This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"A Palestinian poet and leading member of Saudi Arabia’s nascent contemporary art scene has been sentenced to death for renouncing Islam."
For anyone who thinks that "extremist" versions of Islam are confined to a fringe minority, this sort of thing shows it is not true. There is strong extremist streak running through mainstream Islam across the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-...
For anyone who thinks that "extremist" versions of Islam are confined to a fringe minority, this sort of thing shows it is not true. There is strong extremist streak running through mainstream Islam across the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-...
17
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I've always thought that underneath all the spin, Islam is basically a form of religious and political subjugation combined with crowd control.
> "A Palestinian poet and leading member of Saudi Arabia’s nascent contemporary art scene has been sentenced to death for renouncing Islam."
> For anyone who thinks that "extremist" versions of Islam are confined to a fringe minority, this sort of thing shows it is not true. There is strong extremist streak running through mainstream Islam across the world.
I've always thought that underneath all the spin, Islam is basically a form of religious and political subjugation combined with crowd control.
14
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm not sure there's a name for the emotion I feel on reading that. It's somewhere between, rage, sadness and impotence.
I'm not sure there's a name for the emotion I feel on reading that. It's somewhere between, rage, sadness and impotence.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo. Is it simply selective reporting or is there little real desire to dissacociate ordinary Muslims from extremists? I think if I were Muslim I would be livid to the point of wanting to world to take notice.
What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo. Is it simply selective reporting or is there little real desire to dissacociate ordinary Muslims from extremists? I think if I were Muslim I would be livid to the point of wanting to world to take notice.
13
In reply to john arran:
Might that not get them killed?
> What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo. Is it simply selective reporting or is there little real desire to dissacociate ordinary Muslims from extremists? I think if I were Muslim I would be livid to the point of wanting to world to take notice.
Might that not get them killed?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I would have thought Saudi Arabia would be difficult to describe as mainstream Islam given that it's official religion is the salafist version of it, the exact version that is commonly adhered to by extremists such as daesh. It is growing thanks to SA's promotion of it around the world (something which our governments should really address in my opinion) but it's definitely not what I would call mainstream as out of an estimated 1.6 billion muslims worldwide there are an estimated 50 million salafists, quite a large (and worrying) amount but still a fringe minority on the whole.
I would have thought Saudi Arabia would be difficult to describe as mainstream Islam given that it's official religion is the salafist version of it, the exact version that is commonly adhered to by extremists such as daesh. It is growing thanks to SA's promotion of it around the world (something which our governments should really address in my opinion) but it's definitely not what I would call mainstream as out of an estimated 1.6 billion muslims worldwide there are an estimated 50 million salafists, quite a large (and worrying) amount but still a fringe minority on the whole.
14
1
In reply to john arran:
Agree. But listen to Mona Siddiqui's Thought for the Day on yesterday's Today, R4 .
it all reminds me of Hitler's Willing Executioners.
Agree. But listen to Mona Siddiqui's Thought for the Day on yesterday's Today, R4 .
it all reminds me of Hitler's Willing Executioners.
1
In reply to Goucho:
That's certainly what it was designed as.
> I've always thought that underneath all the spin, Islam is basically a form of religious and political subjugation combined with crowd control.
That's certainly what it was designed as.
4
In reply to ajsteele:
Like wot he said, but our government ain't going to call them for what they are (extremist minority); they've got way too much money to be a threat?
Like wot he said, but our government ain't going to call them for what they are (extremist minority); they've got way too much money to be a threat?
2
3
1
In reply to john arran:
Can you not just take people's word for it that they don't support mass murder? Does it not come across as just a bit bigoted to refuse to assume that people aren't bloodthirsty lunatics not merely until say that they aren't, but until they actively troop around the streets with placards to "prove" it?
> What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo.
Can you not just take people's word for it that they don't support mass murder? Does it not come across as just a bit bigoted to refuse to assume that people aren't bloodthirsty lunatics not merely until say that they aren't, but until they actively troop around the streets with placards to "prove" it?
7
8
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
3% most of whom are perfectly sane, nice people quietly getting on with their lives, raising kids, going to work and looking after their old folk.
jk
> 50 million is a fringe minority. Righty ho... lol
3% most of whom are perfectly sane, nice people quietly getting on with their lives, raising kids, going to work and looking after their old folk.
jk
Post edited at 16:28
2
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Fair point, but if my entire religion was being widely maligned despite my personal assertions I'd think a stronger message may be worth pursuing.
Fair point, but if my entire religion was being widely maligned despite my personal assertions I'd think a stronger message may be worth pursuing.
8
In reply to john arran:
To be honest, I suspect that if my entire religion (or lack of one) was being widely maligned despite my personal assertions then my response would be more along the lines of "screw you, then" than "oh, sorry, how much further do I have to bend over backwards to satisfy you."
> Fair point, but if my entire religion was being widely maligned despite my personal assertions I'd think a stronger message may be worth pursuing.
To be honest, I suspect that if my entire religion (or lack of one) was being widely maligned despite my personal assertions then my response would be more along the lines of "screw you, then" than "oh, sorry, how much further do I have to bend over backwards to satisfy you."
6
3
In reply to Andy Morley:
Surely ALL religions were "designed" for this.
> That's certainly what it was designed as.
Surely ALL religions were "designed" for this.
8
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
50million from a possible 1,600 million; are you suggesting that that's anywhere near a majority?
50million from a possible 1,600 million; are you suggesting that that's anywhere near a majority?
4
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
So the whole 50 millions all think the same do they?
Don't people get sick of paint whole nations / countries / groups with the same brush based on the actions of a few nutters?
> 50 million is a fringe minority. Righty ho... lol
So the whole 50 millions all think the same do they?
Don't people get sick of paint whole nations / countries / groups with the same brush based on the actions of a few nutters?
2
1
In reply to jkarran:
I don't doubt that for a second.....but hang on (various cut and pastes from wiki)
"The movement is often divided into three categories: the largest group are the purists (or quietists), who avoid politics; the second largest group are the activists, who get involved in politics; the smallest group are the jihadists, who form a tiny (yet infamous) minority."
"Salafi Jihadism" was a term coined by Gilles Kepel[70][71] to describe those self-claiming Salafi groups who began developing an interest in (armed) jihad during the mid-1990s. Practitioners are often referred to as "Salafi jihadis" or "Salafi jihadists". Journalist Bruce Livesey estimates Salafi jihadists constitute less than 0.5 percent of the world's 1.9 billion Muslims (i.e., less than 10 million).
"Statistics
Worldwide there are roughly 50 million Salafists,[122] including roughly 20 to 30 million Salafis in India,[123] 5 to 6 million Salafis in Egypt,[105] 27.5 million Salafis in Bangladesh[124] and 1.6 million Salafis in Sudan.[125] Salafi communities are smaller elsewhere, including roughly 10,000 in Tunisia, 17,000 in Morocco, 7,000 in Jordan, 17,000 in France and 5,000 in Germany.[126]
It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.[
Germany
Salafism is a growing movement in Germany and estimates by German security police show that it grew from 3800 members in 2011 to 7500 members in 2015.[116] In Germany, most of the recruitment to the movement is done on the Internet and also on the streets,[116] a propaganda drive which mostly attracts youth.[116] There are two ideological camps, one advocates political salafism and directs its recruitment efforts towards non-Muslims and non-salafist Muslims to gain influence in society.[116] The other and minority movement, the jihadist salafism, advocates gaining influence by the use of violence and nearly all identified terrorist cells in Germany came from salafist circles.[116]
So thankfully, we have a minority of a fringe minority. Not a problem because all the others are perfectly sane, nice people quietly getting on with their lives, raising kids, going to work and looking after their old folk...
I don't doubt that for a second.....but hang on (various cut and pastes from wiki)
"The movement is often divided into three categories: the largest group are the purists (or quietists), who avoid politics; the second largest group are the activists, who get involved in politics; the smallest group are the jihadists, who form a tiny (yet infamous) minority."
"Salafi Jihadism" was a term coined by Gilles Kepel[70][71] to describe those self-claiming Salafi groups who began developing an interest in (armed) jihad during the mid-1990s. Practitioners are often referred to as "Salafi jihadis" or "Salafi jihadists". Journalist Bruce Livesey estimates Salafi jihadists constitute less than 0.5 percent of the world's 1.9 billion Muslims (i.e., less than 10 million).
"Statistics
Worldwide there are roughly 50 million Salafists,[122] including roughly 20 to 30 million Salafis in India,[123] 5 to 6 million Salafis in Egypt,[105] 27.5 million Salafis in Bangladesh[124] and 1.6 million Salafis in Sudan.[125] Salafi communities are smaller elsewhere, including roughly 10,000 in Tunisia, 17,000 in Morocco, 7,000 in Jordan, 17,000 in France and 5,000 in Germany.[126]
It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.[
Germany
Salafism is a growing movement in Germany and estimates by German security police show that it grew from 3800 members in 2011 to 7500 members in 2015.[116] In Germany, most of the recruitment to the movement is done on the Internet and also on the streets,[116] a propaganda drive which mostly attracts youth.[116] There are two ideological camps, one advocates political salafism and directs its recruitment efforts towards non-Muslims and non-salafist Muslims to gain influence in society.[116] The other and minority movement, the jihadist salafism, advocates gaining influence by the use of violence and nearly all identified terrorist cells in Germany came from salafist circles.[116]
So thankfully, we have a minority of a fringe minority. Not a problem because all the others are perfectly sane, nice people quietly getting on with their lives, raising kids, going to work and looking after their old folk...
2
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
The problem for Muslims who aren't blood-thirsty lunatics and who wouldn't dream of killing poets, is that they will always struggle to discredit those that are those things without undermining their own beliefs. You can 'notinmyname' all you like, you can claim 'this is nothing to do with Islam' or 'these aren't real Muslims', 'Islam doesn't allow this' etc etc, but the trouble is that there is a scriptural justification for everything the Saudi's (and ISIS) do, from the Quran and Hadith. For example, ISIS didn't make up the idea to throw gays off buildings, or crush them under walls, out of their own perverted sadism. There's a scriptural basis for it all. And if you genuinely believe in life after death and that you can get there quicker by martyring yourself, taking some infidels with you, there's a logic to that behaviour too. Again, such beliefs can be justified through scripture. It doesn't matter if you can point to the occasional verse saying something a bit softer or more 'live and let live', if the hateful killy bits are there too. The book is meant to be perfect, authored by the creator of the universe. If it's possible to misinterpret it so badly he really needs better PR. Time to hire a celestial Comms Officer.
The problem for Muslims who aren't blood-thirsty lunatics and who wouldn't dream of killing poets, is that they will always struggle to discredit those that are those things without undermining their own beliefs. You can 'notinmyname' all you like, you can claim 'this is nothing to do with Islam' or 'these aren't real Muslims', 'Islam doesn't allow this' etc etc, but the trouble is that there is a scriptural justification for everything the Saudi's (and ISIS) do, from the Quran and Hadith. For example, ISIS didn't make up the idea to throw gays off buildings, or crush them under walls, out of their own perverted sadism. There's a scriptural basis for it all. And if you genuinely believe in life after death and that you can get there quicker by martyring yourself, taking some infidels with you, there's a logic to that behaviour too. Again, such beliefs can be justified through scripture. It doesn't matter if you can point to the occasional verse saying something a bit softer or more 'live and let live', if the hateful killy bits are there too. The book is meant to be perfect, authored by the creator of the universe. If it's possible to misinterpret it so badly he really needs better PR. Time to hire a celestial Comms Officer.
18
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Good post. So how can we turn the tide and wean people from whichever book they follow?
Good post. So how can we turn the tide and wean people from whichever book they follow?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Very sad, but par for the course in this part of the world. Rule of law is applied very selectively. Very dangerous to upset the wrong people.
Very sad, but par for the course in this part of the world. Rule of law is applied very selectively. Very dangerous to upset the wrong people.
1
In reply to mbh:
I would say 'the internet'. Never in the history of mankind has (almost) everyone had access to all the information there is in the way that exists because of the internet. We really are without excuse when it comes to finding out about reality and leaving superstitions behind.
However my wife had to (correctly) point out to me that the internet is also the worlds biggest echo chamber, and is the perfect 'confirmation bias' delivery system. I think and have to hope that education and access to information about reality, through the internet, will win out in the long run. Actually, in the pretty short run, considering the pace of change and the effect the internet has already had on the world. It certainly was instrumental in me leaving behind my Christian faith about 15 years ago.
I would say 'the internet'. Never in the history of mankind has (almost) everyone had access to all the information there is in the way that exists because of the internet. We really are without excuse when it comes to finding out about reality and leaving superstitions behind.
However my wife had to (correctly) point out to me that the internet is also the worlds biggest echo chamber, and is the perfect 'confirmation bias' delivery system. I think and have to hope that education and access to information about reality, through the internet, will win out in the long run. Actually, in the pretty short run, considering the pace of change and the effect the internet has already had on the world. It certainly was instrumental in me leaving behind my Christian faith about 15 years ago.
8
In reply to krikoman:
Absolutely, the discussions on here can be so generalised at times it's unreal.
> So the whole 50 millions all think the same do they?
> Don't people get sick of paint whole nations / countries / groups with the same brush based on the actions of a few nutters?
Absolutely, the discussions on here can be so generalised at times it's unreal.
1
6
6
15
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-soc...
See the last two plots on the right (these figures are only for muslims that said sharia law should be implemented as the official law, so you have to multiply by the % from the plot higher up, but the numbers remain large for a significant number of countries).
It is not just a few nut cases.
See the last two plots on the right (these figures are only for muslims that said sharia law should be implemented as the official law, so you have to multiply by the % from the plot higher up, but the numbers remain large for a significant number of countries).
It is not just a few nut cases.
4
In reply to MG:
I don't know how you'd say which is 'more unreal'?
Perhaps if it's from growing up having an engineer and a teacher as parents, with them both having a thing about being specific when talking about anything , but whenever anybody posts about 'Islam', I find myself wondering which of the approx half a dozen kinds they're talking about.
I just wish people would say which country and specific 'strand' of Islam they're talking about, sometimes, or else it can start to seem a bit vague.
Edit: If it bothers me that much I should probably try and research and contribute rather than be critical.
I don't know how you'd say which is 'more unreal'?
Perhaps if it's from growing up having an engineer and a teacher as parents, with them both having a thing about being specific when talking about anything , but whenever anybody posts about 'Islam', I find myself wondering which of the approx half a dozen kinds they're talking about.
I just wish people would say which country and specific 'strand' of Islam they're talking about, sometimes, or else it can start to seem a bit vague.
Edit: If it bothers me that much I should probably try and research and contribute rather than be critical.
Post edited at 18:10
5
In reply to Timmd:
Look at the post above yours and the links. It's not necessary to be very specific, and asking people to be is just trying to deflect criticism and evasive. The objectionable views resulting from Islam are widespread and popular.
Look at the post above yours and the links. It's not necessary to be very specific, and asking people to be is just trying to deflect criticism and evasive. The objectionable views resulting from Islam are widespread and popular.
7
4
In reply to krikoman:
The point was purely that 50 million is a big number, regardless of the mathmatical percentage. How that morphed into whole nations being terrorists only exists in yours and JKs mind i'm afraid.
The point was purely that 50 million is a big number, regardless of the mathmatical percentage. How that morphed into whole nations being terrorists only exists in yours and JKs mind i'm afraid.
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
No, some religions were much more deliberately designed as a tool of state control along the lines laid out by Plato in books such as The Republic. Other religions got there more by accident.
The works of the Ancient Greeks were temporarily lost to Western Europe in the Dark Ages but they were preserved in North Africa and the Middle East, and it seems that Platonic ideas played a considerable part in the design of Islam which was the creation of a decade or two of work by Mohammad and his disciples as the foundation of his military empire.
The writings of the Ancient Greeks were brought back to Europe by the Crusaders and works such as the Republic and others were a big influence in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli in his highly influential book on statecraft 'The Prince'. "Machiavellian" has since become a synonym for 'artificial, complex and highly devious' but other, earlier architects of state manipulation got there first...
> Surely ALL religions were "designed" for this.
No, some religions were much more deliberately designed as a tool of state control along the lines laid out by Plato in books such as The Republic. Other religions got there more by accident.
The works of the Ancient Greeks were temporarily lost to Western Europe in the Dark Ages but they were preserved in North Africa and the Middle East, and it seems that Platonic ideas played a considerable part in the design of Islam which was the creation of a decade or two of work by Mohammad and his disciples as the foundation of his military empire.
The writings of the Ancient Greeks were brought back to Europe by the Crusaders and works such as the Republic and others were a big influence in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli in his highly influential book on statecraft 'The Prince'. "Machiavellian" has since become a synonym for 'artificial, complex and highly devious' but other, earlier architects of state manipulation got there first...
4
In reply to EdH:
Nice one. I was actually going to link to that myself. Those who think that (what appear to us as) radical views are only held by tiny minorities are not paying attention.
Nice one. I was actually going to link to that myself. Those who think that (what appear to us as) radical views are only held by tiny minorities are not paying attention.
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct
procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.
. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct
procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.
3
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
When it suits us we get all critical, and tar everyone with the same brush.
Fixed?
> There is strong extremist streak running through certain parts of the world, particularly Saudi Arabia, where everyone knows women haven't been allowed to drive and no one is allowed to follow any other religion but we mostly ignore it because of oil and greed.
When it suits us we get all critical, and tar everyone with the same brush.
Fixed?
In reply to marsbar:
Which all sounds very nice but it doesn't make much difference to real Muslims 'on the ground'. If those are your standards for judging who is and who isn't a 'true' Muslim you're going to have to cross a lot of people off the list.
Some Muslims like a drink. Are they allowed to call themselves Muslims or do they have to run it past you first? Or can we take people who self identify as Muslims at their word?
Oh, and remind me, which are the real Muslims again? Is it the Shia, the Sunnis or any of the other sects? I forgot which ones were the real ones...
Which all sounds very nice but it doesn't make much difference to real Muslims 'on the ground'. If those are your standards for judging who is and who isn't a 'true' Muslim you're going to have to cross a lot of people off the list.
Some Muslims like a drink. Are they allowed to call themselves Muslims or do they have to run it past you first? Or can we take people who self identify as Muslims at their word?
Oh, and remind me, which are the real Muslims again? Is it the Shia, the Sunnis or any of the other sects? I forgot which ones were the real ones...
9
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
Personally I'm not religious, but I tend to think it's important to treat people nicely and not blow each other up, stuff like that. I am pretty sure there are lots of Muslims in Bosnia and Turkey enjoying a nice cold beer right now. Who cares? It's right up there with wondering why I had to eat fish on Friday as a kid at infant school, in the league of trivial details.
Point is people keep saying why aren't the nice Muslims proving this that and the other. I posted a link showing that they are, and alcohol isn't really the issue right now.
Personally I'm not religious, but I tend to think it's important to treat people nicely and not blow each other up, stuff like that. I am pretty sure there are lots of Muslims in Bosnia and Turkey enjoying a nice cold beer right now. Who cares? It's right up there with wondering why I had to eat fish on Friday as a kid at infant school, in the league of trivial details.
Point is people keep saying why aren't the nice Muslims proving this that and the other. I posted a link showing that they are, and alcohol isn't really the issue right now.
1
1
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
It's not my list BTW, its from some scholars, who are saying there isn't justification in the book as a whole and cherry picking bits isn't cricket.
It's not my list BTW, its from some scholars, who are saying there isn't justification in the book as a whole and cherry picking bits isn't cricket.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
There are 1.09 Christians in the world.
The southern baptists are calling for the deaths of gays, soldiers, divorcees, etc. etc.
There are 16 million Southern Baptists.
Why aren't Christians speaking out?
> 50 million is a fringe minority. Righty ho... lol
There are 1.09 Christians in the world.
The southern baptists are calling for the deaths of gays, soldiers, divorcees, etc. etc.
There are 16 million Southern Baptists.
Why aren't Christians speaking out?
2
3
In reply to David Martin:
Tim Chappell, and someone else who's only 9% Christian? I knew Christianity was in decline but...
> There are 1.09 Christians in the world.
Tim Chappell, and someone else who's only 9% Christian? I knew Christianity was in decline but...
9
In reply to crossdressingrodney:
Sunday schoolers count as 0.1 of a Christian.
1.09 billion I meant to say.
Sunday schoolers count as 0.1 of a Christian.
1.09 billion I meant to say.
In reply to marsbar:
The trouble is, anyone can pronounce on what is allowed and what is forbidden in Islam -- just as you have done.
And who is to say that ISIS's version is any less or more "Islam" than your version?
> 2. It is forbidden in Islam to [do all sorts of things]
The trouble is, anyone can pronounce on what is allowed and what is forbidden in Islam -- just as you have done.
And who is to say that ISIS's version is any less or more "Islam" than your version?
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Misleading title.
Also worth pointing out that the OP is trying to compare someone breaking the laws of the harshest country in the world to that of a religion of over 1.5 billion people and somehow thinks they are the same thing. This is a Saudi problem, not an Islamic one. It's important not to confuse this.
Misleading title.
Also worth pointing out that the OP is trying to compare someone breaking the laws of the harshest country in the world to that of a religion of over 1.5 billion people and somehow thinks they are the same thing. This is a Saudi problem, not an Islamic one. It's important not to confuse this.
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I didn't pronounce any of it. It's all explained in the link.
Oh, and my version consists mainly of avoiding low cut tops and gin and tonic in the presence of the mother in law.
I didn't pronounce any of it. It's all explained in the link.
Oh, and my version consists mainly of avoiding low cut tops and gin and tonic in the presence of the mother in law.
Post edited at 22:52
4
1
In reply to marsbar:
Sure, but I think in practice cherry picking is essential for pretty much every religious person of whatever stripe, as taken in totality their books are both batshit crazy and big books of multiple choice. What academics and experts in Islamic jurisprudence say in lengthy lists of 'thou shalt not interpret this or that way' is not necessarily relevant or of interest to muslims who engage in or are sympathetic towards such barbaric behaviours. We tend to think (in good faith and in hope) that the reasonable and non-violent ones are right , but when it comes to stuff that's just made up anyway, who's to say?
Sure, but I think in practice cherry picking is essential for pretty much every religious person of whatever stripe, as taken in totality their books are both batshit crazy and big books of multiple choice. What academics and experts in Islamic jurisprudence say in lengthy lists of 'thou shalt not interpret this or that way' is not necessarily relevant or of interest to muslims who engage in or are sympathetic towards such barbaric behaviours. We tend to think (in good faith and in hope) that the reasonable and non-violent ones are right , but when it comes to stuff that's just made up anyway, who's to say?
2
In reply to ChrisBrooke:
I think it's more about distancing themselves from the crazy people, than trying to change them.
I think it's more about distancing themselves from the crazy people, than trying to change them.
1
In reply to marsbar:
P.s. I agree with you that it's daft and unnecessary to expect all other muslims to march or protest against what's happened. However, what we do see is largely a denial of the problem that lies at the heart of it, that as discussed above, it is possible to interpret their texts to support barbarism. The denials that their actions are anything to do with Islam is obfuscatory, clearly false and in 2015 when everyone can research this stuff themselves, dangerously misleading. Until ordinary muslims can say 'well maybe there are some problems with the texts' and start a reformation process to address problems within the religion there will be no progress. The trouble is, they're forbidden from doing so and only a brave few do so from within the faith, leaving most criticism to come from outside, and open to charges of Islamophobia/racism etc from regressive leftists. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent book deals with this in detail, as does the recently published exchange between Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz.
P.s. I agree with you that it's daft and unnecessary to expect all other muslims to march or protest against what's happened. However, what we do see is largely a denial of the problem that lies at the heart of it, that as discussed above, it is possible to interpret their texts to support barbarism. The denials that their actions are anything to do with Islam is obfuscatory, clearly false and in 2015 when everyone can research this stuff themselves, dangerously misleading. Until ordinary muslims can say 'well maybe there are some problems with the texts' and start a reformation process to address problems within the religion there will be no progress. The trouble is, they're forbidden from doing so and only a brave few do so from within the faith, leaving most criticism to come from outside, and open to charges of Islamophobia/racism etc from regressive leftists. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent book deals with this in detail, as does the recently published exchange between Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz.
3
In reply to john arran:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/muslim-man-in-northampton-asked-...
> What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo. Is it simply selective reporting or is there little real desire to dissacociate ordinary Muslims from extremists? I think if I were Muslim I would be livid to the point of wanting to world to take notice.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/muslim-man-in-northampton-asked-...
2
1
In reply to john arran:
It's almost as if most Muslims just want to live their lives and worship their god in peace.
> What disturbs me is how little we hear of mainstream Muslims condemning the attrocities committed in the name of Islam. I hear the occasional issued statement but never a march or demo. Is it simply selective reporting or is there little real desire to dissacociate ordinary Muslims from extremists? I think if I were Muslim I would be livid to the point of wanting to world to take notice.
It's almost as if most Muslims just want to live their lives and worship their god in peace.
1
1
In reply to Removed User:
They are not the same thing -- but they are part of the same thing. It really is amazing the lengths people will go to to deny the negative aspects of Islam.
> Also worth pointing out that the OP is trying to compare someone breaking the laws of the harshest country in the world to that of a religion of over 1.5 billion people and somehow thinks they are the same thing.
They are not the same thing -- but they are part of the same thing. It really is amazing the lengths people will go to to deny the negative aspects of Islam.
3
In reply to marsbar:
Sure. It's the opinion of whoever wrote it. And other Muslims can have other opinions on what is allowed or forbidden in Islam. Picking out one person's opinion and saying, look, that is the "true" Islam, is not sensible.
> I didn't pronounce any of it. It's all explained in the link.
Sure. It's the opinion of whoever wrote it. And other Muslims can have other opinions on what is allowed or forbidden in Islam. Picking out one person's opinion and saying, look, that is the "true" Islam, is not sensible.
2
In reply to Removed User:
Apart from Saudi Arabia has been busy exporting its variant far and wide.
> This is a Saudi problem, not an Islamic one. It's important not to confuse this.
Apart from Saudi Arabia has been busy exporting its variant far and wide.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Did you bother to read the link? "Whoever wrote it is" is over a hundred of the senior people.
And actually, in the current climate, picking out a very modern, moderate version and saying this is the true Islam, the one where people don't kill people, where we don't treat women badly, etc and winning a propaganda war with that, getting that message out everywhere with the internet, is more than a little bit sensible. It's our best hope.
It might not fit your athiest agenda, but we need to look at the big big picture here.
If people believe, which they do, then saying your God doesn't exist just leads to more extremism. Saying, OK you believe, use your brain, what would a good person be required to do, what do you think your God wants of you, how can you make the world a better place is much more likely to lead to a good outcome.
If every kid who is vulnerable hears that message I linked to above to refute the message from the crazy people, maybe less of them would get radicalised.
I teach in a (secular) school with a lot of Muslim girls and right now they are pretty damn angry at Daesh/ISIS. I hear a whole lot of "my parents came here to keep me safe and get me a good education, why are those people blowing up Muslims in Syria? Why did those girls go to be jihadi brides, are they stupid?" This is good surely.
I have a teeny little lass in my class 12 years old and an absolute delight tell me, Miss, this man on the bus called me a terrorist. I told her he is an idiot.
What else can I say?
Did you bother to read the link? "Whoever wrote it is" is over a hundred of the senior people.
And actually, in the current climate, picking out a very modern, moderate version and saying this is the true Islam, the one where people don't kill people, where we don't treat women badly, etc and winning a propaganda war with that, getting that message out everywhere with the internet, is more than a little bit sensible. It's our best hope.
It might not fit your athiest agenda, but we need to look at the big big picture here.
If people believe, which they do, then saying your God doesn't exist just leads to more extremism. Saying, OK you believe, use your brain, what would a good person be required to do, what do you think your God wants of you, how can you make the world a better place is much more likely to lead to a good outcome.
If every kid who is vulnerable hears that message I linked to above to refute the message from the crazy people, maybe less of them would get radicalised.
I teach in a (secular) school with a lot of Muslim girls and right now they are pretty damn angry at Daesh/ISIS. I hear a whole lot of "my parents came here to keep me safe and get me a good education, why are those people blowing up Muslims in Syria? Why did those girls go to be jihadi brides, are they stupid?" This is good surely.
I have a teeny little lass in my class 12 years old and an absolute delight tell me, Miss, this man on the bus called me a terrorist. I told her he is an idiot.
What else can I say?
2
3
In reply to David Martin:
Are those southern baptists putting their ideas into action in a worldwide terror campaign? Are they blowing up trains in London and Madrid, carrying out large scale attacks in Paris? If they were I'd expect Christians in the UK and Europe to speak out. This isn't to say moderate Muslims aren't, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
On Question Time Medhi Hassan was trying to say the Paris attacks were nothing to do with Islam, and because two of the attackers had worked in a bar why weren't we looking closely at bar staff. Not a particularly good analogy, as I suspect if Wetherspoons staff had been involved in a similar campaign across the world and were yelling 'Timmy Tayloru Akbar!' before self detonating, the various Pubcos and Breweries would be taking a good hard look at themselves and reforming the industry.
> There are 1.09 Christians in the world.
> The southern baptists are calling for the deaths of gays, soldiers, divorcees, etc. etc.
> There are 16 million Southern Baptists.
> Why aren't Christians speaking out?
Are those southern baptists putting their ideas into action in a worldwide terror campaign? Are they blowing up trains in London and Madrid, carrying out large scale attacks in Paris? If they were I'd expect Christians in the UK and Europe to speak out. This isn't to say moderate Muslims aren't, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
On Question Time Medhi Hassan was trying to say the Paris attacks were nothing to do with Islam, and because two of the attackers had worked in a bar why weren't we looking closely at bar staff. Not a particularly good analogy, as I suspect if Wetherspoons staff had been involved in a similar campaign across the world and were yelling 'Timmy Tayloru Akbar!' before self detonating, the various Pubcos and Breweries would be taking a good hard look at themselves and reforming the industry.
5
In reply to Removed User:
Well that's really my point. Ordinary Muslims are getting a rough deal from parts of society by association so not as easily able to live their lives in peace, but voices we hear to dissociate from those responsible appear quite minimal. Of course those lumping all Muslims in the same boat are really to blame but we're not hearing clear ways to easily distinguish.
> It's almost as if most Muslims just want to live their lives and worship their god in peace.
Well that's really my point. Ordinary Muslims are getting a rough deal from parts of society by association so not as easily able to live their lives in peace, but voices we hear to dissociate from those responsible appear quite minimal. Of course those lumping all Muslims in the same boat are really to blame but we're not hearing clear ways to easily distinguish.
1
In reply to Ridge:
They don't have to speak out just because they read the same book as the other assholes. The muslim community is in fact more of a victim of ISIS than the rest of the population, in that not only they suffer equally from the terrorist attacks directly because, believe it or not, Muslims and their families also take the tube, go to concerts, and fly airplanes, but they also suffer the backlash at the hands of their fellow citizens from the rampaging bigotry fueled by this events.
So, no. we shouldn't demand or even expect those suffering more than us to be the ones having to go the extra mile. If anything it is us who should be helping out those who are getting kicked the most from every direction.
They don't have to speak out just because they read the same book as the other assholes. The muslim community is in fact more of a victim of ISIS than the rest of the population, in that not only they suffer equally from the terrorist attacks directly because, believe it or not, Muslims and their families also take the tube, go to concerts, and fly airplanes, but they also suffer the backlash at the hands of their fellow citizens from the rampaging bigotry fueled by this events.
So, no. we shouldn't demand or even expect those suffering more than us to be the ones having to go the extra mile. If anything it is us who should be helping out those who are getting kicked the most from every direction.
Post edited at 11:32
1
1
In reply to john arran:
They are speaking out.
http://www.isisnotinmyname.com
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/british-muslims-are-literally-paying-...
http://www.mcb.org.uk/horrific-attacks-in-paris-muslim-council-of-britain-r...
My Facebook is full of posts of Muslims speaking out.
Do you know any Muslims?
They are speaking out.
http://www.isisnotinmyname.com
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/british-muslims-are-literally-paying-...
http://www.mcb.org.uk/horrific-attacks-in-paris-muslim-council-of-britain-r...
My Facebook is full of posts of Muslims speaking out.
Do you know any Muslims?
1
1
In reply to john arran:
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/1...
https://mobile.twitter.com/WeAgainstISIS
http://abc7.com/society/muslims-speak-out-against-isis-following-paris-terr...
http://abc7chicago.com/news/local-muslim-leaders-speak-out-against-radicali...
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/1...
https://mobile.twitter.com/WeAgainstISIS
http://abc7.com/society/muslims-speak-out-against-isis-following-paris-terr...
http://abc7chicago.com/news/local-muslim-leaders-speak-out-against-radicali...
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Murder and terrorism is just one of the many aspects of mainstream Islam that causes concern to the west, but our attitude so often seems to be that all the rest is OK, so long as you stop at the line in the sand, murder.
Its a belief system that has so many facets that offend Western host populations, but only one aspect we are allowed to openly condemn.
Murder and terrorism is just one of the many aspects of mainstream Islam that causes concern to the west, but our attitude so often seems to be that all the rest is OK, so long as you stop at the line in the sand, murder.
Its a belief system that has so many facets that offend Western host populations, but only one aspect we are allowed to openly condemn.
4
1
In reply to cragtaff:
Murder and terrorism is not part of mainstream Islam. That would be the fundamental nut jobs.
Murder and terrorism is not part of mainstream Islam. That would be the fundamental nut jobs.
2
3
In reply to marsbar:
Of course not.
But, coming back to the OP - it seems that being broadly supportive of the idea that it's ok to imprison and/or execute people for the 'crimes' of apostasy and blasphemy is.
> Murder and terrorism is not part of mainstream Islam.
Of course not.
But, coming back to the OP - it seems that being broadly supportive of the idea that it's ok to imprison and/or execute people for the 'crimes' of apostasy and blasphemy is.
5
In reply to deepsoup:
You also hear of people being burned alive as witches in some regions of Africa. Christian regions of Africa. There's no outcry from major Christian groups when this happens (and happens on a slow news day so it's reported to the western world).
You also hear of people being burned alive as witches in some regions of Africa. Christian regions of Africa. There's no outcry from major Christian groups when this happens (and happens on a slow news day so it's reported to the western world).
1
2
In reply to deepsoup:
Only in Saudi. Which as I have mentioned is one, ridiculously extreme country that the UK suck up to.
Other countries have various laws. We only abolished ours in 2008. In Ireland you can be fined € 25000.
Only in Saudi. Which as I have mentioned is one, ridiculously extreme country that the UK suck up to.
Other countries have various laws. We only abolished ours in 2008. In Ireland you can be fined € 25000.
2
3
In reply to john arran:
They have, amongst other things, taken out full page adverts in national news papers.
They have, amongst other things, taken out full page adverts in national news papers.
2
In reply to Removed User:
You don't have to look so far. Killings and torturing based on Christian belief is happening in this very shores http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34475424
You don't have to look so far. Killings and torturing based on Christian belief is happening in this very shores http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34475424
Post edited at 13:27
2
2
In reply to marsbar:
Hardly. Though that is the most obvious example of a nation state where apostasy is expressly considered a capital offence. (The others are: Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.)
A bill to make it a capital offence (for men) was debated in parliament in Pakistan in 2007, but fortunately rejected. (For women the penalty would merely have been life imprisonment.) A similar bill was introduced in Iran in 2008 but subsequently repealed.
Lots of other countries have other laws that can be (and have been) used to prosecute people for apostasy and there is no shortage of examples of extra-judicial persecution of apostates, often with the tacit approval of the state.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php
> Only in Saudi.
Hardly. Though that is the most obvious example of a nation state where apostasy is expressly considered a capital offence. (The others are: Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.)
A bill to make it a capital offence (for men) was debated in parliament in Pakistan in 2007, but fortunately rejected. (For women the penalty would merely have been life imprisonment.) A similar bill was introduced in Iran in 2008 but subsequently repealed.
Lots of other countries have other laws that can be (and have been) used to prosecute people for apostasy and there is no shortage of examples of extra-judicial persecution of apostates, often with the tacit approval of the state.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php
Post edited at 13:51
3
In reply to marsbar:
Not really. Several cases each year in Pakistan, with members of the judiciary often threatened or killed when they clear defendants of accusations of blasphemy or apostasy.
CB
Not really. Several cases each year in Pakistan, with members of the judiciary often threatened or killed when they clear defendants of accusations of blasphemy or apostasy.
CB
4
In reply to Removed User:
Indeed. It's utterly shocking, and as Mr Lopez points out there have been horrific examples closer to home.
But I don't think it's analagous to what I'm talking about really. Unless, perhaps, you can give me an example of a nation state that enshrines witch-burning in law. Or one who's parliament recently debated a motion to introduce witch-burning onto the statute books the way Pakistan did with capital punishment for those who decide they're not Muslim any more in 2007.
> You also hear of people being burned alive as witches in some regions of Africa.
Indeed. It's utterly shocking, and as Mr Lopez points out there have been horrific examples closer to home.
But I don't think it's analagous to what I'm talking about really. Unless, perhaps, you can give me an example of a nation state that enshrines witch-burning in law. Or one who's parliament recently debated a motion to introduce witch-burning onto the statute books the way Pakistan did with capital punishment for those who decide they're not Muslim any more in 2007.
Post edited at 14:05
4
In reply to marsbar:
The internet where I am at the moment is awful so I can't follow the links but it's good to know there are at leasr a few examples worth linking.
As it happens I know hundreds of Muslims from working in many Islamic countries, but I don't think that's terribly relevant. I probably have dozens as Facebook friends but since I never look at Facebook (except to be not rude and accept friend requests) I couldn't say how many.
The internet where I am at the moment is awful so I can't follow the links but it's good to know there are at leasr a few examples worth linking.
As it happens I know hundreds of Muslims from working in many Islamic countries, but I don't think that's terribly relevant. I probably have dozens as Facebook friends but since I never look at Facebook (except to be not rude and accept friend requests) I couldn't say how many.
1
In reply to marsbar:
OK then, only in some countries. All the more reason to be nice to people who escape those countries and to condemn what is being done in the name of religion instead of supporting the idiots who can't tell the difference between a religion and the cultural values of a few countries.
The kind of people who can't tell the difference between someone like Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban.
The kind of people who used to think the IRA were representative of Catholics in general.
The kind of people that thought "the troubles" were about religion.
OK then, only in some countries. All the more reason to be nice to people who escape those countries and to condemn what is being done in the name of religion instead of supporting the idiots who can't tell the difference between a religion and the cultural values of a few countries.
The kind of people who can't tell the difference between someone like Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban.
The kind of people who used to think the IRA were representative of Catholics in general.
The kind of people that thought "the troubles" were about religion.
3
5
In reply to john arran:
I just meant if you are speaking to Muslims at the moment, you would know it is being said a lot. Nothing more.
I just meant if you are speaking to Muslims at the moment, you would know it is being said a lot. Nothing more.
1
2
In reply to marsbar:
That's right. All we have to do is silence Richard Dawkins ('The Dawk' to his followers, peace be upon him) and the extremism will just drop away....
> ...saying your God doesn't exist just leads to more extremism.
That's right. All we have to do is silence Richard Dawkins ('The Dawk' to his followers, peace be upon him) and the extremism will just drop away....
5
In reply to deepsoup:
Not burning, but the death penalty...
- Central African Republic
- Uganda
- Tanzania
- Cameroon
- Gambia
- Nigeria
- Saudi...
> Unless, perhaps, you can give me an example of a nation state that enshrines witch-burning in law.
Not burning, but the death penalty...
- Central African Republic
- Uganda
- Tanzania
- Cameroon
- Gambia
- Nigeria
- Saudi...
1
In reply to marsbar:
I'm not suggesting not being nice to people. It's nice to be nice.
Eh? What I said was this:
"It seems that being broadly supportive of the idea that it's ok to imprison and/or execute people for the 'crimes' of apostasy and blasphemy is [a part of mainstream Islam]."
If by the above you are implying that that means I'm about ready to join the BNP, as it kinda sorta seems that you are, er.. you're wrong.
(In the interests of 'being nice', I've self-censored my initial response somewhat. It was quite hostile.)
> All the more reason to be nice to people
I'm not suggesting not being nice to people. It's nice to be nice.
> instead of supporting the idiots who can't tell the difference between a religion and the cultural values of a few countries.
> The kind of people who can't tell the difference between someone like Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban....
Eh? What I said was this:
"It seems that being broadly supportive of the idea that it's ok to imprison and/or execute people for the 'crimes' of apostasy and blasphemy is [a part of mainstream Islam]."
If by the above you are implying that that means I'm about ready to join the BNP, as it kinda sorta seems that you are, er.. you're wrong.
(In the interests of 'being nice', I've self-censored my initial response somewhat. It was quite hostile.)
Post edited at 14:31
1
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Blimey. Yes, maybe you have a point there. Perhaps ex0's analogy is better than I thought.
Blimey. Yes, maybe you have a point there. Perhaps ex0's analogy is better than I thought.
In reply to deepsoup:
I'm not suggesting that you are a BNP type.
I'm just saying that you can't assume all the people living in a country support their crazy government.
Mainstream to me means most people.
Most Irish probably don't think blasphemy warrants a 25 grand fine.
Most Muslim men want a good education for their daughters (certainly the ones I've met)
I would guess if there was a survey of all the Muslims in the world, most of them wouldn't support killing people, by the legal process or by terrorism.
Edit
Indirectly and unitentionally backing up the views of the idiots (by the incorrect use of mainstream) rather than you being one of them if that makes any more sense? I really don't have a bad view of you, or think you are anything like the BNP types. Sorry for giving that impression.
Most of the reply was to the thread in general.
I'm not suggesting that you are a BNP type.
I'm just saying that you can't assume all the people living in a country support their crazy government.
Mainstream to me means most people.
Most Irish probably don't think blasphemy warrants a 25 grand fine.
Most Muslim men want a good education for their daughters (certainly the ones I've met)
I would guess if there was a survey of all the Muslims in the world, most of them wouldn't support killing people, by the legal process or by terrorism.
Edit
Indirectly and unitentionally backing up the views of the idiots (by the incorrect use of mainstream) rather than you being one of them if that makes any more sense? I really don't have a bad view of you, or think you are anything like the BNP types. Sorry for giving that impression.
Most of the reply was to the thread in general.
Post edited at 14:50
1
In reply to Tony Naylor:
To be clear, I'm athiest myself. I'm referring to Coel's religion hating agenda, rather than the average athiest, most of the athiest people I know are like myself reasonably tolerant of other people's beliefs, provided they don't interfere with me living my life the way I want, or behave in ways that are clearly uncivilised.
In my opinion Coel is stirring in this.
Do I condemn Saudi and the mentality there, totally.
Do I assume that all Muslims are the same, or that Saudi represents mainstream Muslims, no.
To be clear, I'm athiest myself. I'm referring to Coel's religion hating agenda, rather than the average athiest, most of the athiest people I know are like myself reasonably tolerant of other people's beliefs, provided they don't interfere with me living my life the way I want, or behave in ways that are clearly uncivilised.
In my opinion Coel is stirring in this.
Do I condemn Saudi and the mentality there, totally.
Do I assume that all Muslims are the same, or that Saudi represents mainstream Muslims, no.
1
3
In reply to marsbar:
All laudable stuff, assuming that you're generalising 'my' (as I'm guessing you are) and not referring to yourself alone. The problem is, religious people - currently extremist Muslims - can and do interfere in the way we live our lives, and they do so in ways which are quite profound. They attempt, with considerable success, to restrict our right to free speech; they attempt to impose their morality upon us; they are massively intolerant; they seek the subjugation of women; they seek the imposition, by force if necessary, of religious law; and they murder and maim in pursuing the goal of destroying our civilization. These are not small matters.
In mine, he is making a point which is both valid and substantiated.
> To be clear, I'm athiest myself. I'm referring to Coel's religion hating agenda, rather than the average athiest, most of the athiest people I know are like myself reasonably tolerant of other people's beliefs, provided they don't interfere with me living my life the way I want, or behave in ways that are clearly uncivilised.
All laudable stuff, assuming that you're generalising 'my' (as I'm guessing you are) and not referring to yourself alone. The problem is, religious people - currently extremist Muslims - can and do interfere in the way we live our lives, and they do so in ways which are quite profound. They attempt, with considerable success, to restrict our right to free speech; they attempt to impose their morality upon us; they are massively intolerant; they seek the subjugation of women; they seek the imposition, by force if necessary, of religious law; and they murder and maim in pursuing the goal of destroying our civilization. These are not small matters.
> In my opinion Coel is stirring in this.
In mine, he is making a point which is both valid and substantiated.
4
In reply to marsbar:
Sure, that is one strand of Islamic opinion. There are lots of such strands. ISIS is another strand. Your group of 100 declare ISIS to be heretics and apostates, and ISIS declares them to be heretics and apostates. The idea that one of these is the "true" version implies that there is such a thing as a true religion.
Anyhow, let's look at one of your list:
So, according to your group of 100 Islamic scholars, ISIS are indeed Muslims?
> Did you bother to read the link? "Whoever wrote it is" is over a hundred of the senior people.
Sure, that is one strand of Islamic opinion. There are lots of such strands. ISIS is another strand. Your group of 100 declare ISIS to be heretics and apostates, and ISIS declares them to be heretics and apostates. The idea that one of these is the "true" version implies that there is such a thing as a true religion.
Anyhow, let's look at one of your list:
> 9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
So, according to your group of 100 Islamic scholars, ISIS are indeed Muslims?
7
In reply to Tony Naylor:
I agree. But not with his use of the word mainstream. I also think ordinary Muslims have more to gain than lose in reigning in the idiots and to lump them in with the fundies is a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I also think that he had he not picked a time when ordinary Muslims in our country are facing abuse for the behaviour of the idiots on one hand, and well meant but unhelpful and untrue comments about not doing anything about the idiots, I would be less like likely to assume he is fanning the flames and more likely to think he actually cares.
Anyway, I'm going to stop arguing on the internet for a bit and get out and about.
Peace and love to all
I agree. But not with his use of the word mainstream. I also think ordinary Muslims have more to gain than lose in reigning in the idiots and to lump them in with the fundies is a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I also think that he had he not picked a time when ordinary Muslims in our country are facing abuse for the behaviour of the idiots on one hand, and well meant but unhelpful and untrue comments about not doing anything about the idiots, I would be less like likely to assume he is fanning the flames and more likely to think he actually cares.
Anyway, I'm going to stop arguing on the internet for a bit and get out and about.
Peace and love to all
1
1
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Which is roughly 6.13 billion people
Which is 0.011 billion people.
You are judging 6.13 billion people on the beliefs of 0.011 billion people.
See where you are going wrong?
> All laudable stuff, assuming that you're generalising 'my' (as I'm guessing you are) and not referring to yourself alone. The problem is, religious people
Which is roughly 6.13 billion people
> currently extremist Muslims
Which is 0.011 billion people.
You are judging 6.13 billion people on the beliefs of 0.011 billion people.
See where you are going wrong?
1
1
In reply to marsbar:
The reaction to blasphemy and apostasy is a good litmus test of a moderate. In my opinion, anyone who supports rules against blasphemy and apostasy is not a moderate.
Blasphemy and apostasy are illegal in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Harsh penalties are in place in dozens of Islamic countries. Further, the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation regularly pressure the UN to make blasphemy a criminal offence worldwide.
In Pakistan blasphemy allegations regularly get people killed by violent mobs, and the draconian blasphemy laws have such widespread popular support that the government dare not repeal them.
That is relevant, since many British Muslims come from the Pakistani culture. And British Muslims overwhelmingly would like blasphemy laws. Muslim groups regularly ask the government for them. MPs report Muslim constituents regularly raising the issue. Most British Muslims want drawing a depiction of Mohammed to be a criminal offence.
When one of the moderate Muslims, Nawaz Maajid, said that he saw nothing wrong with Mohammed cartoons (stating that his God was bigger than to be troubled by them) he got a tirade of opprobrium, including death threats, from other British Muslims. Several Muslim groups asked the Lib Dems to drop him as a candidate.
Being a "moderate" is not just about not being a terrorist! There are a lot of people who aren't nearly as bad as ISIS, but are not "moderate" either.
The blasphemy issue is a good litmus test: in my opinion **mainstream** British Muslim opinion is not moderate.
If you think that British Muslims are moderate then try this test: next time you have a class of kids, draw on the whiteboard depictions of Jesus, Mohammed and Moses. See how many of those "not a terrorist" kids freak out. (And anyone want to guess which religion they'd be from?) See how many irate parents you hear from. Take a guess at how long you'd be in your job before being sacked, and likely interviewed by the police for "hate speech".
You're right that British Muslims repudiate ISIS, but that does not make them moderate.
> Do I assume that all Muslims are the same, or that Saudi represents mainstream Muslims, no.
The reaction to blasphemy and apostasy is a good litmus test of a moderate. In my opinion, anyone who supports rules against blasphemy and apostasy is not a moderate.
Blasphemy and apostasy are illegal in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Harsh penalties are in place in dozens of Islamic countries. Further, the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation regularly pressure the UN to make blasphemy a criminal offence worldwide.
In Pakistan blasphemy allegations regularly get people killed by violent mobs, and the draconian blasphemy laws have such widespread popular support that the government dare not repeal them.
That is relevant, since many British Muslims come from the Pakistani culture. And British Muslims overwhelmingly would like blasphemy laws. Muslim groups regularly ask the government for them. MPs report Muslim constituents regularly raising the issue. Most British Muslims want drawing a depiction of Mohammed to be a criminal offence.
When one of the moderate Muslims, Nawaz Maajid, said that he saw nothing wrong with Mohammed cartoons (stating that his God was bigger than to be troubled by them) he got a tirade of opprobrium, including death threats, from other British Muslims. Several Muslim groups asked the Lib Dems to drop him as a candidate.
Being a "moderate" is not just about not being a terrorist! There are a lot of people who aren't nearly as bad as ISIS, but are not "moderate" either.
The blasphemy issue is a good litmus test: in my opinion **mainstream** British Muslim opinion is not moderate.
If you think that British Muslims are moderate then try this test: next time you have a class of kids, draw on the whiteboard depictions of Jesus, Mohammed and Moses. See how many of those "not a terrorist" kids freak out. (And anyone want to guess which religion they'd be from?) See how many irate parents you hear from. Take a guess at how long you'd be in your job before being sacked, and likely interviewed by the police for "hate speech".
You're right that British Muslims repudiate ISIS, but that does not make them moderate.
9
In reply to marsbar:
But these are linked, that's the point! There is a direct link between the non-moderate attitudes of *mainstream* Islam and the more extremist version of ISIS.
It's not enough for Muslims to reject ISIS -- that's trite -- they should also repudiate *all* of the non-moderate aspects of Islam. If British Muslims reacted to the Paris attacks -- the Charlie Hebdo one and the latest one -- by parading down the street displaying Mohammed cartoons as a display of rejection of extremism, then they would be genuine moderates.
> I also think that he had he not picked a time when ordinary Muslims in our country are facing abuse for the behaviour of the idiots ...
But these are linked, that's the point! There is a direct link between the non-moderate attitudes of *mainstream* Islam and the more extremist version of ISIS.
It's not enough for Muslims to reject ISIS -- that's trite -- they should also repudiate *all* of the non-moderate aspects of Islam. If British Muslims reacted to the Paris attacks -- the Charlie Hebdo one and the latest one -- by parading down the street displaying Mohammed cartoons as a display of rejection of extremism, then they would be genuine moderates.
9
In reply to marsbar:
But have a look at the Pew institute survey presented above. Muslims in many countries do broadly support ideas that are utterly incompatible with life in a modern, western civilization, starting with Sharia rules trumping human rights or the local laws.
Islam has a fundamental problem that is very much reminiscent of pre-enlightenment Christianity, which was only solved when the vast majority stopped taking the bible literally or even started ignoring it entirely and, just as importantly, accepted a separation between church and state.
CB
> I'm just saying that you can't assume all the people living in a country support their crazy government.
> Mainstream to me means most people.
But have a look at the Pew institute survey presented above. Muslims in many countries do broadly support ideas that are utterly incompatible with life in a modern, western civilization, starting with Sharia rules trumping human rights or the local laws.
Islam has a fundamental problem that is very much reminiscent of pre-enlightenment Christianity, which was only solved when the vast majority stopped taking the bible literally or even started ignoring it entirely and, just as importantly, accepted a separation between church and state.
CB
6
In reply to Mr Lopez:
No, and if you read what I wrote you will see that I clearly stated "extremist Muslims" and did not extrapolate that to"all Muslims", or imply that such an extrapolation was warranted. Perhaps you can see now where you went wrong?
> Which is roughly 6.13 billion people
> Which is 0.011 billion people.
> You are judging 6.13 billion people on the beliefs of 0.011 billion people.
> See where you are going wrong?
No, and if you read what I wrote you will see that I clearly stated "extremist Muslims" and did not extrapolate that to"all Muslims", or imply that such an extrapolation was warranted. Perhaps you can see now where you went wrong?
2
In reply to john arran:
Could it be that many Muslims, whilst not agreeing to the methods of ISIS, actually agree to many of their aims. Also from what I have read, it seems as if everything being carried out by ISIS, however barbaric, is actually mentioned in both the Koran and the teachings of Mohamed and whilst they may not agree with what ISIS are actually doing they cannot denouncing the Koran and the teachings of Mohamed as ISIS actions are totally in accordance with Islam. What I find surprising is that the Shia Muslims, who are an obvious target for ISIS, have not been more vocal.
Could it be that many Muslims, whilst not agreeing to the methods of ISIS, actually agree to many of their aims. Also from what I have read, it seems as if everything being carried out by ISIS, however barbaric, is actually mentioned in both the Koran and the teachings of Mohamed and whilst they may not agree with what ISIS are actually doing they cannot denouncing the Koran and the teachings of Mohamed as ISIS actions are totally in accordance with Islam. What I find surprising is that the Shia Muslims, who are an obvious target for ISIS, have not been more vocal.
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's silly... Draw in the board a swastika and you'll have a different part of the classroom freaking out and different parents approaching you. Draw a big massive cock and most likely the Christians will follow suit. Do a 1930's caricature of a 'negro' and you'll get yet another section of your sample rate throwing the toys. Are they all being extremists? No, just that different people from different backgrounds take varied levels of offence for different things.
P.s. And if you want to see all the non-religious, non-ethnic, freedom-o- speech-loving parents and children react in the same way blowing it all in the name of being offended for something utterly harmless all you need to do is uttering "c*nt" every few words in your lectures.
That's silly... Draw in the board a swastika and you'll have a different part of the classroom freaking out and different parents approaching you. Draw a big massive cock and most likely the Christians will follow suit. Do a 1930's caricature of a 'negro' and you'll get yet another section of your sample rate throwing the toys. Are they all being extremists? No, just that different people from different backgrounds take varied levels of offence for different things.
P.s. And if you want to see all the non-religious, non-ethnic, freedom-o- speech-loving parents and children react in the same way blowing it all in the name of being offended for something utterly harmless all you need to do is uttering "c*nt" every few words in your lectures.
Post edited at 15:50
2
8
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I will try that as a thought experiment (in the interests of not getting sacked). I will ask my students what they would do and report back. I suspect you underestimate them. I think the Afghani girls would be shocked, but I also think they (like many British kids of different heritages) don't tell their parents what goes on most of the time. I don't think the Turkish or Bosnian heritage pupils would care very much.
Personally in my current school I find the Muslim parents (mostly moderate by my definition) far less scary and much kinder than the fundie Christian parents. The only parent I have ever known ask for a teacher to be sacked was a so called Christian who wanted a Muslim teacher sacked for praying during lunch break. Secular school remember. We don't have any Jewish pupils as they all go to Jewish school. Another issue entirely.
As for the other, my husbands family are aware of his lack of belief. They would like him to believe, simply because they want the best for him, and they think that is the best. However they don't push it, and certainly are not disowning him. They have welcomed me to the family in a genuine way.
I do think you are mistaking noisy Muslims that the media love to portray for most Muslims.
I will try that as a thought experiment (in the interests of not getting sacked). I will ask my students what they would do and report back. I suspect you underestimate them. I think the Afghani girls would be shocked, but I also think they (like many British kids of different heritages) don't tell their parents what goes on most of the time. I don't think the Turkish or Bosnian heritage pupils would care very much.
Personally in my current school I find the Muslim parents (mostly moderate by my definition) far less scary and much kinder than the fundie Christian parents. The only parent I have ever known ask for a teacher to be sacked was a so called Christian who wanted a Muslim teacher sacked for praying during lunch break. Secular school remember. We don't have any Jewish pupils as they all go to Jewish school. Another issue entirely.
As for the other, my husbands family are aware of his lack of belief. They would like him to believe, simply because they want the best for him, and they think that is the best. However they don't push it, and certainly are not disowning him. They have welcomed me to the family in a genuine way.
I do think you are mistaking noisy Muslims that the media love to portray for most Muslims.
Post edited at 15:57
2
5
In reply to marsbar:
Glad to hear it. I get the concern that I may be "unintentionally backing up the views of the idiots", but I don't think that is helped by enforcing some kind of taboo against criticising cases such as the one in Coel's OP.
Besides, the arguments put forward by the BNP, Britain First et al are really not that sophisticated.
A political party does not have to hold office to be a part of mainstream politics. I don't think it's at all incorrect to describe views held by a significant minority of a population as "a part of mainstream thought". Most people in the UK are not Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, but those are all 'mainstream' religions in a way that Jedi (for example) is not.
Clearly the opinion that capital punishment is appropriate for the 'crime' of apostasy *is* a part of the mainstream (but not necessarily the majority) view in Pakistan. I haven't been talking about a fringe street demonstration calling for that, I've been talking about a bill that was introduced and debated in the federal parliament that had it been passed would have introduced it into law.
Indeed. And when the only attempt in the last century or so to actually prosecute someone for blasphemy was made in the late '90s, by an individual trying to bring a private prosecution against a newspaper regarding a cartoon that it printed, the Supreme Court eventually refused to allow the prosecution to go ahead. They said: "It is difficult to see how the common law crime of blasphemy, related as it was to an established Church and an established religion could survive in ... a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of conscience, and the free profession and practice of religion."
So, in effect, there is no such crime as 'blasphemy' in Ireland. However, since the concept of the crime of blasphemy is supported in the constitution it can't formally be abolished without a referendum. Just as soon as the Irish people think abolishing a law that effectively no longer exists anyway is important enough to go to the hassle and expense of organising a national referendum, I'm sure they'll do just that.
I'm sure you're right. But if the ones you've met are those who actively engage with you as the teacher of their daughters, that is the very definition of a self-selecting sample.
"Terrorism"? Of course not.
But "killing people by the legal process" - meaning capital punishment?
Globally I suspect there would be a clear majority in favour of capital punishment in general. And capital punishment for apostasy, blasphemy and such? My guess would be a minority, certainly, but a big enough one to be considered a part of the mainstream.
Ok, lets have a bit of a google...
Have to be careful posting links on this, so many websites and wotnot are pushing an agenda. Erm...
This looks fairly legit to me, what do you think?
http://www.pewresearch.org/
So, here we go then:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-soc...
Edit to add:
Ah. I see I'm not the first to post that link and that several posts appeared while I was writing this. I really don't think or write quickly enough to keep up with threads like this. Ho hum...
> I'm not suggesting that you are a BNP type.
Glad to hear it. I get the concern that I may be "unintentionally backing up the views of the idiots", but I don't think that is helped by enforcing some kind of taboo against criticising cases such as the one in Coel's OP.
Besides, the arguments put forward by the BNP, Britain First et al are really not that sophisticated.
> I'm just saying that you can't assume all the people living in a country support their crazy government.
> Mainstream to me means most people.
> Mainstream to me means most people.
A political party does not have to hold office to be a part of mainstream politics. I don't think it's at all incorrect to describe views held by a significant minority of a population as "a part of mainstream thought". Most people in the UK are not Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, but those are all 'mainstream' religions in a way that Jedi (for example) is not.
Clearly the opinion that capital punishment is appropriate for the 'crime' of apostasy *is* a part of the mainstream (but not necessarily the majority) view in Pakistan. I haven't been talking about a fringe street demonstration calling for that, I've been talking about a bill that was introduced and debated in the federal parliament that had it been passed would have introduced it into law.
> Most Irish probably don't think blasphemy warrants a 25 grand fine.
Indeed. And when the only attempt in the last century or so to actually prosecute someone for blasphemy was made in the late '90s, by an individual trying to bring a private prosecution against a newspaper regarding a cartoon that it printed, the Supreme Court eventually refused to allow the prosecution to go ahead. They said: "It is difficult to see how the common law crime of blasphemy, related as it was to an established Church and an established religion could survive in ... a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of conscience, and the free profession and practice of religion."
So, in effect, there is no such crime as 'blasphemy' in Ireland. However, since the concept of the crime of blasphemy is supported in the constitution it can't formally be abolished without a referendum. Just as soon as the Irish people think abolishing a law that effectively no longer exists anyway is important enough to go to the hassle and expense of organising a national referendum, I'm sure they'll do just that.
> Most Muslim men want a good education for their daughters (certainly the ones I've met)
I'm sure you're right. But if the ones you've met are those who actively engage with you as the teacher of their daughters, that is the very definition of a self-selecting sample.
> I would guess if there was a survey of all the Muslims in the world, most of them wouldn't support killing people, by the legal process or by terrorism.
"Terrorism"? Of course not.
But "killing people by the legal process" - meaning capital punishment?
Globally I suspect there would be a clear majority in favour of capital punishment in general. And capital punishment for apostasy, blasphemy and such? My guess would be a minority, certainly, but a big enough one to be considered a part of the mainstream.
Ok, lets have a bit of a google...
Have to be careful posting links on this, so many websites and wotnot are pushing an agenda. Erm...
This looks fairly legit to me, what do you think?
http://www.pewresearch.org/
So, here we go then:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-soc...
Edit to add:
Ah. I see I'm not the first to post that link and that several posts appeared while I was writing this. I really don't think or write quickly enough to keep up with threads like this. Ho hum...
Post edited at 16:21
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
But if you drew a picture of a vagina in a biology lesson there would be no issue, like if you drew Mo in a RE lesson?
Interesting to see what you equate drawing Mo with though.
But if you drew a picture of a vagina in a biology lesson there would be no issue, like if you drew Mo in a RE lesson?
Interesting to see what you equate drawing Mo with though.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Through my job I've spent a few months volunteering to teach in some universities across the middle east (science not religion!). This certainly doesn't make me any sort of expert, and i genuinely don't mean it in a holier than thou kindof way. But at least I've got a bit of experience, and am not a BNP member!
Almost without exception people in these countries have been kind, welcoming, and generous. Also, many seem to have views on blasphemy and apostasy that are abhorrent. (This impression comes from talking directly to people, and asking genuinely moderate muslims or people who are not religious. It seems to be backed up by proper surveys).
It's a sad irony that refusing to blame islam, leads to the conclusion that a large proportion of people in Egypt, Palestine etc. are nutjobs. Whereas actually I think they are mostly good, decent people (the same as anywhere in the world), who have been infected with some poisonous opinions by a religion.
A second point is that people who are brave enough to move towards a more moderate position or even criticise or leave islam deserve our respect and, to whatever small extent possible, support. And this is harder if we don't recognise that there is a genuine problem arising from islam. Even small steps like not wearing a headscarf or a female teacher going to lunch with a man on a university campus are hard and seem to lead to serious social pressure. Let alone the death penalty in some countries.
Of course the increasing popularity of islam is linked to complicated political issues (e.g. pretty much any country in the region...), but this doesn't absolve the religion itself for the beliefs on blasphemy and apostasy that it leads to.
I haven't got a clue what the muslims in the UK think, so no comments of that side.
Through my job I've spent a few months volunteering to teach in some universities across the middle east (science not religion!). This certainly doesn't make me any sort of expert, and i genuinely don't mean it in a holier than thou kindof way. But at least I've got a bit of experience, and am not a BNP member!
Almost without exception people in these countries have been kind, welcoming, and generous. Also, many seem to have views on blasphemy and apostasy that are abhorrent. (This impression comes from talking directly to people, and asking genuinely moderate muslims or people who are not religious. It seems to be backed up by proper surveys).
It's a sad irony that refusing to blame islam, leads to the conclusion that a large proportion of people in Egypt, Palestine etc. are nutjobs. Whereas actually I think they are mostly good, decent people (the same as anywhere in the world), who have been infected with some poisonous opinions by a religion.
A second point is that people who are brave enough to move towards a more moderate position or even criticise or leave islam deserve our respect and, to whatever small extent possible, support. And this is harder if we don't recognise that there is a genuine problem arising from islam. Even small steps like not wearing a headscarf or a female teacher going to lunch with a man on a university campus are hard and seem to lead to serious social pressure. Let alone the death penalty in some countries.
Of course the increasing popularity of islam is linked to complicated political issues (e.g. pretty much any country in the region...), but this doesn't absolve the religion itself for the beliefs on blasphemy and apostasy that it leads to.
I haven't got a clue what the muslims in the UK think, so no comments of that side.
3
2
In reply to marsbar:
Did the aims of the IRA not represent the aims of the people of Eire in general. It is the silence of the majority that give credence to the militant minority!
Did the aims of the IRA not represent the aims of the people of Eire in general. It is the silence of the majority that give credence to the militant minority!
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Third Reich era is part of the normal curriculum, so I'd imagine swastikas as part of a history lesson are fairly standard fare. Ditto your other examples, in an appropriate context.
> That's silly... Draw in the board a swastika and you'll have a different part of the classroom freaking out ...
Third Reich era is part of the normal curriculum, so I'd imagine swastikas as part of a history lesson are fairly standard fare. Ditto your other examples, in an appropriate context.
3
In reply to marsbar:
Another point about this. You may be aware of the Pakistani persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims. (And no, "persecution" is not too strong a word, they are literally persecuted for holding to a version of Islam that the majority regard as heretical.)
If you apply for a passport or ID card in Pakistan, then you have to fill in this form (link below). Have a look at that stuff halfway down the second page. Essentially it requires all Pakistani Muslims who want an ID card or passport to declare that Ahmadis are heretics and non-Muslims.
That is a direct contradiction of the thing you posted that I just quoted. This means that the nation of Pakistan, not just Saudi Arabia, is also not following your "moderate" version of Islam, but are instead following an extremist one. And I could readily find other non-moderate aspects of most other Islamic nations.
http://pakembassyankara.com/userfiles/files/Form_A_Passport_Form.pdf
This really does matter for the everyday lives of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, and their systematic persecution using "blasphemy" laws.
By the way, I also note that nowhere in your set of anti-ISIS statements from 120 Islamic scholars are statements that it is forbidden to kill blasphemers, apostate and gays. So one can presume that they agree with ISIS on killing such people.
> 9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
Another point about this. You may be aware of the Pakistani persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims. (And no, "persecution" is not too strong a word, they are literally persecuted for holding to a version of Islam that the majority regard as heretical.)
If you apply for a passport or ID card in Pakistan, then you have to fill in this form (link below). Have a look at that stuff halfway down the second page. Essentially it requires all Pakistani Muslims who want an ID card or passport to declare that Ahmadis are heretics and non-Muslims.
That is a direct contradiction of the thing you posted that I just quoted. This means that the nation of Pakistan, not just Saudi Arabia, is also not following your "moderate" version of Islam, but are instead following an extremist one. And I could readily find other non-moderate aspects of most other Islamic nations.
http://pakembassyankara.com/userfiles/files/Form_A_Passport_Form.pdf
This really does matter for the everyday lives of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, and their systematic persecution using "blasphemy" laws.
By the way, I also note that nowhere in your set of anti-ISIS statements from 120 Islamic scholars are statements that it is forbidden to kill blasphemers, apostate and gays. So one can presume that they agree with ISIS on killing such people.
2
In reply to Andy Morley:
"Political subjugation and crowd control" doesn't fall into"a tool of state control" then?
> No, some religions were much more deliberately designed as a tool of state control along the lines laid out by Plato in books such as The Republic. Other religions got there more by accident.
"Political subjugation and crowd control" doesn't fall into"a tool of state control" then?
Post edited at 09:15
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think you are a little off here. Doing something in schools specifically aimed at offending one group of pupils or their parents isn't a good test of whether that group is moderate or not. Drawings of Mohammed might be a weird thing to get offended over but that in itself isn't a problem. A more accurate test would I imagine be a simple of poll of pupils' (=parents', very largely) views on matters like homosexuality, free speech and so on.
I think you are a little off here. Doing something in schools specifically aimed at offending one group of pupils or their parents isn't a good test of whether that group is moderate or not. Drawings of Mohammed might be a weird thing to get offended over but that in itself isn't a problem. A more accurate test would I imagine be a simple of poll of pupils' (=parents', very largely) views on matters like homosexuality, free speech and so on.
1
In reply to MG:
But the whole point is that showing depictions of people is entirely normal. Schools will show pictures of people routinely.
The fact that, in the case of prophets, Muslims get offended by this, shows a non-moderate attitude.
The whole reason for the ban on depicting on Mohammed is precisely to place him beyond human questioning and human scrutiny. It is a denial of free speech and an insistence that Muslims must simply submit to Islam, but not question it.
For UK schools to acquiesce to the ban is to accept the Islamic stance that Mohammed is too sacred to question. That goes against the whole ethos of education in a free society.
> Doing something in schools specifically aimed at offending one group of pupils or their parents isn't a good test of whether that group is moderate or not.
But the whole point is that showing depictions of people is entirely normal. Schools will show pictures of people routinely.
The fact that, in the case of prophets, Muslims get offended by this, shows a non-moderate attitude.
The whole reason for the ban on depicting on Mohammed is precisely to place him beyond human questioning and human scrutiny. It is a denial of free speech and an insistence that Muslims must simply submit to Islam, but not question it.
For UK schools to acquiesce to the ban is to accept the Islamic stance that Mohammed is too sacred to question. That goes against the whole ethos of education in a free society.
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I understand all that. It's the suggestion that showing a picture of Mohammed specifically to see the reaction in a school that is wrong. If the image came up naturally an art lesson say, I agree, it shouldn't be hidden to prevent offence. In the same way, Swastikas might be entirely appropriate in a history lesson but it would be wrong to put them up in front of Jews specifically to judge how "moderate" they were by their reactions.
I understand all that. It's the suggestion that showing a picture of Mohammed specifically to see the reaction in a school that is wrong. If the image came up naturally an art lesson say, I agree, it shouldn't be hidden to prevent offence. In the same way, Swastikas might be entirely appropriate in a history lesson but it would be wrong to put them up in front of Jews specifically to judge how "moderate" they were by their reactions.
Post edited at 10:36
1
In reply to krikoman:
Sorry - what's your point?
> "Political subjugation and crowd control" doesn't fall into"a tool of state control" then?
Sorry - what's your point?
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
Never mind, if you read the threads you might understand.
Groucho:
I've always thought that underneath all the spin, Islam is basically a form of religious and political subjugation combined with crowd control.
Andy Morley:
That's certainly what it was designed as.
Me:
Surely ALL religions were "designed" for this.
Andy Morley:
No, some religions were much more deliberately designed as a tool of state control along the lines laid out by Plato in books such as The Republic. Other religions got there more by accident.
Me:
"Political subjugation and crowd control" doesn't fall into"a tool of state control" then?
I made a statement which you contradicted and the as an example of why I was wrong said near enough the same thing I'd said.
My point being why single out Islam, ALL religions were a form of control (at least a massive majority are / where)
> Sorry - what's your point?
Never mind, if you read the threads you might understand.
Groucho:
I've always thought that underneath all the spin, Islam is basically a form of religious and political subjugation combined with crowd control.
Andy Morley:
That's certainly what it was designed as.
Me:
Surely ALL religions were "designed" for this.
Andy Morley:
No, some religions were much more deliberately designed as a tool of state control along the lines laid out by Plato in books such as The Republic. Other religions got there more by accident.
Me:
"Political subjugation and crowd control" doesn't fall into"a tool of state control" then?
I made a statement which you contradicted and the as an example of why I was wrong said near enough the same thing I'd said.
My point being why single out Islam, ALL religions were a form of control (at least a massive majority are / where)
Post edited at 13:46
2
2
In reply to krikoman:
The people who don't understand this are the kind of people who either need to come to that conclusion by themselves or will never get to that point. You're not going to be able to convince them. Blinded by faith.
> ALL religions were a form of control
The people who don't understand this are the kind of people who either need to come to that conclusion by themselves or will never get to that point. You're not going to be able to convince them. Blinded by faith.
In reply to krikoman:
In a thread about Islam, after a week of Islamic-inspired terrorism, when there is Islamic inspired mayhem in large parts of Syria and Iraq? Very, very odd isn't why someone would make the point particularly about Islam? Can't imagine why for a moment.
> My point being why single out Islam,
In a thread about Islam, after a week of Islamic-inspired terrorism, when there is Islamic inspired mayhem in large parts of Syria and Iraq? Very, very odd isn't why someone would make the point particularly about Islam? Can't imagine why for a moment.
4
1
In reply to krikoman:
I didn't single out Islam - on the contrary, I took some effort over describing the historical precedent for this, including Plato's 2000-year-old instruction manual for how to design a religion along these lines.
However, Islam is one of the few well-documented examples of a religion that was created over a very short period of time (in the 7th century AD) where the circumstances surrounding its invention link it very closely to the creation of an entire new empire and where Mohammad and his disciples may well have followed Plato's instructions explicitly when they devised it.
By the way, not all artificially created religions are designed to support a state - some are designed to make money, for example Scientology which it's founder, L Ron Hubbard virtually admits that he invented for that purpose:
"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Also, not all religions were 'artificially' created - some evolved organically. Islam is pretty much unique amongst current major religions in these two attributes for being an example of deliberate statecraft. That is the nature of Islam; it has nothing to do with me or any other modern commentator 'singling it out'. Your response is a bit like the University of Minnesota's recent banning of 9/11 celebrations because they 'might offend Muslims' - an example of putting the cart massively before the horse in that example and of completely overstating the case in what you said!
> My point being why single out Islam, ALL religions were a form of control (at least a massive majority are / where)
I didn't single out Islam - on the contrary, I took some effort over describing the historical precedent for this, including Plato's 2000-year-old instruction manual for how to design a religion along these lines.
However, Islam is one of the few well-documented examples of a religion that was created over a very short period of time (in the 7th century AD) where the circumstances surrounding its invention link it very closely to the creation of an entire new empire and where Mohammad and his disciples may well have followed Plato's instructions explicitly when they devised it.
By the way, not all artificially created religions are designed to support a state - some are designed to make money, for example Scientology which it's founder, L Ron Hubbard virtually admits that he invented for that purpose:
"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Also, not all religions were 'artificially' created - some evolved organically. Islam is pretty much unique amongst current major religions in these two attributes for being an example of deliberate statecraft. That is the nature of Islam; it has nothing to do with me or any other modern commentator 'singling it out'. Your response is a bit like the University of Minnesota's recent banning of 9/11 celebrations because they 'might offend Muslims' - an example of putting the cart massively before the horse in that example and of completely overstating the case in what you said!
In reply to Andy Morley:
I think you are giving them rather too much credit there. Although from memory the republic also doesnt really go into founding a religion as opposed to how to manage a state. With religion being just one component and using the existing framework.
Christianity, as it stands today, is probably just as much a tool of deliberate statemanship with the Nicaea council formalising it in a way which suited Constantine.
> However, Islam is one of the few well-documented examples of a religion that was created over a very short period of time (in the 7th century AD) where the circumstances surrounding its invention link it very closely to the creation of an entire new empire and where Mohammad and his disciples may well have followed Plato's instructions explicitly when they devised it.
I think you are giving them rather too much credit there. Although from memory the republic also doesnt really go into founding a religion as opposed to how to manage a state. With religion being just one component and using the existing framework.
Christianity, as it stands today, is probably just as much a tool of deliberate statemanship with the Nicaea council formalising it in a way which suited Constantine.
In reply to KevinD:
It's ages since I read Plato too. What I do remember in some detail are the lectures I sat through in my uni politics degree. The lecturer was a specialist in Plato and he described how the religious component was quite cynically specified as a means to instil fear and obedience into the populace, through the creation of myths about hell and punishment, and also through the setting up of priests as a class of people whose job it was to reinforce all that.
Christianity as it has been these past 500 years or more has been greatly influenced by the rediscovery of Platonic ideas that were brought back by returning Crusaders, who in turn obtained them from Islamic scholars after they had been lost to the West. As to the Nicaea council, Christianity was certainly an important part of the overall political strategy of the later Roman Empire and even more so for the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire that survived the fall of Rome. Religion was always a useful tool for any of the more advanced empires of the time.
However, at its birth, Christianity was never seen as a useful tool to prop Roman rule, which is why Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of the province of Judea allowed King Herod as the local vassal king of Judea, to do whatever he saw fit with an inconvenient Jewish prophet and unconventional religious leader called Jesus Christ whose followers went on to found Christianity. Far from it, Christianity enjoyed a pariah status for quite some while, as is evidenced by the crucifixion of St Peter in Rome. Christ often rejected the role of political leader and so overall, it's difficult to make a case that Christianity was created as a tool of statecraft from its beginning. All of that came much later.
> I think you are giving them rather too much credit there. Although from memory the republic also doesnt really go into founding a religion as opposed to how to manage a state. With religion being just one component and using the existing framework.
It's ages since I read Plato too. What I do remember in some detail are the lectures I sat through in my uni politics degree. The lecturer was a specialist in Plato and he described how the religious component was quite cynically specified as a means to instil fear and obedience into the populace, through the creation of myths about hell and punishment, and also through the setting up of priests as a class of people whose job it was to reinforce all that.
> Christianity, as it stands today, is probably just as much a tool of deliberate statemanship with the Nicaea council formalising it in a way which suited Constantine.
Christianity as it has been these past 500 years or more has been greatly influenced by the rediscovery of Platonic ideas that were brought back by returning Crusaders, who in turn obtained them from Islamic scholars after they had been lost to the West. As to the Nicaea council, Christianity was certainly an important part of the overall political strategy of the later Roman Empire and even more so for the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire that survived the fall of Rome. Religion was always a useful tool for any of the more advanced empires of the time.
However, at its birth, Christianity was never seen as a useful tool to prop Roman rule, which is why Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of the province of Judea allowed King Herod as the local vassal king of Judea, to do whatever he saw fit with an inconvenient Jewish prophet and unconventional religious leader called Jesus Christ whose followers went on to found Christianity. Far from it, Christianity enjoyed a pariah status for quite some while, as is evidenced by the crucifixion of St Peter in Rome. Christ often rejected the role of political leader and so overall, it's difficult to make a case that Christianity was created as a tool of statecraft from its beginning. All of that came much later.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, it just shows that some muslims get offended when somebody depicts their prophet while knowing they don't like it being depicted.
You name a religious, ethnic or cultural group and i'll find you something that will offend them greatly which would be considered perfectly normal by another group.
Finding what the most offensive thing you can do to a group, and then do it to them just to see if they get offended is a poor way of judging somebody as moderate or extremist.
But if that's the test you wanna do, i'd say in that situation a moderate would explain to you that what you are doing is very offensive and would ask you to please stop doing it in front of him or they would maybe just walk away, whereas an extremist would become aggresive and/or resort to violence to stop you doing it.
That's your moderate/extremist test right there
No, it's about respect. And i'd have thought one of the most important lessons you want to teach your kids is to respect people from other cultures. You know, don't show your willy to the Amish girl, don't do monkey noises to the black kid, don't wave your beef burguer in the face of the Hindu lass, don't draw swastikas on the Jewish boy's notebook, stuff like that...
> The fact that, in the case of prophets, Muslims get offended by this, shows a non-moderate attitude.
No, it just shows that some muslims get offended when somebody depicts their prophet while knowing they don't like it being depicted.
You name a religious, ethnic or cultural group and i'll find you something that will offend them greatly which would be considered perfectly normal by another group.
Finding what the most offensive thing you can do to a group, and then do it to them just to see if they get offended is a poor way of judging somebody as moderate or extremist.
But if that's the test you wanna do, i'd say in that situation a moderate would explain to you that what you are doing is very offensive and would ask you to please stop doing it in front of him or they would maybe just walk away, whereas an extremist would become aggresive and/or resort to violence to stop you doing it.
That's your moderate/extremist test right there
> For UK schools to acquiesce to the ban is to accept the Islamic stance that Mohammed is too sacred to question. That goes against the whole ethos of education in a free society.
No, it's about respect. And i'd have thought one of the most important lessons you want to teach your kids is to respect people from other cultures. You know, don't show your willy to the Amish girl, don't do monkey noises to the black kid, don't wave your beef burguer in the face of the Hindu lass, don't draw swastikas on the Jewish boy's notebook, stuff like that...
1
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
I disagree, the examples you give should just be considered common decency according to the European consensus of the 21st century.
I agree that we should teach our children respect, including respect for religious traditions (but not necessarily the content of the religions´ teachings). Of course my family will wear long clothes rather than shorts and T-shirt when visiting a church in Italy, or cook veggie food without being asked when we have Hindu guests (as a German let´s please not go to the Swastika thingy...). However, I demand my right to eat beef or run around in shorts elsewhere.
I do also accept that free speech has its limits, and I would not condone racist, stereotypical depictions of other people, even if they were perfectly fine 50 years ago.
However, satirizing religion should clearly be fair game, especially as most religions still strive to make us live our life in particular ways.
The freedom to publish insulting cartoons of Mohammed or the pope is an essential and non-negotiable right that makes our Western societies what they are, but nailing the cartoons to the door of the local mosque would be gratuitous and insulting. We should refrain from the latter, but Muslims in our societies must learn to live with (or if necessary be forced to accept) the former, like Christians largely have already done.
CB
I disagree, the examples you give should just be considered common decency according to the European consensus of the 21st century.
I agree that we should teach our children respect, including respect for religious traditions (but not necessarily the content of the religions´ teachings). Of course my family will wear long clothes rather than shorts and T-shirt when visiting a church in Italy, or cook veggie food without being asked when we have Hindu guests (as a German let´s please not go to the Swastika thingy...). However, I demand my right to eat beef or run around in shorts elsewhere.
I do also accept that free speech has its limits, and I would not condone racist, stereotypical depictions of other people, even if they were perfectly fine 50 years ago.
However, satirizing religion should clearly be fair game, especially as most religions still strive to make us live our life in particular ways.
The freedom to publish insulting cartoons of Mohammed or the pope is an essential and non-negotiable right that makes our Western societies what they are, but nailing the cartoons to the door of the local mosque would be gratuitous and insulting. We should refrain from the latter, but Muslims in our societies must learn to live with (or if necessary be forced to accept) the former, like Christians largely have already done.
CB
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Sorry, but these comparisons just do not work. Approaching another individual with gestures that are calculated to upset them is one thing. Commenting adversely on a historical figure of considerable importance to the whole world, whether factually in history books or satirically in political publications is something else altogether.
> No, it just shows that some muslims get offended when somebody depicts their prophet while knowing they don't like it being depicted.
> No, it's about respect. And i'd have thought one of the most important lessons you want to teach your kids is to respect people from other cultures. You know, don't show your willy to the Amish girl, don't do monkey noises to the black kid, don't wave your beef burguer in the face of the Hindu lass, don't draw swastikas on the Jewish boy's notebook, stuff like that...
> No, it's about respect. And i'd have thought one of the most important lessons you want to teach your kids is to respect people from other cultures. You know, don't show your willy to the Amish girl, don't do monkey noises to the black kid, don't wave your beef burguer in the face of the Hindu lass, don't draw swastikas on the Jewish boy's notebook, stuff like that...
Sorry, but these comparisons just do not work. Approaching another individual with gestures that are calculated to upset them is one thing. Commenting adversely on a historical figure of considerable importance to the whole world, whether factually in history books or satirically in political publications is something else altogether.
1
In reply to cb294:
Yes, we do have that right alright. And if they are not happy they also have a right to complain and protest. Freedom of expression cuts both ways.
They do not have a right to use violence to stop it from happening though, and coming full circle to my point above that is the difference between a moderate muslim and an extremist muslim.
And the overwhelmingly majority of them do live with it, and those most offended react to it in a very British way, which is writing strongly worded letters and standing outside establishments with placcards.
> The freedom to publish insulting cartoons of Mohammed or the pope is an essential and non-negotiable right
Yes, we do have that right alright. And if they are not happy they also have a right to complain and protest. Freedom of expression cuts both ways.
They do not have a right to use violence to stop it from happening though, and coming full circle to my point above that is the difference between a moderate muslim and an extremist muslim.
> but Muslims in our societies must learn to live with (or if necessary be forced to accept) the former, like Christians largely have already done.
And the overwhelmingly majority of them do live with it, and those most offended react to it in a very British way, which is writing strongly worded letters and standing outside establishments with placcards.
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
What do you mean by artificial, surely unless you're a believer they are all artificial.
Bullshit!!! My response is nothing like that, my response was stating that nearly ALL, (although I grant I missed the nearly out) are a form of crowd control. It might make you happier to think that but it wasn't.
I think if you read a bit more about the Romans you'll find they hardly ever "inflicted" their religion on anyone they conquered, rather they let then carry on with their worship, but introduced theirs too. In this way they didn't have huge numbers of "the faiathful" rioting they couldn't practice their religion. Indeed quite often local religions / beliefs were absorbed into the Roman system. Maybe that's why they had so many gods!?
> I didn't single out Islam -
I didn't say you did.> By the way, not all artificially created religions are designed to support a state - some are designed to make money, for example Scientology which it's founder, L Ron Hubbard virtually admits that he invented for that purpose:
What do you mean by artificial, surely unless you're a believer they are all artificial.
> Your response is a bit like the University of Minnesota's recent banning of 9/11 celebrations because they 'might offend Muslims' - an example of putting the cart massively before the horse in that example and of completely overstating the case in what you said!
Bullshit!!! My response is nothing like that, my response was stating that nearly ALL, (although I grant I missed the nearly out) are a form of crowd control. It might make you happier to think that but it wasn't.
I think if you read a bit more about the Romans you'll find they hardly ever "inflicted" their religion on anyone they conquered, rather they let then carry on with their worship, but introduced theirs too. In this way they didn't have huge numbers of "the faiathful" rioting they couldn't practice their religion. Indeed quite often local religions / beliefs were absorbed into the Roman system. Maybe that's why they had so many gods!?
2
In reply to krikoman:
I can see that you enjoy arguing, but I'm stuggling to find an actual point to your argument lurking there anywhere!
> I didn't say you did. > What do you mean by artificial, surely unless you're a believer they are all artificial. > Bullshit!!! My response is nothing like that, my response was stating that nearly ALL, (although I grant I missed the nearly out) are a form of crowd control. It might make you happier to think that but it wasn't. > I think if you read a bit more about the Romans <...snip...>
I can see that you enjoy arguing, but I'm stuggling to find an actual point to your argument lurking there anywhere!
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
never mind, you just carry on, I surrender.
> I can see that you enjoy arguing, but I'm stuggling to find an actual point to your argument lurking there anywhere!
never mind, you just carry on, I surrender.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Actually, that's a really interesting reply.
You seem to be complaining that you find yourself in an argument that you consider that you can't win. I hope I'm not reading too much into it, but I can't see any other explanation for what you've just written. So you have a choice - you could adapt your ideas so they fit the circumstances that you're facing, or you could choose to persist with your existing beliefs and just complain that they don't work, which appears to be what you have elected to do.
Islam as a culture may be in the same position. Some Muslims take a pragmatic approach and try to adapt to the modern world, never mind what their religion says. Others refuse to adapt but unlike you, rather than 'surrender', they chose to attack. In spite of that secondary difference, we could probably learn something from people like you about how some Muslims think. Thanks for that insight.
> never mind, you just carry on, I surrender.
Actually, that's a really interesting reply.
You seem to be complaining that you find yourself in an argument that you consider that you can't win. I hope I'm not reading too much into it, but I can't see any other explanation for what you've just written. So you have a choice - you could adapt your ideas so they fit the circumstances that you're facing, or you could choose to persist with your existing beliefs and just complain that they don't work, which appears to be what you have elected to do.
Islam as a culture may be in the same position. Some Muslims take a pragmatic approach and try to adapt to the modern world, never mind what their religion says. Others refuse to adapt but unlike you, rather than 'surrender', they chose to attack. In spite of that secondary difference, we could probably learn something from people like you about how some Muslims think. Thanks for that insight.
Post edited at 23:51
2
2
In reply to Andy Morley:
I think you might be over-thinking things.
I just got bored
> Actually, that's a really interesting reply.
> You seem to be complaining that you find yourself in an argument that you consider that you can't win. I hope I'm not reading too much into it, but I can't see any other explanation for what you've just written. So you have a choice - you could adapt your ideas so they fit the circumstances that you're facing, or you could choose to persist with your existing beliefs and just complain that they don't work, which appears to be what you have elected to do.
> Islam as a culture may be in the same position. Some Muslims take a pragmatic approach and try to adapt to the modern world, never mind what their religion says. Others refuse to adapt but unlike you, rather than 'surrender', they chose to attack. In spite of that secondary difference, we could probably learn something from people like you about how some Muslims think. Thanks for that insight.
I think you might be over-thinking things.
I just got bored
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
I got bored enough to check. I had forgot about the laws dialog which is a tad more theocratic than the republic.
I never said it was in from the beginning. I said from the council of Nicea which is what decided what would and wouldnt remain in Christianity (bar a few outlying groups). So manipulated at the key point for its survival.
> and also through the setting up of priests as a class of people whose job it was to reinforce all that.
I got bored enough to check. I had forgot about the laws dialog which is a tad more theocratic than the republic.
> it's difficult to make a case that Christianity was created as a tool of statecraft from its beginning. All of that came much later.
I never said it was in from the beginning. I said from the council of Nicea which is what decided what would and wouldnt remain in Christianity (bar a few outlying groups). So manipulated at the key point for its survival.
In reply to krikoman:
Lol - from your point of view and when it comes to your reaction, maybe I was.
But don't you think there's something in what I said, all the same? I'm not arguing that we should sympathise with religious fundamentalists any more than with terrorists, but it wouldn't harm to understand their point of view....
If everything behind your whole way of life gets negated and made pointless by waves of change, including the religion or ideology, it must do strange things to you. Look at Native Americans, the Inuit, some Pacific Islanders... OK, so they often turn to drink rather than violence, but when the same thing happens to more advanced civilisations, different rules seem to apply.
> I think you might be over-thinking things. > I just got bored
Lol - from your point of view and when it comes to your reaction, maybe I was.
But don't you think there's something in what I said, all the same? I'm not arguing that we should sympathise with religious fundamentalists any more than with terrorists, but it wouldn't harm to understand their point of view....
If everything behind your whole way of life gets negated and made pointless by waves of change, including the religion or ideology, it must do strange things to you. Look at Native Americans, the Inuit, some Pacific Islanders... OK, so they often turn to drink rather than violence, but when the same thing happens to more advanced civilisations, different rules seem to apply.
Post edited at 10:30
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...