|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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..."?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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/
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
After reflection overnight, I've started this thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
