Unfortunately, like most things in politics, it’s probably going to take a complete and utter calamity before people wise up and see things for what they are. It’s not considered PC to invoke the Nazis nowadays (which IMHO was a planned right wing strategy) but think of Germany in the 30’s. It took a full rise of Nazism and the subsequent collapse to get Germany to wise up. I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to take in the US…the complete takeover of the government, by semi-legal means, just like they’re doing now. Once all branches and houses are controlled by the tea-partiers, and other countries simply want nothing to do with the US, will things get so bad that they’ll be tossed out. I’m not looking forward to that at all.
Abdul, the video you cited, points out that, by far, most Muslims are not outlandish violent extremists. They suggested that less than one percent of Muslims comprise the extremists. (I wonder how they came up with that figure.)See the video on Dr. Juan Coles website http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/fareed-zakaria-destroys-beck-on-lunatic-islamophobia.html
That these atrocities may actually not be consistent with a "true understanding of Islamic principles" does not excuse Islam from being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified.With that thinking, should we denounce the Declaration of Indepence, the Founding Fathers, or others? Many violent anarchists take their influence from the same places they did contemporary anarchist pedagogy... defined itselfby a critical engagement with the fauz-libertariabisn of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's seminal... educational treatise cum novel "Emile http://books.google.com/books?id=7_GPRz4Gis8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=film+and+anarchist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NiV-U9CONMScyAS4lYHoAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=jean&f=false Also consider that from 2002-2009, 60% of US terror attacks were from enviornmental and animal rights extremists. RAND 2010 report http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP292.pdf page 9 Since their work are "being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified" should such activism be banned.
...Good point. But the difference is that ideals presented in the Declaration of Independence lead to the formation of government that is theoretically of, by, and for the people. Islam (based on the Quran, and the actions and sayings of Muhammed) is presented as the final, immutable word of God. Islam seeks to ultimately impose the supposed will of this fictional deity (as interpreted from the Quran and the actions and sayings of Muhammed) upon all of mankind.That these atrocities may actually not be consistent with a "true understanding of Islamic principles" does not excuse Islam from being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified.With that thinking, should we denounce the Declaration of Indepence, the Founding Fathers, or others? Many violent anarchists take their influence from the same places they did...
...[RAND 2010 report http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP292.pdf page 9 Since their work are "being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified" should such activism be banned.Books, data based studies, theoretical treatises, even works of fiction that present themselves as the final, perfect and immutable word of God (such as the Quran) should not be banned. Activism should not be banned. Violent activism, of course, is illegal, and thus IS banned. I am not suggesting that Islam should be banned. I am suggesting that it be called out for what it is.
...[RAND 2010 report http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP292.pdf page 9 Since their work are "being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified" should such activism be banned.I am not suggesting that Islam should be banned. I am suggesting that it be called out for what it is. Ok maybe "banned" was too strong a word. But we had already agreed before had
That these atrocities may actually not be consistent with a “true understanding of Islamic principles"But then the problem came that Islam is
"being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified"However, we agreed that this is not enough to condemn an ideaology as violent. So if Islam does not have violent principles nor a violent framework, how can it be classified as violent?
Abdul, the video you cited, points out that, by far, most Muslims are not outlandish violent extremists. They suggested that less than one percent of Muslims comprise the extremists. (I wonder how they came up with that figure.)See the video on Dr. Juan Coles website http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/fareed-zakaria-destroys-beck-on-lunatic-islamophobia.html A video update on that http://kurzman.unc.edu/the-missing-martyrs/
...[RAND 2010 report http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP292.pdf page 9 Since their work are "being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified" should such activism be banned.I am not suggesting that Islam should be banned. I am suggesting that it be called out for what it is. Ok maybe "banned" was too strong a word. But we had already agreed before had
That these atrocities may actually not be consistent with a “true understanding of Islamic principles"But then the problem came that Islam is
"being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified"However, we agreed that this is not enough to condemn an ideaology as violent. So if Islam does not have violent principles nor a violent framework, how can it be classified as violent? It may be that Islam itself is not violent (by some interpretations) but as long as a substantial faction use their own interpretation of the Koran as justifying violence, we have to take that into consideration. I have heard very few peaceful Islamic leaders condemning this misinterpretation of Islam. They should be talking about it, condemning it and publicizing it on a daily basis. If they are so convinced that true Islam is a peaceful religion and that it is being misused by terrorists and those who support their view of Islam, where is the outcry from peaceful Islamists? I have heard almost nothing--and I have been looking and listening for it. There is more than one interpretation of the Koran. There is not one view of Islam. Islam is not a monolithic religion. Because some or even most see it as a peaceful religion does not mean that there aren't factions that see it otherwise and create and support a different kind of Islam. The claim that all factions of Islam are peaceful is a subterfuge at best as well asthe claim that there is a pure and universally accepted Islam. Any religion is only as peaceful as its adherents see it. As long as there is a faction that uses it to justify violence it cannot be called a peaceful religion. Some interpretations of it may be peaceful but we know only too well that many factions are anything but peaceful. Who decides which is the true Islam? Lois
... But then the problem came that Islam isI will defer, in part, to Lois's response to this, when she said: "There is more than one interpretation of the Koran. There is not one view of Islam. Islam is not a monolithic religion. Because some or even most see it as a peaceful religion does not mean that there aren’t factions that see it otherwise and create and support a different kind of Islam. The claim that all factions of Islam are peaceful is a subterfuge at best as well as the claim that there is a pure and universally accepted Islam. Any religion is only as peaceful as its adherents see it. As long as there is a faction that uses it to justify violence it cannot be called a peaceful religion. Some interpretations of it may be peaceful but we know only too well that many factions are anything but peaceful. Who decides which is the true Islam?" Also, I think that all religions tend to have in common, a rather pernicious inherent element. That is the belief in the supernatural. This, I think, lays the groundwork for beliefs to be held and interpreted without regard to reality. Islam has a significant number of professing members that are believing and interpreting their supernatural beliefs to justify atrocious acts against humanity. Islam as a supernatural belief system has been wildly successful (as has Christianity) in spreading its dogma. The more successful such belief systems are, the more opportunity there is for abusive interpretations. Although Islam is second in number of believers, it seems to be first, in modern times, in the proponents who do damage to others in the name of its fictitious God."being the dogmatic framework from which these actions are emboldened and justified"However, we agreed that this is not enough to condemn an ideaology as violent. So if Islam does not have violent principles nor a violent framework, how can it be classified as violent?
...See the video on Dr. Juan Coles website http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/fareed-zakaria-destroys-beck-on-lunatic-islamophobia.htmlGlen Beck and Fox News are also not reality based. I think it's great when anybody shows them up for their lies and distortions.
A video update on that http://kurzman.unc.edu/the-missing-martyrs/This appears to be an interesting book. I support any mechanism that Islam may have for preventing violence by its proponents. However, the abuses of other humans, by persons who profess Islam, around the world are not limited to violent and deadly jihad. Some, interpret Islam in ways that discriminate against homosexuals (to the point, in some cases, of imposing a death penalty). Some interpret Islam in such a way as to justify genital mutilation of little girls. Some interpret Islam, in such a way as to restrict girls from getting an education, and to restrict equal rights for women in many ways. Some interpret Islam in such a way that once you profess it, you can never change your mind (again sometimes to the point of imposing a death penalty). Thinking of the human rights violations, done in the name of religions, is a rather repulsive endeavor, so I will stop with those.
I think I wasnt clear about my point. I am not trying to point a "you do it too". I was demonstrating that a certain practice is cultural which can be observed in several developing countries. So logically, one has to wonder if it is culture or religion to blame.I think its easy to put the blame down to culture. As many a cultures exist in third-world countries with extreme backwardness in effect. However, with them one can be more patient as they haven't yet experienced an alternative. Lack of education, modernisation, good leadership, etc. are at fault for the backward state of mind. On the other hand, religious doctrines that brashly dictate such practices, one cannot be so sympathetic towards. Hadiths and verses are aplenty that dictate the backward practices that many people in the third-world countries cite when carrying them out. Sure it is a certain interpretation of text that can be seen differently, regardless, the fact that they can interpret to such an extreme mannner illustrates that the doctrines provide some form of backing or origin. The doctrine aptly gives them an excuse to do so and that too with impunity. Any criticism and they point towards so-and-so hadith or so-and-so verse that allows them to stone adulterers, kill renegades, kill daughters who have dishonoured them and on and on. No wonder, governments of certain Islamic countries choose to selectively implement parts of the Sharia rather than whole-heartedly absorb all its recommendations. Makes one think that if they are already being 'selective' about the otherwise presumed divine 'word of God' that should be taken in its full-form without alterations, then isn't it a given that Islamic Reformation is the only way forward. One that includes ditching beliefs and behaviours that are incompatible within a post-modern society. High time for 'ijtihad' (independent reasoning) I'd say, regardless if scholars say that the time for 'independent reasoning' has been lost to the ages of bygone scholars. The whole process needs to be fast-tracked rather than requiring more frictions to eventually realise that. And then, just maybe somewhere down the line, people will stop getting worked up when the medieval-era, inhumane and irrational beliefs get rightly criticised.
Regardless of the religion in question, people commit atrocities on others that were inspired by their religious fundamentalism, and our governments and societies insist on a warped predisposition to avoid addressing religion as possibly being in any way, at fault. In this way, truly violent religious dogma gets a free pass most of the time.
Regardless of the religion in question, people commit atrocities on others that were inspired by their religious fundamentalism, and our governments and societies insist on a warped predisposition to avoid addressing religion as possibly being in any way, at fault. In this way, truly violent religious dogma gets a free pass most of the time.Well said. Lois
... I think its easy to put the blame down to culture. As many a cultures exist in third-world countries with extreme backwardness in effect. However, with them one can be more patient as they haven't yet experienced an alternative. Lack of education, modernisation, good leadership, etc. are at fault for the backward state of mind. On the other hand, religious doctrines that brashly dictate such practices, one cannot be so sympathetic towards. Hadiths and verses are aplenty that dictate the backward practices that many people in the third-world countries cite when carrying them out. Sure it is a certain interpretation of text that can be seen differently, regardless, the fact that they can interpret to such an extreme mannner illustrates that the doctrines provide some form of backing or origin. The doctrine aptly gives them an excuse to do so and that too with impunity. Any criticism and they point towards so-and-so hadith or so-and-so verse that allows them to stone adulterers, kill renegades, kill daughters who have dishonoured them and on and on. No wonder, governments of certain Islamic countries choose to selectively implement parts of the Sharia rather than whole-heartedly absorb all its recommendations...Good points.
It may be that Islam itself is not violent (by some interpretations) but as long as a substantial faction use their own interpretation of the Koran as justifying violence, we have to take that into consideration. I have heard very few peaceful Islamic leaders condemning this misinterpretation of Islam. They should be talking about it, condemning it and publicizing it on a daily basis.Yes it is a shame most of us dont hear them http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-417-3012.htm http://www.saudiembassy.net/announcement/announcement05071001.aspx Now the media does have a good reason for not reporting them. As former CIA agent Phillip Giraldi says to justify the seemingly unending series of wars in Asia, presenting the local people as lacking in the civilized moral and political values that we all hold dear. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/
Some interpretations of it may be peaceful but we know only too well that many factions are anything but peaceful. Who decides which is the true Islam?Considering that the "violent factions" 1. Are 0. 1 % of the Muslim popultion http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/fareed-zakaria-destroys-beck-on-lunatic-islamophobia.html 2. Live in war zones and may have mental instability http://kurzman.unc.edu/the-missing-martyrs/ 3. Have never had even the slightest training in Islamic sciences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxiR27qmWw4 (2:10-3:00) If one still insists that we should still be wary of quranic violence then consider another scenario (numbered to be similar to above) A soldier who 1. has a few friends and no major support of fellow officers 2. Lived for several months in high crime and poverty area 3. Eventtually left the military and formed anti-government views from his own experience Then kills hundreds of people Well that was Timothy McVeigh. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/documents/mcveigh/ With that in mind, should we also ---be wary of every soldier who walks into an airport ---Start accusing the military of teaching terrorism ---Take Timothy's views of the government seriously If no, then the answer should be the same when we replace the word "soldier" with "Muslim" "military/ government" with "Islam" "Timothy" with " extremist"
... I think its easy to put the blame down to culture. As many a cultures exist in third-world countries with extreme backwardness in effect. However, with them one can be more patient as they haven't yet experienced an alternative. Lack of education, modernisation, good leadership, etc. are at fault for the backward state of mind. On the other hand, religious doctrines that brashly dictate such practices, one cannot be so sympathetic towards. Hadiths and verses are aplenty that dictate the backward practices that many people in the third-world countries cite when carrying them out. Sure it is a certain interpretation of text that can be seen differently, regardless, the fact that they can interpret to such an extreme mannner illustrates that the doctrines provide some form of backing or origin. The doctrine aptly gives them an excuse to do so and that too with impunity. Any criticism and they point towards so-and-so hadith or so-and-so verse that allows them to stone adulterers, kill renegades, kill daughters who have dishonoured them and on and on. No wonder, governments of certain Islamic countries choose to selectively implement parts of the Sharia rather than whole-heartedly absorb all its recommendations...Good points. That depends on what we are talking about. As I had shared before, many of the things that percieved as shariah are NOT. A critique of modern islamist by the Stanford Advisor is insightful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUe5OsGbhM0 But if some laws differ from common secular laws, then how does one decide which ones to choose. Sociology is a complex field and properly chossing how to govern is not a simple question
...As I had shared before, many of the things that percieved as shariah are NOT. A critique of modern islamist by the Stanford Advisor is insightful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUe5OsGbhM0Even if all Muslims, suddenly, magically, had the same perspective as this "Modern Islamist" (which is definitely NOT the case and which is not going to happen), eventually the dogma based foundation, would again allow for destructive interpretations to arise. This guy, Hamza Yusuf, though I applaud his relatively rational perspective, makes a good point in stating that penal systems should be as limited in punishments as possible, but he references the reality that, in many places, there are Muslims who are eager to follow interpretations that justify (his example) the cutting off of hands. So your point seems to be that Islam, if interpreted ideally, could provide a sane, humanistic, positively functioning government. You might as well say "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. (BTW, do Muslims celebrate Christmas? I don't know. But since the Islamic dogma includes honoring Jesus as a great Prophet, and belief in his immaculate birth, I guess they could.)
I think I wasnt clear about my point. I am not trying to point a "you do it too". I was demonstrating that a certain practice is cultural which can be observed in several developing countries. So logically, one has to wonder if it is culture or religion to blame. A principle I was taught in my first year of engineering school was "correlation doesn't imply causation". Finding a clear cause-effect relation ship requires detailed study of variables and see how they react over different circumstances. If we see religious (in this case muslim) areas as violent, then we need to take several variables (economics, politics, culture, religion, demographics, etc) into account. Considering that there are dozens of muslim countries, that would requires a HUGE study. Fortunately one such study was done and you can view the results here (presented by Gallup Poll experts and scholars from Georgetown University) http://vimeo.com/14121737Seems to me that when countries decided to separate secular laws from religious laws that religious crime went down. While America is a very violent country due to the abundance of easily obtained guns, fewer religiously motivated crimes are committed. Today it is a disgruntelled mentally unstable single person who has a grudge. However most wars today are fought by religious groups against all who oppose them. The next secular violence is committed for say, a rich territory, a strategic island, iow, material gains, not spiritual power.
Regardless of the religion in question, people commit atrocities on others that were inspired by their religious fundamentalism, and our governments and societies insist on a warped predisposition to avoid addressing religion as possibly being in any way, at fault. In this way, truly violent religious dogma gets a free pass most of the time.Unfortunately, you're right. It may be changing but will take a long time. Lois
...As I had shared before, many of the things that percieved as shariah are NOT. A critique of modern islamist by the Stanford Advisor is insightful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUe5OsGbhM0Even if all Muslims, suddenly, magically, had the same perspective as this "Modern Islamist" (which is definitely NOT the case and which is not going to happen), eventually the dogma based foundation, would again allow for destructive interpretations to arise. This guy, Hamza Yusuf, though I applaud his relatively rational perspective, makes a good point in stating that penal systems should be as limited in punishments as possible, but he references the reality that, in many places, there are Muslims who are eager to follow interpretations that justify (his example) the cutting off of hands. True, but as I have shown and documented in my previous posts, this is the case for any ideology. By this reasoning, we also have to be skeptic of environmental groups, the founding fathers, etc. However just as we have lawyers, criminologists, ETC to prevent such abuses from taking place, there are also trained Muslim scholars in this. Hamza Yusuf for example is a president, of Zaytuna College and assitant to Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, one of the top jurists s of Islamic sciences. He also is a fellow of the international aal al bayt institute, which includes scholars from all over the world. http://www.aalalbayt.org/en/fellowssenior.php So doesn't it make sense to refer to people like him? If people want diversity of views, here are some other scholars with similar background as him http://tariqramadan.com/ (trained in the renowned Al Azhar in egypt and currently Oxford faculty of Islamic studies) http://www.onislam.net/english/search.html (a popular website edited by Muslims scholars)
So your point seems to be that Islam, if interpreted ideally, could provide a sane, humanistic, positively functioning government. You might as well say "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. (BTW, do Muslims celebrate Christmas? I don't know. But since the Islamic dogma includes honoring Jesus as a great Prophet, and belief in his immaculate birth, I guess they could.)I say " If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all an educated population such that noone will take misinterpretations seriously . " As I said before, this does not go only for religion. It goes for any popular ideology. The world needs to be educated about it to know when it is being misinterpreted. Unfortunately, for many people these days education can defined as thus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38