingenious at finding reasonings in their religion for living the quiet life - especially if it means prosperity, order and a better life for their children.
The problem at the moment, is that a lot of the ways in which the debate is handled is almost calculated to polarise opinion amongst muslims and push them in the direction of trying to defend the indefensible. Playing the role of bringing civilisation to the savages is rarely likely to endear people to you.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity (and Judaism) comes first, Islam is effectively dependent on its forerunners. Christianity is initially simply 'there', and had been for centuries, when Islam comes along and rejects a whole string of Christian beliefs. After Islam has done that, Christians may reasonably look at Islam's claims and say that they don't accept that Islamic rejection, and therefore, reasonably, that they reject Islam itself as not a legitimate extension/development of the Christian tradition.
You're showing a medieval view - that islam is some sort of Christian heresy in its own right.
You may as well say that Christianity is a Jewish heresy.
Muslims believe that the gospels are full of errors because they disagree with each other and were written down a long time after the events they describe.
You are judging someone else's religion from your own perspective. Muslims judge other religions by THEIR own perspective and by the belief that the final revelation to Muhammad (pbuh) corrected the mistakes in Christianity.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
One fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity can be seen in their final standing orders...
Christianity -
The Great Commission
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.”
Islam according to the Koran
Context
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
THE QURAN 9:1-8
Chapter (sura) 9 has a couple of different names (and transliterations). Usually it is called "Repentance", in Arabic (Al-Tawbah), or "The Ultimatum" or "Release" (Bara’ah). Below is Chapter 9, verses 1-8, from Dawood’s7 English translation of the Quran. For a Quran comparison, I’ll list these verses in a couple of different translations in appendix 1.
9:1 A declaration of immunity from God and His apostle to the idolaters with whom you have made agreements:
9:2 For four months you shall go unmolested in the land. But know that you shall not escape God’s judgement, and that God will humble the unbelievers.
9:3 A proclamation to the people from God and His apostle on the day of the greater pilgrimage:
God and His apostle are under no obligation to the idolaters. If you repent, it shall be well with you; but if you give no heed, know that you shall not be immune from God’s judgement.
Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers,
9:4 except to those idolaters who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous.
9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
9:6 If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to safety. For the idolaters are ignorant men.
9:7 God and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.
9:8 How can you trust them? If they prevail against you they will respect neither agreements nor ties of kindred. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts reject you. Most of them are evil doers.
It would appear that while there are periods of warfare in JudeoChristian history - a lot of these were timelocked, and presented as history. Not a standing order.
It would appear, however, that a literal reading of Surah 9:5 does NOT allow that interpretation - thai it is a standing order for religio-military action.
ISIS claim to be "true Muslims"; they claimed that Mecca was "idolatrous" when they declared war on Saudi (I saw that tweet go out).
They declare themselves to be a nation-state - they almost seem to declare themselves as the Westboro Baptist Church of Islam...
Only they're not justa bunch of wingnuts picketing funerals - they are actually killing people.
The question does arise - they are a military threat to everyone else... they're public with trying to recreate a Caliphate... do we talk them down? Or do we (the rest of the world) take them at their word and call back to CS Lewis Muscular Christianity (Praise the Lord and pass the ammo)?
Do we teach them not to bring AKs when their declared enemies have strategic bombers and Tomahawk missiles?
Hard call to make.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Apologies for missing the edit window - but in the words of Badger in Wind In The Willows when he, Toad , Ratty etc took back Toad Hall...
Do we "teach" ISIS, or do we "learn" them?
Google Groups discussion over Badger "learning" the Weasels through percussive correction.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wittrs/KRErNAdP4y8
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
It would appear, however, that a literal reading of Surah 9:5 does NOT allow that interpretation - thai it is a standing order for religio-military action.
Why are you apparently insistent on arguing that "true" Muslims must interpret it literally?
It seems to me you're stipulating how Muslims should interpret their Holy Book in order to have a good excuse to indiscriminately attack with disproportionate violence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I like the use of 'time-locked' to refer to the use of violence by Christians; well, they managed to burn people for about 1000 years. Some time-lock!
It sounds rather like the rationale used by the jihadists!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
It would appear, however, that a literal reading of Surah 9:5 does NOT allow that interpretation - thai it is a standing order for religio-military action.
Do you believe that verses in the Bible can be taken in isolation, or do you believe you have to understand them in their context? Why do you assume that the Quran is any different.
Not to mention that Islam tends to have had more of an interpretative tradition (in the 'Talmudic' sense) than Christianity does.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But surely, some Christians have a deep insight into Islamic thinking? After all, they have made a thorough study of Islamic writings, including the hadith, and have studied at the feet of eminent scholars. How could they be mistaken?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To an extent, I think Steve Langton is right insofar that - on the surface at least - it appears to be more difficult for Islam to extricate itself from a 'caliphate' mentality - to whatever extent that is held - without compromising or doing damage to what appear to be its intentions ...
I've not expressed that very well ... but I think you'll get my gist.
From what I have gleaned about Islam, the focus is on living out one's faith in the public sphere - although I accept that there are more mystical or 'interiorised' forms of Islamic spirituality - such as Sufism.
Whether this necessitates some kind of caliphate or 'Islamic state' run on apparently Islamic principles - such as sharia law etc - is a moot point. My own view - which is one in which I'm open to correction - is that over the centuries Islam will indeed become rather more 'interiorised' and 'personal'/individualistic than it generally is now ... and I think that's a pattern you can see across all major religions - including Christianity.
At the risk of pontificating/diagnosing what's going on here on this thread - I would suggest that it is equally as difficult for Steve Langton to stop 'crusading' as it would be for certain types of Islam to abandon the idea of a caliphate ...
Why do I say that?
Because it seems to me that the dichotomy between what Steve sees as 'true Christianity' and 'Christendom' is part and parcel of his spiritual make-up. On one level, he cannot but 'campaign' and 'crusade' ... it's part of who he is and how he defines himself in spiritual terms.
To that extent, I'd agree with him that there are analogies to be drawn between the kind of religious violence demonstrated during the Crusades and so on and the kind of jihadi violence we've seen within Islam.
There are parallels and analogies, certainly - but that's about as far as I'd go. All analogies are by their nature incomplete attempts to 'nail' something and with the Christianity = good / Islam = bad or not so good dichotomy I'm not sure we're always comparing like with like.
Steve also believes that any church/state or religion/state connection is a matter of 'life and death' because such connections can and do lead to persecution of unbelievers/heretics or religious violence a la the Crusades of jihadist campaigns.
Well ... sure, but it's equally true that arrangements of this kind can have a positive effect ... the whole thing is a mixed economy.
Anyhow, that's matter for another thread rather than this one - although I can understand how the two aspects are entwined in Steve Langton's 'take' on things.
Steve Langton is prefectly capable of telling the Ship what he thinks without your help. Stop putting words into other poster's mouths. It's irritating and makes you look like a jerk. [ETA: Focus on telling the Ship what you think]
Tubbs
Member Admin
[ 10. March 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Er, thanks, Tubbs....
Sorry, Eliab, leo has rather forced my hand with this....
by leo
quote:
Islam is some sort of Christian heresy in its own right.
I don't see how it can be realistically claimed that Islam is a 'stand-alone' religion independent of the Judeo-Christian roots to which the Quran constantly refers. Therefore either we accept its claim to 'correct' Christianity (and Judaism), or we regard its differences as 'heresy' subverting Christian teaching. Muhammad himself doesn't seem to have intended us to have other options. My view here is not 'medieval' but commonsense.
by leo
quote:
You may as well say that Christianity is a Jewish heresy.
I assume that Jewish people think it is! That's a different argument. But note that if Christianity is not a legitimate development of Judaism, Islam which incorporates Christianity must be regarded as even less legitimate a development thereof.
Also note that the argument I'm making is that Christianity develops from Judaism in one very particular way which is of direct relevance to the 'Islamic violence' discussions. That is, by 'going global' beyond the Jewish nation, but as a 'kingdom not of this world', Christianity introduced a new and inherently peaceable way to be the people of God in the world, extensively expounded in the NT. While I'm not going to expound the point at length here (Eliab is probably already unhappy with what I'm saying here!), I regard that as a legitimate development of things foreshadowed/foretold/prophesied in Judaism. But if so, then what Muhammad subsequently does in setting up an Islamic state as the way to be God's people in the world, is clearly a massive retrograde step, the effects of which are reverberating right down to here/now. That is not just 'heresy' it is contradiction and outright denial of Christian teaching.
by leo;
quote:
Muslims believe that the gospels are full of errors because they disagree with each other and were written down a long time after the events they describe.
Muslims mostly appear to have a different view of the concept of 'inspiration'. If anything what you are saying here emphasises my point on the difficulty for Islam in 'getting round' the Quranic texts which teach the ideas of the Islamic State (not to be totally identified with the current organisation claiming that title!). Christian belief regarded the Gospels as 'Word of God' despite those 'disagreements' and despite the time between the events and the production of the Gospels; Islam is clearly much more 'literalist' in its approach to both the Judeo-Christian tradition and its own scriptures.
by leo;
quote:
You are judging someone else's religion from your own perspective. Muslims judge other religions by THEIR own perspective and by the belief that the final revelation to Muhammad (pbuh) corrected the mistakes in Christianity.
'pbuh' is 'peace be upon him' isn't it? Black irony in the context of this discussion, I feel....
Of course I'm looking at Islam 'from my own perspective' – and equally, being aware of that, trying very hard to step outside that perspective if I can. But saying that is not an objective argument – on the contrary, it runs the risk of relegating everything to just subjective opinion. Where's your objective refutation of what I'm saying?? Or your objective comment on the Islamic perspective???
And I suspect at serious risk of the wrath of Eliab...
by quetzalcoatl;
quote:
It sounds rather like the rationale used by the jihadists!
Christianity didn't burn people; a distortion called 'Christendom' came along centuries later and did that. 'Christendom' thought this was OK because, in contradiction of the NT , 'Christendom' set up a 'Christian state'. The rationale used by 'Christendom' and by 'the jihadists' are therefore not 'rather like' one another - they are identical. Except, as I've been saying, 'Christendom' was doing something deeply contradictory of the original teaching of Christianity; 'the jihadists', as far as I can see, are doing things very much in line with the original teaching of their religion and the specific example of their prophet.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Islam is clearly much more 'literalist' in its approach to both the Judeo-Christian tradition and its own scriptures.
That is precisely what I think you are failing to demonstrate. It suits your argument, but you haven't provided any third-party evidence at all.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Islam tends to have had more of an interpretative tradition (in the 'Talmudic' sense) than Christianity does.
I think that's much nearer the mark.
(And posting not in my hostly capacity, you are very definitely pushing your luck with your last paragraph)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough Tubbs, I made myself look a jerk. I wasn't trying to do Steve's job for him .
. but I can see how it came across that way. Apologies to Steve and other Shipmates.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It suits your argument, but you haven't provided any third-party evidence at all.
My comment here was in the context of leo's statements on Muslim ideas about the gospels.
My overall position remains as was; Islam contains a deep inconsistency between the aspiration of peace and the indisputable setting up by Muhammad of an Islamic 'kingdom of this world' state, which necessarily conflicts with the peaceable aspiration. Oh, and see my quote in that long post from a Muslim I'm having conversations with....
Thanks for your warning; but I wasn't going to let quetzalcoatl get away with quote:
I like the use of 'time-locked' to refer to the use of violence by Christians; well, they managed to burn people for about 1000 years. Some time-lock!
It sounds rather like the rationale used by the jihadists!
and I somehow don't think anyone else was going to challenge him. If his comment was justified on the thread, I believe my riposte was also.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It suits your argument, but you haven't provided any third-party evidence at all.
My comment here was in the context of leo's statements on Muslim ideas about the gospels.
My overall position remains as was; Islam contains a deep inconsistency between the aspiration of peace and the indisputable setting up by Muhammad of an Islamic 'kingdom of this world' state, which necessarily conflicts with the peaceable aspiration. Oh, and see my quote in that long post from a Muslim I'm having conversations with....
Thanks for your warning; but I wasn't going to let quetzalcoatl get away with quote:
I like the use of 'time-locked' to refer to the use of violence by Christians; well, they managed to burn people for about 1000 years. Some time-lock!
It sounds rather like the rationale used by the jihadists!
and I somehow don't think anyone else was going to challenge him. If his comment was justified on the thread, I believe my riposte was also.
It's striking that you seem to be agreeing with the militants' view of Islam. They would also say that they preach (and practise) authentic Islam, and the peaceful Muslims are apostates.
If the West starts to hold that view, we are in big trouble- it'll be war and war redoubled.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
[HOSTING]
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, Eliab, leo has rather forced my hand with this....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christianity didn't burn people; a distortion called 'Christendom' came along centuries later and did that. 'Christendom' thought this was OK because, in contradiction of the NT , 'Christendom' set up a 'Christian state'. The rationale used by 'Christendom' and by 'the jihadists' are therefore not 'rather like' one another - they are identical. Except, as I've been saying, 'Christendom' was doing something deeply contradictory of the original teaching of Christianity;
No one has forced your hand. You've been asked twice, first very gently, and then more clearly and precisely, not to hijack a thread on Islam to make these arguments about Christianity.
We get that this is an important issue to you. That's fine. It's even one you're allowed to discuss on the Ship. What you can't do is argue it on every thread into which it can conceivably be shoehorned.
You can start a new thread quoting comments from this one if you want to develop a tangent. You can start a new thread with your own OP inspired by views expressed here. What you have been asked not to do is continue to divert this thread. Your cooperation is expected.
If you want to respond to this post, do so in the Styx, not here, please.
Eliab
[/HOSTING]
[ 10. March 2015, 23:08: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It suits your argument, but you haven't provided any third-party evidence at all.
My comment here was in the context of leo's statements on Muslim ideas about the gospels.
My overall position remains as was; Islam contains a deep inconsistency between the aspiration of peace and the indisputable setting up by Muhammad of an Islamic 'kingdom of this world' state, which necessarily conflicts with the peaceable aspiration. Oh, and see my quote in that long post from a Muslim I'm having conversations with....
Thanks for your warning; but I wasn't going to let quetzalcoatl get away with quote:
I like the use of 'time-locked' to refer to the use of violence by Christians; well, they managed to burn people for about 1000 years. Some time-lock!
It sounds rather like the rationale used by the jihadists!
and I somehow don't think anyone else was going to challenge him. If his comment was justified on the thread, I believe my riposte was also.
It's striking that you seem to be agreeing with the militants' view of Islam. They would also say that they preach (and practise) authentic Islam, and the peaceful Muslims are apostates.
If the West starts to hold that view, we are in big trouble- it'll be war and war redoubled.
Sorry to be rather crass.. but sadly it might be, with apologies to Hilare belloc...
"Whatever happens we have got
Instant Sunshine and B52s, and they have not".
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
B52's that is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, carpet bomb the tribal areas in Iraq and Syria, and watch IS membership go through the roof. I think you would have a 100 Charlie Hebdos. Still, think of the thrill of it; the armchair warriors would be having orgasms. Bomb for Jesus!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Presumably, also, if the West broadly accepts the idea that Islam is inherently violent, not only do they have to find a way to deal with Islamist militancy, but with Islamic countries as well. I guess we could invade another one, as a kind of warning - that usually works well.
Then there's the problem of European and US Muslims, but maybe internment could be used; after all, it worked in N. Ireland.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Presumably, also, if the West broadly accepts the idea that Islam is inherently violent, not only do they have to find a way to deal with Islamist militancy, but with Islamic countries as well. I guess we could invade another one, as a kind of warning - that usually works well.
And it would be a good way to show that they are the ones who are violent.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I fear some of these suggestions may be taken seriously by some posters...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I fear some of these suggestions may be taken seriously by some posters...
Worse still, they may be taken seriously by some governments.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Presumably, also, if the West broadly accepts the idea that Islam is inherently violent, not only do they have to find a way to deal with Islamist militancy, but with Islamic countries as well. I guess we could invade another one, as a kind of warning - that usually works well.
And it would be a good way to show that they are the ones who are violent.
Why not go all out and invade Iraq again? We've learned from our mistakes; all we have to do is bribe a few tribal leaders, give the various militias some box sets of Top Gear, and everything should calm down.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
One fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity can be seen in their final standing orders...It would appear that while there are periods of warfare in JudeoChristian history - a lot of these were timelocked, and presented as history. Not a standing order.
It would appear, however, that a literal reading of Surah 9:5 does NOT allow that interpretation - thai it is a standing order for religio-military action.
That is quoting Sura 9 completely out of context. It is not 'a standing order' at all but refers to self-defence in a specific situation, much as do many similar Old testament passages about enemies.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course I'm looking at Islam 'from my own perspective' – and equally, being aware of that, trying very hard to step outside that perspective if I can. But saying that is not an objective argument – on the contrary, it runs the risk of relegating everything to just subjective opinion. Where's your objective refutation of what I'm saying?? Or your objective comment on the Islamic perspective???and the specific example of their prophet.
Their arguments are, therefore, 'objective' from their point of view.
Why should your view be more valid than theirs?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
One fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity can be seen in their final standing orders...It would appear that while there are periods of warfare in JudeoChristian history - a lot of these were timelocked, and presented as history. Not a standing order.
It would appear, however, that a literal reading of Surah 9:5 does NOT allow that interpretation - thai it is a standing order for religio-military action.
That is quoting Sura 9 completely out of context. It is not 'a standing order' at all but refers to self-defence in a specific situation, much as do many similar Old testament passages about enemies.
The problem is it plays out in reality - especially when you look at Islamist propaganda - like the way Hitler blamed the Jews - and therefore rationalised Auschwitz through ramping up FUD and moral panic.
Here is a Disney wartime folm that covered this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvp3zAPraF4
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'pbuh' is 'peace be upon him' isn't it? Black irony
Not at all - Muhammad, pbuh, brought peace to all the warring tribes in Arabia.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
The problem is it plays out in reality - especially when you look at Islamist propaganda - like the way Hitler blamed the Jews - and therefore rationalised Auschwitz through ramping up FUD and moral panic.
Hitler's religion was a perversion of Christianity.
So is 'Islamism' a perversion of Islam.
So violence is not inherent in either religion.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Maybe not, but it's endemic to ISLAMISM, and ISIS is Ismaist, is it not?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that there are non-violent Islamist parties, e.g. in Turkey.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Maybe not, but it's endemic to ISLAMISM, and ISIS is Ismaist, is it not?
ISIS may well be Islamist, which is the extension of Islam into the social and political fields, but it appears to go further or use methods which other Islamist groups do not use.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course I'm looking at Islam 'from my own perspective' with the original teaching of their religion and the specific example of their prophet.
And why should your own perspective be any more normative than anyone else's?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course I'm looking at Islam 'from my own perspective' with the original teaching of their religion and the specific example of their prophet.
And why should your own perspective be any more normative than anyone else's?
Look, Leo. ISIS have gone on record as EXPLICITLY wanting to create a new caliphate- thereby becoming a clear and present danger to the states around them.
Personally, I'd take them seriously.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hitler's religion was a perversion of Christianity.
No.
Hitler was raised Catholic but there is no evidence he practiced any religion as an adult. There certainly is no record of his justifying Nazi policies on the basis of Christianity.
He certainly persecuted the Christian churches because he wanted to do away with independent groups.
Moo
Moo
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
My understanding was that he tried to promote an Aryan Christianity which more in line with his hatred of the Jews. He certainly persecuted the confessing church, but used the antisemitic views of Christians like Luther as a political tool to unite people behind him.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by leo
quote:
Muhammad, pbuh, brought peace to all the warring tribes in Arabia.
Tacitus, I think, had something to say about that kind of peace in its Roman version - something on the lines of 'making a desert and calling it peace'.
by leo
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course I'm looking at Islam 'from my own perspective' with the original teaching of their religion and the specific example of their prophet.
And why should your own perspective be any more normative than anyone else's?
1) Please quote me accurately - I never posted that particular combination and it doesn't make sense. The two more detailed comments which you have confabulated did make sense in their context.
2) My perspective is not more normative than anyone else's. Facts are normative, any hope we might start discussing them?
by leo;
quote:
Hitler's religion was a perversion of Christianity.
So is 'Islamism' a perversion of Islam.
So violence is not inherent in either religion.
So much is wrong with that, I daren't comment....
Surah 9
Surah 9 is related to the historical events of the battle of Tabouk - or more accurately the expedition to Tabouk which didn't result in an actual battle because Muhammad had been misinformed about Byzantine intentions and there wasn't an enemy there to fight.
But this is rather indisputably, both according to Wikipedia and according to the edition of the Quran I'm using, a case of Muhammad mounting a real kingdom of this world military expedition involving real flesh and blood people with very real weapons, and an expedition not against pagans, but against Byzantines - Christians, people of the Book.
Self-defence - arguably; but equally given the warlike posture of the Islamic 'Ummah' at that point, I think the Byzantines, had they been there, would have regarded their expedition as self-defence also.
Other aspects of the Surah include complaints about those who refused to join the very real non-abstract expedition, and provisions about non-Muslims (including Christians) being aggressively required to pay the 'Jizhya' tax to have peace with Islam. It is not easy to argue from that to a supposedly non-violent Islam.
Yes, Islam is inherently violent.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Hitler did everything he could to suppress independent action by the Christian churches. He did this, not for reasons of doctrine, but because he had no intention of tolerating anything that was independent of the government. The Aryan church, which was a government institution, was supposed to replace the independent churches.
As far as using Luther's anti-Semitic statements is concerned, they did it but the statements were four hundred years old at the time. They were not statements issued by the contemporary independent Christian churches.
Moo
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And why should your own perspective be any more normative than anyone else's?
Look, Leo. ISIS have gone on record as EXPLICITLY wanting to create a new caliphate- thereby becoming a clear and present danger to the states around them.
Personally, I'd take them seriously.
But Steve is not arguing that that reading must be normative for ISIS, he seems to be arguing that it *must* be normative for *all* Muslims - in that context leo's objection is valid.
And seriously, what answers have you propounded so far? Carpet Bomb them? Collective punishment on a mass scale because successive invasions and meddlings have broken civil society to the point where a bunch of warlords can cow the majority of the population?
[ 11. March 2015, 23:14: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think people are taking IS seriously. But proposing mass military attacks in the Middle East is insanity; it would probably radicalize thousands, if not millions of Muslims. Europe would be dealing with Charlie Hebdo attacks daily. Fortunately, I think politicians, military and intelligence leaders have the nous to realize this.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
But Steve is not arguing that that reading must be normative for ISIS, he seems to be arguing that it *must* be normative for *all* Muslims - in that context leo's objection is valid.
What I'm actually arguing is that there isn't a single normative reading for all Muslims. In effect there are two contradictory readings built in to the faith from the beginning. One of those readings is the aspiration to peace, which I fully recognise. The other is the aspiration to an Islamic state, the 'Ummah', which clearly can be both established by warfare and sustained by warfare, as Muhammad's example and practice, supported by Quranic teachings, clearly shows.
In theory this is nominally 'non-violent' - but, as they say, 'theory is that stuff that doesn't work in practice'. Practice is that states use violence, as Eutychus basically pointed out earlier in the thread; violence is also used by those trying to set up a state of their particular persuasion. Islam is not specially violent compared to other religious states; but the temptation is built in and almost impossible to limit.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that there are non-violent Islamist parties, e.g. in Turkey.
I guess we need to define Islamist then.
The 'Hızmet' movement under Fettulah Gülen is sort of like Evangelicalism for Muslims: they're very politicial, they proselytize, publish books, have their own schools, etc. They have peace, love, and service to others as the pillars upon which their movement is built.
They used to have a very healthy relationship with the current President of Turkey before he went all 'Putin' on them and tried (pretty sucessfully) to set himself up as 'President for Life'.
Ironically, he (the President) used to push through religious freedom legislation for the Orthodox and other Christian groups and was slowly giving them back some of their confiscated properties. The rational was that he couldn't continue to campaign for greater rights for Muslims in the Eurozone unless he was willing to roll back (in a very token-esq manner) the horrendous human-rights violations committed against the Orthodox in Turkey.
Sadly, that seems to have ceased now. There's even talk of him wanting to use the Hagia Sophia as a mosque again.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It seems that if one reads the Bible, it's necessary to focus on the spirit of the NT/later works, and if one reads the Koran it's necessary to focus on the spirit of the earlier revelations. Without that focus, Love doesn't have a lot of room to be heard.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by chris stiles;
quote:
But Steve is not arguing that that reading must be normative for ISIS, he seems to be arguing that it *must* be normative for *all* Muslims - in that context leo's objection is valid.
What I'm actually arguing is that there isn't a single normative reading for all Muslims. In effect there are two contradictory readings built in to the faith from the beginning.
Yes, but the logic of your argument is that the violent one will always prevail:
quote:
Islam is not specially violent compared to other religious states; but the temptation is built in and almost impossible to limit.
It seems like essentially you are arguing that any violence committed in the name of Christianity is causes by circumstances, whereas violence committed in the name of Islam is due to some deep internal motivation.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
Yes, but the logic of your argument is that the violent one will always prevail:
Not quite, fortunately (or rather, providentially); but the trouble is there's basically nothing in Islam to make it go away either, so it won't be going away and unfavorable circumstances will always be liable to bring it back.
by chris stiles;
quote:
It seems like essentially you are arguing that any violence committed in the name of Christianity is causes by circumstances, whereas violence committed in the name of Islam is due to some deep internal motivation.
Neither. I'm arguing that the vast bulk of violence in the name of Christianity has resulted from the contra-NT teaching of having or trying to have a Christian 'kingdom of this world' state, so-called 'Constantinianism' or 'Christendom', which is no part of original Christian teaching. In Islam, the idea of the Islamic state remains a built-in ideal of the religion, originating in Muhammad's very real-world acts and the Quranic justification of those acts, and will be liable therefore to lead astray, to put it mildly, even basically well-meaning Muslims.
(Hosts; I know I'm a bit on the edge there - and I am preparing a Styx submission about this - but I honestly don't see how I could have responded otherwise to what chris stiles asked)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, Islam is inherently violent.
Is Judaism 'inherently violent' given the amount of scripture wherein God commands genocide and also where God anoints kings as sacral rulers over a theocracy?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Steve Langton, I'm going to let you off your last post because of the Styx reference. But do not repeat your oft-heard refrain yet again until there is a resolution of your Styx query. If you do, you will get referred to Admin for ignoring a Hostly ruling.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Shipmates
While the Styx thread is ongoing, I'm going to leave the thread open. It might be as well if you try to avoid dialogue with Steve Langton which might provoke further repetition. This is strictly temporary guidance. I feel sure you will understand the reason for it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
OK, Barnabas, I'm leaving the thread till the Styx issues are sorted.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Admin have ruled.
This thread can continue in the light of the ruling. If you want to discuss any historical or theological aspects of the views exemplified by this quote from Steve Langton's recent post, please start a different thread.
quote:
I'm arguing that the vast bulk of violence in the name of Christianity has resulted from the contra-NT teaching of having or trying to have a Christian 'kingdom of this world' state, so-called 'Constantinianism' or 'Christendom', which is no part of original Christian teaching.
But no more follow ups here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hitler's religion was a perversion of Christianity.
No.
Hitler was raised Catholic but there is no evidence he practiced any religion as an adult. There certainly is no record of his justifying Nazi policies on the basis of Christianity.
He certainly persecuted the Christian churches because he wanted to do away with independent groups.
Moo
Moo
Yes, he certainly persecuted The Salvation Army. The Nazis closed our churches, took over our youth work and took over our social work.
We have hardly recovered from this, even now.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, Islam is inherently violent.
Is Judaism 'inherently violent' given the amount of scripture wherein God commands genocide and also where God anoints kings as sacral rulers over a theocracy?
It isn't what is written though, surely; it is by their fruits you shall know them.
Look at Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Atheism, Jedi-ism... Not ONE of these belief systems has the amopunt of jihadi activity going on!
Judaism does not have a load of Jewish teenagers rushing from British high schools to go and fight against the palestinians.
Christianity doesn't have loads of Baptists and Pentecostals rushing from the Spring Harvest Bible/worship week to go and fight to free the oppressed Chrustians.
I haven't seen Hindu suicide bombers with backpacks on the London underground.
I haven't read of Buddhist terrorists with explosives in their shoes wanting to blow up an aeroplane.
I don't see the disciples of Richard Dawkins shooting the cartoonists of any satirical newspaper that runs an article about him.
So, please tell me - regardless of what various Suras actually mean for moderate Muslims today (and I've heard a British Muslim man say how insulted he is when that term is used by the western media) - exactly why so many Muslims take verses like that as if they really do mean that Islam must be spread by violent means?
And if IS really does want a caliphate, why do so many people support that?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Look at Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Atheism, Jedi-ism... Not ONE of these belief systems has the amopunt of jihadi activity going on!
Many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity. In fact of your list Jedi-ism seems to do most favourably probably with Buddhism a close second. By the same logic with which you judge Islam we should abandon Christianity for these other more peaceful religions?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The idealistic can get conned, Mudfrog.
The problem facing Muslim parents today is more akin to that of parents whose children have been drawn into an activist cult. Cults can be violent, espouse violence to support "the Cause".
I think this thread has often mixed up two questions.
1. What traditional beliefs within Islam can be used to justify the use of violent means to further the faith?
2. To what extent are such beliefs characteristic of what Muslims believe today?
Those who entrap will often use the language and historical beliefs of religion in a persuasive, but skewed, way in order to produce a self-enclosing ideology. Once individuals have been sucked into such world views, it is not easy for them to escape.
Personally, I'm more interested in two other questions.
What motivates the proselytisers?
Why is their message persuasive?
I've already argued in this thread that it might help if there was some teaching to help young people understand the dangers of entrapment and their own potential vulnerability to these kinds of mind games. That argument applies both within school systems and teaching within religions themselves.
[ 18. March 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Look at Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Atheism, Jedi-ism... Not ONE of these belief systems has the amopunt of jihadi activity going on!
Many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity.
Many? Name them.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
You want to maintain that there aren't many wars fought in the name of Christianity? You must have some explanation for why all the wars on the history books don't really count as Christian in motivation. Perhaps the explanation has some merit to it, but it doesn't seem to equally be on offer to Islam.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You want to maintain that there aren't many wars fought in the name of Christianity? You must have some explanation for why all the wars on the history books don't really count as Christian in motivation. Perhaps the explanation has some merit to it, but it doesn't seem to equally be on offer to Islam.
Erm... "Christian in motivation"?
Now, if you mean "started by Kings, presidents or governments who purported to be Christians," or "perpetrated by Kings, presidents or governments of countries where Christianity is the dominant religion," you might have a point.
But for a war to be "Christian" in its motivation?
What is the motivation of Christianity?
To make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit..."
Now, apart from the shameful use of Catholicism by the conquisators in South America, I am not aware of any wars where the motivation is the conversion and baptism of the people.
And so, to say that "All the wars on the history books" are "Christian in motivation." is a very suspect allegation.
I have never heard of American, British, or allied soldiers shouting "Jesus is Lord!" or "God loves you!" or "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!" as they marched into villages to rape, burn and behead the inhabitants.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Of course you believe Christianity not to be inherently violent; so do I. But you have to have your eyes tight shut not to notice any wars in history conducted either implicitly or explicitly in the name of a (Christian) God.
Any belief system with an eschatalogical, millenialist facet contains an inherent danger of violence; this is just as true of Christianity as it is of Islam.
You will doubtless object that this is a wrong understanding or distorsion of Christianity, and discard the counter-examples as marginal or "not proper Christians", but you refuse to view Islam through the same lens, preferring rather to take the most violent, extreme examples as normative. Why is this?
(Oh, and returning to a previous debate, I've discovered that the very first person in the Bible said to have encountered the "Angel of the LORD" [YHWH], in Genesis 16:7, is... Hagar, the mother of Ishmael).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course you believe Christianity not to be inherently violent; so do I. But you have to have your eyes tight shut not to notice any wars in history conducted either implicitly or explicitly in the name of a (Christian) God.
Any belief system with an eschatalogical, millenialist facet contains an inherent danger of violence; this is just as true of Christianity as it is of Islam.
You will doubtless object that this is a wrong understanding or distorsion of Christianity, and discard the counter-examples as marginal or "not proper Christians", but you refuse to view Islam through the same lens, preferring rather to take the most violent, extreme examples as normative. Why is this?
(Oh, and returning to a previous debate, I've discovered that the very first person in the Bible said to have encountered the "Angel of the LORD" [YHWH], in Genesis 16:7, is... Hagar, the mother of Ishmael).
There are no wars in history that were waged for the sole purpose of converting nations to the knowledge of the love of God and salvation through Jesus Christ.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There are no wars in history that were waged for the sole purpose of converting nations to the knowledge of the love of God and salvation through Jesus Christ.
All that needs to mean is that the protagonists of wars with a "Christian" element were cunning (or duplicitous) enough to base their acts of war on other grounds.
Are you saying that none of those who engaged in violence with a claimed Christian element were "not proper Christians", or what? (and don't think protestants have been immune from this...).
[Edited to add a sample list to be getting on with]
Besides, I'm more interested in your answer to this question:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You will doubtless object that this is a wrong understanding or distorsion of Christianity, and discard the counter-examples as marginal or "not proper Christians", but you refuse to view Islam through the same lens, preferring rather to take the most violent, extreme examples as normative. Why is this?
[ 18. March 2015, 09:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There are no wars in history that were waged for the sole purpose of converting nations to the knowledge of the love of God and salvation through Jesus Christ.
There are plenty of wars in history that were waged on the basis of wiping out heresies.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The odd thing is, that Mudfrog's argument is parallel to the jihadists, who also argue that Islam inevitably leads to violent jihad. If they are both right, it's difficult to see how it can be combatted, since even moderate Muslims may well in the end see the correctness of this. What can we do - intern them all?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course you believe Christianity not to be inherently violent; so do I. But you have to have your eyes tight shut not to notice any wars in history conducted either implicitly or explicitly in the name of a (Christian) God.
Any belief system with an eschatalogical, millenialist facet contains an inherent danger of violence; this is just as true of Christianity as it is of Islam.
You will doubtless object that this is a wrong understanding or distorsion of Christianity, and discard the counter-examples as marginal or "not proper Christians", but you refuse to view Islam through the same lens, preferring rather to take the most violent, extreme examples as normative. Why is this?
(Oh, and returning to a previous debate, I've discovered that the very first person in the Bible said to have encountered the "Angel of the LORD" [YHWH], in Genesis 16:7, is... Hagar, the mother of Ishmael).
There are no wars in history that were waged for the sole purpose of converting nations to the knowledge of the love of God and salvation through Jesus Christ.
This is entirely correct. It is also entirely correct that there were no wars that were waged for the sole purpose of converting the Infidel to the belief that there is one God and that Mohammed is his Prophet.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Mudfrog's argument seems to assume that IS are simply a religious group. In the context of the Middle East, and Arab politics, this is absurd; politics and religion are often joined at the hip in that region.
Hence, it struck me that 9/11 was not particularly aimed at Christianity, but at American power, and the symbols thereof. They didn't strike a big cathedral, but buildings that represent commerce and the military.
But these arguments go back a long way; after all, Iraq and Syria were created by colonialism - I notice that IS take particular pleasure in pulverizing the Sykes/Picot border.
You could even argue that the long travail of post-colonialism is still going on today; Nasser thought that he had found a (secular) solution, but that was just the antipasto. Of course, it didn't help that Bush/Blair had the distinct air of neo-colonialists. Shock and awe - what a fucking joke, but a dangerous one.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This is entirely correct. It is also entirely correct that there were no wars that were waged for the sole purpose of converting the Infidel to the belief that there is one God and that Mohammed is his Prophet.
Exactly. Typical of the non-equivalent treatment of our religion's histories.
Look at violent Islam fighting war after war over Shia vs Sunni sect membership. On the other hand Northern Ireland is about cultural differences with a convenient religious label, which actually has nothing to do with the true religion of Christ.
Of course the same argument can be made in the Middle-East but it doesn't seem to have been considered.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Ironically, it used to be atheists who would say that the pernicious effects of religion could be seen all over the world, and then they would point to N. Ireland and the Middle East, ignoring the fact that most of these struggles have very obvious political roots, as well as religious dimensions. But now Christians are getting in on the act, in an attempt, I suppose, to blacken Islam.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What motivates the proselytisers?
Why is their message persuasive?
The Islamic view that the world must submit to Allah.
The idea that the world must be converted and brought, even unwillingly, under Sharia law.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Augustine appears to have thought much the same re: Christianity.
Are you going to answer me or mdjion about why you insist on seeing Islam in terms of its nastiest exponents and Christianity in terms of its best, or have you not managed to work your way through the list of Christian-inspired conflicts yet?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What motivates the proselytisers?
Why is their message persuasive?
The Islamic view that the world must submit to Allah.
The idea that the world must be converted and brought, even unwillingly, under Sharia law.
It sounds rather bleak, since presumably moderate Muslims may well succumb to this doctrine, if it is seen as essential to Islam.
What can we do? Deport them all? Invade Iraq?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What motivates the proselytisers?
Why is their message persuasive?
The Islamic view that the world must submit to Allah.
The idea that the world must be converted and brought, even unwillingly, under Sharia law.
If that is the only view Muslims can have then why aren't they all lined up with the Jihadists, sword and Koran in hand?
You have described a singular view, which doesn't accord with my experience.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But now Christians are getting in on the act.
Only half the act of course - they leave out the Northern Ireland bit. That doesn't count, they aren't really Christians in Northern Ireland.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Historians expend great effort in analysing the actions of the past. They examine conditions leading up to events, priveleges to be lost, grudges harboured, how communities gather around causes, how those causes are promoted... The list is endless. Anyone proposing a single cause would - in most circumstances - be laughed out of court. Indeed, they would be pointed towards any document explaining the Single Cause Fallacy.
And I know I've already said this way back, but I'll say it again. Things get done in the name of Big Causes all the time. That doesn't excuse you from still doing the intellectual legwork above - though at least you should ensure that factor is on your list.
Yet despite all this, this single cause nonsense persists in rearing its head with some regularity. Yes, some atheists do it too. What kind of excuse is that to copy it?
Taking a slightly jaundiced view - ISTM that everyone can spot the fallacy when their group is in the spotlight. When some other group is associated with bad behaviour, then back it comes. I'll leave you to work out why, but the answer isn't very complimentary.
Just a subsidiary point - I've noticed a couple of people assuming that the argument that Islam is not inherently violent must be saying that it is inherently peaceful. Nobody, to the best of my remembering, has been advancing that proposition here. Islam does have potential problem areas in respect of violence. To inhere means that something is an essential part. And to be essential means what it says on the tin - that violence is the very essence of Islam, in part at least. I say it isn't.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
or have you not managed to work your way through the list of Christian-inspired conflicts yet?
The 'list' you linked to above also included lots of other examples of 'forced conversion' - like this one attributed to, er, Muhammad....
quote:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
So Muhammad seems clearly to have believed in forced conversion....
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
So I guess that's one up for Jesus, Epicurus, Buddha and John Wesley, one down for Mohammed, Joshua and the inquisition. So what does that tell us?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So Muhammad seems clearly to have believed in forced conversion....
So what? Muhammad is not the Muslim equivalent of Jesus (another example of how you seem to insist on viewing Islam through Christian glasses).
The point of the list was to illustrate the fact being loudly ignored by Mudfrog, i.e. that Christianity has, historically, been just as guilty of forced conversion.
On somewhat different grounds, both you and Mudfrog in effect argue that over time, Christianity has been reinterpreted such that this is no longer the case.
Leaving aside the off-topic matter of whether this reinterpretation is a radical reformation or a new development in Christianity, both of you apparently deny Islam the right to similar reinterpretation and/or modernisation (it doesn't suit your demonising rhetoric. Mudfrog in particular seems insistent that "Allah" is not "God" but some form of Ba'al).
Some of its opponents appear intent on locking Islam into a selective, primitive view of its own origins (espoused by some but clearly by no means all contemporary Muslims) and denying it the same status and freedoms of expression other religions enjoy in liberal democracies; you and Mudfrog appear to be among their number.
It seems to me there is no better way to encourage the jihadist tendency. I think a much better option is to allow Islam to exist with the same religious freedoms as Christianity, and thus give it an opportunity to modernise and therefore become less radical and more domesticated.
Granted there are difficulties with this, but I think it is a profoundly Christian, and dare I say it (again) anabaptist idea.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The difficulty I have with your question about the supposed similarity with Islamic violence and Christian violence is that you seem to assume that both have the same motive.
I simply cannot see that the motive, motivation, or driving force behind IS and Boko Haram and their dreadful murderous activities can be mirrored in Christianity.
You talk about wars fought in the name of Christianity but as I have said, where are they?? They may have been fought by Christian leaders but please tell me a war of aggression waged in order to convert people and to spread the Gospel of Christ?
IS wants to reestablish the caliphate:
quote:
A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة khalīfah pronunciation (help. info))—a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.
It is an entirely Islamic aim - they basically want to establish a pure form of Islam on the middle east where all aspects of life, culture, and government are in accordance with their strict interpretation of Islam.
I do not know of any war started by an English King, a French king, a US president, etc, etc, where the motivation was the establishment of the Church in league with the Christian state, and Canon law as the basic law of the land.
Suicide bombers shout God is Great and seek to establish Submission to Allah (Islam) through their actions.
To use Northern Ireland is a ridiculous argument (I have lived in Northern Ireland). The 'fight' there is Republican v Loyalist who, for political reasons not doctrinal or theological, are divided historically into Protestant/Catholic. It all goes back further than 1689 and William of Orange - it goes back to Henry VII who was the 'other side' as far as the York supporting Irish chieftains were concerned. The Irish have always resented being ruled by England even when we were all Catholics, and loyal to the Pope together.
The fact that King Billy was Protestant and the Loyalists followed him and the Republicans were Catholics does not turn Northern Ireland into a religious war! And in any case, the IRA was no more the armed wing of the Catholic Church with a view to the forced conversion of protestants than the UDA was the guerilla contingent of the Presbyterian Church, charged with the rounding up and raping of Catholic women, and seeking to impose justification by faith and Lutheran or Calvinistic theology in the Bogside of Londonderry!!
The motivation of Islam is what I am talking about . The motivation is submission to Allah. Muslims have a religion that displays great beauty, learning, education and culture. That is not denied - though some would say that in the last couple of hundred years, that has stagnated. Their devotion to Allah can not be denied and in actual fact is a challenge to us in the West where our devotion to Christ is tiny and half-hearted compared to their faith in Allah.
But even in the UK and I think in other western cities, their evident devotion is also the motivation for their separateness and the desire even of moderate Muslims for Sharia law to be introduced. There are areas in Britain where whole communities are governed by Sharia law. The intent is that ine day all of Britain will be under submission to Allah, under Sharia law.
And I would say that the difference between, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain and IS is that IS want it now, through violence, coercion and terror, whilst the Muslim Council wants it through influence, natural growth, lobbying, human rights legislation, equality laws and the freedom of speech.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
And the reason that the West is wringing its hands and asking "Why? Why do thousands of people go to join IS, including three teenage girls?" is because the secular West still believes that Islam is still or just a set of doctrines and beliefs and a way of worship. The West still sees Islam in the way it sees the Church of England - something you believe but has little impact on your way of life.
So, when a couple of 15 year old girls disappear to Syria to go and fight with IS, the only answer the liberal left and the de-Christianised West can come up with is, "Oh, they feel marginalised in Britain, what have we done wrong to enable these poor victim-girls to be radicalised? Oh it must be our fault because we have created the situation in the Middle East and that's why they feel they have to go and fight."
The point is that whilst they may have indeed been radicalised, one has to have the basic belief first in order for it to be radicalised! How do you groom and persuade a 15 year old girl to adopt a violent version of jihad and leave a loving, prosperous and respectable family? You appeal to the already deeply held moderate belief that Islam must be eventually the ruling influence in society, that Britain will one day be under Sharia law, and you persuade them that not enough is being done and that by fighting they will bring about that Caliphate much quicker.
Why are so many going there to fight? Simply because IS provides a more proactive way of fulfilling every Muslim's basic belief: that all the world will be Islamic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The intent is that ine day all of Britain will be under submission to Allah, under Sharia law.
But Christians' hope is that one day all of Britain will be under submission to God (remember, that's simply the English equivalent of the Arabic Allah) under the Law of Christ. Don't tell me you've never been in a prayer meeting where something like that has been prayed?
You are entitled to say one is right and one is misguided, but pending the Millenium, unless you want to, um, enforce Christianity as a state religion or descend into sectarian millenialism/religious warfare yourself, you need to find some way of letting the two religions (and others) cohabit in current society.
Either you take up the sword, or you withdraw from society - or you try and find a contemporary, Kingdom-of-God way of engaging. Which to my mind starts by not demonising your neighbour (I think that in biblical terms, Muslims are a lot more like Samaritans rather than Ba'al worshippers).
quote:
And I would say that the difference between, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain and IS is that IS want it now, through violence, coercion and terror, whilst the Muslim Council wants it through influence, natural growth, lobbying, human rights legislation, equality laws and the freedom of speech.
Which do not strike me as inherently violent.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, when a couple of 15 year old girls disappear to Syria to go and fight with IS, the only answer the liberal left and the de-Christianised West can come up with is, "Oh, they feel marginalised in Britain, what have we done wrong to enable these poor victim-girls to be radicalised? Oh it must be our fault because we have created the situation in the Middle East and that's why they feel they have to go and fight."
Firstly, these stories make the headlines, and represent a real challenge, but they are quite clearly not majority Muslim behaviour.
Secondly, my answer, at least where I'm living, is to promote the expression of religious faith - all faith, that is - in the public sphere. I agree secularism is a part of the problem, but I think the earthly answer is secularity, not Christianity.
[ 19. March 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I simply cannot see that the motive, motivation, or driving force behind IS and Boko Haram and their dreadful murderous activities can be mirrored in Christianity.
You talk about wars fought in the name of Christianity but as I have said, where are they?? They may have been fought by Christian leaders but please tell me a war of aggression waged in order to convert people and to spread the Gospel of Christ?
Crusades (Wikipedia)
Christian Apology For The Crusades: The Reconciliation Walk (Religious Tolerance
Timeline For Crusades And Christian Holy War (US Naval Academy)
I think Christian holy wars and much Christian missionary activity has been less about lovingly introducing people to the Gospel, and more about greed, power, and genocide. Plus killing Jews and Muslims. Plus killing other kinds of Christians, and heretics. (Orthodox Christians and Cathars come to mind.)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It all goes back further than 1689 and William of Orange - it goes back to Henry VII who was the 'other side' as far as the York supporting Irish chieftains were concerned. The Irish have always resented being ruled by England even when we were all Catholics, and loyal to the Pope together.
I think it goes back further than that.
You will no doubt wash your hands of the Pope's role in the conflict as would I, but we should also afford our Muslim brothers and sisters the opportunity to wash their hands of the excesses of some of their co-religionists.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
On another tack.
Mudfrog, Steve Langton
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the dangers of the caliphate aim are accepted as a threat to peaceful co-existence in the UK. What remedies or counter-measures would you suggest might be available to a UK government which are not already in play?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To use Northern Ireland is a ridiculous argument (I have lived in Northern Ireland). The 'fight' there is Republican v Loyalist who, for political reasons not doctrinal or theological, are divided historically into Protestant/Catholic.
And one could also make a very powerful argument that the Shiite/Sunni split was also a political one.
As I said before, a lot of the arguments I see in this thread fall into the category of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
"They" do what they do because of deeply held beliefs, whereas 'we' did what we did because of historical contingencies.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On another tack.
Mudfrog, Steve Langton
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the dangers of the caliphate aim are accepted as a threat to peaceful co-existence in the UK. What remedies or counter-measures would you suggest might be available to a UK government which are not already in play?
Those who are anti-Islam tend to be coy about that, partly because they don't know. There are those advocating a very violent response, although the dangers of that seem self-evident.
But what about European Muslims? Silence, since the right wing can't really propose deportation or internment - well, not yet. Maybe UKIP have a solution?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quetzalcoatl
I was just curious. From my POV, it doesn't really matter whether the threats to peaceful co-existence come from a cult, a minority group, or are endemic in a particular religion. In a free society we hold, so far as is possible with order, to both freedom of speech and freedom to worship. So in general we do not legislate against groups, but against crimes. And crimes are generally defined in terms of actual harm caused. And the guilt or innocence of individuals is tested accordingly. That's the way justice works, ideally, in any society seeking to be free and fair.
And in Christian terms, the principles are to seek to live in peace in so far as possible, and depends on us, and not to repay evil with evil, rather repay it with good. (Romans 12).
So I'm really not at all clear what this kind of generalised speculation about "inherent violence" or whatever actually does. From the POV of proponents, do they seek simply to raise awareness? There is always a danger of fostering a more generalised distrust. You'd have thought that the history of racism, antisemitism (and a few other isms, come to think of it) would teach us something of the real dangers of doing that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There are areas in Britain where whole communities are governed by Sharia law.
I call bullshit on this claim. EOSTFU.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On another tack.
Mudfrog, Steve Langton
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the dangers of the caliphate aim are accepted as a threat to peaceful co-existence in the UK. What remedies or counter-measures would you suggest might be available to a UK government which are not already in play?
Those who are anti-Islam tend to be coy about that, partly because they don't know. There are those advocating a very violent response, although the dangers of that seem self-evident.
But what about European Muslims? Silence, since the right wing can't really propose deportation or internment - well, not yet. Maybe UKIP have a solution?
Aye. Muddy sneers "all the liberal left can come up with..." but what do the anti-Islamic side come up with? "Ooo those nasty Muslims!"
So what are you proposing Muddy et al. What should we do? Deport all Muslims? Where to? Ban Islam? In a liberal democracy? Proposals, please, or should we just sneer back "all they can come up with..."?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think the right wing are pretty silent; going down the road of outright repression of ordinary Muslims would be a huge step, and would probably cause the radicalization of millions, so even UKIP can see that.
On the other hand, Farage suggested that the children of immigrants don't go to state schools - yeah, that would really help integration.
I think eventually secularization will help; a lot of Muslims will become as indifferent as Christians!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
What remedies or counter-measures would you suggest might be available to a UK government which are not already in play?
Very few; but deceiving themselves about the inherent at best internally-conflicted nature of Islam is unlikely to be helpful.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting to consider the approach of working with Muslims, in order to neutralize the radicalization threat, favoured by some governments. Presumably, the anti-Islam people see this as risky, since all Muslims are a potential 5th column.
They remind me of the generals, who stand at the back, shouting forwards! Or if you like, all mouth and no trousers.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
What remedies or counter-measures would you suggest might be available to a UK government which are not already in play?
Very few; but deceiving themselves about the inherent at best internally-conflicted nature of Islam is unlikely to be helpful.
Oh I don't think any western democracy is in any way complacent or deceived about the risks to peaceful co-existence which flow from radical and radicalised groups and cults. That's why there are various remedies in place, both before 9/11 and 7/7 and, in somewhat greater measure since then. Some of those are in the public domain; there are probably others covered by national security constraints.
My question was "what other counter-measures"? Your answer "very few" is not "none at all". It suggests that you might have something in mind. What might that be?
[ 19. March 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The intent is that ine day all of Britain will be under submission to Allah, under Sharia law.
But Christians' hope is that one day all of Britain will be under submission to God (remember, that's simply the English equivalent of the Arabic Allah) under the Law of Christ. Don't tell me you've never been in a prayer meeting where something like that has been prayed?
You are entitled to say one is right and one is misguided, but pending the Millenium, unless you want to, um, enforce Christianity as a state religion or descend into sectarian millenialism/religious warfare yourself, you need to find some way of letting the two religions (and others) cohabit in current society.
Either you take up the sword, or you withdraw from society - or you try and find a contemporary, Kingdom-of-God way of engaging. Which to my mind starts by not demonising your neighbour (I think that in biblical terms, Muslims are a lot more like Samaritans rather than Ba'al worshippers).
quote:
And I would say that the difference between, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain and IS is that IS want it now, through violence, coercion and terror, whilst the Muslim Council wants it through influence, natural growth, lobbying, human rights legislation, equality laws and the freedom of speech.
Which do not strike me as inherently violent.
That's where we agree. Of course we want the Kingdom of Christ to encompass the world, but we do it through prayer, through witness to the love of God through word and action and it's our hope - believing of course that the Kingdom will fully and finally come when Jesus returns. It's not for us to enforce the Kingdom anywhere.
Many Muslims will, of course, see the growth of Islam in a similar way - and I cannot and will not say that their aim is any different to ours; except of course to say that the kingdoms of this world will belong to the Lord and his Christ, not to Allah and his Prophet.
What I have been trying to say all along is that Islam has within it powerful people and significantly large movements - whole nations as well (e.g. Saudi Arabia) - that have a very strong tendency to force the growth of Islam, to use coercion, violence and oppression against Christians and Jews in widening that Islamic rule - and indeed against Muslim minority groups.
People from the West are rushing to join this violent movement and Western establishment figures, from the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister down, are calling on Muslims in this country to try to encourage religious moderation and loyalty to British culture and values, and not fall into thinking that Islam must be made stronger by forceful means.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But then the West has within it powerful people who want to use violence against various Muslim countries. In fact, I have a vague memory that they used something called shock and awe against one such country, and are currently using drone strikes in others.
Ah, but you see, Western violence smells of violets and rose petals - it's not so bad, when you get used to it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then the West has within it powerful people who want to use violence against various Muslim countries. In fact, I have a vague memory that they used something called shock and awe against one such country, and are currently using drone strikes in others.
Ah, but you see, Western violence smells of violets and rose petals - it's not so bad, when you get used to it.
But again, the difference is one that you and the Muslim world cannot see - or seem to want to ignore:
Whereas IS is specifically and distinctly Muslim (albeit it highly radical and very narrow-minded), the 'Christian' West is not specifically Christian. I did not, or do not, see or hear George Bush, Barak Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron refer to or appeal to the Bible, the teachings of Jesus, the Torah, the Beatitudes or the Epistles of Paul as the justification for their engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I did not see US or UK troops shouting Jesus is Lord when they fired their missiles and bullets.
Why can you not see that the establishment of an Islamic caliphate by one side is not mirrored by the establishment of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ by the other?
You can arguably accuse the West of violence but you cannot say that Christianity is at the heart of that violence. Even the West would not say they are trying to spread Christianity by engaging in the Middle East. IS on the other hand does it all in the name of Mohammed and Islamic expansion.
[ 19. March 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did not, or do not, see or hear George Bush .. refer to or appeal to the Bible
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/agog_over_bushs_comments_on_go.html
I can dig up more, if you want.
[ 19. March 2015, 13:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Similarly, from the other side:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_world/amanpour-didier-francois/
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree that Christianity is not particularly violent today, but then I think this is partly because it has become irrelevant politically. Hence, 9/11 did not target Christian buildings, but symbols of American power.
Hence, to draw parallels between IS and Christianity is absurd, since Islamism is a political movement, which opposes both the old secular governments, as with Assad, and the Western interventions.
Similarly, the youth going to Syria are not being radicalized by Christianity, but by the brutality of the Arab secularists, by foreign interventions, and by the sponsorship of the Saudis and others.
In fact, to see IS purely in religious terms would be a fatal error, which thankfully Western politicians and intelligence staff are now avoiding.
[ 19. March 2015, 14:30: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I agree that Christianity is not particularly violent today, but then I think this is partly because it has become irrelevant politically. Hence, 9/11 did not target Christian buildings, but symbols of American power.
Hence, to draw parallels between IS and Christianity is absurd, since Islamism is a political movement, which opposes both the old secular governments, as with Assad, and the Western interventions.
Similarly, the youth going to Syria are not being radicalized by Christianity, but by the brutality of the Arab secularists, by foreign interventions, and by the sponsorship of the Saudis and others.
In fact, to see IS purely in religious terms would be a fatal error, which thankfully Western politicians and intelligence staff are now avoiding.
No, that has indeed been the mistake!
Some people see Islam as only a faith - with no political content.
Others see IS as political, with no 'spiritual' content.
What makes it so dangerous is that IS wants a caliphate - a religious governmental political entity, founded on and infused with Islamic law and teaching.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But Mudfrog, you believe that Islam is inevitably violent; this strikes me as a counsel of despair. How can there be any solution except repression, leading to more radicalization? How can any Muslims ever be trusted?
You are actually in agreement with IS as to the nature of Islam; thankfully, most European politicians disagree with you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair to Mudfrog, he has distinguished between IS and those Muslims who wouldn't support or endorse their aims and efforts.
I think there are two equal and opposite mistakes that could be made here - and I'm not suggesting that any Shipmates are making either of them necessarily -
The first is to regard groups like IS as purely political and not at all religious.
The second is to regard groups like IS as purely religious and not at all political.
It's another of those both/and not either/or things.
There is, unfortunately, a great deal that is Islamic about IS - the clue is in the title - but fortunately, it's not a form of Islam that all Muslims would endorse or support.
Of course, there are cases to answer with 'the West' and also those forms of Christianity which ally themselves overly closely with one political system or other - be it Patriarch Kyrill being overly pally with Putin or the kind of numbskull populist US Protestant outpourings of a George W Bush ...
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with the premise of a movie like this - irrespective of whether it's based on a 'true story' or not: http://www.machinegunpreacher.org/movie/
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that Mudfrog has said that Islam is inherently violent; well, nobody is really arguing as to whether IS is. Presumably, Mudfrog believes that IS-type groups are inevitable developments.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did not, or do not, see or hear George Bush .. refer to or appeal to the Bible
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Link
I can dig up more, if you want.
Perhaps more balanced treatment here and here, but the conclusion is pretty much the same.
Does this change anything Mudfrog?
To be honest I would have thought it common sense that any statement "Christians do x, Muslims do y" is not going to be true once you trawl through a few thousand years of history of billions of believers. We all know that there are people called Christians who we barely have anything in common with - it stands to reason that some of them do things that we want to repudiate.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon;
quote:
To be honest I would have thought it common sense that any statement "Christians do x, Muslims do y" is not going to be true once you trawl through a few thousand years of history of billions of believers.
Agreed; which is why I've been getting in some slight trouble with Hosts and Admin by concentrating on the concept of the 'original teaching' of the two faiths, as a way of sorting the issue out, and correspondingly querying later developments that contradict the original teaching.
Unfortunately while this produces clearly peaceable Christianity, with a worked-out doctrinal foundation for the pacifism, it also clearly comes up with a different answer about Islam. The implication is that while Muslims may not always go quite as extreme as Islamic State, the religion can't easily be truly peaceable without betraying its original message. That carries some implications for the possible ways of dealing with the problems the world currently faces.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Even assuming foundational Islam is inherently violent (which seems to be disputed by many if not most Muslims), you appear to assume that Islam somehow "must" or "ought to" stay true to its original "faith once delivered".
You appear to assume this because that's what you expect of Christianity.
To, me transposing this argument makes sense only if you think there was some genuine revelation in the first place.
Why do you choose to apply your hermeneutic of Christianity to Islam? You might not like creative redefinition of Christianity, but what's wrong, from your point of view, with Muslims doing it?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
That last one is a pretty mind-blowing tangle, Eutychus. I basically know what the answer is but I'll now leave it to tomorrow after I've watched certain events in the local heavens.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did not see US or UK troops shouting Jesus is Lord when they fired their missiles and bullets.
Did you see any of them wearing crosses?
I would also note that there is no tradition, as far as I'm aware, of Muslims wearing religious symbols around their necks.
The point I'm making is that "not shouting Jesus is Lord" is not the same as "not expressing their faith".
[ 19. March 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Agreed; which is why I've been getting in some slight trouble with Hosts and Admin by concentrating on the concept of the 'original teaching' of the two faiths, as a way of sorting the issue out, and correspondingly querying later developments that contradict the original teaching.
You're walking on eggshells hereabouts, Steve Langton. As a participant in this thread, I'm going to follow the usual guideline of not ruling, but I will be drawing the attention of other Hosts to your latest post.
There is nothing to prevent you raising the concept of original Christian teaching, and departure from it, in a separate thread.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Let me also clarify my question to Steve Langton.
These are the kinds of things which governments do.
1. Make policy statements (both home and foreign policy).
2. Seek to pass legislation.
3. Institute public enquiries
4. Issue discussion papers, (White and Green) for consultation about possible future courses of action.
5. Have bilateral and multilateral meetings with ministers and heads of other governments.
6. Consult with long term allies on matters of mutual interest and need.
I thought Steve Langton might have something specific in mind, along those lines, that the UK government might actually do. Others may like to have a go as well at considering such courses of action.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
After reflection overnight, I've started this thread.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
I thought Steve Langton might have something specific in mind, along those lines, that the UK government might actually do. Others may like to have a go as well at considering such courses of action.
The problem is partially at any rate, that a government attempting pluralism is somewhat limited in what it can do and still maintain the pluralism.
This is a situation where Christians can probably do more as private citizens - though not just as individuals, as the 'body of Christ'.
One thing I'd be suggesting a government should investigate is probably obvious from earlier posts - and see the new thread started by Barnabas62.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a situation where Christians can probably do more as private citizens - though not just as individuals, as the 'body of Christ'.
I'd be interested in how you see this kind of collective action working out in practice and what it might entail, Steve - not necessarily on this thread of course, as I think it may be a tangent - but certainly on the new thread that's been alluded to or a separate thread about how the churches and individual believers as the 'body of Christ' can work together on these sort of issues.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I saw a sad little comment by an Iraqui farmer, 'we have been threatened and killed by IS, the Americans and the Iraqui government'. You can see why there is the call for a Sunni triangle state, separate from Baghdad. Damn Sykes/Picot.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0