Islam: More Violent?
Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?
Internet culture has of late bandied the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent and insidious religion with new degrees of fervor and specificity. The approaching zeitgeist seems to be that the tenets and doctrines of Islam are themselves uniquely abhorrent when compared with their Christian counterparts, which is used as a causative explanation for the current prevalence of violence in many Muslim countries, their poor human rights track records, and the present frequency of terror attacks carried out in the name of Islam.
The problem I'm having in trying to assent to this position is that I can see similarities in the doctrines of all three religions which seem to equally condone (and condemn) abhorrent violence, and I can also see similarities between past and present behavior across all three religions. How can contemporary Islamic inspired violence be an innate function of Islam if there were periods of peace throughout its history? How can violence not be an innate part of Christianity if there are periods of violence throughout its history? Without getting into specifics, both Christianity and Islam contain peaceful and violent examples and doctrines to draw from, and have both done so in the past and present, so what is it about Islam that makes it so fundamentally and at it's core more violent and more oppressive?
The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive.
The idea that we must "fight back" against Islam because it is inherently violent seems to be cropping up more and more as the western perception and definition of Islam as the one true violent religion solidifies as a common denominator. The perception of Islam as a uniform and unified religion is foremost errant in that definition, and what lacks still are the historical, cultural, political, and economic contexts which are necessary to understand what impact religion has on human behavior. Christian barbarism can be judged in hindsight by westerners with the benefit of understanding the historical and cultural circumstances and external factors which contributed to certain periods of Christian violence and specific wars, and also with the benefit of understanding how Christianity and its role in society diverged and changed over time into the many diverse sects that now exist today. The existence of explicitly violent and abhorrent verses in the Bible threatens no cognitive dissonance for a westerner because it is well understood how modern Christian sects shift focus (cherry-pick) in order to metabolize such verses without inciting people to actually act on them (none the less, many of them continue to be acted upon to this day, although seldom in first world countries).
When western society decided to stop lynching and castrating homosexuals, and appealing to the Christian law which condones such violence fell out of popularity in (some) churches, was that an example of a fundamental and innate principle of Christianity yielding to secular pressure? Did Christianity reform and become something new? If a specific act of violence is innate to a religion because it can be found in the doctrine, and people have acted upon it, why is Christianity not also considered innately violent? If both Islam and Christianity are indeed equally and innately violent, what other factors must we use to explain the constantly fluctuating and diverse behavior of past and present religious adherents? In summation, how can we fully understand the scope and details of the impact that any religion has on human behavior without isolating or controlling for the plethora of other worldly factors which influence said behavior. The fact that Christianity can be both violent and not violent challenges the definition of religion as a set of ideas/beliefs which have necessary and specific ramifications on the broad behavior of it's adherents. The portrayal of Islam as the necessary source of evil in the Islamic world misses this fact entirely and ignores a greater understanding of the host of causative forces at play.
Internet culture has of late bandied the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent and insidious religion with new degrees of fervor and specificity. The approaching zeitgeist seems to be that the tenets and doctrines of Islam are themselves uniquely abhorrent when compared with their Christian counterparts, which is used as a causative explanation for the current prevalence of violence in many Muslim countries, their poor human rights track records, and the present frequency of terror attacks carried out in the name of Islam.
The problem I'm having in trying to assent to this position is that I can see similarities in the doctrines of all three religions which seem to equally condone (and condemn) abhorrent violence, and I can also see similarities between past and present behavior across all three religions. How can contemporary Islamic inspired violence be an innate function of Islam if there were periods of peace throughout its history? How can violence not be an innate part of Christianity if there are periods of violence throughout its history? Without getting into specifics, both Christianity and Islam contain peaceful and violent examples and doctrines to draw from, and have both done so in the past and present, so what is it about Islam that makes it so fundamentally and at it's core more violent and more oppressive?
The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive.
The idea that we must "fight back" against Islam because it is inherently violent seems to be cropping up more and more as the western perception and definition of Islam as the one true violent religion solidifies as a common denominator. The perception of Islam as a uniform and unified religion is foremost errant in that definition, and what lacks still are the historical, cultural, political, and economic contexts which are necessary to understand what impact religion has on human behavior. Christian barbarism can be judged in hindsight by westerners with the benefit of understanding the historical and cultural circumstances and external factors which contributed to certain periods of Christian violence and specific wars, and also with the benefit of understanding how Christianity and its role in society diverged and changed over time into the many diverse sects that now exist today. The existence of explicitly violent and abhorrent verses in the Bible threatens no cognitive dissonance for a westerner because it is well understood how modern Christian sects shift focus (cherry-pick) in order to metabolize such verses without inciting people to actually act on them (none the less, many of them continue to be acted upon to this day, although seldom in first world countries).
When western society decided to stop lynching and castrating homosexuals, and appealing to the Christian law which condones such violence fell out of popularity in (some) churches, was that an example of a fundamental and innate principle of Christianity yielding to secular pressure? Did Christianity reform and become something new? If a specific act of violence is innate to a religion because it can be found in the doctrine, and people have acted upon it, why is Christianity not also considered innately violent? If both Islam and Christianity are indeed equally and innately violent, what other factors must we use to explain the constantly fluctuating and diverse behavior of past and present religious adherents? In summation, how can we fully understand the scope and details of the impact that any religion has on human behavior without isolating or controlling for the plethora of other worldly factors which influence said behavior. The fact that Christianity can be both violent and not violent challenges the definition of religion as a set of ideas/beliefs which have necessary and specific ramifications on the broad behavior of it's adherents. The portrayal of Islam as the necessary source of evil in the Islamic world misses this fact entirely and ignores a greater understanding of the host of causative forces at play.
Comments (555)
With that interpretation, I suspect that the answer is almost certainly No.
One reason is that the majority of the violence in the world appears to be alcohol-fuelled, and Muslims have a far lower rate of alcohol consumption than non-Muslims. There are other reasons too, but this one is enough.
if we must 'fight back' against sources of violence, the first port of call should be the promotion and glorification of alcohol consumption. But there's no way that will happen, because the vested interests that profit from that are way too rich and powerful. It's so much easier to pick on those that are not.
Comparing the messages of sacred texts, yes, Islam is more violent.
I would rather not go to the mat in a New Testament cage-match, but as an opening salvos, I posit that Jesus as portrayed in the new testament promoted violence by spreading the most insidious and disgusting lie that has ever plagued mankind:
Quoting ThE vOiCeS
Jesus didn't specifically tell you to do violence, and he offered somewhat cheap salvation, but he none the less carried on with the threat of eternal damnation and pointed to the Old Testament as still being the law. I understand that the new covenant allows Christians to pick and choose what sins are despite them being clearly written at exhaustive length in their holy books (a good thing), but then "Christian non-violence" becomes more of an expression of contemporary culture than it does Christianity itself. If the Old Testament didn't condemn homosexuality, would we still have been castrating homosexuals 60 or 70 years ago? I say perhaps, but maybe not. The fact that such abhorrent values are mainly found in the Old Testament didn't and doesn't stop their employment in sermons which reinforce and motivate such practices in the minds of Christians at large.
In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons.
And let's not forget, there is only one way to guarantee paradise according to Islam.
I don't think you've read the New Testament. The prevailing message is love and pacifism.
The more you judge, the harder it becomes to understand. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge.
Something tells me that a large chunk of these inmates "convert" to "Islam" while in a high security prison because it affords you gang like protection. I'm not exactly sure what about Islam makes it work well as the basis for a prison gang culture, but I guess it does.
Quoting tom
According to some Muslims, committing suicide and killing innocent people are both sins per the Qu'ran.
Depends on who you ask?
You're reacting to an ancient religious teaching as if it were intended to be a modern, politically correct bromide. 'Come along children, let's all wash our hands after eating'. Not. Ancient religious teachings were given in the context of a culture where violence was rife, justice brutal and education non-existent. Besides, Jesus can be interepreted as warning his listeners of the consequences of their evil-doing. I think preachers have made a lot out of God being a punitive father figure, but there's another way of reading it: that by depriving yourself of the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness, then you're consigning yourself to a very bad place. It's more a warning than a threat.
Regarding Islam - it's very hard to find impartial discussion on the Internet, or anywhere.
One source of distortion are those who throw a blanket of political correctness over any possible criticism, meaning that any discussion at all is automatically categorised as racist.
The opposite problem is the various groups who are indeed Islamophobic and who depict it as irredeemably violent and beyond hope of reform.
With respect to Islam and violence, it ought to be recalled that the career of the founder began as a warrior and general, who initially succeeded through military conquest and through raiding caravans and taking of booty. Accordingly, Islam has always been an explicitly martial religion, a 'fighting creed', as it used to be described. Enemies were slain, as were any who refused to convert. That doesn't necessarily translate into violence in the modern context, and there are plenty of Muslims who eschew such violence, but the sanctioning of religious violence is certainly present in the texts. (I don't see any parallel in the New Testament - nowhere are Christians commanded to 'slay the unbeliever', notwithstanding the violence done in the name of Christianity over the centuries.)
But it also needs to be said that terrorist movements and violent political extremists have hijacked Islam for their own nefarious purposes. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS are examples, who are motivated by a fanatical interpretation of Islam, and an equally fanatical loathing of Western civilisation which they see as the work of Satan. But there are far larger numbers of Muslims who believe no such thing, and indeed Muslims represent by far the largest group of victims of Islamic violence.
The prevailing message is love and peace, peppered with threats of eternal damnation, and followed by death and destruction for the unbelievers when Jesus returns to right all wrongs with his fiery sword.
But you're missing the point: the old testament can be just as relevant when it comes to influencing human behavior. The prevailing message of Christianity depends on what you take away from it. You can say that the prevailing message of the NT is love and pacifism, but Muslims also say that the prevailing message of the Qu'ran is peace and love; what's the difference?
Quoting Mongrel
I would simply have us seek comparable depth of understanding concerning major religions before we decide to judge one of them as the worst religion of all.
Christianity is easy for me because I grew up with it. I decided to try to understand Islam better and I ended up reading several books (just trying to piece things together.) I guess I'd say that if you want to defend Muslims from racists, misrepresenting Islam isn't the best way to do that. If the racist in question is Christian, you can just invite him or her to actually be a Christian.
By reacting with modern day sensibility I'm trying to highlight the doctrinal extremes of Christianity which might be similar to those of Islam. Maybe Christianity has more carrot or Islam has more stick, but I'm not sure it makes a massive difference; there's enough stick in both sets of doctrines to go around should anyone desire to wield them. More a warning than a threat indeed!
Quoting Wayfarer
The Old Testament played a role in catalyzing violence over the centuries, which is why this point is only as relevant as your commitment to the NT is widespread in the Christian community. In order to differentiate Christianity from Islam in this regard Christians would need to outright discount the Old Testament as a valid source of moral teaching, which is where it says to kill the infidels.
But it's very peculiar to me how the fact that violence was rife, justice brutal and education non-existent in ancient times can explain and contextualize Christianity as merely coping with a prevalent norm, while the exact same social conditions under which Islam emerged contextualizes it as an inherently violent artifact of an uncivilized age. The number of Muslims embracing the death to infidels attitude is shockingly high, but overall represents a very low percentage of all Muslims A Christian says warlord, and a Muslim says liberator of slaves. What's the difference?
What should I say if they reply "As a true Christian it's my duty to fight back against Islam which is seeking to destroy my religion and way of life."?
20th Century Nazis and Russian and Chinese communists killed more innocent people than Christians, Jews, and Muslims killed throughout their entire histories.
I'm just trying to tell you: your characterization of Jesus as a fire and brimstone preacher isn't in the NT. That came later. As for the OT, he (is supposed to have) said that the Law and the prophets can be derived from two rules, one of which is: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." He said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
It's pervasively a pacifist message. Vengeance belongs to God, not us. That means a Christian hawk will be at odds with the scriptural Christian message. Likewise, a Muslim who preaches pacifism will be have to deal in some way with the actions of the founder of Islam.
But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam?
Muslims simply need to become cherry-picking experts tendentiously selecting, ignoring, emphasizing, explaining away, and re-defining the text, like Jews and Christians.
Indeed. As Sam Harris has said, it may increasingly be the case that the only people who are willing to honestly confront the problem of radical Islam are far-right xenophobes and racists. The left has simply become totally complicit on this issue, making a bizarre set of bedfellows with religious theocrats who hold decidedly anti-liberal views on many issues (so long as said theocrats come from a place where the people are poorer and browner than most people in the West - Christian theocracy would never be tolerated, of course).
There's a Pakistani cleric who created a massive Fatwa on Terrorism about 10 years ago. It is said to be definitive, and to show with absolute certainty that no Muslim should ever commit acts of violence against civilians, or commit suicide or detonate bombs, and that all who do this are bound for hell. I don't know a much about it, although I did noticed it received very little publicity; but then, maybe preaching against terrorism is far less newsworthy than terrorism. (I have read that the same scholar who drafted this Fatwa is also responsible for the dreadful blasphemy laws in Pakistan, under which persons are frequently prosecuted or even beaten or stoned to death, although again not 100% certain if that is so.)
I did notice an article on the Australian Broadcasting Corp's site by an Australian Islamic scholar here about Islam, Tolerance and Religion. The author is obliged to recognise that there are indeed exhortations to kill apostates and unbelievers, but says that these are 'outweighed' by the 'real intent' of the Quran and the Prophet. I must admit I am sceptical of this article, scholarly though it may be - it seems the main intent is to present a 'pluralist' view of Islam which doesn't really exist anywhere except for amongst Islamic scholars residing in Western democracies.
Quoting Arkady
This article says exactly that. Here in Australia, there's an anti-Islam party called One Nation (satirically known as One Notion), led by an outspoken xenophobe who basically hates Islam. I don't agree with her in the least, but then, I am also unwilling to simply agree that Islam and liberal democracy can effortlessly co-exist. There are aspects of Western liberal democracy that Islam could never recognize, and vice versa. For instance, Islam can't in principle recognise the separation of religion and state; meaning that, those who claim that it is actually a political philosophy, as much as a religious practice, may be correct. In which case, the question ought to be asked, ought a liberal and pluralistic democratic order accept a political philosophy which is opposed to liberal democracy as a matter of principle? (Bet you will never hear that question asked on a panel show; here in Australia, if you ask difficult questions like this, you will be automatically called xenophobic. But then, I also have some sympathy for the Islamic repulsion against Western decadence.)
Ross Douthat explores the question of what kind of Islam the West will really be able to absorb.
That's correct. That's why I chose my words carefully in my post, and did not say something like 'Muslims don't drink', which would have been incorrect. the actual claim was that Muslims have 'a far lower rate of alcohol consumption', which is entirely consistent with the fact that some Muslims do drink.
What is important is that there are, on average, far lower levels of drinking in Muslim countries, and hence lower levels of violence. I felt much safer walking back streets in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey than I would in many neighbourhoods of the urban USA.
Scapegoating will always pick the easiest target. Sometimes its Jews, sometimes homosexuals, sometimes unmarried mothers, sometimes East Asians, sometimes Aborigines, and the current fad is Muslims.
Abrahamic fundamentalists tend to end up in the weeds, regardless of which branch they adhere to, because fundamentalism tends to lead one into totalizing positions--all or nothing.
I haven't read the Koran, and I don't plan on it -- I don't plan on re-reading the whole OT or NT again, either. I can't speak first hand about how much encouragement to violence is incorporated into the text. I do know that our good allies and friends, the Saudi family, spends a lot of money promoting Wahhabism, which is not an especially friendly version of Islam.
Then too, the hottest hotbed of Islamic Rage is a shit hole in the Middle East, which is a pretty bad place to be, at any time. Some of the reasons it is bad are...
too many people
too little employment
too dry
too tribal
too many irrational borders
too much unhelpful interference by all and sum
too dreary a future
too many bombs
too many bad governments
Give any bunch of people these problems, whip up some religious hysteria (any variety) and voila -- bad news.
''Islam'' means surrender. Isn't it ironic then that Islam serves as one of the most potent hotbeds of violence?
If God exists, is this divine comedy?
Islam, any other religion or idea for that matter, is only an excuse for violence.
Perhaps a distinction relevant to the OP is that between overt and covert violence. All religions, in fact all ideas, have the seed of covert violence - imposing restrictions on freedom, especially freedom to do what is most basic to humans, to think.
Overt violence is the domain of, hopefully, few ideas and religions. Does Islam promote/condone overt violence more than any other religion?
Islam divides the world in two: dar-al-harb (House of War), and dar-al-Islam. It is the duty of all Muslims to wage war against the infidel.
There are also instructions on how to treat atheists(polytheists) and Jews or Christians. The atheists must be killed, but the "people of the book" can accept subjugation if they pay protection money.
You basically have violent gang rules encoded in a holy text.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They are lying to you. There is an Islamic principle for lying to kufar, it's is called Taqiyya.
Quran (3:169-170) - "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve."
All Muslims spend time in hell. Prophets and Martyrs go straight to heaven, which for Muslims is basically a brothel.
Forget the 'in principle' bit. Islam can't recognise things because only agents can recognise things and Islam is not an agent but a loose term for a bunch of beliefs that, like any other bunch of beliefs, has fuzzy boundaries.
So sure, Islam cannot recognise separation of church and state, in the same way that Christianity, Buddhism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, nominalism and asceticism cannot recognise it.
To escape this, the Islamophobe might try to say 'Oh I don't mean Islam the bunch of beliefs. I meant people who adhere to those beliefs'. Then one runs directly into the brick wall of reality: how does one explain the very many Muslims that do wish for the separation of church and state - especially those that live in countries where the state persecutes them for their minority religious status - like India or the USA.
For every violent, intolerant quote one can cherry-pick from the Quran, one can find a violent, intolerant quote from the Bible (yes, including the New Testament), or from Marx or Lenin, and then observe how few current adherents of the relevant religion - be it Islam, Christianity or Communism, actually believe in that quote.
Quoting Wayfarer The question is easy to answer. The answer is No. The difficult bit is the sneaky pre-supposition that Islam is such a philosophy in a way that is not equally applicable to other religions as indicated above. The onus is on the Islamophobe to justify their presupposition.
I would be interested to see some examples. I really don't recall any Biblical texts urging the faithful to slay non-believers, but I could be mistaken. And I don't regard the warning that the wicked will suffer for their sins in the afterlife as a threat of violence.
Quoting andrewk
Is the double negative intentional? Actually, however that is parsed, I don't think it makes much sense. The 'Christian West' does recognise the separation of Church and State - out of necessity, as the consequence of centuries of religious war and internicene strife.
Are you saying that all religions are violent, and that therefore Islam ought not to be singled out?
We could start with the one saying that homosexuals should be killed. Next up might be the admonition for parents to kill their children if disobedient.
Quoting WayfarerNo, it doesn't, because the Christian West is not an agent. Perhaps you mean that certain legal systems in some Western countries encode that separation in their constitutions. That's an entirely different thing and is to do with politics and law, not religion.
Further, such separation is not nearly as widely encoded as one might think. It is encoded in the US, but not in Australia or the UK, both of which facilitate Christian indoctrination in public schools.
Quoting andrewk
They're not quotations, but paraphrases.
Quoting andrewk
What I was getting at is that 'the separation of church and state' is a principle of governance that is recognised in Western liberal democracies. It is part of the framework of the secular state, the point of which is to provide a framework for a plurality of views.
I think the question can be asked: if a religion doesn't recognize the distinction of church and state, then how can be accorded the protection of 'freedom of religion'? Because it might not itself recognise the kind of freedom that is being granted to it, in a secular democracy.
In Islamic theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia, proselytizing Christianity is a criminal offence punishable by death or imprisonment.
So I think it's a fair question to ask, should rights granted to religious groups be done on the basis of mutual recognition? In other words, why would a pluralist culture recognise the rights of a theocratic totalarianism, like Wahabism, part of the aim of which is the abolition of secular culture.
I think those kinds of questions need to be discussed, without immediately prompting accusations of 'Islamophobia' or racism.
The conceit! The narcissism!
Next time you take a quiet stroll round the back streets of Pakistan or Iran, while deluding yourself that because no one is enjoying a glass of wine with their pork casserole, you must be safer than in urban USA, please spare a thought for the victims of Islamic violence. It's not all about you.
Or perhaps you simply prefer to ignore the institutionalized violence of these countries. The death to apostates, the death to atheists, the death to bloggers and tweeters. The public beheadings and beatings are easily avoided I suppose, just don't follow the crowd.
The denigration of women is also easily ignored: the honour killings, the acid attacks, the beatings for wearing the hijab in not-quite-the-right way. The women would certainly be punished or worse for talking to you alone.
Muslims make up a little under 15% of prisoners overall. Most of them are in jail for ordinary crimes. It's a puzzle, but it seems more likely to be connected to socio-economic factors than to religion.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Most Muslims are moderate people, just like the rest of us. Perhaps you mean that there aren't prominent Muslims who are widely quoted as being moderate. Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives.
Of course terrorism alarms me, I used to walk every day in Leeds past a house that turned out to be a bomb factory. And many terrorists are acting in the name of Islam. The UK police are doing a brilliant job in anti-terrorism. I think long-term progress though involves ordinary people not Othering someone else's religion, as if it were somehow more unreasonable than one's own. Let us judge our neighbours and colleagues and co-residents by their actions and words, not by what we imagine from our reading to be their thoughts.
It isn't Islam, but there are certainly cultural attitudes amongst certain Islamic communities that are violent. Think of Sudanese Muslims circumcising women; it is not a practice by all Muslims, but rather a cultural practice that has become embedded into a religious one in that region, albeit a ridiculously stupid, vicious and violent practice. But the reality of perceptions against Islam in the West is exactly as you say, too simplistic. Not many people are aware of the various Islamic jurisprudential divisions - Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Shafi'i, Hanafi and Maliki - then you have Shi'a Islam, then even further still you have the syncretistic religions of the Near East such as Alawi, Ahl-e Haqq, Druze, Yezidi, (I published on this subject) and its relationship to historical and cultural traditions.
Further still, there are even more variations formed by the number of different hadiths that tend to be utilised more predominately than the ever ambiguous Qu'ran. These so-called 'teachings of the prophet' are the direct result of different interpretations and many of its sources are dubious to say the least, compelling some groups to justify violence.
Whatever the case is, though, there is a clear difficulty or tension between Islam and Democracy but to ignore a history of Ottoman rule in the region and post-colonial ramifications, factious international relations, proxy wars, globalisation and economic/social transformations and quite simply state that it is 'Islam' is just moronic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular
She contends that religion violence over a long history of spectacular violence has always had secular impact and eventually became separate from secular violence over the course of the last 400 years, in the West. The heretic, became the ethnic rebel. Fighting, and dying for one's faith became fighting and dying for one's country.
William T. Cavanaugh also asserts the myth of religious violence. The following from Wikipedia:
Wosret, as this post immediately followed mine and contains a question, I think it may be directed to me, but, if so, I am unsure what you're asking. Which maniacal asshole do you speak of? Sam Harris? Harris has never advocated "genocide" in the Muslim world, for thought crimes or for anything else (some who distort his views erroneously suggest that he has advocated a nuclear first strike on the Muslim world, but this is not the case).
According to UNICEF 200,000,000 girls and women alive today have suffered FGM.
According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.
According to UNICEF 44,000,000 of those are girls under the age of 14.
According to UNICEF of the of the countries who mutilate girls under 14, the highest prevalence is in Gambia and Mauritania.
According to UNICEF about 50% of girls under 11 have been mutilated in Indonesia.
According to UNICEF Countries with the highest prevalence among girls and women aged 15 to 49 are Somalia 98%, Guinea 97% and Djibouti 93%.
In most of the countries the majority of girls were cut before reaching their fifth birthdays.
But yes, as you say, child mutilation also occurs in Sudan.
https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf
Speaking as an atheist, no one seems to care, though there are 13 countries in which I would be murdered by the state for declaring atheism.
It is called the spread of stupidity. Not an uncommon thing in human beings. Still got nothing to do with Islam though.
The fact that some person P commits an act of violence, and that P is member of some religion R, it doesn't follow that P committed said act of violence because of his religion. The more relevant criterion is how many adherents of a religion commit violence in the name of said religion, or due to said religion's doctrines.
This is not to say that such a criterion is a simple one to determine: for one thing, there are "No true [Muslim, Christian, etc] would do X"-style claims to contend with. For another, there are coding issues tied to ambiguities as to what exactly constitutes religiously-motivated violence. If there are religious fault lines between two groups involved in violent conflict, does that count as at least partially religiously-motivated violence even if the conflict is not inherently doctrinal or theological in nature? (The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland and the Balkan Wars come to mind here as such cases.)
The question is not so much unfair as just incoherent. Exactly which rights are you suggesting should be taken away from these 'groups'? And given the fuzzy boundaries of Islam, like any other religion, how are you going to determine to whom this stripping of rights should be applied?
Sure, nothing is to do with Islam, even if it is mandated in the Hadith.
There is no the hadith. There are a number of different hadiths. I implore you to speak only when you know what you are talking about.
FGM is mandated in the Hadith. It's one of the fitra, and is referred to in many places across several books, most notable Sahi Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
This is just tragic.
The rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. You being an apologist and expert must be aware of this.
Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”
Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."
Plenty of other references to circumcision for women both explicitly and implicitly.
But of course according to you, being an apologist, the hadith don't really exist. But then again, you are in denial!
Sudan? What a joke!
Pipes' insight is not an indictment of the behavior of the average Muslim. It's the observation that there is no religious apparatus behind a so-called moderate Islamic viewpoint. That apparatus is like a baby trying to be born.
Anywhere near Rotherham?
Actually there is, it's called the Ahmadiyyah Community, though membership of it risks you being murdered in Pakistan and UK.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. Deuteronomy 13:6-11
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18
No such prohibition is to be found in the Quran or the Sahih.
The Quran does contain 109 verses that call Muslims to war with the kufar though.
Quoting tom
In order of highest percentage of FGM from the UNICEF document, here's a couple of statistics that show that it isn't a practise informed by Islam but by culture with the notable exception of Indonesia. Indonesia imported the practise when it imported Islam.
Togo, 20% Muslim, 29% Christian, 51% indigenuous.
Kenya, 83% Christian, 11% Muslim
Ghana, 71% Christian, 17% Muslim
Tanzania, est. 30-40% both Christian and Muslim each
Burkina Faso, 60% Muslim, 29% Christian
Iraq, 95% Muslim
Benin, 43% Christian, 24% Muslim
Well, you get the picture. FMG is a cultural practise and doesn't really care about what religion you believe in. Local Muslim leaders will sometimes issue edicts that require Islam but in a lovely twist of fate in Niger 55 percent of Christian women and girls had experienced it, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts.
Also, FGM is banned in Egypt following the conclusion from important imams that it does not find any basis in the Qu'Ran (since 2007). That people continue to do it, is the same stupidity that has born again Christians blowing up abortion clinics with people in them even though the Pope is quite clear on the "thou shalt not kill" edict in the Bible.
According to UNICEF 100,000,000 of these girls and women are from Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia.
FGM is also banned in UK. There are 1000's of cases of FGM notified in UK every year. As yet not a single prosecution.
Actually the Egypt "ban" appears to be nothing more than a ministerial decree which only affects those that work under the auspices of the Ministry of Health.
So, are we to suppose here that there are no objections to sex with an animal in Islam? I doubt it.
What do you think is worse, having sex with a goat or raping a child?
It would be a good thing if the world's various religions just went out of business--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, various animist cults, etc. There are bits and pieces here and there which might be alright to keep around, the food-oriented holidays, for instance.
Otherwise, get rid of it. Send your bibles, korans, and other holy books to be pulped and turned into toilet paper. Save the trees. Stop the nonsense.
Ridding the world of religion would not bring about world peace, of course. Hey, we'll still be human. It will just be clearer what we are fighting over. Like, "We're killing you because we hate your guts. Nothing personal, of course."
Yes.
Indeed, Christian theocracy is no longer tolerated--it is constrained by the larger society in which those with such a goal are a subgroup without the power to execute any such plans. But Islamic fundies have the power to establish and execute theocracies in their societies. There's not enough pushback to constrain them. Yet. As Harris often has said, it will require moderate Muslims to constrain the fundies, and it is such moderates that we non-Muslims would do well to encourage and support. The very damn least we can do is acknowledge that fundamentalist Mudlims are a threat, and they are inspired and motivated by their intransigent subscription to the their text. And, as I said earlier, what is needed is for enough Muslims to become cherry-picking experts tendentiously selecting, ignoring, emphasizing, explaining away, and re-defining the text, just like Jews and Christians do. This will result in a large enough subgroup to constrain the fundies.
And you can rape a child in many Muslim countries. There is no minimum age of "marriage" in Saudi and Yemen for example. The perfect moral example married a 6yr old after all.
This is C21. If reform of Islam was possible, it would have happened by now. Instead Islam as a whole is becoming increasingly fundamentalist, and yes, it achieves this through violence.
Islam's greatest tools are death to apostates, death to those who cause offense, and death to the kufar. Submission or death!
Muslim societies have not had anywhere near the external interrelationships and pressures that are currently in play. It is these that can and do provide influence for possible reform.
On the other hand, perhaps it is too late, and there indeed will ensue a great violent Clash of Civilizations on an apocalyptic scale, as predicted in the texts.
Didn't think I'd ever see that said on here. LOL.
You've got to be joking! There was once an Islamic empire that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Also, let's not forget the Ottoman empire which lasted until 1922.
Indeed.
But the individuals and societies they were interacting with were not evidencing or demanding the widely established liberal values that interactions with present day individuals and societies do--the very values that could influence reform. There was none of the pressure on them to reform that I spoke of.
I think there was an opportunity lost in 1960s and 70s. Google "Afghan/Iranian women 1960s" etc and you will find photographs of beautiful, liberated, educated, modern women barely distinguishable from Europeans and Americans of the day. You might even find some photographs of the Hajj, which reveals women dressed in many different and colourful ways. Modesty 50 years ago did not mean the oppressive black burqa of today.
Then we had the Islamic revolutions and the rise of Saudi religious imperialism.
I've heard it said that the establishment of the theocracy in Iran was a reactionary response to too radically abrupt a societal shift toward western ways and values. And also that there has been a continuous undercurrent of resistance to the theocracy, and pressure to reform or even replace it.
Hence the violence. Islam's power rests in the use and religious justification of killing.
It is not in the least incoherent. It's a question of political philosophy and governance. Why can't such a question even be raised without the implication that it's discriminatory? Well, maybe it is discriminatory - maybe it's necessary to understand the difference between how different religious ideologies relate to the principles of democratic governance. The fact that it can't even be discussed is what plays into the hands of the right. It's not a matter of 'stripping rights' - it's simply something that ought to be debated. Where are the shining examples of pluralist Islamic democracies? Look at what's happening in Indonesia - there was large-scale civil insurrection because the Koran says that Muslims ought not to recognise a Christian governor - that same Christian governor is now on trial for having the temerity to challenge the mullahs. The Indonesian government, which is commited to pluralism, is battling to keep a lid on it.
(Abbott said the same in a speech after he was deposed as PM, and was of course castigated in the media for racism. That is what I mean by throwing the PC blanket over all debate.)
Those quotations from the oldest strata of the OT, are they not? People were stoned to death or made outcaste in such cultures. But there's nothing comparable to the numerous citations from the Quran about how unbelievers are to be treated.
Are you still talking?
You make it sound as if religion suddenly reared reared it's ugly head, but what caused it to do so?
What do you know about OPEC? The oil embargo of 73 (which was against the U.S among other nations) ended with the U.S exporting bombs and war machines directly to Saudi Arabian hands in exchange for increased oil production and sale to western markets. The Sauds were given everything they needed to raise their imperil flag. The US and SA both then funded and fueled anti-communist groups in the region without regard for how extreme their ideas might be, such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile in Iran, the inflationary effects of the embargo, along with corruption, lead to economic recession. When widespread protests and demonstrations against the Shah finally paralyzed the economy completely, the Ayatollah dominated the aftermath and systematically eliminated secular and political opposition before and after stepping in to create the new Islamic government.
My point isn't that religion is blameless, it's that it doesn't exist in a causative vacuum. The people of Afghanistan and Iran didn't simply double take between the Qur'an and women in bikinis and decide to pass a theocratic constitution, to fund and support radicalization, and to join terrorist organizations. Understanding the genesis of real world violence and the overall impacts of religion just isn't possible if at every point of inquiry the "religion did it" lens obfuscates all other factors.
So, fair being fair, give Islam another 400-600 years before comparing it with Christianity as a religion. See you then.
As I said earlier, I think history reveals that the problem lies essentially in intransigent subscription to any ideology, whether religious or political, that demonizes non-adherents as mortal enemies.
I suspect that given the opportunity, a large number of Christian fundamentalists, too, would once again convince themselves that God has authorized them to estanlish a theocracy and unleash much violence against non-believers, as well as against non-compliant believers in need of divine correction. Currently, such Christian fundamentalists are constrained by the larger society of which they are a subset.
One remedy for such belief, according to the so-called New Atheists, is to stop giving religious notions a free pass, and instead challenge them--especially their epistemic warrant--as we would any other propositions.
Same as in other religions for the most part: pomp and circumstance.
It takes well educated, well spoken, and well positioned apologists who know enough scripture to actually win the theological debate (at large) against staunch zealots. Tom kicks a fuss about the meaning of the word "Islam" being "submission", but a clever pontiff could easily argue "submission to peace and love" is Islam's objective.
I still remain surprised that a book which records the perfect will of god as a set of largely barbaric old laws manages to save the amount of face it does when contrasted with modern ethics and progressive values. The Bible explicitly tells you to put people to death for crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, and general disobedience, and yet because some of that stuff is somewhat contradicted by some other stuff from the Bible, everything is on the moral level. Islam has many similar instances of morally abhorrent positions, but it has some morally praiseworthy ones too. The way that a Muslim holy man can preach peace is the same way that modern Christians also do: by focusing on one aspect as more important than another.
And a book that broadened my puny horizons was Religions of the Silk Road by Foltz.
I'm not asking for anyone's rights to be removed. The question I'm asking is: how far should a pluralistic,secular political order go to accomodate an ideology which doesn't subscribe to the principles of a secular, pluralistic society? I think there is a reasonable expectation of reciprocal rights - that freedom of religion and expression requires acceptance of those principles. In other words, an alternative to the two extremes of total acceptance, on the one hand, and complete rejection (e.g. Pauline Hanson, Gert Wilders) on the other.
Maybe the Islamic Friendship Society, here in Australia, has something to say about that. If so, I'd like to hear it. That is what I mean by 'a discussion'. But currently the 'discussion' is reduced to one of two poles - either Islam should be fully excluded (which is the Hanson view),or it should be accepted on its own terms.
Western societies went through centuries of conflict and negotiation to arrive at liberalism. Islam needs to do something similar in my view.
At least Hanson has concrete proposals: like Trump, she wants to bar immigration from people who self-describe as Muslims, and maybe also from some Middle-Eastern majority Muslim countries. I oppose those proposals, but at least they are clear and concrete and can be discussed.
What is it that you want to discuss? What is your policy proposition? For instance, do you want all potential immigrants to be interviewed comprehensively to determine whether they support a peaceful, secular, democratic society, and rejected if suitably impartial and qualified assessors form the view that they do not? If so, I'm all for it.
Along with everyone else,
1. Their children are required to go to public school and receive 12 years of training in the secular, liberal language, history, science, and civic institutions of the society.
2. Their young adults are liable for military service (unless physically unable)
3. Children, youth and adults may not impose their dietary restrictions on public kitchens
4. Children, youth, and adults may not engage in group religious rituals or wear specific religious clothing in public places (like schools, public institutions, public transit, etc.)
5. Standards accepted by the larger society in the area of dress or undress may not be challenged on a religious or specific basis. Don't like 95% of a body's skin exposed at beaches? Don't go there, then. Don't accept men and women sitting in the same whirlpool at the Y? Don't sit in the whirlpool, then.
6. Religious institutions (of all denominations) must fit into the surrounding community with respect to architectural styles, noise, outdoor events, and so on. Can the Holy Rollers open the windows and doors for their all night soul jam with highly amplified music and associated screaming? No. Can mosques broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day hearable beyond 500 feet? No. Can a 4-spired big-domed box be built in an area with colonial era architecture? No.
7. Employees of private firms can not claim exemption from contact with unclean or holy meat. We eat pork and we kill sacred cows. Don't like it? Tough.
8. Apply anti-discrimination law (on the basis of gender) where applicable.
9. Expose everyone to non-stop commercial messaging about products, consumerism, pornography, etc.
These are not altogether new issues. Orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish, Christian Scientists, Hutterites, Mennonites, Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, and atheists have all contended with civil authorities to work out the details. Peace church members, for instance, may not have to undergo combat training and service when drafted, but they have to spend 2 years doing demanding public service work. Amish children do not attend high school in some states beyond the 8th grade. Amish travelers have to abide by rules of the road when moving about in horse-drawn vehicles (signaling, using large reflective triangles, even lights on their carriages and wagons.
Catholics and Lutherans may run their own elementary and secondary schools, but they are obligated to conform to the state mandated curriculum guidelines. (Of course, when the state itself is ready to approve creationism, then what?)
As painful and difficult as it has been (the suffering is incalculable) Americans, for instances, have learned to live with the weird clothing of ultra-orthodox Jews, Traditional Amish, Hari-Krishna pan handlers and flower children (a couple of generations back) and so on. Americans have somehow learned to eat Lebanese, Greek, African, Vietnamese, and South American food. (The only kind of ethnic food restaurants missing in Minnesota are Norwegian, German, and Swedish. Strange. You would think in a place that is 60% NW European, there'd be more places serving sauerbraten, lefsa, pickled herring, liver dumplings, and such. If it wasn't for IKEA, there'd be no place to get Swedish meatballs with lingonberries.)
That was the idea behind Australia's 'Citizenship Test'.
Very good editorial in today's NY Times about the kind of questions I'm raising
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
No they don't. Fascist and communists openly organize in liberal democracies. The existing laws and civics are protection enough.
Do you think Islam is facist?
I am not sure fascist is the word to use. But there is a kind of brutality in the traditions of the Abrahamic religions.
I have read William Lane Craig rationalizing what was done to the Biblical Amalekites. Today we have the Islamic State actually doing more or less the same thing. Then, Midianite virgins, today, Yazidi.
So theoretically at least, Islam is no more "fascist" than Christianity or Judaism. It's just that Christians and Jews have stopped doing that sort of thing.
You will find nothing equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount in the Quran.
http://al-quran.info/?x=y#6:151
Starting from there the Qu'ran states:
Avoid idolatry
Honor your parents
Reject infanticide
Live a pure life in every way
Refuse to take a life unless it is necessary (which calls into question some popular depictions)
Treat orphans justly, especially when money is involved
Say only what is truthful and fair
Keep your promises
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205-7&version=NIV
The Sermon on the Mount (loose interpretation):
idolatry = Matthew 6:24
parents (metaphorical for God) = Matthew 5:45; 6:8-9; 7:11
infanticide = Matthew 6:21-22; 7:9-10
purity (especially sexual) = Matthew 5:27-32; 7:12
murder = Matthew 6:21-22; 38-39
justice (especially financial) = Matthew 5:23-24; 6:2-3; 12; 19-21
truthfulness = Matthew 5:36-37
reliability = Matthew 5:33-37
You shouldn't forget either that Jesus is considered an Islamic prophet and what he said, according to the Bible, does carry some weight with Muslims as hearsay. Muslims will sooner turn to Hadith as a verifiable source of what Jesus said or didn't say as part of the sermon on the mount (apparently such a Hadith exists) but I have no idea what it says. In general though, most Muslims will agree that the sermon does not conflict with the teachings of the Qu'ran and as such is likely to be the word of God as well.
It might be required, Tom, that you open yourself up to a reading of the Qu'ran without preconceptions.
Point 4, ok when it concerns religious rituals in a group. I don't agree where it concerns clothing in public places unless they are acting in an official capacity where the image of independence and secularity is important.
Point 7, I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? What does it mean to "claim exemption"?
Personally I can do without 9 myself. I want more graffiti and other 'cave-man' art on the streets than commercials.
A. Christianity does have a fundamentally pacifist message, and
B. Islam's origin actually did involve violence and bloodshed on the part of its prime figure, and
C. For various reasons, Muslims don't feel free to stray from the literal,
that this must mean Christianity is morally superior to Islam and by extension, Christians are morally superior to Muslims. And that can't be true, so A, B, and C can't be true.
A,B, and C actually are true. People are trying to conjure facts with which to fight racism and in the process, misconstruing. Maybe it would help to realize that facts are useless against racism, anyway. Love defeats racism. For love can not fight without winning. Love never fails.
To me, the more fascinating question: Jesus and the Prophet have a lot in common. So why did one become a spokesman of peace and the other a military leader?
Are you a Jew or a female?
I seem to recall Nietzsche also observed that Christianity bears the seeds of its own destruction, in that it recognises two roads to the truth: faith and reason. Reason will, of course, lead to conclusions different from faith.
Islam lacks any appeal to reason, or even reasonableness. And the 109 sura that exhort violence towards the infidel, stand in stark contrast to the Sermon on the Mount.
Probably because Arabs weren't afflicted in the reason department. Islam created a fruitful environment for philosophy, math, science, and poetry. Contact with the Muslim world is the reason Europe didn't continue to sink backward culturally during the medieval period.
I have heard this before. I think a way of looking at it is that where Christian fundamentalists and the like failed to overcome their moderate Christian contemporaries and secular thinkers in Europe, the Muslim fundamentalists succeeded.
Right, but the question is whether, given the scriptural and theological bases of both religions, these developments were more or less inevitable. I think they were.
Nevertheless the fact remains that in the 21st century, people are put to death for questioning Islam.
Thinking of me? But I have no "high expectations" of any kind where (organized) religions are concerned, and if that's bigotry, it applies to all of them, not to any in particular. I merely note that the religion of Christianity has had a notably bloody history; something to bear in mind when comparing it with other religions, including Islam. The fact that the gospels don't preach violence or intolerance has had little or no effect on the conduct of Christians, who've been cheerfully killing and persecuting themselves and others for centuries, for religious reasons.
If Christians themselves disregard the gospels and the NT in their conduct, why should we "regard" them it in coming to conclusions regarding the conduct of members of other religions, or in comparing them to Christians? That merely establishes that Christians haven't honored their holy books, which doesn't say much for Christianity, the religion.
But this is massively misleading. Were there such Christians? Sure, but there were many more who did follow the example of Jesus and the principles found in the NT. Anecdote battles are pointless, though. We're talking about the overall historical trajectories of the religions in question and the societies they formed. On that score, Christianity clearly has the better record than Islam.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
But they would simply point to original sin, a doctrine which is, interestingly, absent in Islam.
Note that religious and political ideologies invariably characterize non-adherents as categorically "other"--not really one of us, morally inferior or downright evil, sometimes even as some other ontological category of being, and ultimately a threat to our tribe and our survival. Their elimination, sometimes sooner, sometiems later, is readily seen to be necessary. Some ideologues take it upon themselves to do the elimination of the evil others, some leave it for the End Times, when God will do it once and for all.
Islam is jist one variety of this phenomenon.
Christian intolerance and oppression, not merely of pagans but of others believing themselves to be Christians, began almost immediately as Christian orthodoxy took form, starting with the reign of Constantine. Constantine issued edicts prohibiting Christian heretics from assembling and confiscating their property. The Christian emperor Theodosius was zealous in extirpating heresy (and also closed pagan temples and schools) and barred Christians who didn't follow the dictates of the Council of Nicea from holding public office and decreed that only Nicene Trinitarian Christian was the true religion. Augustine famously claimed that religious error has no rights. A fifth century abbot commenting on the religious violence taking place claimed: "There is no crime for those who have Christ." In 1095 at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II sanctioned the idea of bellum sacrum ("holy war").
Forced conversion of heretics, pagans and Jews, violence against Jews, the Inquisition, the Crusades, all led up to Christian religious wars on a large scale (which probably first commenced in the 16th century in Europe). The importation of Christianity outside Europe into the Americas and the East had very unfortunate results for native peoples as well.
So, I'm not sure which religion has been more violent over time. I have no desire to defend Islam against claims of violence, but I think violence is inherent in any belief that a particular religion is exclusively true and God wants us to act only in a certain way and believe only certain things. Muslims have not been and are not the only people who have held, or hold, such a belief.
Christianity does have fundamentally violent (and peaceful) messages, and throughout it's history Christians have practiced violence.
Islam does have fundamentally violent (and peaceful) messages, and throughout history Muslims have practiced violence.
(QED Christians are morally superior to Muslims???)
This is where I see contradiction and sloppy comprehension. If we rewind time to a period when both Christians and Muslims were engaged in widespread religious violence (or peace), there's no longer any sharp teeth to the claim that Islamic doctrine is inherently more violent and Christianity is inherently not violent.
You can try to bolster that argument by arguing Christianity is really really peaceful (but it's not).
You can try to bolster that argument by arguing Islam is really really violent (so is Christianity).
Finally you can try to bolster that argument by once again arguing that since present day Muslims are more violent, Islam is inherently a more violent religion; which brings us back to my current point: If we rewind time to a period when Christians are happily practicing OT violence, what happens to your claim that Christianity is inherently pacifist?
Is Christianity of old not the same Christianity of today? Did Christianity or Christians change? Is that what Islam and Muslims needs to do?
In 1095 you say?
Meanwhile in Muslim countries, atheists are killed, children are raped, homosexuals are thrown from high places. In the putative Caliphate, Yezidi children are placed in industrial bread-kneeding machines and fed to their parents, while the girls are bought and sold as sex-slaves. This, in full compliance with Sharia in the 2017.
That all sounds awful! I reckon we could raise an army and make it to Jerusalem by, let's say, 1099? As your liege lord I demand the use of your healthy sons and will require a larger portion of the goods you produce this season above and beyond the existing tax. It will be worth it though, after a few pit-stops your sons will be more than ready to execute those poor, poor child slaves.
Well, in some cases it leads to beliefs in intinite parallel worlds in which billions of replica selves are having nearly-identical debates - which I think Nietszche would be inclined to diagnose as the self-destruction of reason.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Meh. There have many episodes of violence in the name of religion, but I don't accept the characterisation. Christians also were responsible for the founding of Universities and schools, the hospital system and public health, and many fundamental characteristics of democratic governance. To atheists, all religions are species of delusion, but that is as much a matter of their own prejudices as of historical fact.
I don't think it would kill you to admit that this is a serious problem. And to my mind, to ignore it is a betrayal of those young girls.
Since you have yet to comprehend anything I told you, I think we're done.
One difficulty for this line of argument is that from 1930 to 1970, say, some of which were the days of my youth, it was in atheist countries where by far the greatest amount of hideous butchering torture and rape were taking place. I don't think atheism was responsible then and I don't think Islam is responsible now. We need to be clearer in our terms and our historical and political understanding.
I'm an atheist, against all monotheistic patriarchal religions and societies. I doubt all our pontificating does much good, compared to what we just do in our personal and civic lives, expressing our values through what we do and say, and not being hasty in judgment whose lives we barely understand.
Ah, I see. We're to ignore the history of the Christian religion, or perhaps history in general, in comparing Christianity and Islam for purposes of this thread. As you will; carry on then.
Some nice examples but you fail to causally link this to Islam. Just as the USA claims to be the best county in the world, when we know it isn't, the Caliphate can claim true Islam, when we know it isn't. There isn't one interpretation, there isn't one Sharia. Abhorrent legally sanctified practices (water boarding, war crimes) do not make the US constitution a violent legal system. Abhorrent legally sanctified practices (marriage of minors, stoning of adulterous women) do not make Islam a violent religion.
You're basically cherry picking and don't seem to even take the time to verify facts. First of, a sura is a chapter, not a verse. There are 114 sura and 6,236 verses. If I search for your 109 violent suras, the first I come across is 2:191. If I read the one preceding that:
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
And then the "violent" verse:
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
And then:
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
What terrible violence to defend yourself and to expel them and even kill them, which in the eyes of a Muslim is not as bad as being a disbeliever. But if they cease attacking, you must be forgiving and merciful (because Allah is).
Then there's the numbers themselves even without weighing whether the violence is contextually justified. Even accepting there are 109 violent verses that adds up to less than 1.75% in the Quran. It adds up to a religion of violence because people have been repeating it often enough. Probably originated on Breitbart or something similar.
Also, I have no clue about the number of verses in the Bible but Deuteronomy calls for the wholesale slaughter of infidels as well. I suspect the Bible has about the same percentage of violent passages.
All the Abrahamic religions are equally shite in my opinion.
Then you need to read more. As I said, I'm not getting into an anecdote battle.
The scriptural history of the Hebrew capture of the "Promised Land" is a description of genocide.
I think we should do: who was more violent, the Greeks or the Persians next. Because it was definitely the Greeks.
I don't know which gang-rapers tom was referring to though, so I cannot actually give a good response, let alone try and understand any context. He just said "meanwhile in Muslim countries" in reference to the year 1095. How many homosexuals were actually getting thrown from roofs in 1095? How many children were being raped and where? What did he mean by, and what is the significance of, Industrial bread kneading machines?
What's the difference between slavery and serfdom? Between oppressing and crusading?
What's the difference between murdering a jew for being a jew and murdering a homosexual for being a homosexual, a blasphemer for being a blasphemer, or a witch for being a witch? The murderous barbarism I have referenced throughout our conversation has been justified by appealing to the Bible and God in the same ways that Islam appeals to it's Prophet in order to do the same things.
I understand that if we ignore history, and ignore vast swaths of Christian scripture and focus only on the positive messages of Jesus, that the whole of Islamic doctrine and practice seems monolithically violent by comparison; I also understand that the legend of Jesus is more morally praiseworthy than the reality of Mohamed. But why are you dogmatically thrusting this as the fundamental explanation of Islamic violence and christian pacifism?
It's a simple and easy way to answer the question of "Why is there so much violence in contemporary Muslim societies?". Cause religion: Present day Christians are peaceful because Jesus was peaceful, and historical Christian violence [REDACTED]. Present day Muslims are more violent because their prophet was violent, and any portrayal of scope or context [REDACTED]. It's a neat and tidy box.
I'm well aware that Islam is in more dire need of reform than Christianity, in part because Christianity has already undergone some reform, and also because religion is currently of a more critical link in the chain of causes of present day violence in the Islamic world. Were they Christian though, would none of the current violence be happening or be justifiable? None of the murdering undesirables or the waging of holy war, or the taking and selling of sex slaves? It can all be found in the Bible, you just need to turn the other page. The example of the Prophet (W.W.M.D?) is itself something that is highly debated and makes room for reform in Islam. I'm well aware of the Hadith system, protocols, and controversies, which from the perspective of an apologist is a treasure trove. Hadiths which depict old world behavior as holy standards can be discredited as accurate, or can be superseded by contradictory Hadith which can be focused on as more valid or more central to Islam. The very notion that the example of the Prophet should be applicable to modern day Muslims can itself be challenged (and already successfully has been in some respects), in part through Hadith which encourage reform, but also as orthodoxy and religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world naturally diverges and changes shape according to the demands of the worldly pressures which act upon it. The Qur'an itself, like the bible, has mixed messages to begin with.
Maybe I am biased though, when I did read the bible at around age 15 (new english translation), I read it front to back, so I was struck by all the lunacy of the OT before I got to the more familiar fairy tales. The prophet warrior kings I recall from the Old Testament may have been marginalized in thought and spirit, but not yet in in doctrine, or fully in practice.
Quoting Mongrel
I understand that "Christian pacifism" is fairly contrary to your insistence that Islam is incapable of preaching peace or reform, and that this is the lens through which you would have us understand the intrinsic difference between past and present day Christianity/Islam and their impacts on human behavior. It was crass of me to imply that your comprehension was sloppy, and for that I apologize, but I'm trying my best to motivate you to expand my puny horizons by actually addressing the points I make instead of just inserting a suggested reading list, an appeal to Tom, or the continual reassertion of your main position in a vacuum: the prevailing message of Christianity is peace, the Islamic prophet Mohamed was violent, QED, Islam is inherently more violent.
That probably did not happen, as many Christians now realize and admit.
Is there any philosophical content to that question, or are you just being nosy?
Have you spent significant time in any of those countries yourself?
Religion can certainly be a catalyst of behavior in line with it's doctrines but there needs to be real world context for people to actually act on doctrine. In order to throw a gay person from a roof, you primarily need to hate gay people, which tends to come from living culture rather than written script; being commanded to kill homosexuals by god is just an anti-guilt cherry for people who bring themselves to do so. In order to take a slave, you primarily need to want that slave; religious laws which tell you how to treat them are again more about guilt-riddance for the master than the benefit of the slave. In order to conduct a holy war, there needs to be existing desire for it, whether that be the spoils of a far off land or the defense of one's own. You can't martial religious warriors unless there is some sort of real world conflict upon which religious ideas can themselves be superimposed. "Our religion says let's go kill these people" only leads to action when people are willing to do so, and what actually makes them willing is a massively complex mix of factors which extends well beyond the limits of a page and the steps of a ziggurat.
But you could ask. I don't think it's right to wave away victims. If they're brought up, they should be honored.. like, "Yes. That was terrible."
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I didn't thrust that dogma. People are violent for all sorts of reasons. People become pacifists for all sorts of reasons. A living religion is a worldview. Scripture is a touchstone. Ritual is an anchor. So religion comes into play when people go to war in the same way it's there at marriages and deaths.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Only within the protective walls of secularism could Sunni Islam begin to reform. It's not clear to me that it would survive the transformation. So Islamic conservatism is charged by three prongs: tradition, the disruption of the British Empire, and the threat of assimilation into the West. There will be no significant reform any time soon.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You should check out the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's like somebody put Genesis in a blender (except Gilgamesh is much older.)
A number of passages from the NT meant a lot to me from teenage years onward. I was shocked one day to discover that the way the Tao Te Ching puts it had written over my memory of the NT wording. Seriously, I had to go back and read it to remember.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I was trying to convey in a nice way that it's obvious that you don't know much about how religious authority works in Sunni Islam.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You did the QED, not me.
Jews celebrate that bit of fictional genocide, though. Ghastly.
Everybody has to insert a "yes, but..." from time to time. Muslim commentaries do a lot of it, for instance.. "The Koran teaches that men should beat their wives. Yes, but...."
A Christian warrior has the opposite problem. "It says turn the other cheek. Yes, but.."
It seems to me entirely a matter of taste when determining which values to put over the other when it comes to Christian doctrine (and only very recently in western society have progressive values finally begun to overcome many of the ancient dogmas we're referring to).
Why can the Islamic world not do the same?
If we're talking only about Sunni Islam then I've already laid out some of the mechanisms through which it can indeed reform. Presently Islamic scholars living in secular societies abroad are engaged in this debate and reform and I don't see why it's impossible for it's benefits to be imported back to regions and people who are more and more desperate for peace. It will depend on how open to reform the people are after the dust settles.
Quoting Mongrel
Without qualifying what Tom was referencing it's not possible to include his input in a valid argument. Having a moment of silence for every unaccredited victim of religious violence throughout history doesn't add relevance to Tom's the context-devoid restatement of what he thinks are the values inherently promoted by Islam.
I'm an atheist who condemns violence and bigotry. Morally speaking, debating the differences between the moral ramifications of Islam and Christianity is like refereeing a mud-wrestling match between two frail old men. I don't need to acknowledge the abhorrence of rape and murder because it goes without saying. But that said, I didn't see anyone acknowledge the victims I actually referenced in my response.
I disagree. I believe it needs lots of saying.
But if you feel it must be said, then here it is from the Qur'an:
That's beautiful.
(So, go after the religionists and go after them hard, but focus on the religion and you'll end up alienating people who it would be better to have on your side).
It's also a lie.
Or to be more specific, it is taqiya.
This is Quran 5:32
Quran 5:32 is about the Jews!
Next of course is Quran 5:33
Beautiful?
Given that you have purposefully left out the beginning of the sura, which explicitly states that the verse is about the Jews, I've got to ask: What are you trying to achieve by spreading blatant misinformation?
Do you really think no one has access to a Quran?
No religions ought to be judged by the example of those who distort its meaning.
The point I was making before was not about 'demonising' Islam (which, all due respect, some here are doing) - I was trying to stress the idea of 'reciprocal rights' - that the religious freedoms that Western cultures provide, imply an obligation to respect cultural difference. And to be very blunt, Islam as a religion has often not displayed that. That is what there needs to be frank conversation about. And I'm sure that is actually going on all over the place, but we never read about it. What we read are variations of: Islam: BOO, or Islam: COOL.
That's why I linked to the OP in the NY Times yesterday, by a Muslim, which said that, in the West,
There's geniunely no easy solution to this problem. I really don't believe Western liberalism and any kind of truly authentic Islam are going to find it easy to co-exist. People might manage it, but the foundational ideas are basically very hard to harmonise - as the Muslim columnist above notes. But to say that is not to demonise Islam - it's an argument based on political philosophy. (And personally, I find Islamic critiques of Western morality more than a little cogent.)
It's only to those who don't think that religious ideas really matter that think the differences between them don't matter. To a lot of people they're all simply a matter of choice, and we should all be free to choose our own. But as Ross Douthat noted, also in the NY Times:
I won't try and summarise Douthat's column, but it's really worth reading, to appreciate the depth of the issues. It's not just a matter of all joining hands and singing Kum-ba-ya around the fire, regrettably.
It's only one more step before you realize that as there is no absolute indisputable meaning of religion X (just shades of plausibility with regard to interpretations) evaluating religions as better or worse based on what's written in their holy books gets you virtually nowhere in terms of understanding why some of their adherents do horrible things (and there is no disputing the horror of some of the things done in the name of Islam today). So, as religion functions primarily as a force of social cohesion and strength in numbers (to put it crudely) rather than as a font of ethical instruction, the way to chip away at its radical elements is to work to create conditions of engagement with the non-radical elements in order to strengthen the latter at the expense of the former. Denigrating the religion en masse by attacking its core texts is likely to have exactly the opposite effect, which makes it not only a destructive strategy but a self-defeating one. But maybe some (not you) don't want to solve the problem and are content to vent.
This is a prime example of the sort of asymmetry of reasoning which is often applied in such cases: if a person (or group or culture, etc) performs some act, and is motivated in doing so by a mix of religious and political aims, then the religious motivations are marginalized or dismissed altogether (and it's blamed solely on historical context, globalism, etc. - and so much the better if the West can be blamed in some way for fomenting or establishing said historical context). This, of course, usually applies when people are carrying out heinous acts in the name of religion; when they're carrying out beneficent acts, then religion can comfortably be said to be the sole or primary motivating factor. Religion, of course, can only motivate good behavior; otherwise, it's not real religion.
However, why can the converse not follow equally well, i.e. when a person acts from a mix of religious and political motives, then the political motives can be marginalized or dismissed?
So, I am very interested to see your methodology as to how you separate out the relative weights of these various motivations, allowing you to determine that religion is the insignificant factor, and then safely discard it.
Because of course, "the West" is monolithic, as much as "the Islamic world," right? People in Sweden hold the exact same values as those in Poland, who hold the same values as those in Australia, who hold the exact same values as those in Greece, who hold the exact same values as those in the U.S.A.
You often speak sympathetically about condemnations of the supposed immorality of the West, but I'm never quite sure what you're referring to. You dislike materialism, but that seems to refer to philosophical materialism as much as consumerist materialism. You seem to not like homosexuality very much, as you've made denigrating comments about gays, so perhaps you're not on board with the rise of LGBT rights one finds in many Western countries, but I'm not sure where this source of large-scale immorality is coming from. Quite frankly, most Muslim-majority countries don't really have a moral leg to stand on in criticizing the West.
Plenty of commentators do assert this, though. Reza Aslan has made a cottage industry of such claims, for instance.
I agree: historically almost no religion has clean hands, and I've flogged the horrors of Christianity many times.
The religious motivation of course can be important and, no, it's not all the West's fault; but, yes, to focus on the religion itself in terms of what it's supposed to mean as if that was somehow the reason for the bad things that are done in its name is to miss the point and in a dangerous way (as it would be to ignore religious motivations entirely on the basis that it's not supposed to mean anything objectionable) as @jamalrob pointed out. As I said above, in terms of evaluations there are only the plausible and less plausible; religion X (where X is a major Abrahamic religion at least) is not inherently peaceful or violent, it's how it's used in context that matters. The goal then should be to work to create a context that fosters its peaceful rather than its violent use. So, to claim that the problem is that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity is not only to make a claim that is not supported by evidence (show me a study where levels of violence in majority Islamic countries are found to be significantly higher than those in majority Christian countries where other socio-cultural variables are accounted for) but also to prevent yourself from having any hope of finding a solution. Which is fine only for those who don't really want one.
That sounds violent.
Whether or not the verse is about Jews, or meant to apply only to Jews, makes no difference. What matters is how people choose to interpret it. If I can convince someone to not kill by misrepresenting the Qur'an, then that's fine by me. I was introduced to the verse by Muslims who interpret it's meaning as I have presented. I googled a few key words and copy/pasted it as is from the first available source.
Little did I know that my friend lied to me about what he believed and the internet lied to me about how people interpret it!
Quoting tom
I first heard this term about 5 years ago while on a website called BlogTalkRadio. EDL (English Defense League, a far-right ultra-Christian group dedicated to "combating the evil scourge of Islam") talk show hosts were talking about how "Taqqiya" was being used against the west by a monolithic Islamic conspiracy designed to overthrow it. They say that Muslims actually all want western society to collapse and be replaced by a global Islamic caliphate, and in order to achieve this they tell lies and misrepresent the truth of their religion (Taqqiya) in order to conceal it's abhorrence and the greater conspiracy.
They assured me that all Muslims living abroad are patiently out-breeding the white Christians and teaching their murderous desires to their children in secret, until one day when they all plan to suddenly act in coordinated rebellion against the west and take over by voting sharia into government and physically taking the streets. And it will all be too late, and all be my fault for not seeing through the taqiya and hating all Muslims for being evil liars bent on global domination...
As far as I know, actual Taqiya came from a point in history where a group of Shia Muslims lied about the particulars of their faith to another Muslim group who were set to execute them for heresy. As far as I understand it was basically akin to Jews pretending to be Christian in order to escape anti-semetic persecution. If you ask a random arab what "taqiya" means (at least 5 or 6 years ago when it wasn't a far-right meme), they'll have no clue what you're talking about (AHA, MORE EVIDENCE OF TAQIYA!).
It's a fancy way of saying "All Muslims are liars", which is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to challenging Islamic ideology with any intellectual caliber. When a Muslim professes to interpret a particular verse as advocating peace, and you say "no you're lying", how can they possibly respond?
As you say, the Qur'an is there for all to read, and those Muslim groups which do profess extreme views don't seem to have any shyness about doing so, so what's the intention behind saying "No, moderate Muslims are actually lying when they believe in peace/behave peacefully"?.
Are they actually lying about what they believe? And you're helping by pointing that out? Are all Muslims engaged in a global conspiracy to dominate the west through numbers, force, and unity, such as the EDL would have us believe?
You're mostly regurgitating memes at this point Tom.
Why?
I think it's because Islam is your grand enemy, your villain, whose simple nature is understood in the most basic possible terms - violent, decietful, evil - , and so becomes the bogeyman that explains everything bad in the Islamic world, and reaffirms what I think is actually your main position: the fear and loathing of Islam, (as compared with your feelings toward Christianity, let's say).
Why read more? To collect more "anecdotes" regarding Christianity or Islam that you'll disregard, being adverse to an "anecdote battle"?
Really, though, I'm aware of the fact that Islamic fanatics exist and by all accounts wish to impose a cruel and primitive theocracy on all, and are killing and otherwise great harm. I have no problem at all in saying they're a menace to civilization. You may well be right, and Islam may be the most violent of the historically violent Abrahamic religions. And, I'm inclined to say the New Testament has far less references to violence than either the Old Testament and the Quran. I think, though, that has made little difference in the propensity of Christians to do harm. I think the fact that Christians are not doing violence in the name of their religion now isn't attributable for the most part to their study and regard for the New Testament. It's never stopped them from doing violence in the past.
I think much of the public controversy about this topic arises from that word 'authentic'. It is typically assumed, without examination, that there is such a thing as 'authentic Islam'. There is no apparent reason to believe there is any such thing, just as there is no such thing as authentic Christianity or authentic Buddhism. Adherents of a particular sect, who have dogmatic tendencies, will insist that their sect's version of the relevant religion is the only authentic one, but very few people outside the sect believe them.
Religions are at best family resemblances - a la Wittgenstein. To speak about authentic Islam makes as much sense as saying that a particular activity is an authentic 'game'. If one wishes to insist that there is an authentic version of any particular religion, one must be an Aristotelian Essentialist.
What do you think, if you asked a Muslim, if there were 'such a thing as authentic Islam', that he or she would say? I bet they would not even comprehend the question. The response would be: of course there is, 'authentic Islam' is the word of the Prophet.
Quoting andrewk
The trouble is, you're viewing this from a perspective which you don't understand as 'a perspective'. Your secular/Western/naturalist perspective is that religions are social constructions, they're interchangeable because they're a matter of individual choice - and I think you believe that to be tantamount to 'scientific fact'. But the people you're speaking about wouldn't agree with that for a second. 'Islam' means 'surrender', it doesn't mean 'hey, what's your opinion'?
Quoting Arkady
No, and not necessary for the point I was making. The article I quoted was from a Muslim columnist, discussing whether freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the context of Western liberalism, is a two-edged sword. He said that while Muslims may benefit from these protections, other attitudes which are part and parcel of Western liberalism, such as 'sexual liberation', are incompatible with Islam.
Speaking for myself, I've never said that Islam is inherently more violent (in terms of its scripture, say; though, as others have pointed out, its principal figure was a bit more violent than Jesus in his lifetime), I've said that it is more violent than any other major world religion in the 21st century.
It's less violent than flogging the dolphin.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p3j294sqM8[/video]
You are using a story that an imaginary Muslim might make a certain claim, as proof of the truth of the claim. If we ask the same Muslim 'Is there life after death?' they might say 'yes'. Is that then proof that there is life after death? We then ask Richard Dawkins, and he says No, so we now have proof that there is no life after death. So we now have two conflicting proofs. Of course, neither is a proof.
In short, you are confusing an observation of someone that self-describes as belonging to group G saying they believe there is an essence of group G, with evidence that there is an essence of group G. Remember the True Scotsman. He was convinced there was an essence of being a Scotsman, and he was a Scotsman. Does that make him right?
I'd hazard a guess that most adherents of most religions believe there is an essence of their religion. The trouble is that their views as to what this essence is vary from one to another, which means many of them must be wrong - and Occam's Razor suggests they are all wrong. [For those that don't read carefully - not you Wayfarer - let me spell this out. I did not say their religious beliefs are wrong. I said their belief that there is an essence of their religion is wrong.]
Quoting Wayfarer
Surely you know me well enough by now to know I'm not a reductionist. I don't believe in scientific facts. Science is just a tool for helping us construct useful narratives. A lovely, lovely tool. But still just a tool.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm drawing out a point, that the easy acceptance of different religions is itself something alien to the believer. From our modern secular viewpoint, religions are social constructs so at the end of the day, which one you choose, or whether you don't choose any, is a matter of personal choice. That's not reductionist, but it assumes that the secular attitude is normative. That's why you say that they're right - I.e. they have the right - to their beliefs, but wrong to say that such beliefs can be 'essential'. And in saying that, I'm not accusing you of anything - just exploring the implications of these various views.
That's why I referenced the Ross Douthat OP yesterday - it's worth reading this passage:
//ps// - I will concede that the position I have been taking in this thread is nearer the first than the second. In that sense I am pretty near to agreement with my relative.//
I have heard it said that there is a strong view in Islam itself that this is not the case - that, first of all, it ought to be read in Arabic, and secondly, that it ought to be read only by men. (The idea that everyone ought to read scripture was a Protestant innovation.)
I'm not sure of the provenance of that idea, but I recall reading an article about the difficulty of engaging in 'ciritical scholarship' of the texts, in the manner that has been applied to the Christian texts.
This was in a journal article I read, in which a revisionist scholar was exploring the idea that the '17 virgins' that martyrs for the faith were to enjoy in Paradise, were not actually 'virgins' at all - that the very early texts gave a term which may have referred to an especially rare and delicious date, later mis-translated as 'virgin'. (A significant error if such it was!) In any case, the scholar that was investigating this matter was - how shall we say - shown the door, i.e. not allowed to continue his research because the religious authorities disapproved - which the article said, was not uncommon in the field.
No I'm not. One's religious ideas are deeply conditioned by one's psychology, which is in turn conditioned by genes and environment (including, in some cases, spiritual experiences). One has very little choice in the matter, so I certainly would not say they are arbitrary.
I wouldn't bother continuing to quote that article. It's a gross over-simplification of a complex situation and, furthermore, contains no realistic policy proposals.
Of course it matters what the Quran says, just as it matters what the Bible says - because some people take them literally. But it does not follow from that that it is reasonable or fair to assume that all people who self-describe as Muslim (Christian) agree with and actively promote the implementation of the literal English translation of every line in the Quran (Bible).
As I've said so many times before, what matters is what people actually believe, not what beliefs we project on them based on a label. This has nothing to do with secularism. It is simply recognising that each person is an individual and deserves to be treated as such. Racial and religious profiling is unfortunately a necessary evil in detective work - because detection is crucially dependent on profiling and uses whatever profile information it can get. I would be very sad to see it starting to play in public policy. The last time we had that was the White Australia policy.
We've agreed - I think - that it would be a good idea to have psychological testing for aspiring immigrants to ensure they are supportive of our liberal, democratic society. Such testing can be applied to all prospective immigrants regardless of ethnicity or superficial religious label.
If you want to impose some additional restrictions, based on religious profiling, then tell us what that would be, and we can discuss it.
but not, it would seem, by any actual revelation. 'It matters because believers say it matters'. In denying what I said you said, you say it again! Anyway, it doesn't matter that much, and it's certainly not possible to incorporate such nuances in public policy. Thanks for your feedback.
On the contrary, it is public policy where it matters most. If we consider Islam to be incompatible with our values, in the sense of Islamic identity, then the only choice we have is genocide-- any presence of Islamic identity amounts to an existential threat to our society. To avoid destruction of our community we must kill or remove any Muslim.
The naunce of what people believe as compared what some tradtion might say is critical. Else we equivocate any Muslim with a monster who just wants to destroy our society-- effectively that all Muslims are a members of ISIS. We lose all sight they are people.
'including, in some cases, spiritual experiences'
Can we cut to the chase now and hear what restrictions you would like to see placed on people that self-describe as Muslims? Unless you have a concrete proposal, it all starts to look like just an attempt to feel superior to 'the Left' (which is as much of an over-simplified cardboard cut-out label as is 'Muslim').
But, notice, that you've given a reductionist account of revelation, i.e. one might have 'spiritual experiences' but these are 'conditioned by genes and environment'. It is, as I said, a secularist account of the meaning of religion (which you assume is normative, for reasons you gave in an earlier post, i.e. there can be no 'objectivist' account of religious truth.)
Quoting andrewk
So it matters 'because it's what people believe'. But that is not their criteria for why Islam ought to be accepted. You see, you're automatically assuming that your liberal Western criterion of 'the value of the individual' is what is underwriting the acceptance of Islam, when they themselves are not likely to accept that yardstick. In a strange way, we're offering them the 'wrong kind of rights'.
Quoting andrewk
Well, I'm sorry, I had intended it as an attempt to engage in a rather deeper level of analysis of the issue.
As I've acknowledged, the implication of my view is that I think there ought to be more examination of the implicit notion that Islam can be an 'equal partner' in a liberal-secular framework, and a consideration of the hidden premisses in the arguments from both sides. So I will acknowledge, I am arguing from a more conservative position, but I hope not an extremist position.
I think Muslims themselves generally ought not to be compelled to go along with the general consensus of Western liberalism, in such matters as sexual morality (as the opinion piece from a Muslim writer said.)
On the other hand, I certainly don't think the West ought to be obliged to respect polygamy and the subjugation of women and various other cultural practices associated with islam.
I think that there has to be a very long and difficult debate within Islam, and between Islam and the West, about such questions, without it falling into the extremes of Islamophobia, on the one hand, and laissez faire individualism, on the other. That is all I'm trying to say.
I'm referring to the post-sexual revolution attitudes towards marriage and sexuality. I have a conservative view. As for cultural and scientific materialism, they're not the same, but they're closely related.
Quoting Baden
I agree there's no objective meaning. Also that it's better to try and engage the moderates and isolate the radicals - I'm sure that there have been a lot of behind-the-scenes efforts behind those lines. The main difference in perspective that I have, is that I am also questioning the kind of assumed narrative of liberalism, albeit from another perspective again. But other than that, I agree with your points.
Fair enough, I'm no spokesman for liberalism or any other -ism on this one.
No. You are reading it wrong. I did not say that spiritual experiences are conditioned by genes and environment. I said that a person's beliefs are conditioned by their genes and environment. The parenthesis clarifies that 'environment' encompasses everything that happens to a person, including any spiritual experience, revelation or other such thing. It is not necessary for us to guess whether the experience is a hallucination or a genuine interaction with a deity. Whichever it is, the experience is still part of somebody's historical environment.
You are much to quick to pull your 'reductionist' gun from its holster.
Quoting Wayfarer
Who holds that notion? Not me. I have repeatedly said that the idea of 'Islam' as an entity or agent with which one can converse and do deals, is a chimera.
It is individuals, not labels, that can be, and are needed as, partners in our liberal, social-democratic society. Forget the label and focus on the individuals and their beliefs. Then you don't need any pre-suppositions or implicit notions, be they liberal, conservative or something else.
[s]You're not quick enough to duck! X-) [/s]
Sorry, that was facetious. I think I've said enough for now.
As a somewhat experienced and net-savvy atheist I'm keenly aware of the varying levels of anti-theism that spans the secular community. Hitchens and perhaps Dawkins were the gold standards of anti-theism in that their anti-theist views ("Religion is poison" - Hitchens) were applied somewhat
consistently to most religions (certainly the Abrahamic three), but since the anti-Islamic rise in the west, it's as if new anti-theists have arrived on the scene who are only opposed to the notion of one particular theism, and they're no longer primarily atheist or even secular to begin with.
That Christians should hold the position that another person ought not to have the right to exist in society for subscribing to Islam, especially given they all claim to worship the same "all forgiving" monotheistic deity, is flabbergasting. Intolerance, meet intolerance (or: religious freedom, meet ignorance and hypocricy)
The broad mishmash of individuals from previously politically disunited groups (theists, hard/soft atheists, agnostics, and some right wing/isolationist ideologues) who find common ground in their staunch and selective opposition to Islam is what gives rise to the chorus of self-reinforcing anti-Islamic rhetoric which ranges from "Islam is inherently more dangerous" to "fight back against Islam in the west order to protect your faith and your children from impending invasion and assimilation". That there is a critical mass of it to begin (which is what enables it to grow within internet media and culture) more or less coalesced in the post 9/11 world and as online media itself was taking shape.
Anti-theism is a double-edged war-axe of a position to wield, and if done with hypocrisy or poor form is more damaging to itself than to religion. It really does take someone like Hitchens to do it well if hard anti-theism is to be wielded even somewhat persuasively. And so, the now razor sharp extremes of new devout anti-Islamic pundits, who generally have very little experience in the somewhat developed argument against religion, wind up making more of a mockery of their own position the more vehemently they try to defend it.
What fascinates me most is the way that online media itself shapes and enables new forms of organization around and based on ideas which happen to be highly motivating (such as the fear and hatred of something) and their resulting evolution and accompanying trends and conflicts.
That said, not all practicing Muslims seem to require reform. The problem of violent Islam such as it is remains specific to individuals, groups and interpretations rather than pertaining to the ideology and it's practitioners as a whole. There are many secular Muslims, and as orthodoxy perhaps subsides (as it did for Christians) secularism might provide the environment necessary for substantial reform to emerge. As I mentioned earlier though, it depends large on who is around and how they feel after the dust settles from the current chaos widespread across the Islamic world.
Just to be clear on terminology here, "Islamism" specifically refers to a militant (sometimes violent) brand of Islam; thus opposition to Islamism can be regarded as no vice, I should think. Given the context in which you discuss the term and the overall tenor of your post, I think you meant just to refer to those who are anti-Islam simpliciter.
I think these days you have to append -icism otherwise you are racist.
I presume you support death to apostates and atheists?
I am an atheist, so that would be a bit hypocritical of me (agnostic soft-atheist).
What do you support though? Anti-religious sentiment in general? Are you a full blown hard-atheist anti-theist? You've condemned Islam, so what now?
I can understand morally opposing religion on the basis of the harm that it contributes to, but I cannot understand how we could eliminate the entirety of one or all religions without causing more harm than those religions cause in the first place.
The West, powered by technological advantages, imposed ruthless imperialism over much of the world for material advantages for three centuries. This caused a lot of suffering. After the world wars, the mankind, in general, has learned that conquering other countries hurts the conqueror more than it helps, in the long run. The US, having more fair and humane attitude internally had made huge progress by then, and had employed milder international policies up to that time. This made her emerge as the leader of the war-broken West. But since then, we have exploited the underdeveloped world economically. And to achieve and support the economical advantages we manipulated underdeveloped countries’ politics. In some instances we even have been the ‘king maker’. This has generated pains round the world.
Pain generates anger. A culture handles its anger according to its emotional makeup, which in turn is influenced by its collective religious base, whether be it based on dogma or reason. Thus some cultures are more forgiving of the past then others. In addition, different cultures have more home-generated hate than others, stemming from their family, social and political environment.
When deep anger is allowed to linger on, or to grow by additional factors, it crystallizes over time, and turns into hate. Hate differs from greed, in that, hate does not weigh gain against cost; it just wants to destroy. This is directed more towards the US for two main reasons, because she is the leader of the West, and the memories of our unfair dealings are fresh in the minds around the world. Even our gestures of generosity have been tainted by political considerations. Greed goes hand in hand with pride, which keeps us blind to our follies. As mighty as we are, new technologies are making it feasible for a few to hurt many. And, some cultures are producing large numbers of hateful people who are ready to risk their lives to cause us pain. They will overwhelm our policing resources not too far in the future.
We need to focus our generosity towards the pains of people around the world more, and less on our immediate gains from these efforts. In the long run, this self-less generosity can earn emotional goodwill of the common populace around the world. We all think emotionally somewhat. But the Eastern cultures are more emotional than the Western cultures. We can influence the Eastern cultures more easily through their emotions than through objective representations. Such efforts will divert their hate to somewhere else, and we can stop being their prime target. Change of attitude frog-leaps by generation. It is better to pay for our deeds by reducing the pain of others early than by incurring suffering later. Hate is a monster that devours itself, if nothing else is available. Let us pull out from its path. Meanwhile we can keep defending ourselves with force, need of which will taper down, as goodwill grows.
Islam allows the rape of children. Their perfect moral example married a 6yr old. What has abhorrence at such behaviour got to do with atheism?
I'm just trying to understand the source of your motivation for continuously restating contentious platitudes without any attempt at providing critical analysis or thought to accompany them. Do you specifically oppose Islam and not other religions whose texts and histories share similar degrees of abhorrence? If not, why not?
Beyond your moral condemnation of Islam, how else ought we oppose it?
Maybe we could clarify matters by listing the religions that encourage:
1. Death to apostates.
2, Death to atheists.
3. Death to homosexuals.
4. Death to blasphemers.
5. Paedophilia.
6. Death to witches.
7. Beating of wives.
8. Genitally mutilating girls.
9. Sex slavery of infidels.
10. Murder of Jews.
I could go on, but I'm a bit bored.
What has being an atheist got to do with finding any of this abhorrent?
I'm trying to understand if you actually have a position to defend, and if so what it is. If you are a staunch hard-atheist and an anti-theist then I could somewhat understand what your point is in constantly re-posting provocative memes without contributing to the actual discussion beyond that.Burn religion, sure... But if you for instance, condone Christianity, then all I would need to do is repackage your statements and apply them to it in order to show hypocrisy in your position.
I'm forced to ask because you ignore the content of all of my responses in favor of the next verse. Such emotive singing is typical of the digital age; a new oral tradition with which to simplify our understanding of the world.
It is alarming that you think that finding that list of atrocities abhorrent needs defending. The very definition of an apologist.
Did you not just locate the blame in nowhere land?
The only way to bring an end to any destructive inhumane ideology is to subject it to criticism.
In Canada, that is now a crime. In UK it is a crime.
Meanwhile you can go around blaming whoever you like.
I see. You are more concerned with who I choose to blame than solving a growing problem. Who I choose to blame is irrelevant. The only way to progress and to save future victims is to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as any ideology.
For example. To save people from slavery, it was necessary to convince Christians that the verses from the Bible that encourage slavery are immoral, in order to prevent them from using their religion as a justification for slavery.
Muhammad took slaves, he took sex slaves, he married a 6yr old, he slaughtered Jews, he demanded death to atheists(polytheists) ... Now all we have to do is convince Muslims that Muhammad was immoral.
For the moment, yes. The question I asked is not a complicated one. I'll take the fact that you won't address it as an admission of a serious weakness in your perspective. Unless you'd like to take a stab at it:
If you blame Islam for a crime, are you saying that the human perpetrators are not responsible for their actions?
29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt.
I am inordinately fond of Canadians - even so far as to enjoy their much derided drama series Between - and am very pleased to see continuing evidence of their good sense and high degree of civilisation.
It's alarming that you think that list of atrocities applies uniformly to Islam, as if the whole 1.5 billion something Muslims would stand behind those values.
It's also alarming how consistently you avoid answering my direct questions; I never asked you to defend that murder, slavery, etc, is abhorrent, I asked you to present a position as to why or how Islam promotes them more so than other religions.
It's not so much that god commands it, but rather that it pleases him because it is in line with some intangible moral perfection that exists high in the cherry tree. And yet the God of any religion happily allows us to ascribe our own moral views to theirs, especially when we want to justify the violence we often desire.
It might take thirty years of war in the Islamic world for all of it's nations, cultures and peoples to realize that violent conflict driven by religious difference and religious ideology is fundamentally unproductive, but once firmly united under that realization should have no trouble clinging to God's more peaceful commandments in the name of progress and reform.
Canadians have an unyielding existential need to please people, and it's hard work (sometimes we fail [see: Bieber, Between, Nickelback]). It's not like we're better than everyone else, it's just that we need you to think we are so you will like us.
This is the Canadian practice known as "Tequila", which is where we deceive you into thinking we're "nice" (mostly with strong alcohol, hence the term) until one day when our numbers are sufficient, we will all rise up and politely ask everyone for our dignity back...
That's seems like an oversimplification of what happened. Modern Christians still look at the Bible now and have to find ways of justifying those verses. Often, you will hear some version of "that was under the old covenant, we are under the new covenant," or "slavery back of antiquity was vastly different from the slavery of today or the slavery of 19th century America." It is similiar to the Old Testament genocides: they cannot be deemed immoral, so they have to somehow be explained into a coherent picture of theology that allows them to say "genocides we see today are immoral." The slavery verses themselves are practically never deemed immoral; the Christian merely has a different way of interpreting them or a theological way of avoiding a commitment to slavery practiced in their societies.
The other big issue is that the people pushing for the abolition of slavery were Christians in some shape or form, or, at the very least, were well within the Western cultural society. Needless to say, the abolitionists were well emplaced within the Christian societies at the time. Though they might have been considered outsiders by the circles supporting slavery, they were not so far outsiders that they could not partake inside the culture effectively.
Furthermore, at least in the United States, it is not as if the pro slavery Christians were convinced by the force of argument to abandon their slaves. They started a war, fought for four years, then were placed under military watch until 1877. We have no idea when the pro-slavery crowd became a fringe minority and racism took over; I doubt that most Southerners would not mind returning to slavery in 1877.
This is to all, and not just tom-
In order to combat radical Islam, we have to have acknowledge three things:
1) Muslims need an avenue that allows them to mantain their faith and interpret their holy texts in such a way that it is practically compatible with modern Western morality. I doubt we will get everything (much like how many Christians are against abortion and gay marriage), but at least things like equality of women and some of the more violent practices. I have no idea how to do this.
2) The promoters of said interpretations need to come from within Muslim communities and have a way to influence the intellectual and social culture of said communities.
3) We have to accept that the only way to stop radical Islam in some cases is through force and conflict. Said force and conflict will probably be costly and come over a long span of time. Again, the opposing side must come from within the community and cannot really be the primary work of an outsider, like the United States.
So you admit to being more concerned with the irrelevancy of to whom I prefer to apportion blame, than to the atrocity of Islamic practice.
Now that we have firmly established your moral compass - i.e. that of an apologist, I'll give you my views on "blame" even though you, as an apologist, cannot comprehend them.
My personal morality is based on a solitary moral conjecture: all evil is caused by a lack of knowledge. Of the varied and deep ramifications of this idea, one is that the concept of "blame" is indicative of a backward and irrational mindset, or rather, infection by anti-rational memes.
Ideas can liberate us or enslave us. The latter are characterised by their ability to cause us to suspend reason. These are the anti-rational memes, of which Islam is a particularly virulent example.
So, among the victims of Islam, I also include the perpetrators.
If you are into paedophilia, beating your wife, and sex-slavery maybe you should.
Or maybe you should become a Christian. The Philippines also happens to be one of the world's major sex tourism centres.
"Government and NGO estimates in 2007 on the number of women trafficked ranged from 300,000 to 400,000 and the number of children trafficked ranged from 60,000 to 100,000"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Philippines
Could you point to the verses in the Bible that promote sex-tourism?
The issue here is sexual violence, against minors in particular, which considering your facetious reply and your consistently empty posts, you don't actually seem to take very seriously. And yes sexual abuse against women and girls is sanctioned in places in the Bible, but seeing as I'm satirizing your thesis not forwarding my own, I'm not obliged to dig that up.
A sharia court can't condemn slavery. It just can't. It is a human rights problem.
Maybe and maybe it's tricky for Christians to condemn the rape of virgins after a battle because Moses commanded it. Or maybe you haven't talked to many real life Muslims.
Anyway, let's not leave out Hinduism:
"In January 2010, the supreme court of India stated that India is "becoming a hub" for large-scale child prostitution rackets. It suggested setting up of a special investigating agency to tackle the growing problem.
An article about the Rescue Foundation in New Internationalist magazine states that "according to Save the Children India, clients now prefer 10- to 12-year-old girls".
...
In 2007, the Ministry of Women and Child Development estimated that there are around 2.8 million sex workers in India, with 35.47 percent of them entering the trade before the age of 18 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Present_day
So, is it the religions to blame here, or something else?
Could you point out where in the Bible sex tourism is promoted?
I notice that you didn't employ the obvious reply of asking me to point out the verses in the Quran that advocate sex-slavery, slavery, killing, lying, and paedophilia. That would be all too easy. Also several Islamic countries enshrine female degradation and paedophilia in their (Sharia) law.
What countries permit "sexual violence against minors" on religious grounds? You pretend to care about this issue, so surely you know?
Presumably this response would apply to those who blame terrorism on, say, Western imperialism or depressed economic conditions? Do those claims likewise try to locate blame in "nowhere land," rather than blaming the perpetrators?
I'm not going to do all your work for you in this discussion seeing as you've been the laziest poster here and provided hardly a thesis not to mind evidence for it. All you've furnished us apart from your disgust of Islam is your disgust for a variety of crimes which we all find disgusting and which we're all against regardless of the causes. So, where do you actually stand? What is your point? Is it that religion, specifically Islam, is a decisive factor in the occurrence of sex slavery worldwide? In murder rates? In wife-beating rates? In violence in general? What? State your position then provide some evidence to back it up.
I was being rational. Sensible Muslims avoid taking moral lessons from questionable verses in the Quran as much as sensible Christians do from the Bible.
Which claims?
What is "reverse bigotry" (as opposed to "forward" bigotry)?
What did I make up? Obviously, I don't think Christians condone the rape of virgins. So, what?
What's forward bigotry?
So, when Islam is a motivating factor of terrorism (or any other untoward act), then it locates the claim in "nowhere land" to blame Islam rather than the perpetrators, but when Western imperialism is a motivating factor, then one can safely blame that motivating factor rather than the perpetrator? This seems rather inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
I'm asking what is "reverse" bigotry as opposed to bigotry simpliciter?
To the extent that they don't that would be a problem. But I would be highly surprised if any of your Muslim neighbours would not be willing to condemn sex slavery if you asked them. And again, religion is not the primary factor in sex slavery; countries of all religions have terrible records here. Same with violence in general. My position has been that the religious element is small beans in comparison to other factors. And that's borne out by the evidence.
Again, I do not think this is how it works with Christians. The Christian merely has a theological framework that allows them to maintain the stance "Slavery is wrong; I oppose slavery" and "my holybook endorsed slavery for the Isrealites and doesn't really say anything negative about slavery in the New Testament." Unless they can state "certain sections of the Bible are fallacious"- a position that is too strong for the vast majority of Christians- Christians must be able to maintain the verses inside their texts as being true.
The same is for Muslims.
Many liberals are bigots, but their target is the negative of the set of usual suspects.
I took a stance and provided evidence for it. I've conceded from the beginning that religion has some part to play in all this, but I've said that focusing on its inherent characteristics is misguided because the part those play is relatively small as can be seen by comparing situations where other sociocultural factors have changed but the religion remains the same, or where the religion is different but other factors are the same. Where is our point of disagreement from your perspective?
Ok...so, will you be revising your view in light of this demonstrated inconsistency?
I'm afraid I still don't understand. Even ignoring your massive over-generalization about liberals, you have yet to define what you mean by "reverse" bigotry as opposed to bigotry simpliciter.
What percentage of Americans profess to take the Bible literally? And what does it matter? Does it mean they condone the rape of virgins etc? No, obviously not. So what do you mean by flexibility? It would be great if you took into consideration the obvious fact that religion cannot function without hypocrisy and often gets on just fine with the highest levels of it.
Anyway, the debate as set out in the OP is over whether Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity. And that leads to the question of whether you can blame religion primarily for violence or whether other factors are more to blame. If we are to blame religion primarily then Christianity could easily be considered the most violent religion as, judging by murder rates, the most violent countries in the world are Christian. But these countries also happen to be poor, suffer from political instability and severe social problems. And these seem a more sensible set of criteria on which to lay the responsibility no matter what religion we are discussing.
What in that do you disagree with?
No, I didn't, I said "To the extent that they don't that would be a problem". But it's not the decisive element here.)
Obviously Christians are no strangers to violence. However, in the early 1800s the British announced from their seat of government that slavery is immoral. That event is cause for every human to be proud. It happened because of Christian evangelists. Sorry if you hate Christians...but its true.
Could Islam perform that same feat? Not right now. It's not cause to revile Muslums, but it shouldn't be waved away.
What a silly thing to say. Most of my family are Christians. But quote me on anything I've said that suggests I do. Go ahead.
(And while you're at it let me know if you actually agree or disagree with the points I made above).
I like this Pope, so that must have been a long time ago. Maybe we can stick to the last five years, which is about as far back as my memory goes..?
Yes. And I only hate some of them.
Why don't you use an app to dictate? The Google app is quite good. It's the 21st century, and all. Also, sorry you are stuck inside the phone. You should get out more.
I fully expected bitching, but that's something that happens when discussing all controversial topics. It's the natural grime of labored discourse. I was however asking something in earnest: 'What am I missing about Islam that makes it inherently more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?".
Given the context of the answer I myself provided and defended, this thread is an open challenge for anyone to criticize my position, or to counter it by presenting their own. I realize that my views on this subject are somewhat robust (maybe that's good, maybe that's bad), so that's why I've elected to take a hard position and labored to defend it. I put my views on the line to be challenged as much as possible.
"Bitching" is an unfair description of the overall response to this thread, though there's been some. Overall the discourse has been somewhat productive. Even if "bitching" is all someone can muster, I can still hope that as they ricochet off the hard position I've defended in this thread that I may have at least altered their intellectual trajectory more toward what I believe is the truth.
Uh, what? There are a lot of posts flying around in this thread (in an emotionally-charged topic), so perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes, but your reply seems a total non-sequitur. You chastised another poster for blaming Islam in fomenting or promoting certain types of violence, saying it is the perpetrators, not the belief system, which ought to be blamed, as it otherwise located blame in "nowheresville" or whatever.
However, I pointed out that some blame terrorism on Western imperialism, which likewise seems to locate the blame in nowheresville, rather than blaming the perpetrators of the violence. So, my question is, why ought the perpetrators be blamed in the former case, but not in the latter case. Surely, even if an act of terrorism was motivated by Western imperialism, the perpetrators are still to blame, no?
You also have never defined what you meant by "reverse bigotry" as opposed to bigotry simpliciter.
There is an organisation called 'Muslims for Progressive Values: http://www.mpvusa.org. They make very clear statements against child marriage, fgm and in favour of women's and lbgt rights.
How are we to act? I read the Koran as a teenager and was shocked and appalled. But I was already agnostic, brought up without religion, and I read the Old Testament at the same time and was shocked and appalled by that too. (I'm not disagreeing that the two have different religious status, I'm just remembering how I felt)
Still, what is written in Holy books is not how people act. People act for present day reasons with present day values out of present day concerns. I live among Muslims and chat with them every day, they are workmates and friends of my wife's, they are fellow-students of mine at uni from faraway countries as well as Dewsbury and Leicester - how am I to act?
I just act in a friendly egalitarian fashion, while remaining true to my principles and opinions. I'm not going to debate hadith with the local shopkeeper, but the state of Pakistani and English cricket. When the moment comes to oppose, say, violence by British Asians, or fgm inflicted on British women, then I will and do. (I'm retired, my wife is a lawyer dealing with such cases alongside Muslim practitioners)
What I dislike about lists of what's wrong with the Koran, or generalized critiques of Islam, or indeed vague liberal affirmations of equality, is that they are so often silent on what action should be taken. What more is to be done other than to be a good citizen? The implication of silence by critics of Islam seems to me that we should oppose and restrict other people just because of their religion. I oppose that. I prefer the dangers of egalitarianism to the dangers of exclusion.
How should you act? Per your nature. It's in my nature to ask endless questions. The only sort who can't accept that are Japanese. Muslims will tell you anything you want to know.
But when we take a break from judgement and try to understand, it's meaningful to ask how what gives rise to terrorism. How would you answer that?
Terrorists (Islamist and otherwise) act for any number of reasons: political, ideological, religious, military, etc. In some cases an extreme, violent interpretation of Islam gives rise to terrorism, which is a running theme in this thread.
This Imam has the answers:
And he's like the Pope so every Muslim should think this. Oh wait...
I didn't even watch the video because it's obvious it will state whatever your narrow views can take in without getting an epileptic seizure.
Her tour has attracted a lot of protests, with many Muslim activists describing her platform as 'hate speech':
I find Ayaan Hirsi Ali's arguments reasonably persuasive, and I think her opponents are at best looking at the issue through rose-coloured glasses.
//ps// Actually not in Australia and forthcoming Australia visit now cancelled due to security concerns.
It would be silly to call Hirsi Ali's statements 'hate speech', and I regret that some people do that. It makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion.
But it is also silly of Ali to say, as per your quote:
'the liberal, democratic west, especially its political leaders but also western Muslims, have made a dangerous mistake in insisting, for well-intentioned reasons, that the rise of Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.'
To say it has nothing to do with Islam is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church, or a Christian abortion-clinic bomber, has nothing to do with Christianity. Of course they have something to do with their respective religions.
But whether roots for anti-social behavior can be found in a religion is irrelevant. Roots for anti-social behavior can be found everywhere, even in the most benign forms of philanthropy. You'd understand that better than most, given your familiarity with Nagarjuna and the notion of Dependent Origination (Nothing happens in isolation from anything else!). The relevant question is (1) does somebody belonging to that religion of itself make it likely that they will be violent or abusive and (2) if so, what do we want to do about it?
Neither Ali nor anybody else has provided any evidence of 1, nor have I seen them make many practical suggestions about 2. The only practical suggestion I've seen from Ali is that Western governments ought to promote Christianity as a defence against Islam. Personally I think that's a terrible idea, but if anybody here seriously wants to back it, we could try to discuss it dispassionately.
To credibly argue the path taken by the West is a mistake, she needs to outline what alternative action she would take. Has she done that, other than the Christian thing? If so, what prescriptions has she made that you like? Suggesting we 'talk about how Islam is the problem' is not a prescription. Talk is cheap, and is not a public policy stance.
I don't see how this would improve things either, particularly as the most violent countries in the world, as I mentioned before, are Christian, and in Africa where Ali comes from according to the same set of statistics I quoted earlier the top ten most violent countries in Africa are all majority Christian. Both Rwanda and Burundi are Christian too. Need I go on. I don't think these countries are violent because they are Christian, but Christian critics of Islam who claim that that religion is more violent than theirs either need to readjust their prejudices or be hoist with their own petard.
I do agree with Ali on much of what she says above about radical Islam. It's the conflation of radical Islam with Islam that I have a problem with.
Are you sure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39475462
Another victory for the "Religion of Peace".
Hirsi Ali has been in public for a long time, but I have noticed that there a real niche for her kind of talkers: Muslims or former muslims that speak about how dangerous and evil Islam is. They are basically in the limelight to enforce the islamophobia and outright racism of people. After, what better to have than a former muslim talking about the perils of Islam.
I remember one of these speakers going as so far to defend and lie about the Crusades. But the people loved it, especially when she said that Jerusalem was only finally liberated from Muslim control By Israel (and forgetting what happened during WW1) the crowd started to cheer. Tells a lot of the crowd.
But anyway, you speak the things you get the money. And hence people talk what the public wants to hear.
What do you mean by this? I take it to be an insinuation that ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims who criticize Islam or Islamism are merely Uncle Toms, bolstering basically racist prejudices. Is that right?
Do you think it is fair that vociferous criticism of Islam and Islamism coming from people from a Muslim background is repeatedly trashed, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been trashed by (especially Dutch) Leftists and liberals? Do you think moderate Muslims who would like to see an end to Islamic extremism or conservatism (like, for example, most French Muslims, according to surveys) are helped in any way when those who speak against Islamic extremism or against Islamic conservatism are vilified by the liberal cultural mainstream and the Left (as they are by the Islamists and Islamic conservatives themselves)? Is there any possibility of supporting moderate Muslims and allowing them to speak out and begin to turn the tide of contemporary Muslim ideology when liberals like you shoot down Muslims and ex-Muslims, accusing them of so-called Islamophobia?
If criticism of Islamic practices by Muslims and ex-Muslims is used by the Right--by those who peddle the Clash of Civilizations narrative, for example--doesn't this indicate, not that the criticisms are wrong, but that liberals and Leftists ought to be supporting them also, but from a different point of view? The fact that the Right has done quite well in monopolizing the criticism of Islam is not an argument for a liberal or Left defence of Islam. On the contrary.
Incidentally, I notice that the basic point I'm making here and which I always make in these discussions, while it is not intrinsically subtle, has become subtle.
I really don't think the Westbro Baptist church are representative of anything beyond themselves. Anti-abortion activism is another issue, but the bombing of abortion clinics is again hardly representative of Christianity.
I don't know what 'public policy' to advocate, but I note that Ali is instantly stigmatised as 'spreading hate speech' by many commentators. I haven't read her books - I have heard her interviewed on various TV shows and read some in-depth articles about her, and I think what she says needs to be heard. It might not be right, but notice that when it is categorised as 'hate speech' then outright censorship is not far behind. (A lot of the pointless blather about the 18c amendment was about this very point.)
Philosophical point - I think there is vast confusion about the meaning of 'equality'. Does 'equality' mean that 'everyone's opinion is equal'? That's what it seems to mean, especially when deployed in the service of identity politics. Earlier in this thread, there was the view that Muslims deserved respect because, and only because, they're individuals - there are no actual "Muslims" as an abstract type, only 'individuals who practice Islam'. So the actual principles of Islam aren't important - what's important, is that people hold the principles to be true, even if we ourselves can't agree that they're true. In other words, they're correct by dint of individual opinion, not because they actually possess any intrinsic truth.
As I said before, this attitude in itself is part of a worldview that takes itself to be reality - namely, the viewpoint of secular individualism. But in saying that, it is blind to the sense in which it is also a worldview, because it so thoroughly takes for granted it's own suppositions.
But 'individualism', as a political philosophy, began with the Christian West, because of the Christian view of the paramount importance of every person - Christ died for all regardless of their ethnicity or character or whatever. That is still a Christian principle (uniquely so, it can be argued.) And that is the deep reason behind the absolute commitment to personal freedom in the West. But now the individual is no longer beholden to a higher law or moral principle; that part of the Christian dispensation has been in large part discarded. Now there is no higher moral authority than the individual; the idea that there might be a 'moral law' is almost universally disdained in secular cultures (it is almost axiomatically rejected on Dharmawheel, I've noticed, because, I think, most of the contributors are Western.)
So this underlies a lot the asymmetries in this debate. The Liberal West grants 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion' to Muslims - but with it comes a conception of human freedom, and human rights, which is quite alien to Islam itself. (That was the meaning of that NY Times opinion piece I referenced, by the Muslim, questioning the degree to which Muslims ought to accept liberalism - see Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?.)
So if you want to know what public policy I see coming out of this, I think it's called 'vast confusion', sautéed with equal parts political correctness, on one side, and xenophobia, on the other. Welcome to modernity.
Seems like an accurate precis to me! Interestingly, while Muslims protect their religion through violence, the Left defends Islam by labeling its critics is such a way as to permit violence towards them.
Quoting jamalrob
France? A report on radicalism among the youth of France has been delayed until after the French Presidential election, over fears its conclusions will boost support for Marine Le Pen.
Here are some highlights:
32% of young Muslims in France adhere to 'fundamentalist views.'
33% believe violence for 'ideological' goals is acceptable.
24% of young Muslims do not condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
21% do not condemn the Bataclan massacre.
https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/face-au-terrorisme-la-recherche-en-action/une-vaste-enquete-sur-la-radicalite-chez-les
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iranian-man-sina-dehgham-death-sentence-insult-islam-muslim-line-messaging-app-arak-prison-amnesty-a7658466.html
Please remind me when "Islam" became a "race." I must have missed that.
Here's another limelighting uncle tom:
It is also hardly representative of religiously-motivated terrorism, except by those who are deliberately obfuscating, or who are ignorant of statistics (and I'm not saying that you're one of them, mind you). This simply draws a false equivalency between the frequency and deadliness of Christian and Islamic terrorism.
To all those who believe that all religions are equally-violent, I invite them to participate in a little experiment. I will go to Salt Lake City, Utah and put on a performance of the musical The Book of Mormon. You go to Riyadh or Islamabad or Jakarta (your choice) and put on a performance of a new musical called The Muhammad Monologues. Then let's compare notes as to our respective experiences doing so (assuming that we're both alive to do so; there's a distinct chance that one of us won't be).
Alternatively, you could just try to give a talk against FGM and violence towards women in AUSTRALIA and see what happens.
I think all we can do is speculate based on what we know about human nature. Some have speculated that ISIS might have wanted to create anti-Muslim sentiment in the west so that western Muslims would come back home.
That may be bullshit, but I think it touches on the reason that folks who imagine that Islam will transform itself starting in the west are just ignoring the threat the secular west poses to Islam. It's called assimilation.
If we focus on the contrast between Christianity and Islam, this is one of the main distinctions between the Christian and the Islamic worldview (I'm comparing the traditional views here). Christianity took some centuries to develop political thought and to explore the interaction between the Church and the State, since the founding documents (Gospel + Epistles) are very neutral on the subject of "what the state should look like". Islamic founding documents are not neutral in that regard.
If we look at the matter from a more universal viewpoint, looking at other religions as well as C+I, we see the correlation doing well -- the more entangled the religious institutions and the state institutions, the more violent the religion (i.e., the more willing it is to use the power of the state to enforce its tenets), and the more violent are the reactions to that religion. We can look at Hindus x Buddhists in India, or at Communism x Islam+Christianity in China, for example.
The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions.
Do you think Islamic states kill apostates, kill atheists, kill blasphemers, kill witches, kill gays ... because they are states or because they are Islamic?
No doubt, because they are states. All it takes to establish that is to observe that Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states do not kill all of those people. In other words, statehood is a requirement for those killings; Islam isn't.
Indeed. We can also observe that Islamic states kill people who simply are deemed to be enemy of the state, regardless of religious motive, and also that non-Islamic states have killed more than one hundred million innocent people for various reasons in the 20th century alone.
Why is it that the only states that kill apostates, blasphemers, witches, gays, and permit child-marriage are Islamic?
So killing atheists is fine because other people have done nasty stuff?
No. It's not fine. I was merely reinforcing Mariner's point, which you ignored.
Tom, all of those events (killings and marriages) have been observed in many other kinds of states than Islamic ones, including Pagan, Christian, Hindu, Communist, etc. You are looking only at a very thin slice of reality when you restrict these events to Islamic states.
Remember that a Roman persecution against Christians (for example) was a "killing of apostates and blasphemers".
Ayaan. Sigh. Ayaan has repeatedly misrepresented a lot of facts and from what I last heard continues to do so, to meet her agenda, which I suspect is just making money repeating the same shit all the time. She's rabidly anti-Muslim and will lie to make a point and as such needs to be double checked or, preferably, ignored.
And if a discussion where people say and show she's wrong is "thrashing" then everything in this site is a thrashing as happened in the Netherlands. It appears to me that merely because people who agree with what she says think that those disagreeing with her are being unfair and therefore the value-laden term "thrashing" is bandied about. Nicely ties in with her image as a victim I suppose and of course victims cannot be nasty.
It wasn't the left, by the way, that dropped her like a brick when her lies about her immigration story came to light but her own vvd-party minister Rita Verdonk, who was minister for foreign aliens and integration at the time and threatened to take her Dutch nationality.
But don't take my word for it, you can find all this on the Internet! :-*
What are the radical doctrines? What are these demographics, particularly among Muslims in Western countries or our direct allies? What are the moderate doctrines? What are their demographics? How good of a shot do they have in expanding? How long will it take the moderates to expand substaintially enough to gain power and be able to maintain it? Most importantly, what are the rest of us going to do in the meantime?
I understand this viewpoint, and it is certainly the most pragmatic -- it is what politicians should be focusing on. But from a long-range historical viewpoint, I don't think the "modern liberal states" should be given a free pass. And from a short-range historical viewpoint, it must be noted that one of the main gripes of radical Muslims (one that has been presented by Bin Laden & Co., as well as by a host of imams) is the sheer existence of the "modern liberal states" and their trappings. (The other main gripe is Western meddling within their region -- which is, whether they realize or not, one of the trappings of the "modern liberal state").
You clearly are unmoved by the plight of the slaughtered, beaten, acid-burned, humiliated, genitally mutilated Muslim women. Yes bad stuff has happened in the past, but right now millions of women and girls are oppressed in the name of Islam. But for you, that's OK because bad things happened in the past that were not Islamic.
Good for you!
The greatly exaggerated persecution of Christians by the Romans was characterized in various respects, depending on the need and circumstances. Sometimes, Christians were described as atheists. Primarily, I think, they were persecuted because of their contempt for and objections to pagan expressions of religious belief, such as public festivals held honoring the gods, violence towards temples, their refusal to participate in the imperial cult, their public criticism of ancient customs and traditions, their refusal (at first) to hold public office or serve in the legions.
But generally the Roman imperial state cared very little about religions of any kind, unless they became threats to public order or were seen as threats to the state itself. Trajan's famous letter to Pliny about pursuing Christians advised they not be actively persecuted. The Jews were, for the most part, tolerated because of their ancient and seemingly tribal god, and were exempted from compliance with the imperial cult. Of course, when they tried to throw off Roman rule, they were ruthlessly suppressed.
Regarding the "Great Persecution" under Diocletian, unfortunately the imperial edicts describing the reasons for the persecution didn't survive, and we must rely on the descriptions from Christian sources. But I don't think they were ever persecuted because of their belief in Christ; it was their attitude towards other gods and their conduct towards other religious practices (including perhaps most importantly the cult of the emperors and practices supportive of the imperial state) that would occasionally result in persecution.
The Roman state didn't become involved in active persecution solely because of belief in particular gods until it became Christian.
Yes. In other words, apostates and blasphemers. (Remember that the Emperor was also Pontifex Maximus and, in at least some cases after Commodus, divine). As you say, they were not persecuted because they believed in X; they were persecuted because the rejected some core (sacred, crucial, essential) tenets Y.
When did the Roman State stop beheading women for sorcery?
I'm not sure what you mean by "at the level of" the state. It is true that the basic Christian message gets away with pacifism because it has renounced earthly kingdoms. It's apocalyptic. In that sense Islam is a more practical religion by virtue of its acceptance of warfare.
Not all Muslim violence is state sponsored, though. The first Muslims were tribal. They waited in the mountains to pounce on caravans. States came later.
That almost amounts to an argument. Thank you for pointing out a typo. How's your Dutch by the way? You've seen her on television all those years and heard what she said? Do you check what she says? You know all about it, yet seem to disagree with my post that sets Ayaan up as a habitual liar?
Presumably you're trying to cast aspersions on me because you actually don't know what you're talking about and this works as a diversion.
Whatever valid criticism we can have about Islamism and how we should cope with that in our countries is not helped by having charlatans paint caricatures of all Muslims which alienates the very people we need to engage for change. Whether that's Tom here or Ayaan in the US, they're not helping. The idea that the "mushy-mushy" leftism is to blame in light of a relatively successful multicultural society in the Netherlands (and mostly centre-right governments at that) is just too simplistic.
Nice to see though that holding her accountable is taboo here too...
...and also happened during the Roman Empire - not last week.
The Left has an Islam Problem
Perhaps when it stopped beating its wife. But alas, that's not an aspect of Roman history I've researched.
Well, I wrote in response to a statement by Mariner about Roman persecution of Christians. I couldn't think of a way of responding to that statement by reference to what took place last week.
The problem I see is this: as I said earlier in this thread, there is an obnoxious White Nationalist politician here in Australia, who, much to everyone's surprise, actually got elected to the national Parliament in the last election. A big part of her party's appeal is anti-Islam - she is blatantly and unashamedly islamophobe, and campaigned on banning Muslim immigration to Australia. (She's very much like Gert Wilders, although I think dumber.)
But every other party in the parliament won't say any such thing. According to the political mainstream, there is no problem with Islam - only with terrorism, which, they constantly assure the electorate, in soothing tones, is only 'a radical minority' of Muslims.
The problem is that a significant percentage of the electorate can't or won't make that distinction. As far as they're concerned, based on what they see in the media, at least some Muslims are terrorists, and it's hard to distinguish the potential threats from the benign hard-working citizens. And I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to believe.
But so long as there is a refusal to acknowledge that there might be an inherent problem with integrating Islam into Western democracies, then the polarisation and divisiveness will continue.
The deposed conservative Prime Minister of Australia said, in a Dec 2015 interview:
For that, he was pilloried as 'islamophobic' and 'reactionary' by the Guardian and SMH and many other media commentators - because they're not prepared to say it. The dogma is - and it is a dogma - that any suggestion of a problem of integration, is itself a form of racism or 'hate speech', and can't even be discussed.
No.
What I was saying that nowdays too much simply is spoken to enforce peoples existing views.
Seldom people are given a view that can be thought of having negative, not-so-negative and even positive aspects. And I'm not referring here to jihadism or radical extremism. For terrorism or any ideology that thinks the world would be a better place by killing people, I have no tolerance. I'm talking outright basic lying about historical facts to portray the whole Islam as evil and then going to defend some Crusade as some benevolent defence, not being an ugly chapter at least in ideological terms for Christianity. No, I assume Ayaan Hirsi Ali surely hasn't talked like that, but there are those. And such hatemongering is quite usual, especially when people aren't politically correct and tell it like it is.
Something that would be objective view, which would be a mixed bad is too confusing for many as they cannot know if the speaker is with them or against them. Because that is the thing, right? Being with you or against you.
Quoting jamalrobEven if I don't know specifically the case, it's not at all hard to think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be trashed by the leftists. But here's my point: the opposite side of the political spectrum does the same. Perhaps even with more vengeance. In our present climate an answer starting like "You have a point there, however..." would seem weak. Either you support 100% or oppose totally. And then we have a "lively" discussion.
What is a moderate Muslim? I'm talking about the people who argue that moderate Muslims do not simply exist. Scratch the surface of a "moderate" and you will find a jihadist. For them the perfect spokesperson is somebody who says they are correct and is an muslim or an ex-muslim.
Quoting jamalrob
Even if I'm not a leftist, wasn't the mainstream left wing ideology basically against religions? When have socialist become defenders of religions? And what is the "defence of Islam"?
As usual, it's far better to look at what people say themselves about the issues. Do those that "defend Islam" really be OK with Al Qaeda... or do they really think it's a conspiracy (or whatever)? What opponents say is a different thing. The whole discourse for example about "Cultural Marxism" or "Marxism" is a good example of this, although from a totally different topic.
.
That's not what I want to know.
I thought I had been perfectly clear, but apparently not.
What I want to know is what public policy you, and others that advance the argument that 'Islam is fundamentally more violent' would like to see coming out of this. What are your public policy recommendations?
In the absence of such recommendations, all the discussion about whether any religion is 'fundamentally more violent' than another is just hot air.
Once accepted that Islam itself is broadly the problem, the political ramifications are somewhat chilling. in the words of Hirsi Ali :
It's interesting that someone so steeped in the harm that religion can cause so carelessly advocates revoking religious freedom to convert to Islam, which might as well be an apostasy law, and goes on to suggest that there should or could be military force used against Islam itself (how I know not). For Ayaan there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only lazy ones who don't obey the religion and the radicals which represent true Islam. I'm totally with her that religion in schools is a dumb thing, but it's not as if over-sensitive pro-Islamic curriculum elements have much to do with any violence.
I have made my beliefs clear in the post directly above. In terms of public policy, I would say that what democratic governments ought to do, is acknowledge and address public unease, instead of throwing a blanket of political correctness over it. That is all.
That's a very vague request.
How would you like them to address it? Governments in all countries historically have been very poor at easing people's unfounded fears. That's why we have law-and-order auctions so frequently in election campaigns, despite falling rates of crime.
Do you have any suggestions as to how a Government might be able to assuage these fears?.
If so then we're in the same boat. There are many topics on which the current government does not share my opinion - much more important topics than terrorism or the possibility of a worldwide Caliphate. Climate change, road carnage and poverty pop to mind.
Basically this is a line that can be used to attack any religion: true believers are the real people advocating the religion. Those people who don't follow the to the word, aren't actually believers. Hence the whole idea of there being 'moderates' is simply wrong. And hence there is a multitude of things that the proponents of the religion are in conflict in the modern world. Starting from things as science etc. I assume even Buddhism isn't exempt.
Perfect way to portray any religion in an ominous light. The thing that huge masses of people are "moderate", have no qualms with the secular world we live in can be totally sidelined by the simple argument that it's not what the religion is about. Just to give an example, shouldn't women cover their hair in Christendom too? Hence, can we make the case that any married women that doesn't cover her hair isn't a true Christian, because she isn't following the guidelines of the Bible?
Above all, if a religion is judge by the political actions of some, the positive role that it plays for many can be totally disregarded. Yet if one takes a holistic approach, that ought not to be forgotten. If one talks about religions on how they are used in politics, that is another matter.
Perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in Islam.
I will ask this question again: which "race" is Islam?
Well, Muslim states appeared in the first generation of Islam; Mohammed's career was defined by his relationship with states around his area; and there certainly were states (such as, the Roman Empire) before Islam.
Now, if you say that the nation-state came later, then I agree. This construct (a political entity that spans over a territory, representing a people -- an ethnos -- and responsible for enforcing laws through violence in that territory) resulted from a long evolutionary line which was barely starting in the 7th century AD. But there were states (non-national states) nevertheless. And the problem of violence lies there, in the notion of the state, rather than in the notion of any given religion. Any religion can become an ideological weapon to be used by a state (including in self-defense, cf. Khazars).
The political aspects of a religion, though, are a very small portion of what it is. Which is why to claim that "X is violent", when X is a religion, is only the beginning of the story, and it is always influenced by historical aspects. Islam was not particularly violent in the centuries between, say, 1300 and 1900. (The Turks were violent -- not particularly violent, but violent -- in these centuries, but Turks are not "Islam").
Then it can also be ignored as desired, and thus yours (and others') tendentious claims about "racism" against Muslims can be disregarded for the conversation-inhibiting rhetoric that it is.
According to whom? You? How's your Arabic? Or, which translation are you using?
You are painting a caricature (again). There's exactly one verse in the Qur'an that could be read to say you should beat your wife but the word "idribuhunna" means about 10 different things and there are other interpretations more consistent with the rest of the text and solves the contradiction with at least four other verses being quite clear there should be no harm done to women.
So if you want Muslims to change and want to be effective should you either a) claim a radical reading of the text should be followed (as you seem to do) or b) point out to the alternative, more sensible (fair and just) meaning?
EDIT: Ephesians was/is "abused" by Christian men to defend beating wives. These interpretation debates on the true meaning of a Holy Book are not new and evolve over time as well.
You can read the Quran(4:34) in whatever language or translation you like.
The origin of Islam is very similar to the rise of the Mongols. In both cases tribes became fused by the violent actions of one individual and his followers. The Muslims left the Arabian peninsula because of economic pressures that developed specifically because of unification. For a while a divided society existed: Muslims in charge and non-Muslims suppressed. Conversion to Islam was not allowed at this point. Then the non-Muslims rose up and took back over their own territory as Muslims. At this point the ruling Muslims were former Zoroastrians, Christians, and Buddhists.
It's interesting to ponder why the suppressed class adopted Islam during their uprising. There must have been something in it they felt they needed.
I would sacrifice my life for your right to ignore my claims. And yet.. you can sort of tell if a person thinks of Arabs or Mexicans or whatever as a different race (as fundamentally different).
And yet it is those who protest so-called "Islamophobia" who break out Muslims into a separate race (at least when it suits their agenda of demonizing any and all critics of Islam). So, perhaps they are the ones who view Muslims as "fundamentally different"?
Gad...that has to be the worst standup comedy routine of all time.
Not sure I should converse with you, as you have been branded a racist for criticizing an ideology.
Precisely. I think that if a person has an inner struggle with that kind of racism, rational examination of the question can become impossible. Anytime the issue comes up, a reflexive "I'M NOT RACIST!" will appear. Maybe clothed in more sophisticated language.
Let's take the original then. "idribuhunna" has about 52 distinct meanings and you're sticking to the one meaning "beat women". Whereas one of the meanings is "to separate", which fits in much better with the subsequent verse:
And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things].
and compare that to 2:231:
And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them].
and 4:19:
O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.
and 3:134:
Who spend [in the cause of Allah ] during ease and hardship and who restrain anger and who pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good;
So we see there is a much more consistent interpretation possible as is pursued by Muslim feminists and Reformist interpretations of the Qur'an. There is an existing movement against the historically patriarchal interpretation of the Qur'an and then there is the simple reality that many Muslim men (at least in the Netherlands, for which I have the statistics at hand) don't hit their women.
There is therefore not one interpretation of Islam and your suggestions otherwise are misleading.
As an example of Reformist interpretation: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=198
Actually she has mellowed out since then and sees a struggle between the jihadist (Medina Muslims) and Reformists to win the hearts and minds of the average, religious and peace loving Muslim (Mecca Muslims in her book Heretic). Which seems to be the sensible approach but still she intersperses such sensible things with misrepresentations of facts.
As to non-lethal violence, I can remember being beaten as a child by the authorities of the avowedly Christian school. That's both primary and secondary school. And wasn't there just a word from the Russian leader, very cosy with the Russian Orthodox church, to the effect that wives should be grateful for being beaten because it makes them more likely to bear sons?
We don't do that any more. Or at least we do not do it with the sanction of parliament, God and tradition any more. But don't get too holier than thou about this, we still justify a deal of violence, but mainly a long way from here, in those benighted heathen countries where they know no better, in the hope that our enlightened attitude will flow through the bombs and devastation.
From the website: "The Prophet did not tell his followers to do anything other than what was reviled in the Qur'an." A delicious Freudian slip.
"Islam is not the number one paradigm explaining Arab society, hypocrisy is."
Quoting unenlightened
And yet they're pouring into Europe by the millions and by the thousands into the US and Canada as we speak. Funny, that. You'd think they'd want to go somewhere else, given our opinion of them as "ignorant, benighted heathens" and our reputation as the Great Satan. Your nasty little comment falls apart as soon as we ask who is dropping the bombs and creating the devastation from which the legitimate refugees and immigrants are escaping.
For the Islamophobists, this is what they see as the evil Trojan horse strategy to spread Islam, by first coming to the West as migrants refugees, then have a lot of children and then demand through ignorant leftists and the abuse of democracy to turn Europe into a Muslim continent. Actual demographics don't matter with that crowd, you know.
I think that Atheism and secularism is a bigger threat to the Christianity of Europe than all the Worlds Muslims.
Am I to interpret that as an argument for a Christian Europe in favour of a secular and atheist Europe?
Perhaps you could list those 52 meanings, and show exactly where the word "idribuhunna" appears in the famous wife-beating verse?
Quoting tom
>:O
I just gave you a translation in English that already compares three distinct meanings.
Edit: in any case, you're missing the point as I've continually repeated: there's not one interpretation of Islam and I showed you another that is better in many ways. That was never to argue your argument doesn't exist and probably still a dominant one.
Nice people.
Not you of course.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/alone-through-iran-1144-miles-of-trust#/
Seems kind of arrogant for you present your opinion as superior to that of a Muslim scholar. There is a mass of knowledge that's required to give a legit commentary on the Koran. And even that doesn't make one a religious leader.
Anyway, yes, the holy books have horrible aspects to them, all of them. I'm not going to defend them. But I will keep pointing out the obvious that most Christians and Muslims will find ways to do the exact opposite to what's in the books for good or for ill when it suits them, so scanning them in order to find evidence that Christians or Muslims are generally bad (or good) is fairly pointless.
Surely you are capable of giving the "about 52 distinct meanings" of "idribuhunna" that you claim to exist. If you can't, I think we will conclude that you are .... shall we be charitable and call it "exaggerating"?
Also, since you claim that the word "idribuhunna" appears in Quran 4:34, perhaps you could point out where?
Meanwhile Bangladesh joins it's Islamic brethren Saudi Arabia and Yemen in esuring the Islamic tradition of marrying little girls to old men continues.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html
Progress?
Depends on just how you see it.
What is the Christianity of Europe? The good old times of when we talked about a Christendom?
Just what I tried to say earlier, you cannot categorize religion to be either good or bad, it's a far more complex issue. But what is sure is that our society has become more secular, and so has even happened to muslims.
I'm merely representing other existing interpretations and then I do have an opinion on which I think is better from a normative viewpoint (which is personal and subjective) and logical consistency. I don't see how arrogance comes into it, as I've merely compared two different scholarly interpretations and translations. See here for instance as well a collection of translations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34
@tom you can find the transliteration there as well but slightly different as a?rib?hunna. It's root is "daraba". Have fun doing some work yourself. Apart from whether there are 10 (just in the Qur'an) or 52 different meanings (in a dictionary), the point remains the interpretation I've shown exists and is a valid one disproving yours that Islam approves of beating wives. Even on the basis of the actual text this isn't necessarily supported unless you opt for a specific interpretation.
@Baden I do think it's important to discuss falsehoods otherwise they are left standing but agree it's tangential to the main point that there's no true Scotchman and religion is what people make of it and not the books.
It's been about ten years since that particular Hirsi Ali quote. I am aware that she has become more moderate on the issue (heh), but I could not resist the opportunity to share a quote which so perfectly described what sentiments you get when you combine an unrealistically simplified definition/description of a religion along with hatred of it.
It's not her hatred that I object to though, she's entitled to that, it's her simplistic and monolithic portrayal of a religion which is in reality vastly complex and internally conflicted. Luckily though, confrontation with reality causes the dissolution of that position rather than the strengthening of it.
Many Christians and deconverted Christian's I've encountered have taken a similar position with respect to Christianity: the former says, "There is only one true Christianity" and the latter says, "Yep, and it's evil". Perhaps due to living ideologically cloistered lives, the Christian only knows their version of Christianity, and perhaps emerging directly from such an ideologically cloistered life, the fresh anti-theist can only oppose what they are aware of, which amounts to a fraction of religious doctrine and practice as it concerns the greater religious world in question.
As anti-theists come to realize that there are many brands of a given religion and that not all of their practitioners are engaged in the same actions, they realize that not all religious brands are worth opposing or that not all of their criticisms apply to all of them. At this point, a new question comes into focus, one that could really do with some exploration in this thread: "What is religion?"
What is the "DNA" of a religion? Is it simply the main tenets of it's main doctrines? Is it the doctrinal body as a whole? Does that include the way doctrines change and diverge over time? To what extent is any given religious behavior a raw expression of doctrine with respect to other factors and circumstance? What is the possible variance in behavior when historical and demographic doctrinal variance along with a variance in changing environments is considered? To what extend does divergence in doctrine and behavior within and between religious groups (Islam) define individual sects as separate and discrete religions altogether?
Answering these questions is critical to delivering a robust and persuasive condemnation against a particular religion. It's really about what can be made to stick, and what the uninitiated don't realize is that in this debate religion is Teflon. Religious individuals constantly re-interpret their script and constantly change their behavior according to pressures put upon them, and when the pressure is widespread it happens en masse. The way religion expresses itself in individuals and society is amorphus; without necessary form. Once you've outlined objectionable tenets, objectionable interpretations of those tenets, and the specific individuals and groups who act on them, and why, then you can coherently and persuasively condemn them/it, but you're then only condemning one behavioral ramification (of many possible ramifications) in one environment (of many possible environments) from one interpretation (of many conflicting interpretations) of one tenant (of many conflicting tenets).
I remember reading a Hirsi quote which I believe came from her "mellowing phase", which read something like "Once [radical] Islam is defeated and dead, what's left can be reborn as a new religion, become something else, that can exist happily with the western world". I'm not exactly sure how implicit the [radical] qualifier was, but it shows that her understanding of religion as a whole was developing. The idea that religion dies and becomes something else when it changes is the beginning of a more holistic understanding of what religion actually is: an ever diverse, ever changing, ever dividing, ever evolving set and series of creatures, many of whom will happily defy even their own logic in the pursuit of survival and advancement, and not all of whom make for worthy enemies.
The link you provided.. look back at it. Who is the creator of the second translation?
That's not what Muslim friends tell me and seems a bit weird a claim from a non-Muslim to begin with. Can we not read and think for ourselves? Don't scholars make mistakes? Can't scholars disagree? The interpretation I favour is of edip yuksel who is a reformist and the Al Islam interpretation is based on the teachings of mirza ghulam ahmad. I'm sure jihadists don't think highly of either.
What sect does your Muslim friend belong to?
Quoting Benkei
A Protestant is bound to act as his or her own priest. You just pick that Bible up and start interpreting as the Holy Ghost brings it to you.
Muslims are not Protestants. Sunnis put a halt to interpretation in the 10th Century.
Quoting Benkei
Are you a Muslim?
I'm not Muslim by the way but have been visiting an Arabic-Dutch family for over 20 years now. I know a bit from spending time with them. The father obviously doesn't agree with his daughters. :D
Neither do most Muslims. You just referenced the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect. Most Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims, and it is illegal to be one in many Islamic countries.
That's fine. I think that's a bit the point that there isn't an accurate representation to be had just like it isn't possible for the Bible.
I'm sure it is but that's neither here nor there. Even in the more mainstream interpretation of "to hit" for daraba there's a ton of discussion how, ranging from a metaphorical hit with a "scarf" to an actual hit. Then there's another ton on when that's supposed to happen and a third ton about in reply to what.
EDIT: Personally I think it's such a contentious verse for Muslims because like any other person their moral instincts already balk at the idea of hitting another person. Much as how Christianity struggles with violence the most contested and discussed passages in the Bible are those on violence.
Nobody is making a huge study :, yeah but how should I love my neighbours? I suspect the Muslim equivalents are hardly discussed either.
Obviously no Muslim could say there is no accurate representation of Islam. You're treating it like a cute little exhibit in a museum. It's a living worldview that's been through mangling and future shock. The father of your Muslim friends feels sadness when he looks at his daughters because he knows he's watching his heritage die. Loss and defeat.
I'm treating it as any other text : generic words superimposed over a world so complex it defies comprehensive understanding. The idea a book can be the answer or guide to every eventuality we may encounter only illustrates a lack of imagination.
Even if interpretation was complete in Muhammad and collectively with his Companions then everything after that is just more fallible humans. Assuming the veracity of the Qur'an, its true meaning was lost and shall remain lost.
Edit: I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine.
I see. Then it is a good thing that you have such an illuminating beacon into the heart of men. Perhaps you prowl the streets of your hometown with a lantern in the manner of Diogenes, looking for a truly non-racist man, only to search in vain. How sad.
You're a Protestant at heart.
Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. Even more generally speaking, without religious institutions, you wouldn't here and now be taking advantage of the many privileges that supposedly the "worst social construct ever created" has thus ensured, such as guaranteed healthcare, working and high quality infrastructure, a consistently safe public environment, the list goes on (which includes beer, mind you.)
Whether you like it or not, religion's importance to the world shouldn't be so quickly cast aside; nor should it be white washed as if all faiths boil down to tyranny, like radical Islam in this day and age. Regardless, humanity has relied upon religion since the very beginning, as we still do. The only question, in the end, is whether it is better to scrap the beauties found in Christianity, Buddhism, etc., or move on to worshiping modernity's new religions, such as transhumanism and relativist Atheism.
I, however, would much rather keep what we already have that's good in religion over delving deeper into the ugly, secularized, post-God cultism that religion seems to be heading toward.
This claim is often made by Christian apologists, but never credibly substantiated. The arguments made for it are usually circular - eg all the scientists were Christians, or literacy was centred in the Church - therefore without Christianity there would have been no scientists and little literacy.
It also doesn't gel with the observation that Chinese civilisation was more advanced than in the West until at least the late medieval period.
I fully agree with Benkei's observation that religion can be a wonderful thing at a personal level, but terrible things happen when it becomes institutionalised.
I'd go further and say that it is desirable for there to be some way for people to form spiritual communities to share their experiences and help one another. But I've yet to figure out how that can be done without power structures arising and the inevitable corruption that comes with that.
Sometimes I think the Quakers might have it figured out, but I'm not even sure about that. No doubt somebody will be able to come up with an anecdote of terrible abuse of power within Quakerism.
I've not read this idiocy, but I'll take your word for it. There are plenty of stupid Christians out there.
Quoting andrewk
I was critiquing Christianity's importance in Western civilization. I never denied, say, Hinduism or Buddhism's central importance in Eastern civilization.
Quoting andrewk
Why? If you say that religion can be a "wonderful" thing on a personal level, you must also admit that institutionalized religion can (and has been) also a "wonderful" thing.
Quoting andrewk
Well, golly gee...
Quoting andrewk
Their baskets are too beautiful, so I guess they must be abusing the arts, arts that wouldn't have come about without... [ERROR: INFLUENCE NOT FOUND]
I was given a book by David Bentley Hart, for Christmas, about five years back, which documents the claim very convincingly in my opinion - Atheist Delusions, it was called. It was about the massive impact of the Christian creed on Western culture - the fundamental importance of 'the person' (to which you constantly appeal, without seeming to understand its religious rationale), the beginning of the education and hospital systems, the origin of modern science, and much else besides.
So again, as far as you're concerned, only 'the individual' is real, and only 'what individuals believe' has any significance. But this is not actually something which Islam teaches! Never mind, though, you will fight for their right NOT to believe it, because that is what you believe.
Malcolm X on Islam
Why?
It would be good if you can point to where I said 'only the individual is real'. I'll be very surprised if I said it. I suspect this is just another case of careless reading leading to imputing beliefs to others that they do not hold..
It is an historical account, based on a considerable body of fact. But, of course, as it is written by a Christian, then it might amount to an account you don't want to believe - so your point cuts both ways.
Quoting andrewk
Sure:
Quoting andrewk
Quoting andrewk
Quoting andrewk
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but it's worth critical examination. You're advocating liberal individualism, because that is the culture you're reflecting. Nothing the matter with it, but what is behind it? What are the philosophical principles that underlie it?
The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian.
Should we expect any action on this offer in the near future?
Surely you can tell the difference between a statement that what matters to our prospects of a peaceful society is the beliefs of individuals about things like tolerance rather than the labels we put on them, and a statement that only individuals are real. Can't you?
With my current worldview I would not say anything like 'only the individual is real' because I am a communitarian politically and incline towards the Vedantic spiritually.
Quoting Wayfarer Again, absolutely not. I see an overemphasis on individualism as one of the cancers of Western society. Nothing in what I said argues in favour of individualism in the libertarian sense. What I am against is stereotyping. Do you understand the difference between being libertarian and being anti-stereotyping?
But that is not acually the Muslim view of what is valuable about Islam. That is why I linked to the NY Times opinion piece, by a Muslim, which was mulling over 'whether free speech is good for Muslims'. He is saying the very same thing! It's a two-way street. Very important to understand that.
I'm not accusing you of anything, I don't think you're a libertarian or anything of the kind. But notice that you're juxtaposing 'what individual really believe' with 'the idea of Islam' and questioning whether there can be an 'authentic' Islam (or other belief). So I'm pointing out, that from this perspective, all such ideas are validated on the grounds that 'individuals believe them' - not on account of any intrinsic worth or objective reality (remember the discussion where you said that all such things are subject to 'widely divergent opinions'). In pointing that out, I'm just trying to articulate the pre-suppositions that we bring to the debate. And I don't think my response has been at all uncharitable or tendentious. It's very thorny issue.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's worth a thread. There's a social trend called 'spiritual but not religious' - I think I am likely to fall under the heading myself, although there are many blurred lines and porous boundaries.
Many were also deists, freethinkers, and various other sorts of non-Christian.
Me either, so it's odd to be in the position of "defending" one. I have curbed my anti-theism a bit though. Secular liberal consumer societies are no panacea.
I can just see you now, gulping a kelp shake and watching Al Jazeera on the tele, with a yoga mat 'neath your bum.
*Suddenly paranoid - turning off web cam now*
Quoting Arkady
I always thought that the pre-revolutionary American colonies were characterized by the very active Christianity that would dominate later on. Apparently this was not the case. There is no denying that New England was dominated by the descendants of English Puritans, but the intellectual core of the colonies was, as Arkady noted, free-thinking.
It was especially the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century that brought about the dominance of Evangelical Protestantism--Methodists and Baptists, particularly. Catholicism would become very important through immigration.
The free-thinkers were apparently not much exercised about abortion, sodomy, birth control (such as it was), and obscenity that became critical issues under a movement sponsored by Anthony Comstock beginning in the late 19th into the 20th century. Anthony Comstock, for instance, objected to the profanity used by his fellow Union soldiers in the Civil War. Had his compatriots said things like "Oh dear, my arm's just been shot off" or "Shucks, I missed" our history might have been very different.
So, some of our worst features were brought to us through our much honored religious American traditions, and some of our best features were delivered through the good offices of the Enlightenment.
American history isn't Australian history, of course.
There are lots of good reasons (and no reasons needed at all, of course) for you to dislike religion, but the rest of this statement isn't sound. Individuals might have private "spiritual experiences", whatever those might be, in isolation from any recognizable belief system. But they can not have "religious experiences" without the institutions of religion, which defines what spiritual, god, holy, prayer, and so forth are.
Indeed, were there no constructed institutional religions, private spiritual experiences probably wouldn't exist as a construct either. They might end up being constructed as a psychopathology.
Semantics. You can replace religious experiences with spiritual if that reads more comfortable for you. I'm using the term as William James did in his variety of religious experiences.
Aside from the impossibility to check this, there was A Roman and Greek empire before that, which did well without Christianity. In fact, it could be argued Christianity was the cancer that destroyed The Roman empire from within, causing its fall along with other issues (economics, overstretched, invasions).
When I'm a dick I'm 100% responsible myself. No hiding behind a book or a pontificating patsy.
Yet mullahs or cardinals ought to be chosen by their merit. Be that piousness or whatever. What comes to my mind is just royalty where the crown is inherited. Yet the custom is a logical way to try to prevent the dangers of powerstruggles when modern power structures didn't exist. Naturally hasn't work allways, but still.
And for many people that Divine right is far more understandable that some vague philosophical idea or simple practicality. Easy answer.
Thanks for this, BC. As others have pointed out, you always seem to have a ready supply of relevant information to bring to bear in these threads. The historical name "Comstock" was vaguely familiar to me, but I may have associated it more with the "Comstock lode," which the other Comstock likely would have found phonetically disagreeable, given his views on "vice." I am reminded of that great H.L. Mencken quote, which defines Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
I would point out, however, that my remarks about freethinkers should not be taken to be limited to the Western hemisphere, as there were European Renaissance humanists, for instance, who were integral in pushing back against the superannuated superstitions of the past in forming the modern world. Indeed, if Christianity's death grip on Western culture were never loosened, we may well still be hunting "witches" and massacring Jews for poisoning the local well every time there is an outbreak of illness.
But, yes, some of the giants of the U.S.'s founding were freethinkers or religious skeptics. Thomas Paine comes to mind here. Even the esteemed George Washington declined to accept communion at church service. You are probably familiar with the "Jefferson Bible," in which ol' Tom snipped out some of the more ridiculous passages of the NT, instead compiling a sort of "greatest hits" compilation of JC's moral teachings.
[quote=David Webster, Dispirited]When someone tells me that they are “Not religious, but very spiritual,” I want to punch them in the face.[/quote]
I thought maybe we could do an internet petition. Maybe march around the White House. Save martyrdom for the last resort.
Well, David Webster might seek anger management counselling. Or perhaps enrol in a meditation class.
Quoting Arkady
Two of the leading renaissance humanists - Ficino and Erasmus - were priests. Della Mirandolla was not. But they were all to a greater or lesser extent platonist or neo-platonist (Ficino translated the Complete Works of Plato into Latin). To be sure they had run-ins with the Church, but in their view, atheism would completely undercut what they understood as 'humanism'.
The fact that she is on the Right of German politics is a good demonstration that this is not a left-right issue. It is simply about compassion and open-mindedness. There are compassionate, open-minded people on both 'sides' of politics.
Although the OP isn't about the relationship between 'the Left' and Islam, that alleged relationship has featured strongly in the discussion, and articles with titles like 'The Left has an Islam problem' have been frequently cited. Really those articles should be entitled 'the Compassionate and Open-minded have an Islam problem', in order to capture Angela Merkel and people like her on the 'Right' within the scope of their disdain.
Where's my vomit bag....
Quoting andrewk
Define. And please tell me where they are.
You have a special bag for that?
Does being a freethinker somehow preclude someone from being a (neo)-Platonist?
Consider it a footnote.
I don't know how many full-blown atheists there really were in Renaissance Europe. No doubt some of the "spiritual" people you refer to were actually closet atheists. In some places one risked life and livelihood in criticizing religion. Thomas Aikenhead was hung for blasphemy shortly before 1700 (well into the early modern era). Even Hume appeared to show some trepidation in criticizing religion too openly, couching some of his critiques in the form of his dialogues (which allows for plausible deniability).
I do admire her for what she has done in this respect not least because of the political risks involved and the criticism she's copped from boors like Trump. There was a current affairs documentary on Syrian refugees in Germany, last year - the Germans really have done an extraordinary job trying to facilitate their integration. If Muslims can be safely integrated into Western culture, in large numbers, while preserving the key aspects of their ethos, then the doubters will have been proven wrong.
It might have been too much to cram in to the OP, but there is a noteworthy dynamic in the discussion of Islam that involves some proponents of the self described far left, but it's somewhat difficult to precisely describe...
We know the kind of tomfoolery that results from having no compassion and also being close-minded, and also what results from the angelic inverse, but what do you get when someone is both close-minded and highly compassionate?
Basically you get someone who will actually defend all manner of abhorrent actions citing respect for culture (and in this case) while denying any possible moral rebuke of harmful religious/cultural beliefs and practices. And by insulating everyone and everything from all criticism, they also insulate the groups they seek to protect from reform. Labeled pejoratively as "regressives" by their peers (on the basis of endorsing moral regression as opposed to progression) this vocal group provides the fodder for the perception that the left has an Islam problem (For anyone who may not know, the perceived problem is that the left is unable to discuss Islam objectively due to bias, fear of being racist, etc...).
This group represents a very, very small slice of the public (18-25 students form it's core demographic), but they are tech savvy and the emotional insulation that is inherent in their position makes them very advertiser friendly, which gives them undue presence in mainstream culture. People reacting severely to the left's problem with Islam are reacting to this very thin but loud group. They go on to equate anything which detracts from their full and scathing condemnation of Islam as a whole with full blown cultural relativism. The vigor of their reaction causes even more of a reaction from the regressives, which in turn refuels the cycle.
It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop and both parties get something out of it. The close-minded/non-compassionate get politically correct airheads to make fun of and be angry at, and the airheads get an emulation of the kind of hateful opposition that validates their position. Compassion itself might be a trait we can associate with the left, which could explain why more right wing pundits please their audiences with hate, but "open-mindedness" unfortunately doesn't come included with any ideology. It's not that philosophically interesting, but these are the sad roots of the portrayal of the left's Islam problem.
This discourse of opposing a percieved and basically imagined foe, be it either the "left" or sometimes "the right". Hence you don't attack what the other side says, you attack what you percieve or imagine them to say. It is very typical of our times.
Similar is the idea of "Cultural Marxism", which has nothing to do with the Frankfurt school or Marxism, but is simple assorting the most outrageous claims or ideas into one evil conspiracy which wants to demolish everything conservative or traditional in the name of Cultural Marxism. It's a similar story this of a weak Europe being uncapable of doing anything "against Islam"... because of leftist.
Yet it's not only some right-wing fringe groups, a "very, very small slice of the public" as you say. What one should understand, and one shouldn't label this alarmist, is the fact that one Great Power is promoting this kind of discourse in Europe and America very actively. Not something that is unimportant or irrelevant.
(Y) (Y)
Well said, but to complete the logical tetrad, who would the open-minded non-compassionate be?
I guess in a way that's what I attempted to be in this thread. Open minded and dispassionate (unbiased?).
To my far right I see a growing cloud of passion and anger that throws political positions on Islam far out of proportion and reality (this thread is primarily aimed at challenging that far out position). To my immediate left and right (I think) I see understanding tempered with reason, and to my far left I see nuance, accuracy, and correctness being shelved in the name of political correctness. One extreme maintains complete and total condemnation of Islam while the other maintains complete and total endorsement of it; two moral extremes, both of which are poorly founded and narrow-minded.
The condemn extreme is growing of late, hence the impetus for the thread, and given that this far right has already angrily driven compassion out of town, a dispassionate approach might be the only thing that can possibly diffuse it. Occasionally I deal with the far left when and where I find issue, but close-minded compassion is not only more rare than close-minded hatred, it's also much less a cause for worry.
I must say though that I'm surprised and impressed by most of the responses to this thread, it shows that these polar extremes aren't inhabited much at all around here, the regressive left least so.
It's not growing, and that's the problem. Too many apologists with double standards making excuses.
It's true that the examples he cited of abhorrent beliefs should be ridiculed and contested, but he incorrectly equates these extreme beliefs with the beliefs (and speech? and actions?) of the average Muslim. Anyone actually credibly calling for such violence, religious or no, can already be arrested on those grounds. He advocates for special anti-islamic speech laws (essentially); what could possibly go wrong? Christian doctrine can reasonably advocate genocide and child slavery too, so shouldn't we censor the offending bits of both religious texts?
Answering repression with state-sponsored repression to make people free. Great plan!
Yes, we know being religious shouldn't give you a free pass on doing bad stuff. Sign me up! But wrapping that platitude in vaguely apocalyptic warnings concerning Islam and capping it with some unintentionally ironic hot air about continuing to not solve the problem being only solved by talking openly about solving the problem...The End...doesn't exactly advance the debate here does it? (My favorite bit of silliness was "Buckle up for infinite strife!")
What's your end game Tom?
Amend the constitution and ban a religion? Close the mosques? Run the muzzies out of town? Send them to camps?
Who do we go to war with and what will be our goal in said war?
If none of the above, and all you're trying to do is persuade people that Islam is nothing but evil, then you've got to do a better job of it. Religion can be a catalyst for violence, yes, but answer me this:
Why doesn't every able bodied Muslim on the planet engage in terrorism if that's the inexorable directive of Islamic doctrine?
If you can answer that one, then please tell me why Islamic terrorism such as we're seeing today is a relatively new phenomenon in Islam's history rather than a mainstay throughout? What happened in the Islamic world in the 70's that caused Islamic terrorism to show up and proliferate?
You're showing no understanding of history Tom (of Islam and otherwise), and no acknowledgement whatsoever of how varied contemporary Islamic culture (and belief, doctrinal interpretation, behavior) actually is. Pointing to the farthest behavioral outliers (actual terrorists) as representing the whole only works on an emotional level, not a logical one. You say that the terrorists represent true Islam and non terrorists Muslims say "peace" represents true Islam. Who is correct here? You or them? (you're both wrong on a fundamental level because both versions exist as expressions of what Islam is/does, although they certainly have the numbers on their side).
I want to understand contemporary Islamic terrorism, and I'm more than willing to speak openly about it; no existential crisis/white guilt/cultural relativism gets in the way of my thoughts, that I promise you. But when you simply state that the entirety of what can be referred to as "Islam" is the one and only ingredient which produces and perpetuates Islamic terrorism, you're not actually explaining why; you're not talking openly about it. You feel like me resisting that idea might come from fear of being mean, but it actually comes from my desire for rigid accuracy in my understanding of human behavior, religions, and the world. When I was a young atheist I spent quite a bit of time condemning Christianity in all the same ways that you currently argue against it now, but overtime I realized that "Christianity" isn't actually a dragon that can be slain. It's a field of windmills. Some of these windmills do conceal monsters and are worth burning down (as is the case with radical Islam), and the surrounding windmills tend to agree, but not all of them actually contain harmful beasts. Once you run out of actual monsters to chase, all that's left are the benign windmills, what should we do to those? Should we burn them down even though they might actually believe and behave in peace? That would unfortunately make us the monsters.
Every-time I rebuke your position somehow you resist getting into specifics in favor of restating your position along with a new-old angle of approach. Nevertheless, here's that rebuke yet again: if "Islam" is the one and only ingredient that causes violence and terrorism, then all or at least the majority of Muslims would be violent terrorists. Given that this is clearly not the case, what causes variance in the behavior of Muslims? Can you be specific?
Go ahead and trivialize 86 dead and 434 injured.
10,000-25,000 dead
Please trivialize 49 dead and 53 injured, particularly if you are a homophobe.
1,353,000 deaths. Many more injured.
168 killed
680 injured
#Hiroshima
170,000 dead
The hashtags and the accusations that your interlocutors lack empathy fall flat when you give the impression of someone who hates Islam more than he hates violence. Which brings to mind Nigel Farage's recent objection to Trump's response to Assad's chemical attack, which included the line "Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular." Subtext: "But, he's only killing Islamists. Shut up and let him get on with it." How very Christian of you, Nigel.
Edit: (Notice Farage putting himself in moral equivalence with an Islamist who would object to military action against ISIS on the grounds "Whatever ISIS's sins, they are Muslim." But there it is, the Islamists and their counterparts on the other side, the Islamophobes, are selective in their moral outrage because they are more interested in being outraged than being moral.)
Spot on.
The scale of terrorism related deaths are relatively minuscule compared to austerity policies enacted by governments of a certain political leaning in order to bring about privatisation-by-stealth, to give only one example (US gun-related deaths being another). Once you take this into account, you realise that quoting numbers is the very thing that reveals it's not really the numbers people care about. It's who is responsible for them. There's less cognitive dissonance involved for a right-wing mind (there is such a thing) to direct their anger, fear and prejudice towards minorities than towards politicians of the kind they like to vote for.
People were outraged when Lee Rigby was killed, and as tragic as it was, that one single murder was given the weight of an entire chapter in the book of How Muslims Are An Existential Threat To Western Values. Yet when Tory austerity cuts to the NHS result in 30,000 deaths, most people haven't even heard about it.
It's intensely interesting to me to see how people's political persuasions are actually a fairly reliable predictor of where they stand on the 'Muslim Problem', and how much weight they give to it. No one thought our very way of life was under threat when it was the IRA shooting and bombing people for decades. But when ISIS makes a few internet propaganda videos and kills a relatively small number of people, it's 'Islam' that becomes the greatest threat to the west.
I understand that some deaths are more 'visible' than others (100 people being run over by a Muslim in one day is more visible than 30,000 people per year dying due to health care cuts), and that's the point. There is a massive problem with public perception. But 30,000 quiet deaths in hospital due to funding cuts doesn't sell papers (or get clicks) does it? If it bleeds it leads, especially if it's done by one of those people. Because that's the propaganda the readership wants to be sold.
Augustine's Doctrine of Secular Law as a Danger to Faith
In "City of God" (ca. 400AD), Augustine started the process by denying the idea of a mythical golden age, as originally stated by Hesiod (ca. 700BC), because it was contrary to Biblical Eden. The golden age was the basis of theories of rational law (such as Cicero's in 50BC), which use the goal of a new golden age to justify the righteousness of punishment. Then Augustine substituted a personal divine law of salvation in place of the golden goal. Augustine reasoned that no mortal, secular justice could ever be meaningful, by comparison to the far better achievement of all attaining eternal life. That first part much might have been OK by itself, but Augustine then went further to add a second part. He claimed that secular justice is not the virtue it appears to be, but rather results from the first deadly sin, pride, and thus is not safe, and moreover a danger to faith itself. He even went as far to call secular justice a 'weakness, plague, and disease/'.
The resemblance of at least the first half of Augustine's thought to Islamic doctrine might not be a coincidence. The consequences of the second half of this doctrine, in both religions, has been rather similar. In the West, this specific doctrine was a primary force leading to the Dark Ages, and the supremacy of divine law slowly eradicated all secular practices until the reformation. In the Middle East, there was an attempt by some, such as Averroes, to reconstruct secular law, but sectarianism caused the collapse of the Moor civilization and such notions were abandoned, leading to the current situation.
Did Mohammed directly coopt Augustinian Doctrine into Islam?
If one considers the topic without bias, it is not unreasonable to postulate that Mohammed actually picked up the first part of this doctrine from Augustine's doctrine directly, and acknowledging that would go a long way to resolving problems which the second part is still causing. So before discussing the real issue, the possibility of 'direct transmission' is first explored.
With all the Christians killed for public enjoyment in Roman games, one might be sympathetic with Augustine's condemnation of human law. Augustine was certainly well received at the time. He was incredibly popular, and his message indisputably powerful. His ideas spread like wildfire, as new and ever larger armies of evangelists took his message to all corners of the earth, unafraid of suffering or death, due the far greater joy of bringing others to eternal life. This of course included Syria, where St. Paul famously received his conversion.
At the time of Mohammed's birth, Syria had become a prosperous province of the Byzantine empire. Mohammed was taken to Syria as a child, so he first encountered the glowing promises of eternal life there somewhere around the age of 10 (~580AD). By that time Syria had perhaps a quarter million Christians in about a hundred different ecclesiastical systems, so it's really impossible to know what he specifically encountered there, except for one meeting with a heretical Christian hermit who named him the new living God. Details have been recast by generations of both Christians and Muslims in accordance with their own beliefs, so now there are half a dozen legends that describe the specific facts in rather incompatible manners. What we do know is that Mohammed was not a scholar himself, and was never taught Latin or Greek, or even how to read and write. So he would have learned whatever he did about Christianity from derivative sources in sermons and personal accounts by the Christians of the time.
When Mohammed was about 40 years old, he then wrote the 'pulpit rhetoric' equivalent of Augustine's more academically stated conclusions in "City of God," most prominently in a Surah sometimes labeled as 'the citadel,' or 'the fortress.' Most major cities were already walled by then, so the correlation with Augustine's 'City of God' is so obvious, it is rather puzzling why no one else points it out.
In the Middle East, derivative rhetoric persists to this day, and it is on these specific passages in the Qur'an about divine law of salvation superseding secular law that radical Islamic terrorism draws the most, using exactly the same Augustinian concepts which caused the Roman Empire to collapse.
The Christian Precedence for Justifying Terrorism
Whether such a notion was directly inspired by Augustinian thought or not, from the perspective of ideology, it was rather irrefutably Augustinian first. Augustine is a founding father of the Christian church, and this notion was part of his doctrine first, regardless how right or wrong it was then, or is now. It had the same consequences to Rome as it is having in Islam now. No one has ever challenged the power and influence of Augustine's "City of God" in causing the downfall of Rome. No one can challenge that Augustine's opinion of secular law is repeatedly cited in defense of radical Islamic terrorism. Thus I can stand behind the assertion that Radical Islamic Terrorism is caused by Christian doctrine with fair confidence.
You raise a question in my mind: May one hate Islam? May one hate Christianity? May one hate atheism? May one hate capitalism or communism? May one hate... any number of things?
Granted, when one hates something one is likely to simply the object, probably distort the picture of what one hates, and overlook positive aspects which one--in a different context--might be tolerant of, or even like. None of that is good practice of course. None the less, most of us have a list of things we love, hate, and have negative and positive feelings for, in varying degrees.
I don't think I hate Islam, but I don't like it. I don't like very conservative Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants either. I approach mild hate towards these groups.
There are practical reasons to avoid hate. Hate may lead one (or many) into ill-considered actions which they will later regret, for good reason. Picking a hate-fight with the wrong people may lead to one getting a proper beating, or worse.
Hate is incompatible with a pluralistic society. But do I have to desire a pluralistic society? Can one reasonably or legitimately prefer less plurality of ethnicity, religion, politics, and so on? There are times I blanch when I hear "diversity". I often feel like there is just a bit too much diversity, and a little more homogenization wouldn't be a bad thing.
Any guidance here?
What am I, a priest? ;) Of course, we all hate all sorts of things. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. I have no problem with that. We just don't get to take the moral high ground over others if our motivations are based more on the fact that we hate the other team rather than that they've committed a foul. I already said earlier I don't like any form of religion, but seeing as this discussion pits two religions I don't like (but don't hate either) against each other, I feel I can blow my whistle without fear of favour.
Quoting Bitter Crank
One can legitimately prefer anything and be legitimately liked or disliked for it. But laws affect everyone, so if you want to enforce preferences on society that affect those you'd rather not have around, be prepared for a fight.
The concept of Istislah in Islamic law superficially appears to be natural law. However, whereas natural law deems good what is self-evidently good, according as it tends towards the fulfilment of the person, istislah calls good whatever is connected to one of five "basic goods". Al-Ghazali (Iraq and Syria, 1058–1111) abstracted these "basic goods" from the legal precepts in the Qur'an and Sunnah as religion, life, reason, lineage and property (some add also honor). Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (Syria, 1292–1350) also posited that humans can discern between 'great sins' and good deeds without divine guidance. Major sins, such as alcohol and murder, can be understood as wrong by process of reason.
However, in Sunni theology, the Maturidi school remains smaller and less powerful than the Ash'aris school. The Ash'aris state that the unaided human mind is unable to determine if something is good or evil, lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral, without the direct aid of divine revelation.
Thus, although there are some who argue for an ability to understand law, rather than simply submit to it, it still remains a minority in Islam altogether.
Remember too that there are no final solutions in life, only trade-offs. Cutting a program may lead to good thing X but exacerbate or cause bad thing Y. Likewise, not cutting a program may lead to good thing A but exacerbate or cause bad thing B. There is no Deus ex machina to make everything right. Elected officials make decisions by weighing costs and benefits, consulting the available evidence, and taking into consideration the views of the electorate. They don't sit around, like Islamic theocrats do, thinking about how they can murder people. Good grief.
This verse in particular I have seen used to claim that it is considered sharia to obey the law of the land you are in. I'm not sure if and how much reinterpretation might be required to squeeze that meaning out, but once squeezed and accepted has vast and sweeping implications about many other tenants that some Muslims hold has more important (namely a desire for theocracy itself). It can also be possibly useful as a seed of secularism.
The trends and characteristics of religious behavior are undeniably shaped and possibly somewhat constrained by religious doctrine, but the statistical variance that results from specific doctrines is undeniably vast. To me this paints a picture of a religious world which is highly unconcerned with reason and truth (of and from their own doctrines) which means they must get something else out of religion instead (as a whole, not on an individual level). Individually a religious scholar can be (or seem) entirely concerned with the objective truth of their religious texts, but should they come to an enlightened and rational new interpretation they would still need to convince a crowd of their fellow apes to all think the same way and at the same time for their change to come to fruition. It's much easier to sway a crowd using something which appeals to their existing emotional state than to use cold and rigid logic, which is why what emerges in overall religious trends might be just as much or more of an expression of what the people want than it is an expression of the actual religion.
Bringing this back to the point at hand, as extreme conflicts continue to play out in the middle east, it's likely not being lost on it's people that religion is playing a distinct role (religious differences seem to be how battle lines are most commonly drawn). More and more the idea that a human law designed to protect a religiously plural society will then be justifiable not just in the vacuum of enlightenment, but as a direct emotional appeal to those those who want to see an end to suffering. Early in heated religious conflicts firebrand verses appeal to anger and function as a call to arms, but in the bitter end, when all blood-lust is slaked and the bill is due, messages of forgiveness and peace become the main attractors. The peace of Westphalia brought an end to distinctly religious war in Europe because the thirty years war which preceded it caused human suffering and (state) welfare to become more real and more important than simply upholding the tenants of their conflicting doctrines and squabbling religious leaders. The current period in the history of Islam might have an effect not unlike the thirty years war, which should cause not only a heavy change in what pieces of doctrine are most focused on and valued (peace is at a premium), but also perhaps a general step back from orthodox interpretation of verses which condone violence or otherwise obfuscate peace.
There's more pressure on Islamic reformers than ever before and we get to watch it play out in a digitally recorded and interactive environment. I don't know much about the scope and spread of scholarly Islamic schools of thought, but how accessible to the average Muslim are they? The more accessible, the more I reckon they could be selected by Islamic preachers and patrons at large who look for ideology that suits their desires and the desires of their community.
When the world was a much bigger place, we were much less homogeneous. The distances that separated us insulated us from the conflicts that naturally developed from collision between culturally disparate groups. The world is now smaller and homogeneity seems to be at a peek, (which logically is what you get from increased mixing). It's a good thing for sure; without it we fight.
Some people take pause though, and look back on lost culture as if it is some unique and impressive animal that is now extinct. "What a tragedy!", they think...
Then they set about categorizing every possible discrete cultural genesis as some sort of holy nature reserve which must be preserved in perpetuity so that our children can admire it.
Diversity can be interesting, and there's some value to stuffing a dodo bird, but it's of historical or aesthetic interest only. When a living group of people change, they should not lament that change unless they regret what they (we) have become. That might be where many people really disagree...
(1) You use the words 'This is why', as if the sentence logically follows from what went before it. But it doesn't. The only conclusions that follow from what you wrote are 'don't give terrorists planes'. It seems to me that the West's governments have been pretty successful on that front over the last ten years or so.
(2) Athough your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, I think most people would agree with it, assuming that the 'they' you refer to is terrorists and by 'extirpated' you mean 'killed or imprisoned'. The question is, how do you plan to do that? I'm sure the West's security organisations would love to hear your ideas.
(3) Your post appeared to be an attempt to say that we should be more concerned about deaths from terrorism than deaths from other sources. But it gave no plausible reasons. Do you have any reasons? Can you make an even halfway plausible case that radical Muslims are likely to overthrow the governments of Western countries - which is what is implied by the hysterical term 'existential threat'? Remember that government overthrow by hostile powers was what we faced in WW2 and in the Cold War.
Taking away their ability to use planes and the like just postpones having to actually solve the problem, much like taking away the Ring from Sauron. He's still going to be evil and pursue evil ends whether he has the full means at his disposal to achieve those ends or not. If there's blood flowing downstream in a river, your first reaction should not be to pour some decontaminates in the water. You ought to go to the source of the problem.
Quoting andrewk
There are a number of things the West could do. Force or pay the Gulf Arab states to accept refugees, instead of Europe. Shut down mosques that preach hatred and violence. France has recently begun to do this, but this needs to happen across the board. Along with that, cut off foreign funding coming from places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who pay for imams to come and preach in those mosques. Terrorist sympathizers should be tried for treason and booted out of Western countries if found guilty. Finally, you could simply cut off the snake's head by destroying ISIS. No more fake "red lines" and pretending like we're doing something. A relatively small Western force could knock both them and Assad out relatively quickly.
Quoting andrewk
Yes, I did. In fact, I italicized the reason.
Quoting andrewk
I don't think this is likely. What's not unlikely, because it's already happened, is that radical Muslims will murder citizens in Western countries en masse.
just like Saddam Hussein,right?
That said, I agree with many of the points you make. Earlier in this thread I was arguing that western governments are blinkered by a kind of false tolerance when it comes to accomodating Islam, and that there needs to be a discussion about reciprocal rights and recognition.
(It's a shame there wasn't a Koranic injunction against using anything other than swords in combat. Maybe that is something to float.)
A big part of our problem is OIL. We most definitely do not want a collapse of the oil-producing infrastructure in the Middle East--not until the last affordable gallon has been sucked out and shipped to our refineries. Saudi Arabia still has a vital pool of oil under the sand, and we want to make sure it remains available to us. Consequently, the policy choices of those involved were probably blinkered. For instance, Saudi wealth supports the export of the extreme form of Wahhabism, which is a major piece of the radical islamic problem. Were we to plan (or have planned) for the end of oil which isn't in the distant future we could better see how much, or little, we really need the Saudi family.
Syria? Syria has been run by two generations of cannibalistic Assads. Apparently non-Syrians were happier with predictable cannibals than unpredictable non-cannibals. Which seems like a pretty succinct summary of Middle-eastern policy: Let vicious dogs lie, as long as they don't inconvenience us. A million refugees, flooding into Europe -- now that's inconvenience.
I think you hit the nail on the head there )
Personally though I don't think military force can solve the problem. I think it is a problem with education. Most of the recruited terrorists in the Middle East have trouble with reading and writing.
I presume this is from 'the City of God'?
Quoting ernestm
Do you know if Augustine had been translated into Arabic at this time, or if Mohammed read Greek? I think it's unlikely; Augustine died in 430, Mohammed lived from 570-630. I had thought the Greek works hadn't been translated into Arabic until a much later time. I have an open mind, but I think unless it has been established that Mohammed had been influenced by Augustine, it's a pretty big conclusion to jump to. (I would think that this is something that comparative religionists would know about.)
Quoting ernestm
That was also the Christian view - prior to the European Enlightenment, anyway. There is an interesting study called The Fall of Man and the Origin of Science (Peter Harrison), which argues that 'the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, Harrison suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by sin.'
A similar idea of the inherent unreliability of unaided reason was behind the controversial Syllabus of Errors published in 1964, which condemned the propostion that 'Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil (among many others).
Nevertheless, I take your general point about the tension between secular and religious law.
The number of casualties from which have been far, far, fewer than from issues like the one WhiskeyWhiskers pointed out, and many other tragedies that Western governments continue to neglect simply because they don't make as exciting news copy as terrorism does.
If that's the worst that's likely to happen, the issue of dealing with terrorism can get in the queue behind those other issues. Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths?
Quoting Thorongil
You know it's not simple. If it were simple it would have been done.
Yes
I thought I had answered that when I revised that post from the last set of questions. Please let me know how I was unclear.
At the time of Mohammed's birth, Syria had become a prosperous province of the Byzantine empire. Mohammed was taken to Syria as a child, so he first encountered the glowing promises of eternal life there somewhere around the age of 10 (~580AD). By that time Syria had perhaps a quarter million Christians in about a hundred different ecclesiastical systems, so it's really impossible to know what he specifically encountered there, except for one meeting with a heretical Christian hermit who named him the new living God. Details have been recast by generations of both Christians and Muslims in accordance with their own beliefs, so now there are half a dozen legends that describe the specific facts in rather incompatible manners. What we do know is that Mohammed was not a scholar himself, and was never taught Latin or Greek, or even how to read and write. So he would have learned whatever he did about Christianity from derivative sources in sermons and personal accounts by the Christians of the time.
What does that have to do with the claim that Mohammed was influenced by Augustine's City of God?
Smearing 90 odd bodies across the street under a lorry is disgusting, both visually and morally speaking. But it's precisely because of the graphic nature of these crimes that they have more of a cognitive and emotional impact on us - even though the loss of life is far outweighed elsewhere in a more invisible fashion despite causing no less harm and suffering on society. It's easier to direct anger, fear, and scepticism towards a tangible human enemy (especially if they're a minority and you're a conservative, and if the media keeps the enemy constantly in mind) than towards a disease, or some other uninteresting cause of death. There are other plausible reasons behind this "false sense of insecurity" - see next link.
50 people dead from a terrorist attack is 'morally worse' than 50 people dead from a disease. But it doesn't follow, for example, that the US should spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism than strokes ($500,000,000 vs $2000 each). Nor does it follow than it's a bigger threat to us. Nor does it follow that it's worse for society overall in a non-moral sense.
"Although the number of high-fatality attacks has dramatically gone up, annual deaths from terrorism have decreased just as dramatically."
But the idea of a religion being at odds with practices other than the religion is nothing new; the secular law not based in the religion is just an extension of that line of thought. It's not like Judaism did not have a long list of divinely inspired laws that the population was to follow, lest they suffer punishment and misfortune. I am saying that the even if Augustine specifically was attacking the current secular law and its unique basis, the notion of religion trumping other ideological concerns is not unique.
Also, I question how much Christianity had to do with the Roman empire collapsing. I have no reason to believe it was significant, at least not any more significant than all the other problems Rome faced. We face the issue of "correlation versus causation": one could say Christianity weakened Roman culture, or one could say that the collapse and political turmoil of the Roman Empire led people to turn to a religion that promised life in another world. I also have heard issues with the "Dark Ages" moniker, claiming that it is more of a propaganda phrase used to villianize Christian authority at the time. The spread of ideas and philosophy seems to have halted, but this might have been a slowing in travel because of political/economic reasons, not necessarily that nothing of note was going on.
Yes, it's certainly true that religions were at odds with each other, but not with theories of secular law, because it didn't exist until Cicero formulated it. Of course there was atheism at the time, so it was only conflicts between divine law. There were written rules beforehand, such as Rome's twelve tables, but they were not a system of law that applied to all situations (much to Greece's disappointment, which had high hopes before it received a copy of the 12 tables, but on receiving them, they were rather dismissed as ineffective). Cicero was the first to define a system of law, and strangely enough, just after he did, the Roman Republic collapsed immediately. Maybe that was not so much a coincidence of timing, but again its not possible to make absolute statements of causality in the messy real world.
Regarding the empire's collapse, it was not so much whether Constantine was truly Christian or not, but rather that later, it could not maintain authority over predominantly Christian provinces, some time after Augustine was declared one of the church fathers. So as the military empire slowly converted to a Holy Roman Empire, and the nations became sovereign states, with royal authority delegated divinely from the Pope, they had to honor Augustine's doctrine of divine law over secular law, and that is why the doctrine persisted so long.
We forget, or we weren't born yet, that there was more terrorist activity in Europe in the 1970s than in Europe in the present decade. Most of the attacks were sponsored by European political radicals, separatists, leftists, Catholic/Protestant mutual hate groups, et al. Here's a graph from Quartz illustrating this:
You may have forgotten (or didn't know) about the Baader-Meinhof Gang that conducted bombings and assassinations in Germany and elsewhere. There was a string of bombings in the US running from the 60s to, oh say 1995 (which includes the first World Trade Center bombing). These were not firecracker bombs, either. The Army Math Building bombing at the University of Wisconsin was a van bomb in protest to the Vietnam war and the university's perceived involvement. The WTC bombing in 1993 conceivably could have brought one of the buildings down (if all the variables were lined up just right). The Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) sent many letter bombs through the mail, killing 3 and injuring 29 others.
The post-Christmas bombing of LaGuardia Airport in New York in 1975 killed 11 and injured many others. A number of groups were thought to potentially be responsible including FALN, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Jewish Defense League and also a Croatian nationalist named Zvonko Busic, no organization ever claimed credit and the crime remains unsolved.
None of this information makes the current terrorists any better, of course. They are just as counterproductive, despicable, and loathsome as earlier terrorists.
You are so right. Lord Mountbatten handed me my high school diplomas, and in the following month was almost killed by terrorists. The following year they tried again and succeeded. That's the only person I had met who was killed in terrorist attacks, but I am much more sympathetic with the WTC families since, as I similarly went insane with rage at the time, and he wasn't even a relative. It still doesn't justify invading two countries and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but it is more understandable to me as an insane reaction.
I wrote the OP with all forms of religious violence in mind, not just terrorism, but terrorism does seem to be what actually drives emotional opposition to Islam (not lynching and capital punishment under sharia, not the oppression of women, etc..).
Curious...
This means that the most persuasive rebuke of the "Islam is too violent to be tolerated" crowd would be to address and dismantle the idea that terrorism is unique to Islam or that it is statistically significant as a behavioral norm for Muslims.
This makes diffusing unwarranted and extreme opposition to Islam straightforward, but it doesn't do much to help us understand how terrorism can and does arise in the first place. To do so we may need to tediously catalog and discuss the apparent and possible psychological motivations and influences of individual terrorists to explore and understand the various observable terrorist archetypes. And in the words of Dostoyevsky "Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him". It's not a pretty picture.
Off the bat I propose three distinct (Islamic) terrorist archetypes:
The first is the western terrorist ("homegrown", sometimes a convert to Islam, raised in the west). This seems to be the most rare kind of terrorist, and what makes them relevant as a distinct group is that they were for the most part not raised in orthodox Islamic communities and societies as their less rarefied counterparts. It might also be worth noting that the acts of terror carried out by these individuals are among the most visible and emotionally impacting.
As far as I can tell most acts of Islamic terrorism are carried out in Muslim countries by individuals raised in Islamic societies and communities (although the actions of these terrorists do include activity in the west). Middle eastern terrorists of this kind typically carry out suicide bombings, and in contrast with western terrorists who largely act alone, they generally act in accordance with the wishes and support of one of many radical groups they have been inducted into (as others have mentioned, destitution and illiteracy are common in these individuals).
The third archetype I have in mind is a bit harder to define. ISIS terrorists and their leaders are in all appearances terrorism incarnate. They are a group so fundamentally so dedicated to senseless violence that they have become a Mecca for bloodthirsty mercenaries and ideologically driven psychopaths who now exist in a self-perpetuating hierarchy of fear and violence. Not only does it attract people with particular psychologies from abroad, it also sweeps up and and indoctrinates locals in a military style. What distinguishes this group from other terrorists and terrorist organization is it's sheer level of organization (the way it controls it's fighters), and the violent extremity of it's actions, stated goals and religious ideology...
---
By looking at the differences between the average psychological profile between these archetypes, and the prevalence of each, we can get a better sense of where, how and why Islam plays a critical role in motivating people to carry out acts of terrorism... (I'm trying to make shorter text walls, so I'll leave it here for now and try to explore these archetypes in a future post).
The Times of Israel reported that in 2016 "Israel’s INSS think tank charted 469 attacks, carried out by 800 perpetrators in 28 countries, killing 5,650 people (injuring an additional 9,480), and warns that terror groups are redoubling their efforts". Most of the attacks were in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, and Turkey.
That's a lot. It's not surprising, and not altogether illogical, to connect a pressure cooker bomb by a Kyrgyzstani in Boston, or a truck attack by an Uzbek in Stockholm to the larger number of bombings elsewhere, especially if there are some commonalities.
If there were a similar number of attacks, killed, and injured in Europe and the United States and sponsored by reactionary Catholics, I think it would be quite likely that Catholics in general would become suspect, at least to a substantial degree. Further, it would be difficult for progressive Catholics to completely distinguish themselves from reactionaries, because the basic shared faith (sans politics) is the same.
No doubt the kind of classification and study of Islamic Terrorists has been done. Security services around the world have been characterizing terrorism and terrorists. There are patterns which people don't overlook.
That's a lot of war torn regions too - except for Turkey. But that country is quickly deteriorating into a fullblown dictatorship. They all have in common that whatever happens there has exactly zero effect on the perception of Islam-inspired violence as it ends up on page 12, if it's mentioned at all.
Of course it's understandable that people will paint others guilty by association (I'm looking at you Tom, it's a fallacy, look it up) but it doesn't work and backfires.
From the perception of the average North-African and Middle-Easterner the West is a belligerent affiliation of States. Westerners in general became suspect, at least to a substantial degree. Further, it would be difficult for progressive Westerners to completely distinguish themselves from hawks, because thebasic shared values (sans politics) are the same.
My suspicion is that aside from the commonality of a shared religion there must also be various psychological influences exterior to the religion itself that play a role in the creation of terrorist psychology. What strikes me as most different between the typical perpetrators of suicide bombings in the middle east (the majority of which take place in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan) and the Boston marathon terrorists (for example) is that they were not directly affected by the kind of strife that accompanies war and conflict (but were instead exposed to propaganda depicting that strife alongside extremist rhetoric) and also were not directly affiliated with or supported by organized terrorist groups. Their primary emotional driver came from focusing on suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan which translated into blame on the American government and subsequently (and indiscriminately) on American citizens..
Belief in "eternal paradise" definitely serves to make death more palatable for a would be "martyr", but it doesn't exactly make death desirable on it's own. Such a belief was referenced by the Boston marathon terrorists, but they didn't exactly seem to completely desire death and martyrdom. This contrasts highly with suicide bombings carried out in the middle-east by individuals who explicitly include suicide in their plans. It stands to reason that in addition to inciting hatred for one's perceived enemies, living in the conditions of prolonged and bloody conflict (rather than exposure through media) causes individuals to value their own lives less (in addition to lives of others in general), which may also enhance the perceived value of a paradise after-life. Rather than chasing paradise or upholding ideological values, the main psychological driver for almost all terrorist attacks is the perception of retaliation against an enemy/aggressor, which somehow makes a difference toward some political plight; paradise afterward only serves to lessen the cost.
This is also true for some terrorist organizations that draw upon desperation and anger for recruitment which is naturally abundant in war torn regions. For them, their doctrine amounts to a battle plan and promise of victory against their perceived enemies, and they've become somewhat effective at indoctrinating and radicalizing new recruits. It's never just: "Islam says kill the infidel". It's something like: "The infidels are attacking our homes, our children, and our faith, and so in order to protect them you must kill these infidels as our religion instructs us to do". I would say that groups wielding such rhetoric act like a springboard for terrorist action, but they can only thrive in an environment where there are individuals desperate enough to accept their specific narrative and extreme resolve.
The justification a typical terrorist might offer for their actions is largely the product of confusion; they confuse actual aggressors with innocent civilians, and they ironically misunderstand the predictable consequences of their actions (it foments opposition to their cause rather than vice versa). This rational confusion can be exacerbated by religion (it delineates opposing sides) but it is also spurred by rhetoric which identifies specific groups as enemies and calls for violence to be done to them. The moral depravity inherent in a willingness to take innocent lives to achieve political/religious goals can definitely come from religious doctrine (and does in more ways than just promoting terrorism), but actually being immersed in a violent and morally depraved environment seems to be the major source of terrorist actions being viewed as morally equivalent or superior to the actions of perceived enemies.
One take-away from this helps explain the spread of suicide bombings in 2016 shown by the article you linked (below). The vast majority of all suicide bombings take place in countries with the most prolonged and violent internal conflicts, but not necessarily the most ideologically religious/Islamic. Obviously pre-existing conflict and resident terrorist organizations will naturally affect these numbers, but if suicide bombing was primarily ideologically motivated, I would expect to see a more consistent spread across Muslim countries (and their perceived enemies) rather than the vast majority of all attacks occurring in regions with the most pre-existing violence. While the United States did experience terror attacks of other kinds in 2016, compared to it's prevalence elsewhere terrorism in the U.S is almost non-existent despite being the central villain in most Islamist narratives (and having no shortage of resident Muslims capable of being radicalized). I conclude that this is the case because Muslims living in the west are not typically exposed to or immersed in the levels of violence and death which generates the emotion and hatred that is central to motivating terrorism; violent rhetoric capitalizes on existing violence, but violent rhetoric alone is most often not enough.
Your whole post pretty well wraps it up. Excellent presentation.
That might be true of many of the individuals recruited to Jihadist causes, but it also might be the case that terrorist ideologues are motivated by the belief that Western culture truly is a satanic force which is bent on the destruction of Islam. They therefore see themselves as warriors in a holy war, a cosmic war, between the forces of evil, personified by The Great Satan, which is American/Western cultural imperialism and degeneracy, and themselves as righteous warriors of Jihad. I think that is much nearer the way they seem themselves, rather than simply ascribing their actions to confusion and desperation.
You might find this analysis interesting:
Terror in the God Shaped Hole: A Buddhist Perspective on Modernity's Identity Crisis, David Loy (.pdf file)
Also, if you haven't seen a movie called Syriana, with George Clooney as a disillusioned CIA agent sent out for one last operation in the Gulf, it's also a chilling portrayal of the ideological roots of terrorism.
This seems to be directly at odds with Vagabond's graph showing that nearly all terrorist acts occur in deeply religious Muslim countries, where one would have to search long and hard to find somebody with a secular outlook. Further, they are predominantly committed against religious people that belong to competing religions or sects - not against the non-religious. While on the other hand the Muslims in Western countries, that are every day confronted by 'secular modernity', are hardly ever motivated to commit terrorist acts.
It's a detailed argument, and this fact doesn't undermine it.
Besides, the top seven countries in that graph have been subject to civil wars and/or invasions and/or long-standing sectarian conflicts, often between Sunni and Shi'a, which is one of the major exacerbating tensions behind many of the fatalities.
The belief that the west is a satanic lacks impact without basing itself in an emotional appeal to a real world conflict. It's one thing to accept in principle or in an ideological vacuum, but to then inspire direct action on it's own is a tall order.
There was a common saying we would use to explain terrorism: "They hate our freedoms", but in truth that's quite far from the reality of typical terrorist attacks. Terrorists almost always have the perception that their actions are a strategic retaliation for specific actions by specific groups and in specific conflicts. Take almost any Muslim terrorist attack as an example: an "evil west" will be featured in their narrative (this can be a part of what I broadly call confusion (lacking a better word) that leads to indiscriminately attacking civilians) but they will almost invariably cite real world conflicts as the actual justification and "retaliatory logic" behind their attack. "The west is evil" is much more of a political idea than it is a religious one.
My point here is to try and get a sense of what features more heavily in the psychological profile of the average Muslim terrorist, but there are of course cases where different motivations will be more prominent than others. In my approximation overtly religious rhetoric serves to reinforce and enhance existing hatred of the west rather than being it's originator in the vast majority of cases.
In attempt to demonstrate this, consider how many examples of terrorism we have where religion is completely absent from the ideologies of the terrorists, but how few where ideology (of any kind) is the sole motivation (to a reasonable degree, given there are always external influences) of terrorism.
One of the few examples that comes to mind is the Orlando night club shooting which was specifically an attack on the gay community. The attacker did make references to attacks against ISIL on face-book hours before the attack, but his choice of target was explicitly aligned with religious ideology and there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence suggesting that retaliation was not his primary motivation. By many accounts the attacker was himself gay or bi-sexual, and so it is not at all inconceivable that the intolerance for homosexuality in his religion and culture caused not only his hatred of the gay community, but also himself. Rather than suffering abroad serving as his emotional grievance, his own internal conflict seems to be what motivated him toward what he must have viewed as moral and religious absolution.
Were it not for religious and cultural hatred and intolerance of homosexuality, this attack would not have occurred, but that cultural and religious intolerance is ubiquitous across many religions and many cultures. This doesn't diminish the horrible reality of his crimes, or diminish the need to oppose such hatred and intolerance (both religious and cultural), but we should also acknowledge that Islam isn't it's only source in the world.
P.S When speaking of religiously inspired violence in general (as opposed to terrorism), the physical safety of gays is widely under threat, and changing that will be a slow but steady process. As globalization spreads western ideals, regional cultures are progressing (as western culture itself did) toward levels of tolerance where violence against gays doesn't manifest despite hard-coded religious condemnation in the mainstream religion.
All due respect I don't think you're seeing it through their eyes. Because (I guess) you don't have s religious view, you don't see how those who do see it do And as I said much earlier in this thread, in Islam there is no separation of the political and the religious. They would regard that notion as part of Western degeneracy. The real ideologues, the real jihadis, really and seriously do believe they're in a cosmic battle of good vs evil. Sure a lot of the poor benighted individuals they manipulate info committing horrific crimes of violence may just be confused, but the ringleaders are crystal clear. You really ought to take time to read that PDF I put up, especially the section about Sayyid Qutb who was the ideological founder of Al Queada.
I do understand that religious terrorists are most often heavily steeped in religious concepts like paradise/martyrdom and the divine righteousness of holy war, and that this ideology is what comes standard in the handbooks of entrenched terror groups, but unless someone is totally at the mercy of such an organization, some justification/emotional driver external to doctrine seems necessary to actually motivate action.
Quoting Wayfarer
Evil is the easiest thing to condemn, but the hardest thing to understand. It's very easy to call it psychopathy and perversion (and maybe that's accurate) but exploring the causes of that psychopathy is complicated, tedious, and generally repulsive to endure. And yet it's necessary if we want to deepen our understanding of the various causes of this and similar incidents.
In this case, "radical ideology did it" seems to tell less than half the story. His religious and cultural hatred of homosexuals in particular (not hatred of the west as a whole) was central in his crime, and in light of the fact that he was himself gay or bi-sexual, it stands to reason that the resulting self-hate played a substantial role in creating the instability/psychopathy evident in his actions.
Exactly - it's too much religion, not too much secularism, that - together with the poverty, warfare and general desperation - enables the terrorism. A 23 page word salad, by somebody that should know better than to stray from writing knowledgeably about spiritual opportunities and practices to writing superficially and speculatively about geopolitics and criminology, does nothing to change that.
No, it's a good essay, and makes important points. Quoting VagabondSpectre
In the case of the Orlando massacre, that is indeed a task for pathologists. The causes and consequences of religious fanaticism is another matter.
I think the supposition that the Orlando shooter himself was gay or bisexual and frequented gay dating sites was later debunked, IIRC.
I don't think you know what pathologists do.
No one who knows the motivations behind the Orlando shooter's acts could possibly dismiss the religious factor unless they were ideologically motivated to do so. Yes, Omar Mateen was a deranged individual, but his religion is part of what deranged him. He didn't just pick a target at random and attack it: he picked a very specific target (i.e. a nightclub frequented by homosexuals, a frequent target of Islamist violence) and drove hours to attack it. He had previously expressed sympathy for Islamist terrorist organizations, and learned Islamic-driven hatred at the knee of his father.
I am curious: what would be a Buddhist solution to the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar currently being carried out by Buddhists, while that great beacon of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, basically does nothing? Physician, heal thyself!
As far as I know no gay dating app accounts were ever discovered, but there is a boat load of eyewitness testimony suggesting he frequented the night club he attacked. How was all that debunked? Severe homophobia seems the primary motivator of the attack, regardless of whether or not self-hatred was a factor.
In the immediate wake of the shooting, there were reports that Mateen had used gay dating apps such as Grinder (Grindr?). These reports, as you say, came to nought. There were other rumors swirling about him, as well. I thought I may have been missing something, as I've not followed the most recent developments into the Mateen investigation (to the extent that said investigation is still ongoing), so I checked his Wiki page. It looks like there are conflicting reports about him attending that nightclub which he eventually attacked, with some emphatically saying "yea," and others also emphatically saying "nae."
Given the fallibility of human memory, I am inclined to treat reports of people having seen him there skeptically, absent security camera footage or credit cards statements from the club, or something to that effect. I'm not ruling out the possibility that he was a closeted, self-hating homosexual, but I see nothing definitive to that end.
Now, of course, a person's Wiki page is not a comprehensive compendium of a person's life history, so there may yet be other sources of which I'm unaware; I remain open to that possibility. I am also aware that some animus towards homosexuals is rooted in repressed homosexuality, but it doesn't follow that all such hatred is so rooted.
Given the ample testimony that was floating around (including from the shooters wife) I'm less skeptical, but apparently his ex-wife has just pleaded not guilty to charges of aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice, so there's a good chance any hard evidence will emerge in court.
The Orlando terrorist carried out an attack against the gay community specifically, not "the west" per se. The gay community of the west isn't the sworn enemy that ISIS thinks it's fighting against, it's the entirety of the west. Why would he choose to target only the gay community unless hatred toward it was chief among his motivations? In the eyes of the murderers who continue to torture lynch and execute gays abroad, this wouldn't even be considered a "terror attack", it's something they would do to their own family members. Not so long ago in the west we too were culturally barbaric enough to engage in the same actions.
As a aide note "culture" and "religion" (and as they intertwine) should not be thought of as safe from criticism and condemnation in any kind of cultural relativist sense. My position in this thread is not to broadly absolve Islamic doctrine and practice of their moral failings, it is rather to point out that the same moral failures have and still exist in Christian doctrine and practice (along with many other religions), and so our redress of "Islam" (broadly) should be tempered with the understanding that it can and should also apply to Christianity.
Foolish anti-theists think they can actually eliminate a religion, not realizing that as they more broadly attack the religion as a whole the more they generate widespread sympathy for it. You cannot eliminate sympathy by (rational) force, it has to die out on it's own. The willingness to obey and enforce a specific religious tenet is one of the ways in which changing culture can dictate the shape that religion takes (as modern western Christianity has somewhat shown). Unless we're prepared to defenestrate hundreds of thousands of Christian clergy for their doctrines, many people need to come to grips with the idea that barbaric elements within Islamic culture and practice can, will, and must change, much as the Christian west has done. Opposing homophobia and the persecution of gays on progressive moral grounds is one way to influence cultural and religious change rather than stimulating only entrenched opposition by condemning the entirety of Islamic culture and religion as one broad and singular package.
I dunno about this in all cases. I see a lot of (sometimes well deserved) hassling of Christians and Jews which hasn't really brought about any sort of counter-sympathy, only more hate and faulty generalizations.
I think it depends on the nature of the hassling. Some of it is warranted, some of it not.
When a staunch anti-theist like Christopher Hitchens criticizes religion for it's inherent irrationality and it's contributions to suffering in the world, he doesn't also go on to say something like "There ought to be a law against religion". If he did then people would have said he was simply bigoted against religion. Perhaps some of what he said amounted to hate generating faulty generalization, but unlike some of the rhetoric floating around in contemporary internet culture, at least his position isn't also a trajectory toward outright repression of religion.
Yet then there was the Cold War, that was the focus of attention. For example the vast number of hijackings didn't make airline security to increase as now.
Now terrorism is the main focus of security policy in basically every country. All wars are basically fought with countering terrorism being the justification for them. And this is because there isn't such a Cold War as when there was a Soviet Union in the 1970's and 1980's. People were afraid of WW3 back then, and for a logical reason. A possible nuclear change, which actually came close a couple of times, would be many times more dangerous than all acts of terrorism combined.
The focus actually started to change in the 1990's. Then the West started to change it's direction to counter "new threats", in which terrorism was one of the leading threats that deserved attention and basically gave a justification for the Cold War security apparatus to exist. This happened before 2001, but naturally 9/11 gave the real push and hence now we have put countering terrorism on the pedestal.
The article made it clear to me that this statistic is itself likely to be baseless fear-mongering that "manipulates our emotions and sells papers/gets clicks." So you ought to take a look at why you're taken in by a story like that but sneer at stories about terrorism.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No, because those statistics are probably bullshit. Again, the article, if you chose to read it, helpfully presents both sides and the "government murders 30k" narrative was pretty well deflated as hyperbolic nonsense.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Wow, an unnecessary and rank smear against conservatives.
"So many tragedies?" Like what? I'm sure they exist, but let's think here. These "Western countries" are the freest, safest, most prosperous at present and in the history of the planet. Compared to some imaginary utopia we could think of, naturally, they fall short and are far from perfect. That being said, I have already explained why terrorism merits more attention in solving, so I don't know what else to say to you.
Quoting andrewk
I gave you the reason.
Quoting andrewk
But solving "road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths," is simple, right? Just go tell your elected representative, "hey, could you stop murdering 30k people a year, kthxbye," and I'm sure he'll think, "gee, he may have a point, let's not murder 30k people, fellow representatives!" And voila, problem solved.
In the case of ISIS, they are a pathetic force of about 5000 guys who came to power because the West chose not to leave any peacekeeping forces in Iraq, which historically have always been necessary to help countries transition from dictatorships to functioning democracies. One bomb, the MOAB, just recently destroyed 2% of their total forces. It would be a cakewalk taking them out. We don't, not because it would be difficult, but because the West is interested in realpoliticking.
Quoting Thorongil
Err, the statistics are most certainly not "baseless fear-mongering". Unless you think the Office of National Statistics are into that sort of thing (they are "the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and its recognised national statistical institute" and the government cites them regularly on their own website). No one except you is disputing the numbers. You might want to dispute the causes of those numbers, but I apologise for siding with the opinion of researchers, who do this stuff for a living, over yourself and the Conservative government who has a vested interest in denying any responsibility for the numbers (they've literally blamed every other group except themselves for the NHS crisis, so this most recent denial is very predictable and very telling). As the article says, "they examined other possible explanations for the deaths, including data inaccuracies, whether there had been a major epidemic or “environmental shocks” such as wars or natural disasters." If, after your evidently thorough analysis of their methodology and expertise in their field, you have some additional insight into why this research is bullshit, the authors, the peer-reviewers, the media, the government, the general public, and myself would like to hear it.
All that aside, the validity of this particular research is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I don't need that study to be correct to point out that there are more dangerous things in society than terrorism that we don't equally proportion our attitudes to, or direct our attention or public funding in massive disproportion towards. Quibbling over the study is all beside the point. (Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my narrative as "government murders 30k". It shows not only that you don't understand my argument (or are at best taking the least charitable interpretation of it, so thanks), but also that you don't know how quotation marks work.)
With regards to the Douglas Murray video: he says that terrorism-death statistics are misleading because they conveniently start counting, for example, the day after 9/11. At no point did I cite statistics that conveniently began 24 hours after 9/11. Here's a chart showing the number of deaths in western Europe and the US going all the way back to 1970 (Source). There are many interesting points in this graph, not least the presence of the Oklahoma city bombing. Let's have the article spell my argument out for you in case you still aren't getting it:
"Even in 2001, the likelihood of an American in the United States being killed in a terrorist attack was less than one in 100,000; in the decade up to 2013 that fell to one in 56m. The chance of being the victim in 2013 of an ordinary homicide in the United States was one in 20,000. Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m." (This except is from this version of the article, which is more concise than the other and subtitled "Putting the recent horrors in perspective". The same excerpt has been slightly reworded in the longer one)
As for Murray's other point; "If there were a movement deliberately making dangerous toasters, or deliberately mis-wiring lawn mowers to make sure they kill their owners, I'd want to know about it. And so would you. And that's what we're dealing with; movements that actively want to do this so of course there's a disproportionate emphasis on that, because that's what matters."
These points aren't an argument against anything I've said, it's just a restatement of your position, which I've argued against since as lacking objectivity. If anything, my argument is a direct counter to both yours and DM's claims, and I could similarly accuse DM of letting the fear of terrorism get the better of him.
Looking at the numbers, I'm actually beginning to understand even less why we should be more concerned about terrorist intentions and the resulting deaths over non-terrorist related deaths. Can you explain what makes intentions matter more than the actual relative ineffectiveness of terrorism when compared with other, more dangerous causes of death that we aren't even comparably concerned about in our day to day lives? Somehow, you think intentions make up the several-dozen thousand-fold difference and then some. How? What is it about it being deliberate that matters so much? Surely all deaths of normal citizens are equally bad.
In 2001, when compared to 2013, you were more than 5 times more likely to die from homicide than a terrorist attack (I couldn't find the regular homicide rate for 2001). So another question is, why is the latter a bigger problem than the former, even though homicides are just as intentional as terrorist murders?
I'd also like to hear which side of the gun ownership/2nd amendment debate you fall on, just in case you're secretly a massive hypocrite across these two issues.
Here's some more evidence in case you wish to trot out Douglas Murray again to make your case for you: "Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015." (Source).
A choice quote: "Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year."
Quoting Thorongil
If you took that as a smear, that says more about how you view conservatives than about how I do. I don't derive any moral judgement from that. It's a fairly well known fact that conservative minds have a more in-group/out-group mentality (this is why nationalism and tribalism occur more on the right, and the lefts 'openness to experience' renders them less sceptical of out-group individuals). That, coupled with a high degree of risk-aversion (due to a desire for stability, which can often be at the expense of those at the bottom if tradition is threatened) and a perceived high-risk threat coming from predominantly foreign, or at least minority, enemy (terrorists), results in a degree of unwarranted hysteria if you don't look at, or choose to ignore, the numbers. The medias role in whipping up hysteria shouldn't need to be spelled out.
There is literally article after article after article (I've come across even more while researching for this post) of cool-headed risk-analysis that implores people to regain some perspective when thinking about the risk of terrorism to them and their families. But you choose to overlook all that just because terrorists have bad intentions?
As The Onion reported recently, the death rate in America remains at the all-time high of 100%. All 320 million of us are going to die, and 1/3 of the deaths will be from strokes. So, at $2000 per stroke, we will be spending $200 billion. Feel better about the stroke budget? It's probably higher for cancer (1/3 of the deaths, roughly) and heart disease (another third down the drain).
Feel better?
Yes, a rational budget of alarm and financial expenditure would direct more money toward cancer, auto safety, strokes, heart disease, suicide prevention, firearm control, healthy behaviors, and so on. But you may be vaguely aware that humans make many important decisions on the basis of raw emotion rather than rational deliberation.
Raw emotion was drained out of traffic accidents a long time ago. (MY auto accident was horrible; yours was just background noise.) As one ages, more and more people one knows drop dead from cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Maybe it's sad (but then again, not all that sad) but it isn't shocking. It happens too often. And we have to die of something.
Terrorism is tuned to an unavoidably noticeable pitch. It happens rarely enough that it doesn't become background noise.
In and of themselves? No, I was talking about the scare-mongering narrative you tried peddling. But I think you knew that are now being pedantic.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I already did. If you don't nip terrorism in the bud, then you are taking a massive risk, for if terrorists do acquire the means to better achieve their ends, they will not hesitate to make use of them.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
No, if I die in a mudslide, do we hold the mud morally responsible? Of course not. Deliberately murdering someone is worse than mere fatal, unintended accidents for the reason that it is immoral, unlike the latter.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
The difference between homicide and terrorism is that in the former case, more often than not the perpetrator only intends to kill a single person who is already known to him or her: a drug deal goes bad and one side murders the other, a husband finds out his wife has cheated on him and kills her in a rage, etc. Islamic terrorists, on he other hand, are hellbent on creating a worldwide theocratic state and will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way. The drug dealer and spurned lover don't know or care about you, but the terrorist does. You are their target. The difference could not be more stark.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
What do you mean by "side?" I wish to uphold the US Constitution, which includes the second amendment.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
You mean "numbers," I already said I'm not going to play the numbers game.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Oh don't kid yourself. It was an outright smear and you know it.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
The extremes on both left and right can display nationalism and tribalism. Currently, the left's identity politics is far more tribal than traditional conservatism. Conservatives care mostly about values, not the people who hold them. Naturally, when they defend things like "Western values," "British values" and so on this gets construed as being racial, but it's not. The alt-right is tribal, but they're not the sole voice on the right and are in fact taking a page out of the leftist identitarian's playbook.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
What exactly do you take to be my position? I sense you have been operating under a straw man. I am not saying that some ISIS fighter poses the same statistical risk as innumerable other ways in which one could die. But I am saying he poses more of an existential and civilizational risk than a great many other things. You may not care about preserving civilization, but I do.
If we spent on those problems a quarter of the money and removal of personal freedom involved in the 'war against terror' we would reduce the annual death toll by a large multiple of the annual death toll in Western countries from terrorist acts.
eg road deaths - lower speed limits, mandate collision avoidance systems in all cars, introduce vulnerable road user laws like in Europe, require driver re-licensing at least triennially, make activities like mobile phone use while driving result in immediate loss of licence.
But no, we couldn't do that could we, because being allowed to drive your own car however you want is the American dream.
Quoting ThorongilMy recollection is that you made some statement purported to be a reason, it was challenged and shown to be no reason at all, and you didn't even attempt rebut that challenge. It was too many pages ago to find, but if you want to do that and try to recycle it, go for it.
PS Some stats about road deaths, from here.
The US has 34,064 road deaths per annum (What's the US annual death toll from terrorism again?)
There are various measures of the rate, taking into account the population size. In all of them the US rate is far more than in other Western countries. How many of those 34,064 deaths could be saved by even a minor tightening of US laws, which are much more lax than in other Western countries?
The most favourable measure to the US is deaths per billion km travelled. But comparing that to two other Western countries that have large distances to travel - Canada and Australia - we see the rate is US 7.1 Canada 6.2 Australia 5.2. Australia has far tougher road laws than the US, although weaker than in Europe. If the US changed its laws to get its death rate down to that of Australia, it would save 9,115 lives per year. That's more than four and a half 9/11s.
Excepting the avoidance systems, which I would let the private sector handle, none of these require much money, and they sound like good ideas to me. Thus, we don't have to stop fighting terrorists.
Quoting andrewk
If this is supposed to insinuate that I'm opposed to new car technology, then I can tell you I'm not. I don't give much of a crap about cars. The ripping up of all the inner city trolley systems was a horrible mistake, in my opinion.
Quoting andrewk
Read what I've said. It's not hard.
Read the rebuttals from myself and WhiskeyWhiskers. That's not hard either.
Quoting andrewk
For the millionth time, the major difference between fatalities due to terrorism and those due to accidents is the motive involved, or lack thereof. No one is for road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths. There may be disagreements over how to handle these problems, but there isn't any grand conspiracy by the government to deliberately cause these deaths. Terrorists, on the other hand, are in favor of murder. They explicitly desire your death as well as your culture and civilization's ruin. That's the difference.
I agree that the US, in particular, has massively over-reacted to the actual threat of terrorism, and furthermore that the US attitude towards guns, and the NRA, pose a far higher risk of actual violent death, than does Islamic terrorism, to individuals on US soil.
But none of that means that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to peace and safety everywhere it appears.
Hallelujah, someone gets it.
Quoting Wayfarer
I completely disagree with the gun comments but your last point is well said.
If you want to argue that more money and loss of freedom should be committed to anti-terrorist activities than at present, you need to demonstrate the public policy benefit of that, and why it would reduce harm more than spending the same amount on other more pressing issues like road deaths, public health or gun control.
How absurd. No, andrew, I'm not in favor of wasting money or the curtailment of freedom.
By "not doing enough" I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.
Yeah, and I imagine most gun owners don't defend said state either.
What would you like to be sufficient conditions for the US to intervene militarily in another country, and what form would you like that intervention to take? How does this apply to countries like North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and Congo?
I've focused on both. The topic is Islamic terrorism, which has drifted to foreign policy.
Quoting andrewk
I mentioned that Western governments should shut down mosques that breed terrorists, try those suspected of plotting terrorist activities for treason, and force the Gulf Arab states to take more refugees. I forget the page number, but that is what I said. What, if anything, do you find disagreeable about these suggestions? Notice I said nothing about curtailing freedom.
Quoting andrewk
The sufficient conditions are already in place, whether I like them or not, but I would simply like the US to honor its stated commitments and obligations. That's all. The form of the intervention is determined by whatever is necessary to honor said commitments.
Quoting andrewk
How does what apply? Both US and international law apply to them too, wherever relevant. You'd have to be more specific about each individual case for me to comment any further.
And to you also ;-)
That's reverting to action to prevent domestic terrorism incidents, which I have indicated - without rebuttal - is an insignificant issue in public policy terms.
Let's concentrate the discussion on action against activities of terrorists in places where terrorism is a significant problem, like Syria. Western governments cannot close down the mosques there. What action would you like taken, and what is the threshold criterion that must be met for such action, so that we can work out what other countries it should be applied to?
Without clear criteria, such a policy has no defence against the accusation that it is simply anti-Muslim. You mentioned genocide earlier. You could pick a particular definition of genocide and use that as the centre of a criterion. I am interested to see what that criterion will be, and whether it also mandates US military intervention in those non-Islamic trouble spots I mentioned.
What on earth. No it's not.
Quoting andrewk
Now see, either you exist in an echo chamber or you haven't read what I've said. This question has basically already been answered twice:
-
Quoting andrewk
So I'll take this as your wanting me to expand on the answers I've already given. You should have simply asked that.
The UN has declared that ISIS has committed genocide against the Yazidis. The US is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which obligates signatories to protect and to punish in the event of its occurrence. It does not require military intervention, but this is often the only available means of carrying out this obligation. In Syria, the only way we could have protected the Yazidis and the only way we can now punish those responsible for the genocide perpetrated against them is military intervention against ISIS. Moreover, the EU, the UK, the US, and Canada have officially recognized the murder of Christians by ISIS in the region as genocide. It also stands to reason that for it to end, the perpetrators must be punished, which again would involve military intervention.
That's a perfectly good debate topic, with credible cases to be made on both sides and, even better, there is no need to mention Islam, as the issue is responses to genocide, not Islam.
If that is your main concern, I think a productive and interesting discussion could be had about it, with lower stress levels than this one seems to have. It would suit a new thread, as this one appears to be about Islam. I'd be an interested reader of, and probable participant in, such a thread.
The question is: why should we throw away more money to fund "security theatrics" in the west when the actual safety it provides is increasingly marginal and there are far more cost effective ways to save lives which are currently underfunded? Why is stopping terrorism related death more important than stopping obesity related death? (hint: emotion)
Closing down mosques and banning Qur'ans in the west is a steep price to pay to try and end terrorism, and aside from being a terrible strategy to begin with (obvious reasons), it may come back to bite other religions in the future (obvious reasons). I know politicians would love to convince you that TSA agents groping your children and the NSA spending tax money to invade your privacy using every possible covert means available has something to do with protecting your freedom; or that spending money on the military is required to stop terrorists from blowing you up, but in truth it amounts to less than the boost in actual safety you would get from purchasing an emergency medical kit or attending a driving safety class.
If we're talking about military action abroad in order to intervene in genocides, this is entirely a separate issue from terrorism at home. Fighting ISIS directly is definitely a cost effective way to preserve Yazidi life, and I personally support it, but dismantling ISIS without causing extreme and mass civilian casualty would seem to necessitate many boots on the ground. Funneling money and guns into the region seems not to be working very well so far, for a host of reasons (infighting between rebels, desertion, the sale of weapons to ISIS, weapons being captured by ISIS, and some groups being assimilated into ISIS). So far total US commitment against ISIS hasn't happened because American foreign policy seems to value regime change in Syria much more than bringing and end to ISIS. Likewise, Russia seems more interested in keeping the Al-Assad dynasty in power than defeating ISIS.
It would really be swell if America policed the world based on the morality that the UN tries (and fails) to enforce... Alack, alas... Saudi Arabia is free to behead "sorcerers" on a regular basis, Israel keeps getting the nod to demolish foreign homes to construct it's own, and ISIS benefits from the division within Iraq and Syria caused by the greed of external nations.
This is merely one long, hamfisted straw man, assuming you had me in mind when you wrote it.
Rest assured you would have received a direct reply. This was an open post formulated in response to reading an article that Wayfarer posted which described a debate between Geert Wilders and someone else, along with reading andrewk's remarks concerning the cost in money and freedom entailed in fighting terrorism.
But now that we're here, what makes terrorism such a massively significant political issue? Is it the death and harm it causes or the widespread outrage that results?
Since the Revolution, 1,354,664 Americans have been killed in one major or measly war or another. War dead tend to get counted. How did they arrive at the figure that more than 1,354,664 Americans had been killed by gun violence since the nations founding?
If the annual death count was as high every year as it was in 2015, sure -- one could calculate out that in x years there would be over a million. But... the annual human harvest by gun fire hasn't always been as high as it is now. The population is larger now than it has been previously (of course). Who was keeping track of gun deaths across the country in 1907, for instance? 1853? 1799? Well, nobody was keeping track until relatively recently.
Alright, good to know.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
With all due respect, I think I've more than addressed this in my recent posts.
In a previous post (neglected) I pointed out that important decisions are often made irrationally, or I'll add now, "apparently irrationally". The body count doesn't rationally merit the level of reaction we have seen. But note, without vigorous reaction and vigilance, we could have seen a lot more terrorist attacks than occurred. (That's not provable, of course.) People are irrational about certain kinds of accidents. They are cavalier about auto accidents and deathly afraid of their passenger plane crashing -- even though the former is vastly more likely than the latter.
Whites are afraid of getting shot by black men, even though white folks are not the usual victims of black killers. Blacks are angered at white police shootings of black men, when a far larger number of black men are killed by other black men.
People are more afraid of foreign terrorists than they are of domestic terrorists. The Oklahoma City court house bombing by Timothy McVeigh was, by any standard, very bad. Yet, there was less angst about that bombing than much smaller attacks by Islam-believing terrorists. Indeed, the US ATF task force that started the fire at the Branch Dravidian compound in Waco, Texas (that's way-co, not whacko) to which McVeigh was responding, supposedly, was pretty bad too.
On and on. People don't respond rationally to these sorts of events. What is really crazy, though, is that legislators who are elected and paid to make decisions that are more rational, and less irrational, than your average citizen's reaction, frequently fail to make sensible, rational policy.
Once again, as far as I can tell, the US is obligated to do this whether I want it to or not. But yes, I do want the US to do as you say. If we sign on to do something, but then don't do it, why sign on? A treaty, law, declaration, etc is utterly meaningless unless it's enforced.
Quoting andrewk
You're free to create it, though I can't promise I'll have the time to sustainably keep up with it. I'm not one to create threads, given the responsibility I feel in addressing everyone who responds to me. I'm very busy at the moment and so tend to post in short bursts, like this evening.
Here is the definitive article.
I do find the US attitude towards this issue hypocritical and also irrational. Going on averages of around 298 persons shot every day in the USA, if you allow 90 days since Trumps' failed immigration ban, that would amount to more than 2,500 persons shot. The number of people killed on US soil by recognised terrorist acts is a miniscule fraction of that number. Yet no politician dare stand up to the NRA and gun ownership, as it's regarded as a civil rights issue. It is one of the symptoms of the decline of American culture IMO.
Quoting Thorongil
I have a harder time seeing and believing that radical Islam and Islamic terrorism poses even a remote existential threat to western civilization than I do accepting that the statistical threat to my life terrorism poses is actually a rational cause for worry.
I've caricatured that general thrust earlier in this thread... How will terrorism bring down the west? How will radical Islam bring down the west? How will ISIS make landfall in the US?
The contrived answers to these questions I've seen from all sources are comedic to me.
I too don't believe they will succeed, but unlike you, I do believe it's their stated aim and intention. If the jihadists could destroy America and/or Western civilization completely, they would have no hesitation in so doing.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Did you find 9/11 amusing?
In a world where outrage is a political commodity, terrorism is a cash cow.
Terrorism can bring down the West not by military action but by making the West betray its values in the name of the so-called 'war against terror'. The fall will not be military but moral, and is well underway.
To that end, the most powerful ally the terrorists have is the current American president and his ilk. Those that pile in behind, howling for discrimination against domestic Muslims are - without realising it - providing the best collaboration service that Daesh could wish for.
Fortunately, some Western leaders are prepared to take a tough stand against the jihadi fifth-columnists like Trump. Foremost amongst these are Merkel and Trudeau.
Not at all, but the fact that Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) had the towers fully insured puts a damper on the idea that severe or lasting infrastructural damage was inflicted. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in American history and was morally repugnant along with even the least deadly terror attack, but clearly the emotional scar it left has been it's most prolific legacy, not the strategic damage it did to American infrastructure.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't intend to bring down the west or destroy America. Their stated and speculated motivations include: religious revenge for supporting Israel (stated), religious revenge for sanctions and hostility against Iraq (stated), religious revenge for U.S support of Saudi Arabia (stated), religious motivation to humiliate the west (speculated), non-religious motivation to humiliate the west in response to feeling humiliated by globalization (speculated), an attempt to provoke America into a war which would incite a Islamic unification and revolution (speculated); but destroying the west isn't among them.
9/11 wasn't terrorism bringing down the west, it was terrorism galvanizing it in opposition. It wasn't a part of radical Islam's long term plot of global domination, and it wasn't a militant Islamist group actually making landfall. I'm not saying we should have no airport security or not do background checks on immigrants and tourists, I'm just saying that we don't need to spend every spare dollar and bend-over backwards trying to feel safe from terrorism, and that radical Islam does not actually pose an existential threat to the west.
What would you say to Muslims who demand that the West bans internet pornography and gay marriage? Do you think that acquisence to those terms would be a fair bargain in return for their abandoning terrorism? Or do think that Islam ought to change its concept of 'holy law' in respect of such issues?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So...the fact that the buildings were insured means what?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If it doesn't, it's only because it doesn't have the means, but it does certainly have the intent.
It means that in the grand scheme of things the infrastructural damage caused by 9/11 amounted to less financial cost than what a single insurance company could cover with money they had sitting around. Severe and lasting infrastructural damage was not inflicted. It was at best strategically null if destroying the west was their intent... When insurance companies can no longer cover the financial cost of the infrastructural damage caused by terrorism, then significant long term damage to the west might begin to accumulate.
Quoting Wayfarer
As far as I can tell the primary motivation of Islamic terrorism in the west is a kind of delusional revenge brought on and enhanced by political and religious extremes. Yes the intention to create a global caliphate and destroy western society is out there, but it is a bogeyman isolated in the middle-east and in the minds of a few radicals abroad who continue to remind us of why we abhor them.
The means of radical Islam to destroy the west are far out of it's reach. Beyond somehow gaining an arsenal of nuclear bombs, I can't even begin to imagine what they would need to do in order to accomplish their end goals.
The increasing social and political complexity of the modern world seems to generally pit reason against emotion. As the world becomes more complex, rationally deciphering current events becomes more and more difficult, making emotional narratives much easier to embrace by comparison.
Why put in unending rational leg work when we can settle for simple and emotionally appealing?
Any Muslim advocates for or performs terrorists attacks against Western societies until we ban pornography and gay marriage.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You guys are ridiculous. Read the sentence again. He asked you a simple question about Muslims who demand that the West ban pornography and gay marriage. There are Muslims who are in favor of such things. He's talking about them. In no way did he say or imply that he was talking about all Muslims.
It won't, if we defeat it.
Andrew also said that it can undermine Western values, and I agree with him, though from a slightly different angle, I imagine.
Does America have a gun problem? Yes, absolutely. A severe problem. I am only disagreeing on the details 1,617,000 deaths? Probably not, but even 500,000 would be too many.
Definitive? Punditfact?
Let's say there 33,000 gun deaths a year. We could say that since 1968 there have been 1,617,000 deaths. Reasonable assumption? Sure, if you assume that the same number of people were shot dead every year -- which isn't the case.
In 1950, the rate of gun deaths was 5 per 100,000. Ah, 15,000 deaths in 1950. No, 7,600 because the population was 152 million in1950, not 320 million. In 1950 and 1960, the rate of gun deaths was 5.1 and 5.0 per 100,000. In 1970, 1980, and 1990 it was 8.8, 10.4, and 9.4 per 100k, respectively, and the population was increasing each decade. In 2014 the rate per 100k was the same as in 1950, with twice as large a population.
Here is a chart from the Bureau of Justice showing the trends in homicide:
Not every death is a homicide. In fact, 2/3s of the gun shot deaths were suicides by middle-aged white males.
Further, homicides are not distributed evenly across the population. Young, black, males living in specific sections of specific cities in specific states account for a very disproportionate number of the homicide deaths. (Not that its OK that the largest number of homicide victims is young, black, and male. It's just that most demographic groups are not similarly violent. That the largest number of suicides is among middle aged white males is likewise very significant, even if most people have far lower rates of suicide.)
Plenty of stuff undermines western values. Being free to undermine values happens to be itself a western value...
We don't all of us oppose terrorism because terrorists undermine our values. We oppose it because we abhor violence and death. So when you say "if we defeat it" are you referring to terrorism or any ideology which undermines western values?
I suggest you read more carefully. I did not say it did. But the post implies that any Muslim that is opposed to pornography and gay marriage supports terrorism.
When a Christian or atheist is opposed to gay marriage, the worst that is said about them is that they're a bigot. But according to said post, if they're a Muslim and are opposed to gay marriage they must be a terrorism supporter. The Pope - wrongly, in my opinion - is opposed to gay marriage. I have not heard anybody imply he supports terrorism.
The whole thing can be fixed by putting the word 'terrorist' after the word 'Muslim' in the first sentence. The absence of that extra word is damning.
It was a rhetorical question, not a policy proposal. It is along the lines: the West requires and expects that Muslims consider revising the aspects of their scripture that support holy war and killing of infidels so as to better conform to the requirements of a pluralistic, global culture - that they abandon the concept of 'religiously-sanctioned violence'.
It's a perfectly reasonable demand. But I can easily envisage a counter-question - certainly, we will consider revising our views on such matters, but what do we get in return? Are we expected to observe social conventions that are explicitly in contradiction of our scriptures? Are we expected to believe that the prohibition on fornication is simply a matter of cultural convention?
Going on current social trends, it seems automatically assumed that in cases where it's gender identity and sexual politics, vs religious conscience, the former tends to win.
I referenced this before, it was dismissed as 'rubbish', but I think Douthat is asking a perfectly valid question. The reason I posed it in that rhetorical manner is to highlight the contradictions in the 'liberal' view of the matter.
That is not what you said. You did not mention scripture. You asked whether gay-marriage-opposing Muslims would abandon their support for terrorism if the West abandoned support for gay marriage.
Will you stop beating your wife if I agree with your view that Christianity is just lovely?
Personally, I do not think it would be reasonable. Firstly, I don't think it would work. I don't think those issues have much at all to do with the motivations of terrorists.
Secondly, if we agree to remove some of our freedoms for the sake of one group of people that threaten violence, it won't be long before the next group lines up to back their demands with actual or threatened violence.
It's like paying ransoms to kidnappers. However tempting it may be to do it, it's really bad policy to do so.
I'm no fan of the internet porn industry. I suspect a significant proportion of what it produces is exploitative and harmful. But if we close down that freedom of expression, what's next? I think advertising alcohol, gambling and junk food does far more harm than porn, and we're not banning that.
I'm not saying we should have no censorship, but I think we need to set a high bar for it. From my viewpoint, items that cleared the bar (ie qualified for censorship) would be gratuitously violent or undeniably exploitative.
Of course it wouldn't work, and would never seriously be entertained. I only said it by way of highlighting the issue. It's all very well to say 'live and let live', yet even the purportedly 'value-free' nature of the secular state, actually does endorse an implicit value system - even if, as Vagabond Spectre noted, that value is 'abolition of values'. And that brings us to Ross Douthat's point about those who are willing to welcome Islam with open arms, but who won't contemplate the possibility that their values ought to be respected. Why? Because all values, or even the absence of values, are a matter of individual opinion. It sounds like 'live and let live' from inside liberalism, but it sounds like 'moral relativism' to any traditional believer.
I don't know what that fellow is on about, if what he says matches your paraphrase. I don't know anybody welcoming Islam with open arms, any more than they are welcoming Hinduism or capitalism with open arms when we admit refugees that have those characteristics. It is people, not beliefs, towards which we feel compassion.
Nor do I find the comment about moral relativism relevant. Only a Normative Moral Relativist would say that we should respect all moral beliefs, no matter how different from our own, and no matter how repugnant to us. The Normative Moral Relativist is a mythical creature that, in my experience, lives only in the fevered minds of those that believe that Divine Command Ethics is the only possible sort of Ethics.
The only moral relativists that exist in anything other than tiny fringe minorities maybe in some obscure corners of some campuses, and that are meaningful enough to distinguish, are Meta-Ethical Moral Relativists. We Meta-Ethical Moral Relativists are as ready as anybody else to decry repugnant practices of people of different cultures. But it is the practices, not the superficial labels, that one decries.
I suspect your opinion-piece writer doesn't know the difference between the two.
I'll pass it on.
Could you expand on this?
Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?
The Islamic Dilemma
The basic issue in both these essays, written from different perspectives, is that many values which secular liberals take for granted as self-evident truths, are actually embedded in a value system. This value-system often pretends to be 'value free', as it is supposedly 'scientifically enlightened'. But it does rest on normative judgements, many of which we take to be self-evident, but which might be questioned from the perspective of other cultural norms.
So well written. Thanks.
In my humble opinion, violence can't be surgically removed from religion. This isn't the fault of religon because if one considers other categories such as politics, civilization, culture, geography, etc., we still find violence. I think violence is better associated with being human rather than one particular aspect of what it is to be one (in this case religion, Islam in particular). So, violence as a distinguishing feature of religion is a poor metric for the reasons I mentioned above.
That said, there's an important characteristic of religious violence which is very important to take note of. Whether Christian, Moslem, etc. religious violence is always used as a means to the true end which is peace. I don't know how far people will assent to this view but people always say my religion (whichever) is a religion of peace. It makes sense because, for example, had the crusades been successful worldwide we'd all be Christian and there would be peace, even if in a narrow sense. Does this fact about religious violence allay the percieved evil?