UKC

Morning ,

I had to double take reading this .

http://news.sky.com/story/1352190/islamic-state-boasts-of-revival-of-slaver...

A very sad state of affairs.

Almost enough to make me totally despair at the human race .

In reply to MGC:
I think there will always be the potential for badness from people, and it's the kinds of society we create which can help to keep it in check. Sometimes.

In reply to MGC:

thought this post was related to this one http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=598809&v=1

In reply to MGC:






Why not just despair of Muslim/ Islam?

In reply to Al Evans:

Have you seen this?

youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw&

In reply to Al Evans:


That, in one short sentence no doubt unintentionally but none the less quite perfectly sums up why not.

How is your broad brush bigotry significantly different to that of an IS fighter using a Yazidi's or Shiite's faith to justify their enslavement?

Slavery has never gone away. It changes as does how we talk about it but around the world it's still a brutal reality in all its myriad forms.

jk

In reply to Al Evans:

Well done, ignorant and bigoted comment of the day winner.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm not sure that's quite fair. If someone had asked why not despair of communism or fascism or some other political ideology, no one would regard that as bigotry. Islam as a political movement doesn't seem much better.

In reply to MG:

That's an interesting point. Islam is seen primarily as a religion, and also incorrectly as a racial group to an extent, ("They're fighting us because we've invaded their lands“ - "They" being Europeans fighting in Afghanistan or the middle east, but generally darker hued than most other Europeans).

It's more of a political system than a religion, particularly at the extreme end. Maybe a greater distinction is needed between 'Muslim' and 'Islamist'?

In reply to Ridge:
"Islam is seen primarily as a religion"

And a particularly vile religion at that!

One that has not gone through the process of reasonable dilution and emasculation that most western religions have, that make them comparatively harmless.

Why should a religion be exempt from criticism, any more than any other system of ideas? Particularly when it is founded on complete nonsense, given that Allah does not exist and Mohamed was certainly not a prophet but according to the Koran personally ordered mass murder on various occasions, so the entire mythology is blatant and harmful nonsense, as well as aggressively expansionist and viciously intolerant of either other religions or those who have no religion at all.

There are considerable dangers in what has been called "unilateral liberalism", in which we extend the utmost latitude and achingly correct benefit of the doubt toward vicious thugs who will allow us not a shred of mercy or tolerance if they are ever in the position to enforce their will against us. This is a degenerate variant of the initially stupid doctrine of cultural relativism, where every primitive culture is treated as equally valid, no matter what barbarities or primitivism it propagates. Some cultures are just BETTER than others, by any reasonably measure.

"It is of little use for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism when the wolf remains of a different opinion.

In reply to MG:


Perhaps. The point is Al's more than capable of saying what he means and he didn't say 'militants', 'Islamist extremism' or 'militant Islamism' or any of the other terms that even marginally more accurately describe the ideology and actions of IS. He said 'Muslim/Islam', a catch-all term covering the billion plus Muslims peacefully going about their lives, not waging war or enslaving anyone. The majority of whom would doubtless share our disgust at the excesses committed in the name of their faith.

jk

In reply to MG:


I don't think there is any group, that has committed atrocities so bad, that some numpty won't turn round and say 'You as bad as ... the Nazis, ISIS, Khmer Rouge etc.

Perhaps smokers.

In reply to Simon4:

And you are also a man holding vile opinions as the majority of Muslims I know are peace loving with views barely distiguishable from members of other major western religions and are exemploray citizens their contributions to society, especially charitable work.

In reply to Offwidth:

a) Living in the UK, you will know an extremely biased sample of muslims
b) You need to separate people from belief systems. Islam is being commented on, not its adherents. It is entirely possible to believe vile nonsense and still be a nice person (and the reverse)
c) Holding opinions "barely distinguishable" from other western religions is hardly a ringing endorsement given that all major western religions are sexist, homophobic and dictatorial.

In reply to MG:
The muslims I know include students and academics from various countries across the world. The ones I know well are as disgusted with ISIS as I am. Islam is not the issue here, its murderous extremist political manipulation and distortion of faith.

In reply to Offwidth:
Exactly, an extremely biased sample. Like suggesting the CoE congregation in your local church is typical of Christians globally.


The ones I know well are as disgusted with ISIS as I am. Islam is not the issue here,

Can you name any well-run, stable, Islamic country*? I think Islam as a political movement is generally an utter disaster. Claiming that the form of Islam followed by a small, highly educated, western elite is the "real" Islam and ignoring the typical nature of it for billions globally is misleading.

*Malaysia is probably the closest.

In reply to MG:

It is possible for the ignorant or evil minded to make bad things out of any religion or philosphy that has broadly good aims. Plus my 'sample of non religious' is equally distorted and yet hardly different in outlook (a bit more liberal but noticably more selfish on average). Blame the leaders, blame lack of education, blame human fallibility before you blame the religion.

In reply to MGC:

Most off us in the west put up with some form of slavery/bonded labour when we go shopping, all our cheap primart clothes i,phones and many of the "disposable" consumer items we buy depend on some form of exploitive labour in the production chain that will be bordering on slavery, there is no excuse for it but we havn't got much of a leg to stand on just because we keep it at arms length half a world away.
Rant over
I also include myself in this sweeping statement

In reply to jethro kiernan:
I agree there is a degree of suspect outrage here given that Slavery is alive and well in many countries and exploitation even more widespread. Yet its not often these days that proto- states enshrine the process in law. Id like to see less cliches. Maybe some anti conservative-muslim UkC posters could show some support to these people:

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=430959760274485&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fw...

In reply to MG:

Turkey is technically secular, but the population is almost all Muslim. Does that count?

In reply to marsbar:

Not at all. The whole point is it isn't goverened on an Islamic basis. Although that appears to be changing, and it appears to be going downhill.

In reply to MG:




Have you any direct experience of Islam and it's adherents in an Islamic country? As that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there considering it sounds like you're talking out your backside.

My experience of Islam and the Muslim community where i live is broadly in line with Offwidths and I live in one of those Islamic countries and see it's typical nature as you put it. Any Muslim i've met to date are discusted at the mention of IS and Islam in the same sentence. They outright deny that IS has anything to do with Islam and are offended at the idea that IS in any way represents it as a religion.

In reply to Frank4short:

So which countries are you thinking of?

Yes, I know a range of Muslims, mostly Uk based, mostly very pleasant, kind people. As above, you are taking any criticism of Islam as criticism of Muslims themselves. This is really unwelcome as it is an attempt to put Islamic politics above criticism.

In reply to Frank4short:

. They outright deny that IS has anything to do with Islam and are offended at the idea that IS in any way represents it as a religion.

Well, they are wrong. The no true Scotsman argument, It clearly is part of Islam and has many thousand supporters. That of course doesn't mean other parts may be good and sane.

In reply to Offwidth:



Surely the world's most famous lesbian muslim is Irshad Manji?

Her book, The Trouble with Islam Today, is very close to Simon 4's review of things.

She still (she wrote it 10 years ago) regards moderate muslims as part of the problem because they maintain the stasis of intensely conservative Islam, she prefers reformist or even revolutionary muslims.

In reply to MG:




Would Islam being the majority religion do for you?

For balance, you need to compare countries which have other religions as their main/only religions too.

In Eritrea and Ethiopia, Christianity is the main religion.

In reply to MG:




Indonesia too.

The country with the worlds largest Muslim population is democratic and stable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14921238

In reply to Timmd:

Tell that to the West Papuans!

In reply to Removed User:

Oops! I didn't know about that.

In reply to Timmd:

At least there's no head chopping of Christian girls, or church burning in Indonesia, right?

In reply to MGC:

There is a massive roll call of folk slaughtered in the name of mumbo jumbo. Whatever fairy story purported to justify it. Bible or Koran.
The 'Islamic' technique is to shock, disgust and strike fear. The end is no different than a bullet. And the motivation power and greed. Koran, Bible, my arse. Nothing to do with decent people, be they Christian or Muslim.

In reply to dek:


Too much effort, you just burn them in the churches (Maluku region)

CB

In reply to Timmd:


No. It's Islamic government and political thought I am commenting on. For the third time...

In reply to MG:


Maybe you should give up trying to explain that and fall back to Brass Eye terminology - "Good Islam" and "Bad Islam."

It doesn't seem to matter which religion it is, nothing good comes of any of them gaining political, or governmental or legal power.

In reply to winhill:

I think you mean some of what Simon said. One can critique bad governments, groups and individuals and recognise some belief systems with broadly good aims seem easier to distort for bad aims than others but to universally blame a religion like Islam for the acts of some of its followers is hateful and I dont beleive Irshad did that.

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree with the thrust of Simon's post, but think he does treat Islam as too uniform a thing.

I don't think it's meaningful to speak of "broadly good aims". I think the aims of organised religion in general are pretty questionable (certainly a total mixture of things I consider to be "good" and "bad", if I can even sensibly attempt to put a finger on what those aims are). To come up with an "on balance this religion is more good than bad/bad than good" is just a baseless opinion: a statement of what you'd like to believe, rather than an analysis of what actually exists.

It's a statement of the bleeding obvious that Muslims who hold western(?) values of tolerance, equality and freedom are perfectly nice, but those who are extremist nutters are extremist nutters. Surely we all know that both exist? So is the question a statistical one: if we were to place all the world's Muslims on a scale of "normal" to "nutter", where would the median lie? Sounds like a pretty pointless question to me.

In reply to MG:

Wouldn't be an Islamist view point, rather than Islamic?

It was the use of the word Islamic which confused me, it ment I read everything else in a religious context, and not political.

I'm not being pedantic, though.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's a statement of the bleeding obvious that Muslims who hold western(?) values of tolerance, equality and freedom are perfectly nice

Too westerners that may be obvious but we don’t always uphold those in our dealings with foreign countries much of the latter half of the century we have propped up some fairly unsavoury regimes, and much of the financial privileges we have are at the cost of exploited third world labour, not to mention the interfering in various wars and conflicts and dropping lots of bombs on bits of the globe. If you put yourself on the shitty end of the stick looking in, it may not be so bleeding obvious that western values have brought much value to them as individuals.
Many of the dictators of the last century have benefited from a British education in private schools and Oxbridge, so they obviously didn’t take too western values very well or it may be that we hold back on preaching about our values so much and allow some parts of the world to develop under models that may suit their local cultural systems.
By the standards we set for third world countries, America as a Democracy would have been still born because we would have waded in to stop the slavery, we would then have had to step in to stop the Genocide of the Indians, the land grab against the Mexicans and obviously we wouldn’t have allowed the civil war to go on without sorting it out.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My experience of muslims in backcountry Malaysia is like such people anywhere they are poor but nice people and would be horrified by what ISIS is doing (I havent asked them as I havent been back since ISIS arrived). Their religion helps them do much good in very practical ways...as far from meaningless as it gets in fact... and frankly in terms of helping people in need they put our modern western society to shame. They dont much like America as they see the country as a cliched powerful bully exploiting weaker areas of the world for their own political and economic ends. They trust their leaders too much (religious and political) and they don't follow all liberal western ideals but have been moving in the right direction on the 'areas of difficulty' (for example the Sultan isnt legally allowed to shoot his caddy anymore when he laughs at a bad golf shot). I suspect the proportion of nutters in Islam if you adjust for the social conditions of where they live is little different from those in Christinity or Hinduism and possibly less than those of the non religious (remembering the history of National Socialism and the worst of Communism) so its little to do with any of those religions and much more about abuse of power with 'religion' misued as a tool. In some ways its more worrying to me that violent well-armed extreme-right-Christian groups (very similar to those who have spawned terrorist bombings and mass slaughter in the past) exist in the US long term than ISIS popping up in the middle of a brutal civil war.

In reply to MGC:

Slavery and exploitation existed before IS in the middle east. Many countries exploit migrant workers to the point where one could call it slavery.

With regard to beheadings and other outrageous things IS has been up to, there are governments not too far from the areas IS controls who our government is happy to engage with, who are also happy to behead people based on their religious beliefs.

I'm taking all news in the UK about IS with a pinch of salt as I reckon what we are privy to as members of the public is highly selective. The propaganda machine has gone into overdrive on this one to encourage a sense of shock, horror and disgust at IS...paving the way for whatever action suits us this year. I'm not saying that they aren't vile human beings as they clearly are, but I find other things that go on in the region and outside equally vile...they don't make front page news quite as often as IS does.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I agree with much of your post and the point that talk of "western values" is deeply hypocritical (hence my question mark above). But at home, when it suits us, we in the west do hold up values of equality and tolerance which are shared by moderate Muslims and not by nutter Muslims. My point is merely that to paint Islam as mostly moderate or mostly nutter is just making a very vague guess about how the proportions might lie overall.


Oh god yes, we should be interfering far less overseas. That said, I don't really believe that models suiting local cultural systems, where those systems are deeply conservative religions, are going to do great things for their populations, and lead to stable, prosperous economies delivering opportunities for everyone. But hey, it's none of my business.

In reply to Offwidth:


Well you know the obvious response to this: how do you know they wouldn't do that without their religion? And adding experience of a few people in rural Malaysia to a few people in urban Britain doesn't get us much closer to an overview of the whole of Islam.


I agree, the reason people form violent movements is not because of their religion, it's because they want power and resources for their in-group (ethnic/sectarian/whatever). That said, some religions will be easier than others to use an excuse. And there does seem to be something of a correlation between nutty extremism and Islam at the moment (more due to the social conditions in which Muslims find themselves in, rather than the content of their holy whatnots, I would guess).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I gather that the Islamist narrative is that the world is against Muslims and Islam, using Israel as one example, amongst others (where the actual truth is that the majority of Muslims are living in situations where there isn't anything happening against them).

Which is what's used to radicalise impressionable young people, to get them fired up and angry, with (in the UK at least) there being the factor of young Muslims searching for their identity as Muslims in Western Britain, in feeling like they neither relate to their parents' generation, or to secular western Britain.

That is, it's not all young Muslims having this struggle, but in the proportion who are, it's that searching which is exploited (in a smaller proportion still) by those who are seeking to radicalise young people.

At least, that's the impression I get from the BBC Asian Network and other media.....

In reply to Offwidth:

There's much that ISIS are guilty of, but they can't reasonably be accused of distortion of faith. The Koran explicitly urges violence and terror against the non-Muslims:

004.074
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

003.151
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

005.033
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

008.012
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

In reply to Offwidth:
Yes.

No. The 9/11 hijackers were very well educated. They included architects and engineers.

>blame human fallibility
Yes.

No. I would make two observations here. Firstly, the Koran urges war and terror against non-Muslims. Why is it so difficult for many westerners to believe ISIS when they say their motivations are religious? Is it reasonable to dismiss their proclamations as the rantings of misguided children who don't know what they want or why they want it? Secondly, why should religion (specifically in its foundational texts) get a free pass to enjoin any and every kind of atrocity?

I could say equally damning things about Christianity, but it would be off-topic and rather less contemporaneous - the Vatican are not currently kidnapping aid workers and chopping their heads off, or suicide-bombing, or hacking British soldiers to death in the streets of London.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's a common misconception (and one much trumpeted by right-wing Christianity) that the Nazis were an atheist organisation. It's fiction. At the time they took power, Germany was a largely Catholic nation. The official religion of the Nazi party was Catholicism mixed with a good dose of paganism in the form of Norse myths. On the orders of the Vatican, Hitler's birthday was celebrated in Catholic churches; Pope Pius XII remained silent on and indifferent to Nazi atrocities; Nazi soldiers were obliged to swear an oath to God on joining the armed forces; and they had belt buckles inscribed with 'Gott Mitt Uns' (God with Us). Check ebay for the belt buckles, they're still around.

Of all the serving Nazi officials known to have been directly or indirectly involved with the Holocaust, only one was ever excommunicated - Joseph Goebbels. He was excommunicated not for crimes against humanity, or his involvement in murder, or torture, or racism, or genocide. He was excommunicated for marrying a Protestant.

Insofar as it went in for religion (which was pretty far by any measure) the Nazi Party was a Catholic organisation which enjoyed the protection and goodwill of the Catholic church, and amongst it's motivations were explicitly religious ones:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf

Communism, whilst nominally atheist, was - to take it's worst example, Stalinist Russia - a religion masquerading as secularism. It had its glorious, semi-divine leader (a former seminarian) who was fatherly, infallible, terrible in his wrath, and demanding of perfect obedience and endless worship - a fine mirror of the Old Testament God, occasionally depicted with a halo in religiously inspired iconography. It had its high priest spouting mumbo-jumbo in the form of Lysenko, and it had its ideological enforcers paralleling the priests of the Inquisition. It was atheist by declaration, but religious in its outlook and practices. On a separate, but not unrelated, point I think it would be difficult to argue that the evils of communism were a consequence of its professed atheism.

If you're looking for non-religious nations, the ones that get closest are 20th century west European nations: the UK, Sweden, Norway, Holland. Imperfect to be sure, but largely benign, rational, and agreeable places to live. Places, I would suggest, to be admired in a limited way.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree that religion and politics can be deeply unpleasant, but I guess my point is we should allow a certain arc of development that isn’t dictated by our "western" values (which now seem to be the Values of neo liberalism when applied abroad) much like a developing teenager many developing countries can be fairly unpleasant, stroppy, malodorous and react badly to be told what to do, but maybe they need to go through this to become mature societies, if we are going to interfere lets be to minimise the worst of it without having to force some political template and “western values” but seeing the basic human rights are the driver rather than “values” on them (and try and take finance, access to resource’s and self-interest out of it) .
It may well be that if you were looking in on our democracies you would think that we are on a downward curve with a less questioning press and less influence at local and union level and greater pressure to bear on government so might not see us as the guiding light in the darkness that we believe ourselves to be

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Come off it Tony, the bible is full of similar agressive quotes. Using those to justify behavior such of that as ISIS is preciesly misuse of religion.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes and when those bits are used to justify disastrous Christian political policies they should be condemned. This has happened historically with similar effects to ISIS and more recently with, for example, the Catholic Church attempting to ban condoms in aids affected areas, Why do you think religious ideas are somehow exempt from criticism?

In reply to Timmd:



Yes, I get this impression too. I'm very sceptical when I hear politicians talking about engaging these communities and state-sponsored anti-radicalisation programmes, it just doesn't sound like it's going to work for people who are very much alienated from the state (for god's sake, I feel alienated from the state when it comes to being told what to think, and I'm white and middle-class!). I just wonder who is bringing up people who at the age of 18 think fighting in Syria sounds like a great thing to do. It sounds to me very much like a failure of parenting.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Separate human rights from western values? Take access to resources and self-interest out of it? All sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to me. Leave other countries alone, yes; try to alter our model of intervention into something gentle, pure and good, I don't think it's possible.


I disagree. I think our democracies (certainly the UK) are mature in that politics has all migrated into the middle ground. With a bit of squeeze on at the moment things might feel a bit polarised, but in the bigger picture there's no philosophical struggle left to be had: we're all moderate, secular capitalists whether we admit to it or not.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree. Perhaps you overlooked the part where I said, "I could say equally damning things about Christianity".


Here, I profoundly disagree. You can only argue it's a *misuse* of religion if you take the position that the foundational text is not the Word of God and is not to be taken at face value but is, rather, a sort of 'pick and mix' upon which you can impose your personal values, heeding the parts you like and discarding the parts you find disagreeable. Christianity claims their book is the Word of God; Muslims take an even stronger view and claim that their book is the final and perfect Word of God. I think it's worth restating that ISIS are following their holy book. What they are doing is vile and revolting beyond words - but it is not dishonest.

If you'd like me to be even-handed, I'd add that fundamentalist Christian groups in the US trying to impose the teaching of creationism and compulsory worship in schools are equally honest and faithful in their reading of the Bible. Horribly misguided, stupid and dangerous IMHO, but faithful to their book.

There is a fundamental (sorry, couldn't resist) clash of ideas in what you might call moderate Christian and Muslim thought. The first - that is the original - idea is that the book is partly dictated by and partly inspired by God, and should therefore be heeded. It is a set of rules to live by; it comes to us from the highest possible authority and has a wisdom to which we can only aspire. The second idea is in direct conflict with this. The second idea says we can use a variety of intellectual devices to ignore certain parts and emphasise other parts. We can declare this to be literal, that to be allegory; this to be a good rule for social conduct, that to be barbarous and unacceptable; this to be inspirational and that to be feared.

Fundamentalists have no such mental clash. Theirs is a purer reading of the text.

To argue, as you do, that religion is being misused is - I would respectfully suggest - to make a unsupported and false assumption: the assumption that religion is intrinsically benevolent. We find much in the foundational texts of Christianity and Islam that is benevolent. But we also find a very great deal of the opposite. We find rape, murder, torture, religious war, genocide, and all manner of bigotry, persecution, ignorance and intolerance.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I wonder why we view those that went of to fight in the Spanish civil war so radically differently, many of them were fighting to impose/establish a communist state against the will of many. It's not even like we've not been programmed to revile and fear communism (at least up to and including my generation) yet presumably in light of the fascist terrors that followed we view those fighters through rose tinted glasses. The current crop of angry young people flocking to Syria are portrayed as a monolithic group of terrorists and traitors. Curious really.

jk

In reply to MGC: It astonishes me. At this point in time we have a perfect example - there are Kurds travelling to Iraq to fight ISIS. How are you going to categorise these people when they want to come home in 18 months time or whenever? Who knows if they are harmful or totally harmless (or a full spectrum inbetween)?

I don't think people should go to the middle east to fight, but as long as we consider someone like ISIS the work of satan and bang on about them in the media, imminent assault, plucky underarmed , out numbered Kurds begging for foreign assistance and so on, then impetuous young men are going to do stupid things.

In reply to Jon Stewart: Is and the problems in Iran/Iraq Syria etc. are Largely to do with meddling in the region for matters of self interest in securing the natural resources of those countries. We would have had better access to the resources of the region if we had offered minor assistance 60 years ago on infrastructure and basic civil service advice, health systems etc.
instead we are in the mess we are in, pandering to a rich, religiously extreme dictatorship in Saudi, playing off two allies the peshmerga and the Turks etc etc etc repeat as long as there is oil.
I don't think it is pie in the sky to suggest that there might be another way and the Kissinger style diplomacy shouldn't be the way forward.

You may believe that we are moderate secular capitalist's but our governments and business's are turning into capitalist fundamentalist's where only one idea is now excepted. This I personally believe May put us on the downturn as far as western democracy is concerned as we reach a point were you have to be able to afford to buy into the system and large multinationals will have more influence the elected governments. Again we may not be there but there are plenty of impoverished countries that have had to compromise socially.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


But human beings are short-termists. We are incapable of genuinely sensible long-term planning. The world would be a completely different place if things were otherwise.


Indeed.


I genuinely hope you're right, but realistically I don't think you are.


You may have a point - although I'm not sure it will really do us much harm, more likely it will help keep us afloat as every other part of the world does exactly the same things. We are all human beings after all.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Parents can 'do everything right' and still have their children go awry. I wouldn't like to judge.

Likewise the oddest of parents can bring up well adjusted children, my sis in law's sis in law is very weird, and her children are both lovely & 'normal'.

I digress, but I probably wouldn't judge the parents...

In reply to MG:
You know full well I dont think that, as I said so earlier. I do think blanket condemnation of such a major religion when other factors are to blame Is wrong, highly insulting to the majority of muslims including nearly 3 million citizens of our country and helps feed the militancy.

In reply to Offwidth:

Helps feed the far right and general intolerance too, I've been surprised at the people I know who think there's some kind of growing threat from Muslims in the UK.

In reply to Offwidth:


You manage to contradict yourself in two sentences. If you think religious thought isn't above criticism, you can't then say it's wrong to condemn it. If you think political Islam is fine, argue the case, don't try and shut down discussion by saying criticising it is insulting people. You wouldn't dream of saying Tory party policy shouldn't be condemned because it would insult millions of people, so why is Islamic thought different.

In reply to jkarran:


Yes he is and he did here by blaming the contents of Islam for the conduct of ISIS, but in fact he is quite right, all ISIS are doing is applying the sharia in it's primitive form, which is still the basis of Islam. Until Muslims as a whole denounce this, say in some universally accepted way that this is no no longer Islam, that the primitive sides of the religion are not valid then it's quite acceptable for Al, and anyone else, to say this and be quite right.

It's not as if the treatment of women by Muslims, for example, even in Britain, today has escaped these primitive forms... you can see it in the streets of London, all over Britain. I realise that Islam has no equivalent to the Pope or the Synod to do this but it's clear they just have to find some new way of functioning, which establishes just what aspects of the original teachings of Islam, the Sharia, Coran and Sunnah and Hadith are not only no longer part of Islam but prescribed for any true Muslim if they want to escape all being tarred with the same brush.

In reply to Timmd:

Well, we had the London bombings of 2005, the Glasgow airport attack in 2007, an attempted bombing in Exeter in 2008, and the public butchering of Private Lee Rigby in 2013. Given that attacks of this nature from radical Muslims weren't previously a problem, it does seem reasonable to perceive a growing threat from radical Islam in the UK.

In reply to jkarran:


I don't want to side-track the thread but the way you appear to put the situation of those who went off to fight in the International Brigades in Spain - that is to support the democratically elected Republican government in Spain against a military coup d'état by a fascist regime (literally) - with ISIS militias which support no existing democratic government and are openly practising genocidal policies including beheading civilian and others horrors - on the same level is quite astonishing. Either you know nothing about the Spanish Civil War or nothing about what ISIS is up to.

In reply to Timmd:


Maybe blowing up 50 or so people in London on their way to work in the name of Islam could have something to do with it? Just a little suggestion you may have missed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'd assumed the people I'm thinking of, would realise that not every Muslim is a would be terrorist.

Like the kid I sat next to in Secondary school isn't now he's an adult.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


Of course, but it's making that distinction which is important, you get a lot of people talking about 'Muslims' being the problem.

In reply to Timmd:
Could you perhaps try, once again, to understand there is a difference between criticising Islam and criticising all Muslims? It's really not a very hard distinction to understand...but rather important to the discussion. If you can't manage this, you are basically saying Islam is an untouchable philosophy beyond all comment and discussion.

As a comparison, if someone said UKIP is a growing threat in politics, you wouldn't immediately start talking about the nice UKIP supporter you sat next to at school, and how horrible it is anyone could comment on UKIP policy. I hope.

In reply to MG:

Again I think nothing of the sort. It is perfectly OK to critique aspects of religious thought without outright condemnation of the whole religion. It is even possible to state you feel the religion is false without condeming those who follow it. Its what liberal western countries do within their stated attitude towards freedom of speech and worship. I just wish some citizens of those countries would cease their abuse of those freedoms whether following a religious led or anti religious led intolerance.

In reply to Offwidth:




So only little bits of criticism of religion are OK?. If I thought Islam was vile from top. to bottom (I don't) I shouldn't say so? You don't seem to getting this s free speech thing.

In reply to MG:
You are persistent I'll give you that. I never used or implied 'little'. One part of this issue is when we are we going beyond applying reasonable but strong critique and drifting towards legal problems with religious crime as defined in the link below, which includes hostility to someone just because of the religion they beleive in.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/#a03

So no, you are not free to say what you like in law in this (prohibited aspects of this law's) respect or many others for that matter.

In reply to MG:

Other than being confused by your use of the word Islamic as a term for a political viewpoint, where Islamist may have been more appropriate, can you point out where else I've misconstrued what is posted on this thread?



Do you think you could be more patronising? What a stupid sodding bloody thing to post.

Of course I'm going to point out that not 'all Muslims' are would be terrorists, if people talk about Muslims being a problem.

I've actually known quite a few during my years, who'd be nowhere near to being a terrorist.

What else would you expect somebody do, just sit and agree that Muslims are a threat?

Don't you think it rather reduces the chances for social cohesion if people go around talking about Muslims being a threat when it's actually just a minority?

In reply to Timmd:


A "growing threat" doesn't imply the threat is 100%, just that it seems to be growing. From zero a few decades ago to more than that now. See what I mean?

In reply to Timmd:


Well that's a relief!

The example given about UKIP is a good one, there may well be nice people in UKIP but knowing someone voluntarily supports such a party says something about them. Similar for Islam, except in the case of Islam being a member is not an entirely free choice... which is possibly another problem with the religion! Have you ever heard an Imam giving his view on apostasy? They mostly squirm a bit but do 100%, even on this very basic question, say "No of course this is a totally out of date notion, a person is totally free to become a Muslim and drop out freely."?

Would you agree that anything less than 100% is unacceptable in a modern democracy?

In reply to Timmd:

Your distinction is irrelevant. An Islamist want to introduce Islamic systems, Islamic government will be part of that. Criticising either can easily be done without criticising all or even many Muslims.


Yours was the stupid post. Don't write rubbish if you don't like being patronised. No one has suggested all Muslims are terrorists but every time Islam is criticised or it is pointed out some Muslims are terrorists., you start jumping up and down.



Maybe but that hasn't happened on this thread. Again, you seem to be equated criticism of one thing with another.

In reply to Offwidth:
So what did you mean by "aspects of"? It must be less than all or you wouldn't have added the phrase. Is criticising 60% of Islam OK with you?

Nothing in the laws you cite suggests criticising religion is illegal. Not that this is really relevant, there are plenty of bad laws.

If you think criticism of religion is OK, why not just say so?

In reply to Al Evans:


I think your mistake was focusing on one of them; fixed it for you.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Could you give a few examples of which other religions have been as active in this sort of butchery as Islam over the last few decades? I know Hindus have had a go a few times and there have been a few cases where Buddhists have too, but which religions other than Islam have motivated mass and individual murder on a regular basis in recent years?

Once you have answered this then your change to Al's post will become relevant.

In reply to MGC:
Lords Christian Army. Looks rather similar to Isis to me

In reply to Offwidth:

You seem to be confusing despising religion with despising all the people who practise it.

In reply to MGC: or here's another example of a 'religion' that killed a lot of people - Stalinism.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
It may be hard to understand in this kiddies playground but thinking religion is wrong and based on superstition etc is a vaild and unproblematic position of argument for anyone. Public stating of hatred or despising major religions like Islam on the other hand is plain wrong in my opinion and is also problematic as per the act above. It works the same for homosexuality, abortion and numerous other areas of contention in our modern lives. Freedom of speech does not constitute the right to spread hate which of course is delightful irony on this thread since its part of what motivates ISIS.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


They didn't all join the international brigades, there were competing militias with their own agendas but a common enemy. Not that radically different to present day Syria surely? We or at least our press currently lumps everyone travelling to Syria in with IS like you're doing with those that went to Spain. It's easy, it sells, it'll be useful that they're stigmatised if and when they return but it's probably also a rather lazy, inaccurate depiction of a far more complex situation.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


That's my point it is totally different. The majority going to Spain were on the Republican side, and this was the legitimately elected government of Spain. Franco's Fascists were a military uprising trying to overthrow this government. In Syria the existing government - may be less legitimate than the Spanish Republicans but all the same one recognised internationally, for decades, in the UN etc - and ISIS is part of the rebellion against it, and a particularly violent sub-group of this. The only people who could be likened to ISIS volunteers are the few foreigners to went to Spain to fight on Franco's side, they did exist, but these were not the majority and not what one refers to when speaking of International Brigades.

PS. Don't forget that the rebels in Spain were helped militarily by the existing Fascist regimes in Europe, Germany and Italy, they were fascists in the literal sense, not just using the term as a pejorative one.

In reply to all:

The families of Haines and Henning are making their points on the news today. A refreshing counterpoint to some of the negativity on display here despite the terrible tragedy they have faced. Great to see at least some Brits can retain our famous tolerance even under severe provocation.

In reply to Offwidth:

What lack of tolerance do you see on this thread? You can't really be in favour of tolerating anything, however bad, surely? There no interest even, I'd say especially, for Muslims to tolerate the more vile aspects of some of the old dogma of their religion and put it into practice in modern times... is there?

In reply to Frank4short:


I have spent time in Pakistan and it is a frightening society, there are gunshops on the corners of streets like we have grocers. Our researcher was told by our government appointed interpreter that if she went into the market dressed like that (shorts and T shirt) she would be stabbed. Women have no rights, they are treated like scum, no right to education and if raped they are blamed and stoned to death. This is not hearsay, I have seen all this and that was 15 years ago, I think it is worse now.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2014 was awarded jointly to Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai "for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education".

Great that this years Nobel peace prize reflected the facts
'This hopefully means that women can get an education, do not even begin to think that there is such a thing as democratic Islam, it does not exist. The nice guys you meet in the UK do not represent the true face of Islam.

In reply to Al Evans:
While I dont want to deny the many bad things happening with the treatment of huge numbers of women in Pakistan. Your views are a bizzarre mix, exaggerated and help feed the narrative of western hatred of Islam that is helping recruit terrorists. There are many highly educated women in the country including an ex head of state. The tribes in parts of the country have been carrying out terrible acts (and I greatly welcome the nobel prize for a modern hero who highlighted aspects of this) but its neither state policy nor islamic (even if the tribes dishonestly justify it as such). There are inbuilt gender problems in Islam but they certainly do not include removing all womens rights. I dont condone the threats to your western women friends either but they are culturally insensitive in the extreme if they feel it might be OK to wander round such places dressed in shorts and T- shirts. The idea that democratic Islam doesn't exist is a direct insult to any number of countries, again feeding that narrative. After such a rant on womens rights its interesting you finish on us only meeting guys in the UK.

In reply to Offwidth:

"I Galileo Galilei of the city of Pisa, do solemnly acknowledge my errors in claiming, contrary to the wisdom of the scripture and the rule of the holy church, that the earth moves around the sun. I renounce, abjure, curse and detest, and utterly repent of this error and falsehood, further confirming that as the infallible church teaches, the sun moves around the earth"

As Galileo reaches the door to depart the chamber of the holy inquisition, he says in a stage whisper :

"But yet it moves!" ***

"it" is of course the Earth, Galileo was correct, not the holy inquisition, no matter how great their power to wring self-denunciation out of him. The inquisition had considerably more terrifying weapons at its disposal than any number of politically correct and freedom limiting acts of parliaments, though probably was less ruthless and brutal than the likes of IS. But Galileo was still right, the inquisition still wrong, as IS are wrong. Laws and restrictions cannot over-ride this feature of reality, no matter how rigorously enforced with malign intent.

Given that Islam and its founder were in fact despicable, why should it not be despised? That Islam is a significant religion is clear, why (other than for reasons of self-preservation due to the fondness of many Muslims for intimidation and violence, including murderous violence) should it be any less an appropriate target for hatred simply because of the number of its adherents? It is after all, hateful, while the number of people that believe a falsehood does not make that falsehood any more valid, though it can certainly make pointing it out more perilous.

Which is not the same as saying that all muslims are despicable nor that they as individuals should be hated, as many, indeed most of them, do not in practice stick to the tenets of their faith.


Freedom of speech means exactly what it says on the tin, it does not mean freedom to say things that you personally approve of or that the Inquisition would sanction, whether you or the inquisition disapprove of the implications or not. There are of course some reasonable restrictions on free speech such as you may not incite violence against particular groups, but the restrictions should be kept to the absolute minimum. There is no good reason, certainly no reason compatible with a liberal democracy, why Islam or Marxism or any other repellent system of ideas should not be despised or hated if people wish to feel that strongly about the threat they represent.

*** - unfortunately like all the best stories, it is almost certainly apocryphal. Nonetheless, it moves, and all the fatwas, excommunications, pleas to keep silent to preserve "community cohesion" will not arrest it in its orbit.

In reply to Offwidth:


Who was, as you forget to mention, was murdered while on an election campaign. As for the Nobel prize winner, she survived but was also the victim of a murder attempt in the name of Islam... your examples just dig you in deeper.


There's hardly need to feed any narrative, Islam does it for itself. The question as to whether it can reform itself as christianity has to an extent, is uncertain, especially as at present it it getting worse and worse, quite unlike the situation just a few decades ago when Islam, even in Pakistan, seemed to be modernising. I don't think your sucking up attitude will push them in the right way, quite the opposite as the few progressive Muslims in Muslim countries that survive are crying out for support from outside, and all they see is the West hand in glove with the worst countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.

In reply to Offwidth:

I explained (as opposed to asserted) in a previous post that the murderous followers of Islam were not being dishonest but were following the teachings of their holy book. You continue to assert that they are dishonest. Given that they're doing what they are unambiguously told to do by the Koran, and given that you've yet to support your assertion with evidence, your accusation of dishonesty is looking very weak indeed.

In reply to Offwidth:
By the way, on the subject of the treatment of women in Islamic nations, this ex-Muslim lady has a great deal of first hand experience:

youtube.com/watch?v=1sivAkHdV4Q&

She calls the experience an Inquisition.

In reply to Offwidth:


The Aafia Siddiqui stuff is just weird though, casts a long dark shadow over everyone involved.

And of course, only understandable from a perspective of muslim identity politics.

In reply to Simon4:

Agreed. But if you think about it, there are discussions that we in the West can't have about certain aspects of our society. Ones where everyone toes the line because to present a contrary view is deemed as so unpatriotic, so un-British, so reprehensible that dialogue is essentially shut down.

Muslim societies, and Islam itself, aren't alone in this. Islam is an extreme example, I'll grant it that. But the same limitation on what is possible, what can be discussed, what can be considered, is prevalent in countries with outwardly open systems.

In reply to David Martin:


Such as? Having said so much you can't stop there, what "un-British" things can't we criticize? I can't think of a single one. Are you making this up?

In reply to Offwidth:


I'm not sure she'd agree it was vile but she might agree it appeared vile to outsiders. In a piece about 9/11 she did say it demonstrated that Islamic reform was in everyone's interest now, not just muslims, so she did make the connection.

I doubt it's worth 50 minutes to watch but there is an interview on al-jazeera that she did with Mehdi hasan last year which makes an important distinction between modern and traditional views of islam.

Hasan takes the traditional, conservative view, that yes muslims are bad and that is why a perfect god has given them a perfect book and a perfect religion, to stop them being bad. That's why questioning the quran is such a big deal for muslims. Manji OTOH says that muslims make Islam by their beliefs and actions on a continuous basis and if you can change muslim behaviour you can change Islam.

The problem for people like yourself, who take this right wing conservative view of other beliefs/cultures is that you bang the drum for the most orthodox (and usually backward) at the expense of progressive or contrarian views.

In reply to MG:
/


Good.


What are you implying, then, in saying that Offwidth's ' sample of Muslims (ie the ones he has met) is a biased one, keeping in mind that he says all Muslims he has met hate ISIS?

Can you not see how one might conclude that there is something rather negative being implied but not explicitly about the 'other' Muslims out there who Offwidth hasn't met*.

*Who you haven't met either, it should be pointed out.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I completely see what you mean.

I think it should be born in mind though, that Saudi Arabia is a source of a lot of funding for extremism in the Middle East, and it publishes millions of Qurans each year which have a deeply unpleasant views of Jews and non believers, with verses added about them being abominations or some-such, certainly sentiments very similar to that, and these books end up being left in hotel rooms and other places in as many places as Saudi Arabia can find, pretty much, and it's out of Saudi Arabia that the strict Sharia interpretation is being promoted too. It's something of concern to scholars who are aware of the different strands of Islam, like Sufism for instance, and who are happy enough for it to be (re)interpreted for modern.

It's not so much something within Islam itself which is the cause of the intolerance (it can be interpreted in as nasty or as pleasant a way as the other faiths can be), but the way in which a highly intolerant and unpleasant interpretation is being spread by Saudi Arabia (primarily).

This is probably why I can tend to jump up and down as MG put it, because It's too broad a way of talking, to just talk about Islam. The cause for worry is the horrible mixture of the kind of thing which is coming out of (primarily) Saudi Arabia, and the Islamist view point which is used to radicalise young Muslims in the UK and other countries, referencing what's happening to the Palestinians and the wars in Iraq etc.

It's not so much about the merits or otherwise of Islam, it's a bit more specific than that .

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That's not quite how I ment it to read, tone wise, as I was knackered when I posted, but hopefully you get what I mean, that when one starts talking in general terms, it's probably difficult to say much at all.

In reply to Timmd:


I wasn't implying anything. I was simply stating a fact. This was in response to Offwidth making the same mistake as you of assuming any criticism of Islam is a criticism of Muslims, and then trying to back this up with the irrelevancy of him knowing nice Muslims. To spell this out for you, it was irrelevant firstly because whether Muslims are personally nice or nasty or a mixture has little bearing on the benefits of Islamic government, and secondly, Offidwth's experience of a handful of elite Muslims is no measure of their overall character.



No. Particularly as my next sentence emphasised that I was criticising Islamic government and that Offwidth was making the mistake of confusing the two issues.

In reply to Timmd:

Thats more like it. I would agree with that analysis and also point out that the world powers (mainly the UK and US) set that situation up in Saudi to suit our own ends and we still to this day regard the Saudis as one of our closest allies (yet liberal that I am, despite the widespread dangerous religious polemic there, even then I wouldnt blame all Saudis). Its been a good thread for a guardianista like me getting accused of being right wing for fighting cliched attack on Islam as a whole whilst defending the worldwide tens of millions of people of faith who get on with broadly good lives and of course Im especially delighted to consecutively rattle the cage of two of UKCs polar opposite polemicists.

In reply to MG:
Fair enough.

I have been sleep addled of late. I'll probably re read all this after a good spell of sleep and realise where I was being dumb.

In reply to Timmd:
I think you'll find that the Koran and the Sunnah has been fixed for several centuries (6 IIRC) and the "window of opportunity" allowing discussion has been closed since then. This is the standard view of Imams throughout the world although most are not so strict. That's the problem IMO what you present as being the norm for Islam is not the norm as far as the "official" versions, as defined by the Sunnah, Koran and it's Hadiths, go so the problem remains. Anyone who starts reading and decides they want to be a really good Muslim finds themselves confronted with this problem.

The only non-conflictual solution I can see is Muslims getting together and bringing these old texts up to date, but as far as I know (which isn't that far!) there is no mechanism prescribed by Islam for doing this... basically a rupture with the past is needed and unfortunately the trend is towards going back rather than going forward, as seen by non-Muslims and the few progressive Muslims who struggle to do this. As someone said above the people in ISIS who murder by the hundred can just say "read the books" to justify their acts, say "we are doing nothing wrong, it's you (modern Muslims and non-Muslims) who are wrong."

It's not a simple problem but it won't help to just sweep it under the carpet.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Being (very happily) an ex Catholic, I'm probably more aware than you of the amount of 'fudge room' there can be when it comes to people following their faith, it might say things about it being wrong to be gay, and different things, but the human desire to be free or to live fully pushes against that, which is what creates change. I'm vaguely hopeful that it's that which will win out against the people wanting to adhere rigidly to what's written in the books.

I've posted all that I know pretty much (I didn't have any sleep at all last night but I think I have), and I've a career as an ecologist or similar to pursue. Hopefully the intolerant people won't win.

In reply to Timmd:

It's quite clear to secularists that the extremes of any religion are threats to world peace. At the present time the great threat is extreme muslims. In the past it has been catholicism and the war with protestantism, The problem is that now it is Islam and they are warlike and expansionist, the only hope for world peace is to crush them and hopefully bring their religion into the modern world for those who are willing to follow their faith peacefully.

In reply to Al Evans:
Crush ISIS you mean? Possibly.

I can't help wondering if things are 'all going to plan' in how Ban Laden wanted to start a war between 'Islam' and 'The West'

I'm at a loss.

Nobody on UKC knows what's going on. I haven't a clue.

In reply to Al Evans:

'Crush' would tend to imply war, which is unlikely to work - unless you're referring to a war of ideas, in which case I'd agree. Part of the problem is that western secularism is opposing a religion so vastly ignorant that it might as well have stepped out of the 14th century:

"In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: According to the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Reports, less than 2% of Arabs have access to the Internet. Arabs represent 5% of the world’s population and yet produce only 1% of the world’s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century." - Sam Harris

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam

It's tempting to argue that education and dialogue will work over the long term, but it's likely to be very long term indeed - look at how long it took the West to make religion know it's place, starting with the Enlightenment and still continuing today. And how do you educate a religion that is so determinedly isolationist?

There is one educational goal that should be achievable fairly quickly, though. In the west, I think we need to educate our leaders and governments into the idea of standing up for our freedoms, particularly freedom of speech. And if someone rants that someone else offended their religion the answer should be a robust, "That
is absolutely fine, and we will do everything in our power to protect their right to do so".