|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When there's a nuclear war, it will be between Sunni and Shia.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
How many Indonesian Jihadis?
Depends on the province.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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”.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
[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 ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
