|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam and violence
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider [on previous page, to Evangeline]:
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the accusations of Marcionism should be in within the day.
Can they be taken to another thread? They are only tangentially relevant to this one.
[ 16. January 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the interpretation thing, it's pretty clear that nobody here is suggesting that the NT can be used to justify holy war without doing violence to commonly held standards of interpretation and exegesis.
I've not seen anyone arguing otherwise.
There's a thread in Kerygmania on the way we might understand some of the apparently 'violent' references in the Gospels - specifically the 'two swords' one.
What I would suggest, though, is that we none of us interpret these texts in glorious isolation.
Circumstances, culture and our own proclivities all play a role.
So, for instance, the American chap I mentioned who cites the 'two swords' reference in the Gospels to justify the acquisition of personal sidearms is more likely than I would be to interpret those verses in that way.
Why? Well, not only does he make a living by crafting hunting knives and weapons that could be used to kill other human beings, but living where he does and in the culture he inhabits there are factors like the Second Amendment and so on that don't apply in my particular case.
I'm not singling him out for censure, simply making the obvious point that culture, tradition and a whole range of other factors affect the way we handle scriptural texts.
I'm not qualified to comment on whether the Quran justifies holy war or not - but the fact that some Muslims don't use Quranic and other Islamic texts to sanction violent jihadi action suggests that it isn't 'forced' to do so (as they'd say in Yorkshire) ie. these texts are capable of alternative interpretation.
That's all.
To suggest as much isn't to launch a post-modern and relativist attack on the authority of Holy Writ.
It seems that my American friend is 'required' (or 'forced' as Yorkshire folk might say) to interpret the 'two swords' reference as a justification for the personal ownership of offensive weapons because that's in line with his culture and his way of earning a living.
On one level, unless one is an extreme pacifist, it is difficult to disagree with him in the context in which he lives.
The laws of his country permit the private ownership of firearms and other weapons.
But it's a big jump from that to suggest that he would use these verses to justify holy war. I don't think he would.
Nor is anyone on these boards from what I can see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Does this mean (some, many, or all) Muslims though are able to say "Mohammad did or said this but he we think he was wrong"? "Mohammad spread Islam with violence, we understand because of the culture he lived in and don't condemn him for it, but he was wrong?" If so it leaves the Quran intact but takes a lot of authority away from anyone who would justify violence using the hadith (which I think all the justifications for killing apostates come from)
I think they say exactly that about the wedding of Fatima. Progressives, anyway.
I think progressives would say that Mohammed (and the rest of the people in the culture he lived in) was warlike, and (as the Bible puts it) "there is a time for peace, and a time for war."
(I am not going to touch the argument about war and general, because I consider myself a pacifist, and I know what a minority position that is in Christendom. Anybody who says it is easy to argue a pacifist position in Christianity hasn't tried it.)
But there are stories and teachings of Mohammed that really have nothing to do with whether one is or is not at war. (I recently read about a story cycle in which Mohammed runs into people who either don't know who he is and curse him, or know who he is and insult him to his face, but Mohammed still performs some sort of compassionate service to them. In one, a blind man who rails against the teachings of the Prophet does not know that it is the Prophet who is silently feeding him every day.)
Most civilized people agree that war is the exactly opposite of the way they want to live, so it is probably very easy for the average Muslim to view the violent verses as strictly referring to wartime activities, and finding a lot of other insight to inform their daily lives.
Also-- upthread (or maybe in an article I read) someone mentioned the hadith as carrying less weight than the Koran-- that is hadith is debatable "exegesis" or commentary on the Koran, at least for some folks.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think strictly a hadith is a story or bit of history of the life of Mohammed - either reporting acts or reporting his teachings. The accuracy of different hadiths is debated between groups.
The commentaries are known as tafsir and can include reference to hadith as well as the Koran.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I don't think the Hadith are considered as commentary, Kelly - there is another name for commentaries. The Hadith are principally reports of what Muhammed said or thought about various topics.
The different types of Islam (sunni, shia etc.) have different hadith.
I think the critiquing of Hadith is more a feature of later schools in Islam, especially in the modern era. I don't think the sort of people we are talking about here, who are not peaceable, would ignore Hadith.
(x-post with mdijon)
[ 16. January 2015, 17:08: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Demas, I'm not misunderstanding the absurd understatement 'there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Demas, I'm not misunderstanding the absurd understatement 'there is sometimes a link between Christianity and violence'.
Any religion where the phrase "there is sometimes a link between ____ and violence" is "an absurd understatement" would seem to be a prime candidate for being banned by the secular powers. Certainly no decent person should connect themselves with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Thanksfor the clarification, Honest Ron and mdijon. I guess what confused me was the idea that there were different schools of hadith.
Can hadith kind of be compared to midrash?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thanksfor the clarification, Honest Ron and mdijon. I guess what confused me was the idea that there were different schools of hadith.
Can hadith kind of be compared to midrash?
Not really. As I understand it, a typical hadith (I don't recall the singular form) has the basic shape of 'According to Imam 1, who heard it from his teacher Imam 2, who heard it from his teacher's companion Imam 3, who heard it from the Prophet's own nephew, the Prophet (while residing in exile in Medina) said...' followed by some allegedly true saying of the Prophet.
There are about eight different main collections of these, not all equally well-regarded. And the individual chains of sources are not all the same in each set, and can be validly subject to criticism, although not the bits involving the Prophet and his immediate companions. And the length of each chain is partly a function of when the collection was compiled, and partly of who was said to have happened to meet some old and well-informed teacher.
Does this make it any clearer?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Ooohhh, now I remember hadith. Thanks.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you make a substantiated argument on the basis of the Qu'ran that Islam is inherently violent?
This is like Groundhog Day...
Here we go again:-
I have never said that Islam is inherently violent.
What I have argued is that, unlike the NT, the Koran contains a number of passages which unambiguously support religious warfare (you can find them anywhere online).
The majority of Muslims, including the ones I know, do not follow them, either because they are too lazy/cowardly/moderate/decent, or because they think they are overweighed by other non-violent or anti-violent passages in the Koran which present the real message of Islam.
In the same way, Christians reject the calls to holy war in the OT because they are are overridden (as are a number of other things eg animal sacrifices, polygamy) by the NT.
There is not a real parallelism here, however, because Christians believe that the OT is the inspired Word of God, but that parts of it were relevant in their day but have been superseded,
whereas for Muslims (in theory, at least) all the Koran is equally authoritative for all time.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
My favorite piece of Marcionism was a book I encountered in the heyday of UFOlogy, back in the '70s.
I think it was called "God Drives A Flying Saucer". Basic idea was that the OT God was a nasty alien. Then good aliens overthrew the bad, and we got Jesus and the NT view of God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What do you think of the atheist who posted the list of 'violent' Bible verses I linked to? Do you think that the verses are not violent is self-evident to him, and that he's just lying?
As a believer who is, to quote Philip Yancey, constantly "rancid with doubt", I have a great deal of respect for honest atheism.
But there is also a great deal of militant, ideological and doctrinaire atheism out there which is mindless and dishonest, and will use anything, no matter how unreasonable, to discredit Christianity.
I suspect that this atheist is in this latter category.
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
What? Now you're making my exact point for me. The whole point is that things you consider obvious = things you take for granted.
I'm not suggesting that everything is a matter of conscious interpretation. Most of it's unconscious and not recognised as such. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. We simply never think about what we take for granted unless and until we encounter someone who doesn't take the same thing for granted.
[ 17. January 2015, 00:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the Hadith might be a bit like stories passed down within particular church traditions (e.g. the account that when Jesus wrote in the dust he was writing people's names) except, as Teufelchen says, with a more formal pedigree for the account up to the time it was written down. The tafsir may be more like midrash.
(By the way in some languages influenced by Arabic "Hadith" literally means story or history, and tafsir means picture or translation. But I don't know if those parallel the actual use of the words in Arabic).
--------------------
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 Kaplan Corday:
What I have argued is that, unlike the NT, the Koran contains a number of passages which unambiguously support religious warfare (you can find them anywhere online).
The majority of Muslims, including the ones I know, do not follow them, either because they are too lazy/cowardly/moderate/decent, or because they think they are overweighed by other non-violent or anti-violent passages in the Koran which present the real message of Islam
The part I have bolded in your quote contradicts this next part of what you say: quote:
for Muslims (in theory, at least) all the Koran is equally authoritative for all time.
It sounds to me like you are arbitratily applying one standard to Christian hermeneutics (where the OT is "overidden" by the NT, not that I'm arguing against this, mind) and another to Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
[ 17. January 2015, 06:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Paris attack highlights Europe's struggle with Islamism so the BBC new piece goes (see below for link). There is something violent and repulsive about some of the followers of Islam and it makes one question the liberal interpretation of Islam as a ''religion of peace'' surely?
Judaeo- Christian values can be interpreted in various ways. Indeed Christian vitriolic anti semitism e.g. in the so called enlightened Germany of 80 years ago shows us how wide of the mark an advanced intelligent ''Christian'' nation like Germany can fall.
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
Saul
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30717728
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Islam inherently violent? Hmmm!
As far as I can work out, this starts from when the local pagans rejected Muhammad's ideas, persecuted his followers, and eventually forced him into exile in Medina. There followed several years of skirmishes, and piracy against Meccan desert caravans, before Muhammad finally gathered an army and marched on Mecca, where a major battle and probable massacre was only prevented by Meccan surrender. 'Turning the other cheek' this definitely isn't. And at the beginning it wasn't exactly 'official' warfare either.
Muhammad seems to have started out with the belief that people would just follow his faith peaceably and that there would not need to be 'compulsion in religion'; even within his lifetime that clearly changed and what he eventually set up was an Islamic state with Islam clearly in charge and a limited tolerance of other monotheistic religions in a decidedly subordinate position.
OK, it's supposed to work on lines similar to Western 'just war' principles; but anyone who's considered the workings of that seriously knows that 'just war' isn't as cut and dried as its advocates would have you believe and almost anything can be justified in practice. If there ever has been a just war that fully followed the principles it was a very small one (WWII was about the nearest there's ever been to a big 'just war', and even that fails in many and various ways to meet the proper tests – and note that most of the Germans probably thought they were waging a 'just war' on their side). Accept the idea of warfare on behalf of a religion and it becomes very hard to set limits, and to those of another religion the result is likely to look like terrorism.
So yes, on the actions of Muhammad in raising an army for his cause, and in those caravan attacks, Islam is a violent religion – either that or Muhammad was a considerable sinner against the religion of which he was prophet, and you won't find many Muslims willing to accept that.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You lost me Demas. I obviously don't do compound irony.
I am a liberal and Islam is inextricably predicated on the violence of its founder. That is its and our problem. Despite the overwhelming restraint of the vast majority of its adherents, their human goodness despite their religion.
We Christians have the opposite problem.
As well as the problem of dealing with good people with a foundationally violent, coercive, imperialistic, extremely - that's ever so extreme kiddies, know what I mean? Ladies? Girls? - patriarchal religion.
I actually read every word you wrote Steve and agree with 99.9% of content and tone. That's GOT to be a bad thing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
Or the term terrorist.
quote:
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
The old term used to be Guerrilla.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How many happened in Paris?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Some red herrings here.
Firstly, I don't think that any proponents of the 'just war' theory believe that it is anywhere near cut-and-dried. Far from it.
Secondly, of course everything's open to interpretation.
Including what I've just posted here.
I would hazard a guess that some might interpret what I've written here to suggest that I'm a proponent of the 'just war theory' or that by acknowledging that everything is open to interpretation I'm some kind of post-modern relativist with a low view of scripture ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Jat war theory is bollocks. War is always an evil, it's just a matter of degree.
[ 17. January 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I would suggest many now in the West are challenging the liberal interpretation of Islam.
As has been shown, peaceable Islam is no threat to anyone, so why would we challenge that? What we're actually doing is challenging the Islamist interpretation of Islam.
Or the term terrorist.
quote:
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
The old term used to be Guerrilla.
Absolutely.
It matters not whether a loved one is blown up by an extreme rightist or a returning Jihadi.
However, we would all condemn the crazy antics of Brevic and his Norwegian pseudo Nazi death spree. But whilst not wanting to downplay Brevic and his ilk, there is a much more organised threat that faces the West and other parts of the world. The extreme right in W.Europe is a far less potent force than many of it's adherents would like to posture. Take as an example the massive decline of the BNP in the UK over the last 5 years. Far right violence is an issue, but less so IMHO.
For example by returning Jihadis (just in the last couple of days - Belgium) and even lone wolf attacks (Rigby's killers) and of course the Paris killers (Al Queada Yemen possibly?).
We are in a very difficult situation. That so many of such killers adhere to one particular faith does raise some serious questions.
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
[ 17. January 2015, 12:20: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely.
'Just war' is bollocks and all wars are terrible.
I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.
The point I'm making is about interpretation.
Because I've posted a comment that the views of 'just war' proponents are nowhere near as clear-cut as opponents of this view can suggest (see Steve Langton's post) then such a comment could be interpreted to suggest that I support the idea of a 'just war'.
Taken out of context or in isolation rather than alongside other aspects of what I believe, it wouldn't be unreasonable to reach that conclusion.
In an analogous way, I am suggesting, the same thing happens with religious texts - whether those we consider to be inspired or authoritative or not.
We have to look at the whole picture. We can't simply isolate one or two verses and say, 'There you go, chapter and verse, Islam is inherently violent ...' any more than we can take a comment that I - or any one else - posts here and use that as completely representative of that person's beliefs and approach to life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I am a liberal and Islam is inextricably predicated on the violence of its founder.
You used to be a conservative and said dismissive and absolutist things at liberals. Now all that's changed really is that you're saying dismissive and absolutist things in the other direction.
Ideally, if you're a liberal, you see value in being neither dismissive nor absolutist about other people's beliefs.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We have to look at the whole picture. We can't simply isolate one or two verses and say, 'There you go, chapter and verse, Islam is inherently violent ...' any more than we can take a comment that I - or any one else - posts here and use that as completely representative of that person's beliefs and approach to life.
Exactly.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
So, several posters have outlined the reasoning behind why Islam is attached to a violence that is not driven by the religion and yet the "Islam is the source of the violence" folk fail to address this.
And you say that the same cannot be said for Christianity because Jesus magics away the OT naughty behaviour.
What then about Judaism? Judaism does not yet have anyone who mollifies the grumpy OT God. Israel is a Jewish state, Isreal are bastards in the treatment of the Palestinians: Judaism has some soul-searching to do.
Same logic, so you must agree with the conclusion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
And i'm gonna say what I said before-- the best example Christianity can show the world is providing a model of such soul- searching-- we need to acknowledge the ways Christendom has been misused in ways that has impacted the world-- God, Gold, Glory, anyone? -- before we can dictate who stands in need of soul searching.
Also as I said before, the Islamic "reformation" is underway. Remember that little thing called Arab Spring we were all so enthused about a while back? While not a specific Muslim movement, the movement began with a significant number of progressive Muslims at the helm. Instead of blaming all of Islam for the Talibaniness of the Taliban, why are we not reaching out toward moderates and progressives who could use our philosophical support?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
However, we would all condemn the crazy antics of Brevic and his Norwegian pseudo Nazi death spree. But whilst not wanting to downplay Brevic and his ilk...Take as an example the massive decline of the BNP in the UK over the last 5 years. Far right violence is an issue, but less so IMHO.
So the secular West and Christians get lots of apologies to cover them.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
But not Islam.
It is individuals that do soul searching, not abstract nouns. Most individual Muslims have no more need of soul searching than the individual Christians over the wrongs of Christianity. Individuals suggesting otherwise are the ones who would benefit most from soul searching. I've a safe guess that they won't engage though.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In fact, blaming Islam itself - as the right wing and some evangelicals are doing - will make things worse, as we will end up with Muslims themselves being demonized.
Very helpful!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Dafyd, apart from being dismissive. How? Of what? Of whom? But yeah Leopards. Spots. Irrelevant.
The toxic meme of redemptive violence is at the heart of ALL religion. By definition. Bar tiny, marginal exception. Including that, the exception, of Jesus. And even He wasn't above the odd threat, constrained by His culture.
I'm dismissing NO ONE. And Dafyd, in particular, I WANT to be challenged on this, believe me. Against my will, my old leopard. So please engage.
Islam is at heart, core, from its inception, violent, coercive, imperial, patriarchal. Just like Christianity reverted to and in so doing became a major substrate for Islam.
If I were a true Scotsman, sorry liberal, I wouldn't say that elephant in the room fact? In any context? And that's not a rhetorical question, no matter how sneering it looks.
My responsibility as a Christian to Islam in a non-Islamic society is to be tolerant, kind, accommodating, lay down my privilege; honour, serve strangers in a strange land, not stuff insulting cartoons in their faces. To bless. In a society where they have the whip hand my responsibility is to submit and bless the same.
So I'm failing to bless Islam by engaging with the subject of its foundational violence?
One that it cannot possibly escape any more than Judaism could?
Violence that re-infected Christianity so badly we aren't even aware of it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
The BBC documentary ( posted the link a few threads back) actually mentions the need for Islam to do a bit of a revamp.
It's certainly not just the right wing or evangelicals doing the questioning of Islam's credentials.
The danger of slapping the name of the thing then ''phobia'' at the end of the word is that the ''whateveryoulikephobia'' can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Islam is NOT the problem. At all. No matter what. Christianity is. The responsibility is ENTIRELY ours.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Much better to attack all the Muslims of the world to do some soul-searching, that's addressing the real problem and certainly not hiding or beating others.
[ 17. January 2015, 16:24: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Gamaliel's point seems to click a few ''yes'' buttons in my head at least.
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
This was amply illustrated by this last night on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
Panorama -The Battle for British Islam
Panorama investigates the battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims. John Ware hears from Muslims trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values.
Saul
This documentary? Because from what you've written, the discussion comes from Muslims discussing the reformation of Islam.
More power to them.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Gamaliel's point seems to click a few ''yes'' buttons in my head at least.
There seems to be a serious and to me quite worrying collective delusion in the heads of some Muslims. That they can do, or say, or act as they want, seems, to me quite delusional......and dangerous.
Surely there must be a radical reconsideration in Islam of what is and isn't acceptable surely?
This was amply illustrated by this last night on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam
Panorama -The Battle for British Islam
Panorama investigates the battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims. John Ware hears from Muslims trying to promote a form of Islam which is in synch with British values.
Saul
This documentary? Because from what you've written, the discussion comes from Muslims discussing the reformation of Islam.
More power to them.
and sooner the better.
I never became a Marxist/communist because it seemed to me in the 1980s any system that kept people in by force had the seeds of it's own destruction within it. The Iron Curtain was a wall that kept countless millions prisoner behind it's walls.
Islam threatens the death penalty to any of it's adherents that leave it. Not such a strong system that twists it members arms up their backs? Why so the violence to any that harbour doubts about Allah? IMHO.
Saul
[ 17. January 2015, 18:02: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have a reasonable number of friends who have left Islam. And Islam didn't threaten them with death. Therefore Islam does not threaten apostates with death.
Yet I'm aware of countries in which ex-Muslims are threatened with death. Therefore Islam does threaten apostates with death.
Except I just said it didn't. On the other hand it does. Heavens, what a paradox.
Think, think, think....
I know, could it be that it doesn't make sense to talk about a single entity called Islam and ascribe it particular characteristics based on the actions of individuals?
If only someone had mentioned such an idea before we could have saved so much going round-in-circles. Why didn't anyone think of that?
--------------------
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 Saul the Apostle:
The BBC documentary ( posted the link a few threads back) actually mentions the need for Islam to do a bit of a revamp.
It's certainly not just the right wing or evangelicals doing the questioning of Islam's credentials.
The danger of slapping the name of the thing then ''phobia'' at the end of the word is that the ''whateveryoulikephobia'' can become a cudgel to beat others with and also something to hide behind, thus obfuscating the actual problem.
Saul the Apostle
This is becoming ridiculous. You start off with a kind of faux-naive OP, asking questions about Islam, and now it seems that you had from the beginning some kind of agenda, but which you are very coy about.
So what is the actual problem with Islam? Please be more specific.
--------------------
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
Inherent violence, presumably. It seemed to go from a naive question to a conclusion somewhere in the thread. Presumably Saul was convinced by our arguments.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
and sooner the better.
When has any reformation happened quickly? Or do you think the Protestant Reformation was soley kicked off by the 95 Theses?
And since you missed my italics, I'll try caps. The documentary shows MUSLIMS discussing Islamic reform. That is exactly who should be, and we ought to either support their efforts or shut up and leave them to it. The sooner the better.
[ 17. January 2015, 19:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Inherent violence, presumably. It seemed to go from a naive question to a conclusion somewhere in the thread. Presumably Saul was convinced by our arguments.
Did anyone not expect this exact outcome? I can't recall a thread started by Saul that DIDN'T follow the same pattern.
I don't know why people frame a thread as asking a question when the purpose is just to tell some people giving answers that they are wrong. Just start with the position, it would save a lot of time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
No great mystery here.
In theory they can't be, in practice they sometimes are.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I think almost everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation.
I don't believe you.
You just haven't grasped the vast amount of material you unquestioningly accept on a daily basis because you just take it for granted, and never think about it.
What? Now you're making my exact point for me. The whole point is that things you consider obvious = things you take for granted.
I'm not suggesting that everything is a matter of conscious interpretation. Most of it's unconscious and not recognised as such. That is exactly what I've been trying to say. We simply never think about what we take for granted unless and until we encounter someone who doesn't take the same thing for granted.
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Islam (where the violent bits cannot be overriden, except sometimes (mostly?) they can be).
No great mystery here.
In theory they can't be, in practice they sometimes are.
If the theory is overridden by practice as often it appears to be in the world at large, then I think it's time to develop a new theory.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Islam has some very serious soul searching to do. Whether it will do so, is anyone's guess.
Saul
So, several posters have outlined the reasoning behind why Islam is attached to a violence that is not driven by the religion and yet the "Islam is the source of the violence" folk fail to address this.
And you say that the same cannot be said for Christianity because Jesus magics away the OT naughty behaviour.
What then about Judaism? Judaism does not yet have anyone who mollifies the grumpy OT God. Israel is a Jewish state, Isreal are bastards in the treatment of the Palestinians: Judaism has some soul-searching to do.
Same logic, so you must agree with the conclusion.
Judaism does have some soul searching to do and yes, the treatment of the Palestinians has some links to the Jewish religion in that Jewish belief is tied up with the concept of the holy land, the gift of God and the temple in Jerusalem.
That's a complete tangent though, worthy of another thread, don't see what it's got to do with the question of whether or not Islam is inherently violent.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or whether bears ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there's some kind of cross-purpose thing going on here ...
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You claimed that “everything everywhere is a matter of interpretation”.
Most things in our life, most of the time, clearly are not – we don’t even think about them, and we don’t need to.
However, there are some issues which are both imperative to consciously think about, and to which there is a straightforward true/false answer.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is one of them. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
Whether or not the NT teaches Christian violence is something we do have to consciously think about. To arrive at that conclusion requires conscious thought.
How else would we arrive at that conclusion?
We don't read and understand things automatically. There's a whole web of conscious and unconscious mental responses and influences going on whenever we approach any text - even the plainest - learning, context, culture, personality ...
I don't think anyone here IS arguing that the NT teaches religious violence.
I don't believe it does.
But in order to arrive at that conclusion I've had to go through a whole series of mental processes - both conscious and unconsciously.
My mother-in-law has Alzheimers. Part of the condition means that she often misinterprets things that she'd not have had to think about particularly strongly or even consciously at one time.
Why? Because parts of her brain no longer function as well or in the way that they once did.
Interacting with my mum-in-law makes me realise how so much of what we take for granted and consider to be 'unconscious' is actually the product of a whole web of influences and factors.
It's the same when we deal with sacred texts.
That doesn't make them any the less sacred. Nor does it mean that we can make black white or white black.
All anyone is saying here is that texts are open to interpretation. The fact that the NT doesn't teach or provide a justification for religious violence may appear so obvious as to not require stating - to you. But to other people it might not appear so axiomatic.
That's not a post-modern jiggery-pokery observation. It's a statement of observable fact.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
