Jihad

[cantdog]

The first part of your post is very cute, but doesn't prove a thing. I addressed this in post No. 38:

"It is accurate to point out that in the current era a lot more of this sort of thing actually goes on in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity. They both have the potential, and the potential has been realized in both in the past. At the present, the potential is realized much more so in one than in the other. This is generally seen as a result of historical and intellectual processes that have occurred in the Christian world (the post-Reformation wars of religion, and the intellectual reaction to that called the Enlightenment). It is hoped that something similar to the Enlightenment may happen in the Islamic world. But it hasn't yet, and we should be honest about these things."

That said, to the extent there are Christians who have not accepted the Enlightenment, and there are, I agree with you.

On the second part of your post, how informed do I need to be to know that oppressing women is wrong, and murder committed in the name of a religion is wrong? I addressed this above in the analogy using Aztec human sacrifice, and in in post No. 62 in "status of women" thread:

"In probably half the Muslim world the status of women is very bad. In most of the rest it is not good. Only in a few places is it not bad. The oppression of women in Islamic societies is so widespread that it is impossible to say that it is the work of minority. The violence done in Islam's name is the work of a minority, but there is plenty of evidence showing that it is supported by a signifigant portion of the population in many Islamic nations. This is context that matters.

"There seems to be an undercurrent that says we shouldn't point these things out or talk about them, because that would somehow be "insensitive." I am not oblivious to the danger in pointing these things out, that doing so can be used by yahoos and demagogs to persecute. That is not sufficient reason to shut up about the existance of injustice, though, or pretend that it is not real, and extremely widespread."

Oh quite so. I hate citing post numbers, myself, but i believe I said in this very thread that if you wish to take a position that religion is a support of irrational massacre and oppression, I am with you. It is the irrational poppycock in Christianity which is imposing the critical pressure on the irrational adherents of Islam to cause the grossest of these acts, right at the moment. The two stoke each other, like Pakistan and India writ large.

Fundamental adherents of many religions are completely certain God wants the believer to attack the infidel, for the books tell them so. I agree. Why single out muslims? The net effect of this and your women thread is an attack on Islam in particular.

 

[cantdog]

Which, in case you missed it ("it doesn't prove a thing") was the point of the first part of the post. It served my own argument very nicely.

 

[cantdog]

radical, any religion is bad....

Fuckin A.

Not particularly radical, either. History and the newspaper are full of thousands and thousands of examples. To be a "moderate" Christian or muslim, you have to reinterpret or ignore a lot of holy writ. But millions do it, because they value reason, and because the pressures of modernity make killing every unbeliever a bit awkward. Well? Apply a little more reason, accept a little more pressure from reality. Dump religion altogether. There are plenty of ways to build strong communities and help the poor without believing piles and piles of unexamined crapola.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Fuckin A.

Not particularly radical, either. History and the newspaper are full of thousands and thousands of examples. To be a "moderate" Christian or muslim, you have to reinterpret or ignore a lot of holy writ. But millions do it, because they value reason, and because the pressures of modernity make killing every unbeliever a bit awkward. Well? Apply a little more reason, accept a little more pressure from reality. Dump religion altogether. There are plenty of ways to build strong communities and help the poor without believing piles and piles of unexamined crapola.

I am more comfortable being in bed with you that fighting with you. Let's have passionate makeup sex now.


Wait a minute, not yet. You condemn me above for "singling out Islam" and assert that the status of women thread and my posts here are nothing but an "attack on Islam." They certainly are an attack on practices done in the name of Islam. But wait a minute - you don't hesitate to launch one attack after another on Christianity.

Why the double standard? I haven't hesitated to condemn inhumane things done in the name of Christianity. I even agree with your scorn for religious "moderates" (Sam Harris does a terrific job of laying out a justification for this), but I do object to ignoring the differences between what is done in the name of a post-Enlightenment Christianity and what is done in the name of a pre-Enlightenment Islam in the current era. It triggers my bullshit-o-meter. We just don't see Christian extremists blowing themselves up in crowded markets.

 

[damppanties]

I've been pretty careful to specify that I am talking about what is done in the name of Islam. It seems clear that one can find passages in all the texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam and Christianity that give people permission to cut and kill. To repeat, I don't care or need to know what the texts say to make judgements about the actions they are used to justify, just like I don't need to know the tenets of Aztec religion to make judgements about human sacrifices done its name.

Roxanne, you have not backed up your claim of 'one can find passages in texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam <snip Christianity> that give permission to cut and kill.' Show me the passages. You seem to have a bias against religion as such, more than people who kill in the name of religion. To me, you come across as, I hate Islamic fundamentalists because their religion allows them to cut and kill. I may be wrong, but that's what I feel you're saying. And then, it is your assumption, that 'one can find passages in all the texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam <snip Christianity> that give people permission to cut and kill', which is why you need to educate yourself and others. I'll tell you why you need to know the texts below.

If the Islamic faithful don't what like non-believers think about Islam because of the bad things done in its name, they are the ones who are in position and who have a responsibility to stop that from happening, not me or anyone else on the outside.

I too now carry this over and respond to the rest of your post in the status of women thread.

Addressing the bold part of your post here - why not? Why isn't it your responsibility? What is your responsibility, Roxanne? Just crying 'tiger' and waiting for someone to come running? If you see injustice being done to someone, why isn't it your duty to stop it in whatever way you can? Or you just pronounce, 'hey, this is wrong' and walk away?

Do you realise I am on the same page as you? I comdemn the acts done in the name of Islam too, but the difference is that I am willing to peel away the general hatred against Muslims (or any other religion really) and come up with hating people who commit the wrong. And, I am willing to specifically tell the world why I comdemn those people. Not because what they're doing is wrong, because that is blindingly obvious, but going to the root of the problem, they're doing it in the name of a religion that preaches non-violence and how wrong they are about doing that.. I can come up with specific instances of where the Quran preaches non-violence, Roxanne. Can you? Do you realise that if the media, or ok, forget the media, just an individual like yourself takes up the cause of spreading awareness about what the text truly says, you can pull the ground out from under these Islamic fanatics? If enough people do this, instead of just crying out, 'Its wrong and stop doing it', then you're trying to do something worthwhile.

Forget about standing by your 14 year old, fight the people who're oppressing her. She doesn't need you to say what is happening to her is wrong. She needs you to give her the means to stand up for herself. Similarly, condemning the killing of people in the name of religion is not enough. The difference between you and I here, even though we both 'condemn' killing in the name of religion, is that I am trying here, to educate people about why and how wrong it is, based on their own beliefs, and actually do something about it, not raise my hands and say - I pointed your faults out and now it's your problem and you deal with it.

 

[jeninflorida]

if god is loving and a father, let me ask this to those that are lucky to have children, what could your child ever do that would make you condemn them to eternal damnation? How as a parent can you rejoice in your child committing suicide (and taking other innocent people with him or her)?

Fuckin A.

Not particularly radical, either. History and the newspaper are full of thousands and thousands of examples. To be a "moderate" Christian or muslim, you have to reinterpret or ignore a lot of holy writ. But millions do it, because they value reason, and because the pressures of modernity make killing every unbeliever a bit awkward. Well? Apply a little more reason, accept a little more pressure from reality. Dump religion altogether. There are plenty of ways to build strong communities and help the poor without believing piles and piles of unexamined crapola.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, you have not backed up your claim of 'one can find passages in texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam <snip Christianity> that give permission to cut and kill.' Show me the passages. You seem to have a bias against religion as such, more than people who kill in the name of religion. To me, you come across as, I hate Islamic fundamentalists because their religion allows them to cut and kill. I may be wrong, but that's what I feel you're saying. And then, it is your assumption, that 'one can find passages in all the texts of these "revealed faiths" like Islam <snip Christianity> that give people permission to cut and kill', which is why you need to educate yourself and others. I'll tell you why you need to know the texts below.

Addressing the bold part of your post here - why not? Why isn't it your responsibility? What is your responsibility, Roxanne? Just crying 'tiger' and waiting for someone to come running? If you see injustice being done to someone, why isn't it your duty to stop it in whatever way you can? Or you just pronounce, 'hey, this is wrong' and walk away?

Do you realise I am on the same page as you? I comdemn the acts done in the name of Islam too, but the difference is that I am willing to peel away the general hatred against Muslims (or any other religion really) and come up with hating people who commit the wrong. And, I am willing to specifically tell the world why I comdemn those people. Not because what they're doing is wrong, because that is blindingly obvious, but going to the root of the problem, they're doing it in the name of a religion that preaches non-violence and how wrong they are about doing that.. I can come up with specific instances of where the Quran preaches non-violence, Roxanne. Can you? Do you realise that if the media, or ok, forget the media, just an individual like yourself takes up the cause of spreading awareness about what the text truly says, you can pull the ground out from under these Islamic fanatics? If enough people do this, instead of just crying out, 'Its wrong and stop doing it', then you're trying to do something worthwhile.

Forget about standing by your 14 year old, fight the people who're oppressing her. She doesn't need you to say what is happening to her is wrong. She needs you to give her the means to stand up for herself. Similarly, condemning the killing of people in the name of religion is not enough. The difference between you and I here, even though we both 'condemn' killing in the name of religion, is that I am trying here, to educate people about why and how wrong it is, based on their own beliefs, and actually do something about it, not raise my hands and say - I pointed your faults out and now it's your problem and you deal with it.

Look, we can all play the Google game an find passages in the Koran, Old and New Testaments that incite everything from going forth to feed all the hungry puppies to mowing them down like hay. It doesn't mean a thing. What is meaningful is what the people who identify themselves as members of those faiths think those books say. Cant said above, "To be a 'moderate' Christian or muslim, you have to reinterpret or ignore a lot of holy writ." Many people do exactly that, but there is no way you or I or any outsider can track the mental manipulations they perform to get there, or chart new ones for others who have not arrived there.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting when you say, "I am trying educate people about why and how wrong it is (to kill or oppress in the name of religion) based on their own beliefs." It won't work. In a way, it's disingenuous or even dishonest for an non-believer to even try. The Koran is not the basis of your belief that the oppression of women and religious murder is wrong. Your belief comes from elsewhere. Most likely it comes from a variety of sources that are part of the West's humanist project of the past 500 years.

In a sense, what you describe is playing the same game that you accuse the extremists of playing, of seeking justification in "the book" for positions you have already arrived at for different reasons. The impulse to moderation or extremism does not come from those books, although passages in them can be used to justify both. Those impulses come from elsewhere.

In the West, the impulse for moderation and tolerance came from a reaction to 150 years of the most awful, bloody war committed in the name of religion beginning after 1517. In 1651 Hobbes wrote Leviathan, the main message of which is "Stop it!" In the 1690s Locke wrote his Letter on Tolerance that remains the basis for our views on the issue today.

No similar intellectual and ethical revolution has occurred in Islam. In general and with some exceptions it is not responding well to modernity, and has not accepted the principles of tolerance and the separation of church and state. The impulse to moderation is weak and, well, not tolerated in much of the Muslim world. This is a fact about the world we live in. Ignoring this fact or trying to explain it away is just sticking your head in the sand. Noticing this fact and talking about it is not "hatred."

SheReads wrote in the other thread, "Change begins when the majority of those in power begin to find the practice inconvenient." We can't influence the ways in which members of a faith interpret their faith, but perhaps we can make it less convenient for them to interpret it in ways that countenance oppression and killing.

I mentioned the priniciples of toleration that arose from the West's historical experience and "humanist project." I happen to believe that many of the principles derived through these things apply to all humans, although I get a lot of grief whenever I say that around here. It does seem that wherever some of these principles are asserted almost anywhere in the world, those who deny them find themselves on the defensive. It becomes "inconvenient" to deny these principles.

So I'm asserting one of those principles: It is wrong to oppress women and kill in the name of religion - any religion, no matter what the content of its book - and you should stop it.

 

[damppanties]

What is meaningful is what the people who identify themselves as members of those faiths think those books say. Cant said above, "To be a 'moderate' Christian or muslim, you have to reinterpret or ignore a lot of holy writ." Many people do exactly that, but there is no way you or I or any outsider can track the mental manipulations they perform to get there, or chart new ones for others who have not arrived there.

But you and I do not have to track their mental manipulations. They're actually telling you what they are and what they're killing in the name of.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting when you say, "I am trying educate people about why and how wrong it is (to kill or oppress in the name of religion) based on their own beliefs." It won't work. In a way, it's disingenuous or even dishonest for an non-believer to even try. The Koran is not the basis of your belief that the oppression of women and religious murder is wrong. Your belief comes from elsewhere. Most likely it comes from a variety of sources that are part of the West's humanist project of the past 500 years.

Why do you think those people will understand and agree to your beliefs. Try to get them to turn back based on their own beliefs, which is obviously a better bet than telling them, listen, I am a western woman and believe in non-violence, so stop it now, or else.... It's all very well for you to have your beliefs. I'm saying that you need to fight the problem in a way which works. Look at the problem. Look at what you're doing. Only saying it is wrong and please stop it will not help. Therefore, you need to change your strategy if you want to help.

In a sense, what you describe is playing the same game that you accuse the extremists of playing, of seeking justification in "the book" for positions you have already arrived at for different reasons.

Nope, not justification. I am talking of using the book as a means to an end. Exactly as those people use it to further their own twisted ends.

In the West, the impulse for moderation and tolerance came from a reaction to 150 years of the most awful, bloody war committed in the name of religion beginning after 1517. In 1651 Hobbes wrote Leviathan, the main message of which is "Stop it!" In the 1690s Locke wrote his Letter on Tolerance that remains the basis for our views on the issue today.

Sure, but telling them all this won't have a bit of affect. It's useful to you, but we're not trying to stop Roxanne Appleby from killing people, otherwise we'd have used this as material.

No similar intellectual and ethical revolution has occurred in Islam. In general and with some exceptions it is not responding well to modernity, and has not accepted the principles of tolerance and the separation of church and state. The impulse to moderation is weak and, well, not tolerated in much of the Muslim world. This is a fact about the world we live in. Ignoring this fact or trying to explain it away is just sticking your head in the sand. Noticing this fact and talking about it is not "hatred."

No one is ignoring it, Roxanne. What you call modernity, they call letting go of their religion. I am not here to argue who is right, but to try and look at a solution to the violence done in the name of the book and/or religion.

SheReads wrote in the other thread, "Change begins when the majority of those in power begin to find the practice inconvenient." We can't influence the ways in which members of a faith interpret their faith, but perhaps we can make it less convenient for them to interpret it in ways that countenance oppression and killing.

Ok. So how do we make it less convenient for them to interpret it? By getting to know what their faith actually is and asking them why they kill when it says clearly, that you're not supposed to? Or do you think its better when you tell them it is wrong and leave it at that and hope that it penetrated their thick skulls. Really. Why will it? They're too comfortable in their own made up worlds. I think our way is to threaten that world. Not stand outside it and shout out our own beliefs and views at them.

So I'm asserting one of those principles: It is wrong to oppress women and kill in the name of religion - any religion, no matter what the content of its book - and you should stop it.

Sure. Thank you. You've done enough assertion and I've agreed. Who wouldn't say killing or oppression of women is wrong? The real point is doing something to stop it, which you seem very reluctant to do. So assert all you want, and again, hope that your assertion is enough for something in the world to change towards the better because you said it's wrong.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . Sure. Thank you. You've done enough assertion and I've agreed. Who wouldn't say killing or oppression of women is wrong? The real point is doing something to stop it, which you seem very reluctant to do. So assert all you want, and again, hope that your assertion is enough for something in the world to change towards the better because you said it's wrong.

In some areas we will have to agree to disagree, which of course is fine. I will point out a few things though.

I said that "seeking justification in 'the book' for positions you have already arrived at for different reasons" is the same thing the extremists do. You responded, "Nope, not justification. I am talking of using the book as a means to an end. Exactly as those people use it to further their own twisted ends."

I don't understand the "nope" there. You acknowledge that you are doing exactly what I said. You think it makes a difference that you percieve yourself as doing it for "good," and perceive them as doing it for "twisted reasons," but you have not established any basis on which you can show that. You don't believe in their religion, so your belief that what you're doing is "good" is not based on it, but is based on something else. You don't want to say what that something else is, because - Why don't you want to say? Don't you really believe it yourself? If you do believe it then why won't you say why you believe it? Don't try to tell someone you believe it because it's in the Koran - that's not true. That will be seen as cynical manipulation. At least those who use the book to justify "twisted" ends actually believe in the religion.

I believe those things for the same reason you do. They are a product of the West's historical experience and "humanist project." You did not respond to this part of my post: "I happen to believe that many of these principles apply to all humans," and that they have great power wherever they asserted almost anywhere in the world. I'm referring to the principles of religious tolerance, separation of church and state, and human rights.

Therefore, it is not whacked out to "hope that your assertion is enough for something in the world to change towards the better." The assertion is a minimal starting point, but whether anything comes of it will only be known in the fullness of time.



Edited to add:

"Who wouldn't say killing or oppression of women is wrong?"

You're a good person, Dampy. That makes it hard for you and for most of us in the west to believe that millions of people don't think that these things are wrong. Sam Harris (The End of Faith) reserves some of his harshest criticim for religious moderates, in part because, from the wiki entry, ". . . they (and indeed some secularists) appear to be blinded to the fact that fundamentalists really believe in all this stuff."

The relevence of this to what I've been saying is that many of the principles that you and I share are not accepted universally, but should be. I think that for this to happen those of us who hold these principles must have the confidence to assert them in any venue where it is relevent.

 

[damppanties]

In some areas we will have to agree to disagree, which of course is fine. I will point out a few things though.

I said that "seeking justification in 'the book' for positions you have already arrived at for different reasons" is the same thing the extremists do. You responded, "Nope, not justification. I am talking of using the book as a means to an end. Exactly as those people use it to further their own twisted ends."

I don't understand the "nope" there. You acknowledge that you are doing exactly what I said. You think it makes a difference that you percieve yourself as doing it for "good," and perceive them as doing it for "twisted reasons," but you have not established any basis on which you can show that. You don't believe in their religion, so your belief that what you're doing is "good" is not based on it, but is based on something else. You don't want to say what that something else is, because - Why don't you want to say? Don't you really believe it yourself? If you do believe it then why won't you say why you believe it? Don't try to tell someone you believe it because it's in the Koran - that's not true. That will be seen as cynical manipulation. At least those who use the book to justify "twisted" ends actually believe in the religion.

I misunderstood that you meant I am using their book to justify my beliefs to myself, which was what I said no in response to, but yes, I am using their book to present my beliefs to them. The point is to make them believe that killing and oppression is wrong, and believe it or not, their book says pretty much what you and I believe in, even though you've arrived at your beliefs from a different route and I'm going to adopt a different one to present my beliefs to them, in language they understand and have no choice but to accept, in order to change their opinion and their behaviour. Let's face it, Roxanne, my reasons for my beliefs and yours are not important to anyone other than you and I.

To the bold part - I am not telling them I believe it because their book says I should. I am telling them that they should believe it because their book says they should. I choose to adopt this method because they care a damn why I believe what I do and the only way I can change their outlook is if I present it using things they believe in.

To change a person's opinion, you chip away at the foundation his opinion is based on. You do not say, here, this is my opinion and it's based on so and so, so you should believe it too. Why would they? They'll give you a - no, my book says so and that is my reason for killing infidels. Take away that reason by showing them it is not true. Show them it is wrong before showing them your way is right.

I believe those things for the same reason you do. They are a product of the West's historical experience and "humanist project."

So? Why would a 60 year old waiting to marry your 14 year old virgin care that you believe in the West's humanist project? Again, your reasons for your belief are all well and fine, but they will not help the cause. They're all well and good for you to feel good about yourself and that's about the only thing they're good for. And maybe getting together with some like-minded people and chest-thumping. Yes, that too.

You did not respond to this part of my post: "I happen to believe that many of these principles apply to all humans," and that they have great power wherever they asserted almost anywhere in the world. I'm referring to the principles of religious tolerance, separation of church and state, and human rights.

I didn't respond to that because I agree with you about the principles applying to all humans. What I don't agree with is that it should stop at assertion. I believe you need more than just assertion. Don't feed them your point of view. Show them how theirs is wrong using what they believe in.

Therefore, it is not whacked out to "hope that your assertion is enough for something in the world to change towards the better." The assertion is a minimal starting point, but whether anything comes of it will only be known in the fullness of time.

Glad that you believe it's just a starting point. We've been asserting for ages now nothing will change in the future unless we do something else. How about going a step further? When does the asserting period stop and the doing something period begin? Where are your 20 dollars?

Edited to add:
You're a good person, Dampy. That makes it hard for you and for most of us in the west to believe that millions of people don't think that these things are wrong. Sam Harris (The End of Faith) reserves some of his harshest criticim for religious moderates, in part because, from the wiki entry, ". . . they (and indeed some secularists) appear to be blinded to the fact that fundamentalists really believe in all this stuff."

Fundamentalists believe in it - ok. I am tired of repeating myself at this point but challenge their beliefs using the very things they use to support them, because that matters to them.

The relevence of this to what I've been saying is that many of the principles that you and I share are not accepted universally, but should be. I think that for this to happen those of us who hold these principles must have the confidence to assert them in any venue where it is relevent.

I agree totally with your first sentence. I do not with the next, because I believe that for non-violence to be accepted, you need to speak their language. Assertion is very easy and has been done already. People are still being killed. Time to change strategy, don't you think?

 

[TheOlderGuy]

the AH is so different from the GB

an endurance test such as this would have devolved into petty name-calling long ago. kudos to everybody for being civil in your debate.

 

[Kandi]

My wife heard a story on NPR today, that i looked up online: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6392989 , about how foolishly this administration has used the word "jihad". Because so many Islamic militants have been jihad this and jihad that, Bush and Co, figured they could use it as a pejorative to make their point, that "Muslim is evil, Democrats are almost as bad, and Republicans are good".

But to most Muslim people around the world, jihad is "striving in the path of God", a very holy activity. and when the Washington thugs say "we will fight jihad around the world", it is a very serious threat to all that is most scared in them. we offend millions of people who would otherwise be our allies in the war against terror.

What we should be doing is using the word "hirabi", sinful warfare. if Bush and Co, had any understanding of the muslim world, they would point out that what terroists do is NOT jihad, but hirabi. then all those muslims who hate terror as much as we do, would understand that it is not their God that we are warring against, but the scum who use God to condone violence against innocents.

This makes a lot of sense. I was always wondering why they were trying to take on all Muslims instead of focusing on the fact that these were extremist elements. Perhaps because they are such extremists themselves.

 

[cantdog]

... Islam. In general and with some exceptions it is not responding well to modernity, and has not accepted the principles of tolerance and the separation of church and state. The impulse to moderation is weak and, well, not tolerated in much of the Muslim world. This is a fact about the world we live in. Ignoring this fact or trying to explain it away is just sticking your head in the sand. Noticing this fact and talking about it is not "hatred."

Many responses in this thread have told you that you have less basis for believing this "fact" than you imagine. Your statements here and above-- "generally" and "much of the muslim world"-- rely on your notion that most of Islam falls into the category you abominate, and that doesn't reflect the real demographic, the real situation.

I do agree with you, as an outsider to these religions, that arguing with a literalist looks pointless. Christ sounds like an enlightened peacemonger in many places, but he has also had militant words put in his mouth, in scripture: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," he is quoted as saying. Hundreds of Qur'an verses, as I tell you, though you will not read any of them, exhort the believer not to tolerate the unbeliever, and there are ways to interpret that other than the obvious, of course. But a literalist is unlikely to be struck by them, it seems to me.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Many responses in this thread have told you that you have less basis for believing this "fact" than you imagine. Your statements here and above-- "generally" and "much of the muslim world"-- rely on your notion that most of Islam falls into the category you abominate, and that doesn't reflect the real demographic, the real situation.

Don't pussyfoot around and make this about me. If you disagree with me, lay it out in positive statements:

"With a few exceptions, I think that Islam is adjusting well to modernity and accomodating it with little trauma."

"With a few exceptions, I think that the separation of chuch and state is accepted in Islam."

"With a few exceptions, I think that Muslims respect the human rights of all people, including women and non-believers."

"With a few exceptions, I think that Muslims believe in religious tolerance."