Islam - the religion of peace

[yosi]

no words needed............

[martin48]

......

[trish]

.....

[fred41]

.....

[Stavros]

Two cartoons that illustrate the iconography of hate, and ask where the dividing line lies between the satirical and the offensive. One is from Julius Streicher's Nazi rag, Der Sturmer c1936, the other is from Charlie Hebdo. The only question left is, who has the biggest nose, the Jew or the Arab?

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/images/sturmer/ds32-29.jpg


http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--oao-HNra--/qtnl8gzkwznzgwecjmdg.png

[broncofan]

One thing I will point out is that there is an important distinction between mocking someone's ethnic traits and satirizing a belief system, even if that doctrine is religious. Ridiculing ideas (such as the hypocrisy of threatening people for insinuating you aren't peaceful) should be fair game entirely.

But even if the cartoons are racist, that can never justify a violent response. If there are hate crime laws (personally I'm against their enactment), the authors can be taken to court. Someone can make their own cartoon. They can write an editorial stating how the cartoons go beyond some preconceived norm of decency. But people rightfully see the violence against cartoonists, even professional provocateurs, as actually threatening to one of the foundations of our civilization; the right to express oneself free of physical threat.

The point of re-printing the cartoons is not to say you would have printed them yourself had there been no threat, but that you stand in solidarity against any such threats once made.

[omnifarious]

Critique doesn't need to be disrespectful.

[broncofan]

Critique doesn't need to be disrespectful.
But if it is and it's inevitable some will be given the number of people with opinions to express, murdering the author is not the solution. Probably a good addendum to that.

[blackchubby38]

Critique doesn't need to be disrespectful.

Its not supposed to get you killed either.

[trish]

The preliminary aim of satire is to make a joke of those who persist in a perceived error with the ultimate aim making it very uncool to subscribe to it. Satirizing big noses is a fail, because one cannot unsubscribe to the size of one's nose. Satire is only appropriately aimed if it's ultimate subject is an erroneous belief, an irrational fear, an unjust custom etc.

[martin48]

Good opinion piece


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders?mbid=social_facebook

[irvin66]

As we all know, Islam is a peaceful religion that we see examples of every day....:whistle:

[Stavros]

One thing I will point out is that there is an important distinction between mocking someone's ethnic traits and satirizing a belief system, even if that doctrine is religious. Ridiculing ideas (such as the hypocrisy of threatening people for insinuating you aren't peaceful) should be fair game entirely.

But even if the cartoons are racist, that can never justify a violent response. If there are hate crime laws (personally I'm against their enactment), the authors can be taken to court. Someone can make their own cartoon. They can write an editorial stating how the cartoons go beyond some preconceived norm of decency. But people rightfully see the violence against cartoonists, even professional provocateurs, as actually threatening to one of the foundations of our civilization; the right to express oneself free of physical threat.

The point of re-printing the cartoons is not to say you would have printed them yourself had there been no threat, but that you stand in solidarity against any such threats once made.

It is curious that I posted two cartoons, one of which has since been deleted, or shall we way, censored?

The point I was making was that the drawings themselves perpetuate stereotypes of Jews and Arabs and that not only do I find that offensive, I also find it offensive that the implication in the cartoons -as Irvin's dirty cartoons also show- is that there is no difference between Muhammad as the founder of Islam, and the violent extremists who slaughter in his name, which puts Charlie Hebdo in the same camp as the neo-fascist movement in Britain, France and Germany which refuses to make any distinction between Islam as a theology and the perverse politics that is being used as a justification for any number of crimes.

That said, I do not recommend banning such cartoons, just as I am as appalled as everyone else at the destructive response the cartoons elicited, but I do believe that the Danish cartoons and the French ones are too close to the offensive to be 'merely satirical' and to think otherwise is naive. I wonder why it is that so many cartoons of Jesus do not present him as a Jew with thick lips, a big nose and cunning eyes, but as a European?

The Nazi cartoon with its resemblance to the Hebdo cartoon has been deleted, the cartoon of Muhammad remains -and has been added to by Irvin- and remains to foster precisely the hatred and ridicule that people want to express against Muslims, much as the Nazi's did against the Jews in the 1930s. Because a broader understanding of what Islam is, and might be, compared to what the violent extremists want is not for discussion. Is it any wonder that people with intelligence abandon HungAngels when it is so shamefully biased?

[Ben in LA]

From Tumblr: Charlie Hebdo: This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech - It Was About War (http://amazinamerica.tumblr.com/post/107596037680/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with)

[trish]

From Martin’s link

“A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents. Islam today includes a substantial minority of believers who countenance, if they don’t actually carry out, a degree of violence in the application of their convictions that is currently unique. Charlie Hebdo had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too—but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism. For some believers, the violence serves a will to absolute power in the name of God, which is a form of totalitarianism called Islamism—politics as religion, religion as politics. “Allahu Akbar!” the killers shouted in the street outside Charlie Hebdo. They, at any rate, know what they’re about.”––George Packer The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders in http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ocial_facebook .

It is often implied that Christians (for example) do not murder in the name of religion. However, they do. Just not as much as they use to and not with as little provocation as was once sufficient. In the U.S. the murder rate of obstetricians has reduced the number of family planning clinics that perform abortions to nearly zero in some States. But at least we’re not burning witches anymore, nor torturing heretics on the rack and mercifully murdering them when they say, “Uncle!” The atrocities and enhanced interrogations we now commit are in the name of politics and profit.

I do think the Packer’s article has this much right, “A religion is ... the living beliefs and practices of its adherents.” It is accordingly impossible to set aside Islam as a causative factor in the violence in Paris two days ago, or the ongoing violence in Syria, Iraq etc. But Islam does not sit within a vacuum, and that violence is a reaction not only to the satirical jabs of a few cartoonists but also the political upheaval wreaked upon the Islamic world by two centuries of exploitation by Western nations and their accompaniment of profiteers.

Did you know the war in Afghanistan ended yesterday? We still have missiles, jets and boots on the ground there. But we did lower and retire the Green NATO flag the flew above NATO headquarters there, and raised a different green NATO flag symbolizing our new “resolute support” for Afghanistan.

Those who travel in the MiddleEast and Northern Africa (I’ve only been to Morocco) note that the representation of people and animal forms in ancient religious art is infrequent. Depictions of Allah or the Prophet are rare. One might suspect this is because the Quran proscribes against idolatry––but such proscriptions in the Old Testament have not significantly discouraged Christians from making figurative representations of God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary. One can certainly display artful figures that refer to the holy pantheon without falling into idolatrous worship.

(I might mention that no one knows what any member of this pantheon actually looked like, and so it’s impossible to create an actual image of God, or Jesus or the Virgin, or Allah or Mohammad for that matter. One can only scribble a few lines that REFER to God, Jesus, the Virgin etc. Pictorial references are not images. They can only do what “words” do; i.e. they can only refer. So if a pictorial reference to Mohammad is sacrilegious, than why aren’t all other scribbles that refer to Mohammad sacrilegious?)

In any case, the proscription against idolatry in the Quran doesn’t really explain the infrequency of representational forms in Islamic art. The prohibition against such forms is found in the Islamic Hadith. The reason for the proscription is rather cryptic, but it seems that artists should not endeavor to create living forms because such is the work of Allah, not man. On the day of reckoning the creators of such representational forms will be punished. They will be told, “Give life to what you have created.” Presumably they will forfeit their eternal life and bequeath it to the forms they have drawn, sculpted and carved. Their punishment already secure, I see no reason why Allah requires his fundamentalists to go about killing cartoonists.

But what about the blasphemy? According to Fareed Zakaria ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-blasphemy-and-the-law-of-fanatics/2015/01/08/b0c14e38-9770-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html )there is no law in the Quran against blasphemy. The proscriptions against blasphemy are (according to Fareed) mostly to be found in the Old Testament. If that’s the case Christians and Jews should also be killing folk for blasphemous satire, not just Islamic fundamentalists.

Throughout the Middle Ages the Islamic world bloomed intellectually. It produced mathematicians, astronomers, philosophers and poets that rival the best the world has ever seen. Religious art was non-representational, but representational art thrived in non-religious contexts. While Christians were committing atrocities in the name of religion, Omar Khayyam was writing poetry, solving cubic equations, drinking wine and making love to beautiful women in the warm desert dunes of Persia.

A religion is the living beliefs and practices of it’s adherents. Those adherents change with time and place. What beliefs drop away, what practices grow in importance and which are lost only later to be revived depend on hard political circumstances. Religion is one of those things that can lie dormant and then rise up and bite you in the ass just when you thought things were going well––or not so well.

[irvin66]

but they do live in the Middle Ages, just look at the laws that they follow, flogging and stoning people who think differently than them....:geek:
is it civilized if I may ask...?

[trish]

Who lives in the Middle Ages? At least metaphorically, those that flog and stone do. Also those who capture and torture their captives with water boarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and forced feeding.

Flogging and stoning are the punishments demanded by the Old Testament for offending God's Law. How does a believer decide which of God's laws to follow? How does one pick and choose?

It's not so much the ancient religious laws that matter, but which ones the adherents choose to practice or not to practice. These choices are as much conditioned by the political forces (big oil, dictators, foreign powers, western culture) exercised upon the community of believers as by the dispositions of the believers themselves.

I do think there is something about the interconnections between Islam as it is practiced today and the modern world at large that is unstable. Everyone needs to work at extricating ourselves from this delicate balance, not just Muslims. Assimilation worked in the U.S. when it was inundated by waves of Italians, Germans, Poles and Irishmen. But the U.S. population then was composed mostly of Christians of European ancestry. Assimilation of Muslim North Africans into France is much more difficult...perhaps unlikely. Learning to live multiculturally (as opposed to the strategy of assimilation) is harder to do. It's probably preferable to building a wall, though Texans don't think so.

[cameron47]

Islam is a cult

[broncofan]

The Nazi cartoon with its resemblance to the Hebdo cartoon has been deleted, the cartoon of Muhammad remains -and has been added to by Irvin- and remains to foster precisely the hatred and ridicule that people want to express against Muslims, much as the Nazi's did against the Jews in the 1930s. Because a broader understanding of what Islam is, and might be, compared to what the violent extremists want is not for discussion. Is it any wonder that people with intelligence abandon HungAngels when it is so shamefully biased?
This is not a contest, so one bad act does not offset another. But there are hateful cartoons of Jews made in the Middle East on a weekly basis. In Iraq, the Shiite regime made a cartoon of satan having sex with a Jewish woman to spawn ISIS that was disseminated in their mainstream media, perhaps to riotous laughter. I happen to see these every week. Iran had a Holocaust cartoon contest to test the west' free speech standards. No deaths. Articles written. But no deaths.

I tried to say in the other thread during the Gaza campaign that I was concerned that nine synagogues had been lit on fire by molotov cocktails presumably by disgruntled Muslim youths. The cartoon murderer here ended up killing three or four hostages at the end of his reign of terror at a Kosher market (probably just because he wanted to kill people near salted meats). On the list of grievances, I think people being raped and murdered and houses of worship being firebombed merits more concern than mean-spirited cartoons. And such cartoons don't merit concern only in proportion to how many people get killed in response to them. Yes, I don't like cartoons of people with large noses. A letter to the editor would have been a very nice gesture by the murderers.

[broncofan]

If there are hate crime laws (personally I'm against their enactment), the authors can be taken to court.
I doubt anyone cares too much about my personal positions. But I am against the enactment of hate speech laws, not hate crime laws. I do believe in enhanced punishments for assaults based on race, sexual orientation, and religion. I just think punishing hateful speech is a bad idea....since it can be effectively countered through more speech.

[Odelay]

Is it any wonder that people with intelligence abandon HungAngels when it is so shamefully biased?
I'm disappointed that I didn't get to see the censored cartoon.

But the censorship doesn't surprise me. As you note, there is some real bias here in the management of this site, and it begins and ends with the almighty $.

[broncofan]

I'm disappointed that I didn't get to see the censored cartoon.

But the censorship doesn't surprise me. As you note, there is some real bias here in the management of this site, and it begins and ends with the almighty $.
Jewish people don't have absolute control over what is posted on this board. I would have had no problem with a Der Sturmer cartoon being posted although it's irrelevant.

The problem is that even if the cartoons were bad, they don't justify violence. It doesn't justify all of the violence against cartoonists or grocery shoppers.

What a phony, disingenuous comment about being disappointed not to see the Der Sturmer cartoon. You can find them all over the web. You're certainly not going to get attacked for looking at them.

[broncofan]

I'm tempted to post a Der Sturmer cartoon as well as a couple dozen cartoons from the Middle Eastern press depicting Jews. Yes, protecting the almighty dollar:loser:

[broncofan]

The problem with the argument that Muslims are being treated like Jews of the 1930s is that it is actually Jewish people in France who have been subjected to record setting violence this year. Were you gentlemen to pay attention, you’d have known that there has been an explosion of hate crimes in France. A woman being raped in front of her husband while the robbers mocked them for being Jewish. Now four people murdered in a Kosher market that nobody no matter how gullible could believe was random. Synagogues set ablaze. People using a gesture called a quenelle that looks like a reverse hitler salute which those who perform it claim is an anti-establishment gesture, but which is oddly always performed in front of synagogues and Jewish gravesites. People who are frightened to appear in public with yarmulkes. Jews are 1% of the population but are victims in 40% of the hate crimes in France.

Now, the kicker to all of this is that the attackers in an overwhelming majority of these cases are Muslim, who claim they are attacking the Jews based on religious and political grievances. So, I fail to see how the treatment of Muslims in France is approaching the treatment of Jews in the 1930s. I do see how anti-semitism in France is so out of control that Jewish people are leaving the country en masse based on targeted harassment, the perpetrators in a large majority of cases Muslim youths.

I have no doubt that Muslims are occasionally the butt of racist cartoons. I do expect that the hateful cartoons published about Jews in the Middle East are at least comparable. Isn't the main problem here the violent response? You don't need to go all the way back to Der Sturmer if you want to find hateful cartoons about Jewish people. Why should an insulting cartoon result in mass murder?

[Yuengling]

Islam is a cult

A sick, twisted, openly misogynistic death cult.

[Stavros]

The problem with the argument that Muslims are being treated like Jews of the 1930s is that it is actually Jewish people in France who have been subjected to record setting violence this year...

In France, both communities are under attack, and as for the analogy with the 1930s, Yuengling's post no 26 says it all, with a nostalgia for the Third Reich and the belief that maybe Hitler was right after all drawing a line under my involvement in this. My parent's generation, the one that fought for freedom is dying out, but it seems another generation is planning to re-open Auschwitz, but not as a museum. Enough!

[Odelay]

What a phony, disingenuous comment about being disappointed not to see the Der Sturmer cartoon. You can find them all over the web. You're certainly not going to get attacked for looking at them.

You might be misinterpreting my disappointment. I would have wanted to see the 'toon within the context of Stavros' point. I know the internet is loaded with anti-semitic cartoons, but I am not interested in them outside of a larger point being made.

Your later point seems to indicate that you disagree with my point about why the 'toon was censored from this site. Can I assume that your counterpoint is that it was removed because the owners/managers are sensitive to inflammatory anti-semitic content? If so, what do you think about some of the inflammatory content that the owners/managers let slide?

[broncofan]

In France, both communities are under attack, and as for the analogy with the 1930s, Yuengling's post no 26 says it all, with a nostalgia for the Third Reich and the belief that maybe Hitler was right after all drawing a line under my involvement in this. My parent's generation, the one that fought for freedom is dying out, but it seems another generation is planning to re-open Auschwitz, but not as a museum. Enough!
I agree about Yuengling's post. I reported it because it has no place in the discussion. I have no idea whether others did too. I did not report or complain about the Der Sturmer cartoon because I never saw it but would not have given that you were using it for a comparison.

Moderating I'm sure is an art and not a science. They got rid of Yuengling's post because it's just a bunch of fascist vomit, but we're not always going to agree. Actually I remember I exchanged a dozen posts with a poster named Benedict something in a thread called Israel Gone Fascist started by Odelay...I didn't report anything the guy said and management decided on their own they did not like the anti-semitism.

But I think you're wrong if you think the anger about the Mohamed cartoons is because it's a caricature of Middle Eastern ethnic features. The anger is based on dogma, the proscription against depicting the Prophet. That's the reason the violence has been so out of control. It is pure, unbridled religious fundamentalism. I have no intent to provoke or upset Muslims. But every group is going to have some people who say obnoxious things to them or about them.

I think I've clearly expressed that Muslims have not been especially targeted by cartoonists. But cartoonists have been especially targeted by extremist Muslims.

[broncofan]

Y.
Your later point seems to indicate that you disagree with my point about why the 'toon was censored from this site. Can I assume that your counterpoint is that it was removed because the owners/managers are sensitive to inflammatory anti-semitic content? If so, what do you think about some of the inflammatory content that the owners/managers let slide?
They let slide anti-semitic content as well. You never seem to object to it when it's there, but I can find it for you. I imagine they did not want third reich cartoons posted here. There is a particular stigma associated with them, because a genocide was committed right on the back of that. I disagree with the decision but I can understand why they'd be hesitant about allowing any Holocaust-era propaganda to be posted on their site.

[broncofan]

Your later point seems to indicate that you disagree with my point about why the 'toon was censored from this site. Can I assume that your counterpoint is that it was removed because the owners/managers are sensitive to inflammatory anti-semitic content?
They do the best they can. They seem to be very quick to remove anything associated with the Third Reich I've noticed. You act as though there's not a ton of anti-semitic content still on the site. I used the report button for the first time ever a week or two ago because I would generally prefer to debate with such people.

There are also a number of racist comments towards African-Americans. I've found myself arguing with these individuals (until a couple weeks ago my view was I'd prefer to just debate them; but sometimes they take a thread on a tangent). It's the internet, there are going to be nasty things said. I'd prefer generally not to see things removed unless they are disruptive but everyone will have a different opinion about it.

But yes, I disagree with your point about them being especially sensitive over anti-semitic content. Just as I disagreed with your argument in the thread about reporting on Israel that the violence spawned from the protests was not worrisome because it's not yet as bad as internment camps. Just as I disagreed with a bunch of other stuff you've said.

[fred41]

Interesting article that relates to the present discussion here: http://qz.com/324435/muslims-and-jews-can-defeat-french-xenophobia-by-looking-out-for-each-other/

it does seem to me though that while both groups are targeted in France...acts of violence between the two minority groups themselves, mostly (or entirely) seem to go one way.

[trish]

Violence is easier than sorting out how people with differing beliefs can live with each other––or is it?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

[fred41]

Violence is easier than sorting out how people with differing beliefs can live with each other––or is it?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

It's a good cartoon... I actually disagree with a lot of his panels here...but he gets his point across in a terrific way.

[sukumvit boy]

That looks like Robert Crumb's work ,he lives in rural France.

[trish]

That looks like Robert Crumb's work ... It does indeed.

...,he lives in rural France.Now that you mention it, I remember reading that somewhere. Hmmm...but if it him, why sign it J. Sacco? New nom de plume or worried for his safety?

[fred41]

Speaking of Crumb...he did an interview on the subject for the NY Observer (dated 1/10)...here it is:
http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/

in it he mentions he did a cartoon for Liberation ..a french paper...as of my post, I don't think it's out yet, but here is an updated page from that paper that has some brilliant cartoons on the subject:

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/09/ca-crayonne-dur-pour-charlie_1176825

[trish]

Thanks for the links, Fred. I love Crumb (he's the sanest person in his family...ever see the film "Crumb"?). Currently working through or other link with the help of Google Translate.

[fred41]

Thanks for the links, Fred. I love Crumb (he's the sanest person in his family...ever see the film "Crumb"?). Currently working through or other link with the help of Google Translate.

Why yes I have, just now...after I read your post, I looked it up on Netflix and they didn't have it so I rented it on Amazon (stupidly paying the extra buck to unnecessarily rent it in HD)...
Very interesting portrait of a somewhat socially immature but brilliant illustrator. His whole family is nuts (well, we don't get to meet his two sisters who declined to be interviewed, to my disappointment...so I don't know about their mental health)...but he is, in fact, the sanest of three brothers.
I didn't watch the movie when it first came out because, even though I knew who he was, I never got into his art/Comix at the time because I couldn't really relate to them.
But he is exceptionally gifted artistically...as were his brothers and, from what I could see in the film, his son from a previous marriage.
He's a genius in what he does...but in watching this I realize, in combination with some experience with mental illness in my own family, what a tenuous grasp we sometimes have in keeping enough of just the right mental balance to be able to exist in society...or the 'outside world'.

It's a film well worth watching.

lol...sorry for the interlude, now back to the thread.

[Odelay]

But yes, I disagree with your point about them being especially sensitive over anti-semitic content. Just as I disagreed with your argument in the thread about reporting on Israel that the violence spawned from the protests was not worrisome because it's not yet as bad as internment camps. Just as I disagreed with a bunch of other stuff you've said.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation. For the record, I read almost all of your posts because you make well reasoned arguments, even when I might disagree with them. I'm not sure my arguments always have as sound a reason behind them. I try.

[Odelay]

It does indeed.
Now that you mention it, I remember reading that somewhere. Hmmm...but if it him, why sign it J. Sacco? New nom de plume or worried for his safety?
It doesn't read to me that J. Sacco is taking credit of the cartoon. He seems to be posting it, and most likely on behalf of Crumb. I too saw Crumb the documentary years ago. Quite interesting and funny.

[trish]

It's a film well worth watching...

I'm a little embarrassed you went out an viewed the movie - I probably wouldn't give it a high recommendation to anyone who wasn't really interested in learning more about George. So I'm also relieved that it wasn't a bust and you enjoyed the experience and count it as worthwhile.


It doesn't read to me that J. Sacco is taking credit of the cartoon. He seems to be posting it, and most likely on behalf of Crumb. I too saw Crumb the documentary years ago. Quite interesting and funny. Perhaps you're right, but the cartoon seems to be signed vertically on the lower right hand side by J. Sacco. Possibiities: Pseudonym, or posting on behalf of Crumb, or someone influenced by Crumb.


...He's a genius in what he does...but in watching this I realize, in combination with some experience with mental illness in my own family, what a tenuous grasp we sometimes have in keeping enough of just the right mental balance to be able to exist in society...or the 'outside world'...(I'm sorry to hear you have dealt with mental illness in your own family.)
So it is I think with religious belief (and perhaps other ideologies): the balance between reality and devotion to sacredly held beliefs can be a difficult one to maintain. Surely the fundamentalist murderers that unleashed their madness in Paris last weekend lost that balance.

[fred41]

lmao...you guys gotta stop with cartoon mystery...It's titled "On Satire" by Joe Sacco...he draws himself in most of the panels...(It doesn't look at all like Robert Crumb except they both wear glasses)...the inking style is different...and last, but not least, Joe Sacco is established in his own right...(not that I knew that...I looked it up...duh...lol).

[fred41]

here's R. Crumb's cartoon:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationscoop/r-crumbs-response-to-charlie-hebdo-incudes-swipe-at-ralph-bakshi-20150109

[trish]

EEK! That's some ass! Thanks for research, Fred.

[sukumvit boy]

Yeah , thanks for the research Fred.
Looks like I struck a resonant chord with my casual reference to R. Crumb.
Guess we need a R. Crumb thread.
Joe Sacco is certainly venerable cartoonist and journalist in his own right. The style just reminded me of the whole alternative comix movement from the 60's through the 80's and continuing, of which he is a part.

[Ben]

Muslim Man Saw Potential Hostages In Jewish Shop And Did This:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmcCTRCV_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmcCTRCV_0)

[plankton]

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.

[broncofan]

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.
People like yourself make it very hard for others to offer any sort of constructive criticism about extremism within Islam. It's not just the strident language but also the failure to note any variety in the practices of the religion.

But just saying that the Muslim religion should be eradicated...it's entirely unhelpful, I can guarantee it's upsetting to any moderate Muslim who would read the comment, and it makes those of us who really do want to point out some of the dangers of extremism in Islam feel tainted by our association to your comments (this last one is a selfish motive).

BTW I am also concerned about capital punishment in Muslim countries. In my recollection not all of them punish homosexual acts this way...I haven't done a survey but I think there are one or two where it's not criminalized but it's obviously an important issue.

[trish]

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. ...
You don't have to read much of this forum to discern I'm not a big fan of religion. Personally, I would rather live in a world without religion. But the suggestion that religion should be "eradicated" and more specifically that "The Muslim religion should be eradicated" is abhorrent and stupid (there are 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the surface of Earth––23% of the world’s population). Should we engage religionists intellectually? Yes. Should we engage religionists morally? Yes. Confront them with satire? Yes. As we should be engaged and confronted by them? As an atheist (intellectually) and a Christian (by upbringing) I am embarrassed, ashamed and offended by calls of violence against billions people who, like us, are simply trying to figure out our human place in this awesome universe.

Did you know one of the police officers killed in Paris was a Muslim?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/charlie-hebdo-policeman-murder-ahmed-merabet

Did you know a brave Muslim man at the Kosher market saved thirteen Jewish shoppers by hiding them from the terrorists?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903829/Saved-hiding-FREEZER-Thirty-Jewish-shoppers-avoided-taken-hostage-kosher-deli-shutting-cold-storage-huddling-stay-warm.html

[trish]

Mustafa Akyol's latest opinion piece: Islam's Problem with Blasphemy->

http://nyti.ms/1C4x6jn

Here's a line from the article

Before all that politically motivated expansion and toughening of Shariah, though, the Quran told early Muslims, who routinely faced the mockery of their faith by pagans: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.

[yosi]

Hundreds of copies of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo 'survivors' magazine are expected to be brought to the UK when it is published on Wednesday despite claims by radical preacher Anjem Choudary it is "an act of war".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11342210/UK-shops-to-receive-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-despite-radical-cleric-calling-it-an-act-of-war.html

An act of war? what a wonderful religion of peace.

[yosi]

1. All is forgiven
2. "where are the 70 virgins? they are with the killed journalists
3. terrorists : a 25 seconds job - a job for lazy persons.

[trish]

Women in Charlie Hebdo Demonstration Whisked Mysteriously Away. Has Angela Merkle Been Abducted By Aliens?

No, life on Earth is even stranger than you think.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/israeli-newspaper-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally

[dreamon]

The Muslim religion should be eradicated. It is not a religion of peace. It is nothing but intolerance,hate and oppression. What you think would happen if shemales trannies gays or bisexuals went to a Muslim country's and they found out what your sexual orientation is? They would put you to death. If a women is raped and doesn't have 4 or 5 males witnesses that will testify on her behalf she gets stoned to death for adultery.

There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. It is unfortunate that a very small minority of them shape the image for those 1.6 billion people. The most visible extremists cannot even make up 1% of the entire population of Muslims, that would be over 1.6 million people.

By the way, there is no such thing as the "Muslim religion".

[fred41]

I do have to say - I tend to agree with this article though: http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/hate-is-still-speech/

[broncofan]

I do have to say - I tend to agree with this article though: http://nypost.com/2015/01/13/hate-is-still-speech/
I agree. While I think on the hierarchy of things that are offensive to reasonable people, racial vilification should be above blasphemy, neither should be criminal. Such laws make the people who tend to violate them feel their views are suppressed because they're right rather than because they have said things that are indecent and threatening to minorities.

The punishments don't act as a deterrent and the serial violators of these laws end up feeling empowered by the court judgments against them that are at most a nuisance (if the punishments were more severe they would be out of proportion to the offense committed). In the end the laws accomplish nothing and violate the spirit of free discourse even though they attempt to only censor the most vulgar and least valuable form of it.

That includes Holocaust denial which is illegal in several countries. While I understand why these laws may have seemed useful a short time after the Holocaust, and that they tend to only ensnare rank bigots, I think they should be repealed.

[trish]

I did not know: "But under French law, insulting people based on their religion is a crime punishable by a fine of 22,500 euros and six months in jail" which is reported in Fred's link above. As the article speculates, this should certainly have a chilling effect on free speech in France and although it doesn't justify the murder of offenders, it does endorse the idea that people have a right not to be offended by speech––which is anathema to the concept of free speech as we understand it here in the U.S.

[broncofan]

I did not know: "But under French law, insulting people based on their religion is a crime punishable by a fine of 22,500 euros and six months in jail" which is reported in Fred's link above.
I completely agree that it would chill free speech. I wonder how this has been interpreted. I suppose that insulting a person based on their religion, is not the same thing as saying things about that religion that an adherent would find insulting. For instance, maybe you could insult Judaism or Islam (both the doctrine and the practices), but not insult the Jew or Muslim for practicing Judaism or Islam. When you have to make these micro-distinctions in real time, it chills speech.

[trish]

I wondered exactly the same thing; the distinction just seems to fine to applicable.

[Ben]

France Arrests a Comedian For His Facebook Comments, Showing the Sham of the West’s “Free Speech” Celebration:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/

[broncofan]

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

[broncofan]

What is also interesting is that Greenwald is excoriating the people who engaged in free speech rallies when ostensibly he should be condemning the French government for arresting Dieudonne. No doubt he is condemning the arrest of Dieudonne but in the context of arguing that the free speech arguments in favor of Charlie Hebdo are a sham.

The position he should be taking is that hate speech laws should be abolished and that nobody should be threatened for speech (by private citizens or the government) no matter how despicable...

[Ben]

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

I think we kind of agree -- :)
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???

[broncofan]

I think we kind of agree -- :)
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???
Left wing I think when it comes to the use of the national security apparatus and civil rights. I don't know that Greenwald is left-wing on other issues such as income inequality, social programs, immigration policy etc.

What I don't think he emphasizes is that many people who participated in the Free Speech rally would not, if given the choice, personally favor hate speech laws. He can't seem to figure out whether he wants to insult the people who support the rights of Charlie Hebdo as bigots, or to support broader free speech protections (ie. consistency in their position).

And he says without any support at all that if Dieudonne were murdered merely for causing offense, that nobody would stand up for his right to say horrendous things openly? What does he base that on? He does not know (but asserts nonetheless) that people were supporting the content of the cartoons rather than the right of the cartoonists to to publish them without threat?

[broncofan]

I think we kind of agree -- :)

I bet we do agree. I think he has a knack for saying things that are mostly correct in an unappealing way.

Here's what I agree with him on: It is somewhat anathema to free speech to make any distinctions among types of speech...it's one of the reasons in this country regulations of speech are scrutinized more closely if they are not "content-neutral". The government should not be in the business of deciding what is true or not or what is more abhorrent or offensive than something else.

Here's what I disagree with him on: that the people who re-published Charlie Hebdo cartoons were MOSTLY hypocrites who only rallied in support of the murdered cartoonists because of an anti-muslim agenda. I bet you the murdered cartoonists themselves would have been the first to advocate for the abandonment of France's hate speech laws.

[plankton]

I wish there was a way to have a fairy tale ending or at least a way to peacefully co- exist like they do in the movies also. But unfortunately I live in the real word . And life is not a movie with a some Miraculous solution that solves everything. But i do realize that like some movies some cultures/ religion ect are good and some suck. The southern slave culture for instance was bad and sucked. Anything that forces other beings to behave or think in a certain way or face punishment when they don't and they are doing them no harm cannot be defended if one has any sense of humanity or peaceful intentions. But hey it's your choice what to believe. For now anyway.

[trish]

No, there is no fairy tale ending where we all live together peacefully and happily ever after. Not even 246 Republicans can be expected to get along with each other and play nice. I have no expectation that we will ever live in a world without terrorism, violent crime, or even large scale, economy-collapsing, Wall Street banking scams. Quite obviously the world would be better off without terrorists, violent criminals and white collar con-artists. Con-artists are a problem–not bankers and stock brokers. Violent criminals are a problem–not African/Americans. Terrorists are a problem–not Buddhists ( http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/18/extremism-buddhism-myanmar/ ), nor Muslims, nor Christians ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html ), nor Jews, Hindi, Rastafarians nor any other religion. There’s a saying about a baby and bath water that seems to apply here.

Only someone living in a Grimm nightmare, not the real world, would suggest we eradicate an entire religion to which 23% of the world’s population subscribes. The way toward making the world a happier place is to listen to one another's stories with empathy and patience, argument and gentle persuasion. In this way we modify each other and diminish intransigence. There is a role for government too: it’s not to wage eternal war on opposing world-views, but rather 1) domestically- to legislate fair, even-handed laws and regulations, enforce them without malice, and 2) internationally- to maintain diplomatic channels, encourage communication, travel, trade and cultural exchange.

[Ben]

France Assaults Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuumQ4VVcKY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuumQ4VVcKY)

[plankton]

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.

[trish]

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.Yes, people who have been exploited, disrupted, invaded and provoked tend to react badly––relatively speaking. We live in a grim world; but only someone living in a Grimm fairy tale world would suggest we could and should eradicate 1.6 billion people. Wake up! You're dreaming!!

[AdaBlackXXX]

Religion of peace? Okay.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.



Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."



Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (3:151) - "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". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.



Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"



Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).



Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

(eye for eye the whole world would be blind - ghandi was onto something)

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"



Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.



Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."



Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."



Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."



Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."



Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."



Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."



Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.



Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.



Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.



Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"



Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.



Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).


Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.



Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."


Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?



Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."



Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).



Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)



Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"



Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.



Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.



Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.



Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"



Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.



Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16.



Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.



Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.



Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

On point with peace wouldn't you say?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ten_reasons.htm

Religion is a weapon. "Radical" Murderous Christians and Muslims are simply following the true teachings of their weaponized literature.

[Jericho]

I can't quite get a grip on you crazy Christians.
Shouldn't you be forgiving them, or something?

[yosi]

put together on the situation we are facing worldwide.

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********
They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy!!!!

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=yosi;1579107]

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
-Tell that to the Tamils of Sri Lanka-does anyone know how many Hindus were murdered by Buddhists in Sri Lanka during their civil war? And wasn't the first wave of suicide bombings after Japan's Kamikaze pilots of the Second World War perpetrated by Tamil Tiger recruits?

Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
-except in India, where Christians have been the targets of militant Hindu violence, as documented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_violence_in_India
or here
http://www.wrmea.org/1999-march/hindu-extremists-now-focusing-violence-against-indias-christians.html

Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
-Perhaps you are not aware that it was the Shinto version of Buddhism that was the 'state religion' when Japan decided to create an Asian Empire, one consequence of which in the 20th century was the invasion of China which resulted in the numerous massacres of Confucian Chinese which still has ramifications today in the complaint by the Chinese that the Japanese refuse to accept the events that happened in Nanking between 1937-38.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/nationalism_1.shtml
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/macarthur-orders-end-of-shinto-as-japanese-state-religion

Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
-"Perhaps the most telling passage in Shlomo Sand’s new book – “How I Stopped Being a Jew” comes about halfway through, when he mentions the famous meeting in 1952 between Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (known by his followers as the Hazon Ish), at the time one of the most influential ultra-Orthodox rabbis. According to one version of what happened at that meeting, Rabbi Karelitz lectured Ben-Gurion that, in collisions between religion and state, the rabbis must prevail. To back this up, he cited the talmudic case of two carts blocking each other on a narrow road. The ruling is that the empty cart must give way to the full one. The inferred analogy – that secular Jews are the empty cart, devoid of heritage and learning, while only the Orthodox have any authentic Jewish culture, has been an enduring insult ever since to many Israelis".
quoted from this article:
http://www.haaretz.com/life/books/.premium-1.626312

Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
-As with the siege and massacre at the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984, the movement for an independent 'Kalistan', the assassination of Indira Gandhi later that year?


And so on, and so forth.
No mention of the concentration camps set up by the British military in South Africa during the 'Boer War'- Christians against Christians;
no mention of the revolting violence carried out by the US military in the Philippines in 1901 -Christians against Christians,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kiIVsl8DBCQ/TCKFAGh3hEI/AAAAAAAAOO8/s0Qa5ItDano/s1600/KillEveryOneOverTen.png.jpg


And all this before one even counts the Arabs murdered by the British, the French and the Americans since 1914...

probably best not to cut and paste from a website congenial to your political taste, but to do your own research.

[Stavros]

Religion of peace? Okay.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

On point with peace wouldn't you say?

Religion is a weapon. "Radical" Murderous Christians and Muslims are simply following the true teachings of their weaponized literature.

Your impressive scholarship in Islam nevertheless left out these excerpts from the Quran:

"..I ask you only to love your kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. Allah is forgiving and bountiful in his rewards"-42:23.

"That which you have been given is but the fleeting comfort of this life. Better and more enduring is Allah's reward to those who believe and put their trust in him; who avoid gross sins and indecencies and, when angered, are willing to forgive; who obey their Lord, attend to their prayers, and conduct their affairs by mutual consent; who bestow in alms a part of that which we have given them and, when oppressed, seek to redress their wrongs".-42:36

"If two parties of believers take up arms the one against the other, make peace between them. If either of them commits aggression against the other, fight against the aggressors until they submit to Allah's judgement. When they submit make peace between them in equity and justice; Allah loves those who act in justice" -49:9.

[broncofan]

I am not sure the scripture is as important as the interpretation. Leviticus also says many things that could be used to justify violence. Yet I think as an empirical claim extremist Muslims have committed the large majority of the religious motivated attacks in the west, far from zones of conflict (and in countries with stable political systems).

Yesterday there was an attack on a free speech discussion, killing one man. The gunman then went to a synagogue and killed the guard in front of the synagogue who was guarding it while there was a Bar Mitzvah going on inside. This seems to be a repeating pattern where Muslim extremists are targeting cartoonists and their supporters for blasphemy and then Jews. While unhinged, the motive behind the attacks on the cartoonists appears to be revenge. The motive for attacks against Jewish people seems to be bigotry.

We often hear that the attacks are motivated by the actions of Israel, yet I have never in my life heard a person suggest an attack on Muslims could be motivated by the actions of any other group of Muslims (at least not in polite society). The attacks themselves, if they persist, will eventually drive Jews out of Europe to Israel, which is what many anti-Zionists claim they do not want since they argue they oppose Israel but have no problem with Jews.

I am not at all suggesting that Muslims are at the root of all political problems between Muslim majority states and the West. There are many factors other than religion to consider. But this particular brand of Islam, where blasphemy is used as justification for murder, and where anti-semitism and hatred of the other (along with homophobia and rampant misogyny) are prominent, is a major problem.

[Stavros]

It was once said of the terror during the French Revolution -ten men can make ten thousand tremble. The IRA and its dissenting successor, the Provisional IRA were small micro-armies that nevertheless succeeded in hobbling the British state for the best part of 30 years, tying down its armed forces in a small province, fundamentally altering the security profile of the rest of the UK, mounting two nearly successful attempts to blow up the British government; assassinating, bombing and murdering more people across the UK than any Muslim terrorist has achieved so far. In the background of this conflict lay the sectarian education system of Northern Ireland, a product of the division of Ireland that followed the treaty in 1921 in which the Roman Catholic Church insisted on maintaining its right to separate education, one that was endorsed by the Protestants in the North. One side grew up believing the other to be godless atheists in league with the devil while the other saw a community in thrall to men in fancy dress who placed the authority of the Pope ahead of the British monarch. Probably both sides believed the others had tails and swallowed hot coals at Christmas. Yet the conflict was never presented as a Christian conflict because the political objectives were so clear -a United Ireland, on the one hand; the preservation of Ulster on the other hand. The same kind of political objectives which see militants condemn the failed states of the Middle East -as seen by militants whose own version of the state is just as tyrannical- are wrapped up in a distorted version of Islam which most Muslims do not recognise, but which has its origins in the one-dimensional version concocted by Abdul Wahab in the Nejd in the 18th century and which has been promoted by Saudi Arabia through its funding of madrasas across the world. Jews are a soft target in Europe, an example of just how weak the militants are, but also a denial of the relationship between Judaism and Islam -the two religions share almost identical dietary rules- just as the attempt, relatively successful- by the Saudi government to erase all trace of the Jewish and Christian, and indeed, Pagan communities of Arabia implies a need to pretend that these communities never existed, just as there is a proposal in Saudi Arabia to demolish Muhammad's tomb in Medina, disinter his body from the grave and re-inter it in an unmarked grave somewhere outside the city. The political problems in the Middle East are not going to be resolved in the near future, though IS is suffering from strategic over-reach even as it tries to expand its presence in other countries.

As is evident from Yosi's cut and paste nonsense, this will fuel the same kind of hatred of Muslims that afflicted, and continues to afflict the Jews in Europe, as the only difference separating Yosi's historically inaccurate and offensive list from Nazi propaganda is a theory of race. Just today, the Independent reports the organisation of an anti-Jewish rally in one of the most (Orthodox) Jewish parts of London -not by extreme Muslims, but an old-fashioned, if 22-year old British Nazi.
Other than a theory of race, I can't see the difference between the demonisation of Islam by Yosi and the Nazi demonisation of the Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/organiser-of-antijewish-rally-arrested-over-antisemitic-tweets-to-labour-mp-10047746.html

[broncofan]

Other than a theory of race, I can't see the difference between the demonisation of Islam by Yosi and the Nazi demonisation of the Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/organiser-of-antijewish-rally-arrested-over-antisemitic-tweets-to-labour-mp-10047746.html

Yes, I didn't like Yosi's post as it attempts to blame all the world's problems on Muslims. The fact that there have been a number of "let's eradicate the Muslims" type posts prior to that makes your point well. I'm not oblivious to that.

I had already read about the neo-nazi rally in Britain; something about a rally to dejewify London (perhaps fewer bagel stores). But facts are facts; when a synagogue is vandalized or attacked and Jewish graveyards are desecrated, the most likely suspects are in this particular order:
1. Muslim extremists
2. Neo-Nazis

*This is an empirical claim. If I'm wrong and I saw any evidence that most of these attacks are carried out by neo-nazis, I would be more concerned about them.

If a mosque is attacked in France or Muslims are attacked in the United States, I don't think Jewish people would be very high on the list of suspects. I could be wrong. Everybody likes to pretend that there is parity...God knows that in the West Bank the Jewish settlers are horrible to Palestinians and I don't doubt that some Jewish people are Islamophobic. But there is a pattern of animosity in countries that are not in politically contentious zones, where Jews are primarily attacked by angry Muslim youths. That's happening. A Swedish journalist recently did a Kippah walk to live a day in the life of a Jew in Malmo and nearly got his ass kicked three times.

But I am perfectly happy to oppose anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

[Queens Guy]

Your impressive scholarship in Islam nevertheless left out these excerpts from the Quran:

"..I ask you only to love your kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. Allah is forgiving and bountiful in his rewards"-42:23.

"That which you have been given is but the fleeting comfort of this life. Better and more enduring is Allah's reward to those who believe and put their trust in him; who avoid gross sins and indecencies and, when angered, are willing to forgive; who obey their Lord, attend to their prayers, and conduct their affairs by mutual consent; who bestow in alms a part of that which we have given them and, when oppressed, seek to redress their wrongs".-42:36

"If two parties of believers take up arms the one against the other, make peace between them. If either of them commits aggression against the other, fight against the aggressors until they submit to Allah's judgement. When they submit make peace between them in equity and justice; Allah loves those who act in justice" -49:9.

One thing I want to mention about reading conflicting Koran passages, when it comes to violence, it's important to note that the Chapter numbers are not in chronological order. Chapter 10 was not necessarily written just after Chapter 9 and just before Chapter 11.

The order of chapters are arranged roughly from the longest to the shortest. So, it makes it difficult to tell what the final ruling on any particular subject is.

If one wants to read the Koran oneself, one should get a looseleaf version of it and rearrange it in chronological order. Be careful though, that is probably some type of insult to the book, etc. punishable by lashes, amputations or death.

[Odelay]

It was once said of the terror during the French Revolution -ten men can make ten thousand tremble. The IRA and its dissenting successor, the Provisional IRA were small micro-armies that nevertheless succeeded in hobbling the British state for the best part of 30 years...

I think a subset of Afrikaaners during the Boer War(s) might also fit this definition, though I in no way claim to be very knowledgeable about the combatants of that war.

I do sit amazed by the success of the people behind the IS. They seem to be hated by every modern Middle Eastern state that surrounds them, and yet they thrive. These are big states with advanced militaries.

I'm trying to piece together what an analogous situation would look like in North America. Hypothetically, let's say Canada, USA and Mexico all shared a border, all being nominally Christian, albeit with a Catholic flavor in Mexico, a Northern European protestant flavor in Canada, and an Evangelical Christian bent here in the USA. Now imagine a splitoff faction of militarized zealots who reject all 3 "normal" flavors of Christianity, brutally overtakes an overlapping area of all 3 countries and not only survives but steadily increases their territory as the 3 large states flounder around helplessly, engaging them in battle sometimes but not really having any real effect to destroy this new menace.

It seems preposterous. It doesn't seem like CanMexUSA would need any International outside help to squash such a movement like a bug.

That's why despite my more militaristic side thinking the World should get together and wipe these radicals out, I can't help to side with those who believe this is a native problem for the surrounding Arab/Muslim states to resolve.

[Stavros]

I think a subset of Afrikaaners during the Boer War(s) might also fit this definition, though I in no way claim to be very knowledgeable about the combatants of that war.

I do sit amazed by the success of the people behind the IS. They seem to be hated by every modern Middle Eastern state that surrounds them, and yet they thrive. These are big states with advanced militaries.

I'm trying to piece together what an analogous situation would look like in North America. Hypothetically, let's say Canada, USA and Mexico all shared a border, all being nominally Christian, albeit with a Catholic flavor in Mexico, a Northern European protestant flavor in Canada, and an Evangelical Christian bent here in the USA. Now imagine a splitoff faction of militarized zealots who reject all 3 "normal" flavors of Christianity, brutally overtakes an overlapping area of all 3 countries and not only survives but steadily increases their territory as the 3 large states flounder around helplessly, engaging them in battle sometimes but not really having any real effect to destroy this new menace.

It seems preposterous. It doesn't seem like CanMexUSA would need any International outside help to squash such a movement like a bug.

That's why despite my more militaristic side thinking the World should get together and wipe these radicals out, I can't help to side with those who believe this is a native problem for the surrounding Arab/Muslim states to resolve.

If the issue is taking over the state and providing an alternative system of government, I am not sure the US offers comparisons. In the USA, movements have tended to be opposed to federal government and thus to hark back to the original European settlers whose values of self-reliance and independence meant an instinctive hostility to taxation, military conscription, and anything broader than local government. This to me explains why there have been movements on the political right which have attacked 'the Feds' -the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 is one example; or movements whose primary aim seems to be autonomy from the 'American state'. This ranges from the Black Apartheid movements such as the original Lost-Found Nation of Islam and its alleged successor (or later alternative) the Nation of Islam -both of which exploited Black alienation from white society rather than attempt to convert Americans to Islam, assuming either movement to be Islamic (open to dispute); the MOVE movement which was largely destroyed by military means in Philadelphia in 1985, and smaller groups such as the Branch Davidians who were eliminated in Texas in 1993.

The South African War -sometimes known as the Second South African War or the Boer War was an early example of asymmetric warfare of the kind that became common in Vietnam and other places since. What was supposed to be a short sharp -and relatively cheap- military elimination of the Boer 'threat' to British imperial hegemony in South Africa became a war that dragged on for two and half years, involved in the end more than 500, 000 troops at a cost in those days of over £200 million and which, while it ended with a British victory, established an enduring hatred for the English which also failed to deal with the underlying theories of race which became fundamental to the Boer governments which eventually succeeded British imperial rule and imposed the apartheid system that lasted until the 1990s, though many of its ideas are still rampant in South Africa. Against half a million British troops there were never more than 80,000 odd Boers, but they were convinced that part of Africa belonged to them, and them alone, and ultimately they were victorious, even if the state of their desire turned out to be a disaster. State power, as IS is discovering, is not as easy to maintain once it has been achieved, unless some form of dictatorship is preferred to democracy, but as that has been the root cause of the crisis of the modern state in the Middle East, IS seems to me to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, albeit in a substantially more bloody manner.

[natina]

'The politically incorrect truth about Islam, the "Religion of Peace" (and terror).'


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Stavros]

Quoted from the website linked below
'The Religion of peace website is created in order to show that Islam is the antithesis of the websites handle. The website claims to hold “the politically incorrect truth about Islam”. The editor, Glen Roberts, claims that the website as a non-partisan website that does not promote any religion, but they put forth the idea that Islam is a religion that is “dreadfully unique”. They assert that this uniqueness comes about with the use of Islamic violence and that Muslims and their religion are intolerant individuals who seek the domination of the world. The website also acts as an archive of Islam related violence, but they only include news that support their thesis that Islam is purely a violent religion. "
http://islamophobia132.weebly.com/the-religion-of-peace-and-islam-watch.html

[Odelay]

A long read...http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

... a medium length reply to it...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02/17/so-tell-me-whatcha-want-whatcha-really-really-want/

... and a short reply to it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/americas-most-prominent-muslim-says-the-atlantic-is-doing-pr-for-isis/


All good reads that really illuminate some of the ideology behind ISIS. This really reinforces my idea that this is an Arab/Muslim problem that needs an Arab/Muslim solution. Jeb Bush's speech today about the need to "take them out", doesn't sound too wise.

Why am I not surprised how closely the visions of Apocalyptic Christians match with Apocalyptic Muslims, right down to a war between Jews and Muslims in Israel before Jesus returns to "win" the day. Seriously, I'm not sure I read anything in the ISIS end days thinking that is anymore surprising or violent than what you hear from garden variety Rapture believing Christians.

[Stavros]

A long read...http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

... a medium length reply to it...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02/17/so-tell-me-whatcha-want-whatcha-really-really-want/

... and a short reply to it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/americas-most-prominent-muslim-says-the-atlantic-is-doing-pr-for-isis/


All good reads that really illuminate some of the ideology behind ISIS. This really reinforces my idea that this is an Arab/Muslim problem that needs an Arab/Muslim solution. Jeb Bush's speech today about the need to "take them out", doesn't sound too wise.

Why am I not surprised how closely the visions of Apocalyptic Christians match with Apocalyptic Muslims, right down to a war between Jews and Muslims in Israel before Jesus returns to "win" the day. Seriously, I'm not sure I read anything in the ISIS end days thinking that is anymore surprising or violent than what you hear from garden variety Rapture believing Christians.

Thank you for the links, which I have read. I am more persuaded by Silverman's crtique of Wood, largely because I think Wood makes numerous errors. I think it is wrong to refer to this contemporary movement as 'medieval' as this is a western European concept of chronology that means nothing in the context of 7th century Arabia where one might as well use the term 'late Roman empire' given Muhammad's fascination with the Romans -something that might also require a rethinking of 'Rome' as used in the propaganda of IS.

The two biggest problems with Wood that I have, is that he overplays the 'end of days' element of ideology, and underplays the crucial portal though which all of this has passed: the modern state in the Middle East. That is because I see these Islamic movements as attempting to replace the apparatus of the modern state with an idealized re-constitution of what they believe was the 'first Islamic state' in Medina by Muhammad. The problem is that they have to decide if Muhammad's 'Community of the faithful' is in fact a state, because it seems to me that what Muhammad was interested in was not state power as such but a network of social relations between the tribes of Arabia based on common values and beliefs, and thus a peaceful co-existence among the people, rather than fractious wars and squabbles over property -livestock for example- which were typical of the day.

It also begs the question of non-Muslims in that community, because in the 'Constitution of Medina' which Muhammad drafted there is an accommodation of the Jewish tribes which were common in Medina and also present-day Jeddah, whereas the contemporary hostility to Israel seems to me to have exposed a weakness which may even be fatal -because all of these contemporary Muslims who claim as Wood suggests, to be reviving in Islam what has always been there, are doomed to re-interpret their founding texts, an activity which is supposed to be forbidden. They are bound to do simply because they have to work out what a 7th century text means in an age of the internet, running water and electricity, just as contemporary Jews and Christians are forever debating the meaning for the present day of something in the Bible.

It is further complicated by the fact that much of what passes as Islamic practice is not in the Quran or even in early hadith but is part of the very accretion of late practice which presumably the most diehard Salafi would dismiss -there is no prohibition on the consumption of alcohol in the Quran, for example, just as there is no requirement for women to cover their faces, these are cultural practices and regulations that came long after the death of Muhammad.

We have also been here before anyway -the Mahdi who appeared in the Sudan in 1881; the resurgent Saudi family laying siege to Mecca in 1925 and overthrowing the Hashemite family to establish their own supremacy on the basis that their version of Islam was the only one Muslims should recongise; the siege of Mecca in 1979 when a group of fanatics declared that the Mahdi had returned and was with them -well, for at least as long as the siege lasted. Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, when that movement believed it had won a victory in 1996 declared himself Caliph and appeared on a rooftop in Kandahar to address the multitudes having draped himself in what is believed to be a surviving cloak worn by Muhammad. All believed they were the living embodiment of prophecies, anointed to lead the Islamic world into a new era....

I think Silverman's belief that IS will implode through the relentless pursuit of ideological purity coupled with practical problems of survival is closest to the mark. IS seems to me to be repeating all the mistakes in governance that it criticises in the corrupt Arab state, so that while it appears to offer an alternative, in fact that enduring problem of what a modern state should look like, if it is to exist at all, is unresolved, as are the practical problems of a place like Raqqa, where the IS fighters -most of them from abroad- have access to better housing, better food and better medical care than their so-called brothers and sisters in the community who have lived in Raqqa for centuries. In Iraq, I have read, even this famous Caliph Ibrahim now receives people wearing a mask, because his face is too precious, possibly divine, to be looked upon by anyone outside his family or trusted lieutenants.

But I agree that even if this group is militarily trashed, it will not resolve the deeper problem of what good governance might be. A lot will depend on the next US government, as it appears Obama's cautious attitude may be replaced by something more explicit.

[Odelay]

Stavros, I agree with you that Silverman's response to Wood is probably the best of the 3 articles. But he prescribes some pretty tough medicine, especially an immediate 2 state solution to defuse the Israel-Palestine issue. I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.

Silverman's concludiing paragraph:

The problem set that we face with ISIS has several components. Among the biggest is that this is a problem internal to Islam. As a result Muslims have to resolve it for themselves. In many ways what we are watching in real time is the Islamic equivalent of the Reformation, counter-Reformation, and then the splintering within the Reformation that led to hundreds of years of struggle, conflict, and warfare in Europe. A lot of it had to do with which version of Christian theology and dogma was supposed to be correct and followed, but a lot of it used that as a motivating factor so elites and notables could control resources. Ultimately they became so intertwined, that even into the 1990s in Northern Ireland or the Balkans they could not be easily teased apart. The other big one for me is that America and its Western allies cannot really resolve this problem set. Even if we were to go in with overwhelming force and just decimate ISIS it would not resolve this dispute, which is multifaceted and internal to Islam. An appropriate response would be containing ISIS at the theater level within the Levant. To do this we should be empowering allies, clients, and friends within the region, including helping to forge new alliances. This includes engaging with the Iranians as appropriate in order to both reduce ISIS’s capacity and to allow the people that actually live in the Middle East to determine how they want to structure their own societies, economies, and polities. We should be assisting with Foreign Internal Defense and the building up and reform of the security sectors of these states as appropriate. We should also be working out ways to increase trade and opportunities between the states in the region. Moreover, we should basically make it clear to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but especially the Israelis as they hold the power in that relationship, that a two state solution needs to happen immediately as the ongoing dispute is complicating the overall situation in the Levant. Finally, in Iraq we should be working to peel the tribes away from ISIS, organize them, and get them fighting against ISIS. Once ISIS is gone, then we can help mediate Iraq’s own internal crisis into an amicable divorce. It is no longer a coherent state and we should neither insist that it be one or force it to try to become one again.

[broncofan]

I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.

I read the article and this was the only part that I couldn't understand. I hope Israelis would be amenable to understanding how their interactions with Palestinians are effecting Palestinians. I think it would be a tough sell to tell them there is some causal relationship between the occupation of the West Bank and Muslim extremists in Syria burning alive people of all backgrounds in metal cages. I think you'd be almost as reluctant to admit your role in the meth trade in Sydney Australia.

My understanding of cause and effect has never been that whatever a person attributes their actions to is a cause. Otherwise, Judges would have to take a man's word for it when he says that he drove drunk because his wife was nagging him. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda and Isis have said their actions are motivated by a variety of factors, but it's called false attribution. The things they point to aren't anything like sufficient causes. A thousand people can look at the same situation or experience the same stimuli and not every one would decide that they are compelled to respond by cutting someone's head off with a dull knife or by throwing a homosexual off of a building.

[fred41]

Thank you for those links to excellent articles Odelay...
maybe it's the hangover that I'm suffering right now, but I have to admit that I find the Israeli/Palestinian issue mentioned as a bit odd in this case...almost out of place. It seems to me that IS is at war with (for want of a better term at the moment)who they consider "infidel"...they haven't, as far as anything I've seen or read, at the moment, specifically targeted Israel...or the Jews as other middle easterners have in the past. Resolving the Israeli/Palestinian problem will not make IS go away...and it isn't going to happen anytime soon anyway.
It seems all of western civilization and who they deem apostates are the problem to be solved in their eyes.

[Stavros]

Stavros, I agree with you that Silverman's response to Wood is probably the best of the 3 articles. But he prescribes some pretty tough medicine, especially an immediate 2 state solution to defuse the Israel-Palestine issue. I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.


Although I preferred Silverman, I am not sure about this quote, part of which you highlighted-
"The problem set that we face with ISIS has several components. Among the biggest is that this is a problem internal to Islam. As a result Muslims have to resolve it for themselves. In many ways what we are watching in real time is the Islamic equivalent of the Reformation, counter-Reformation, and then the splintering within the Reformation that led to hundreds of years of struggle, conflict, and warfare in Europe"

This views Islamic debates using the framework of European intellectual history and it doesn't apply to the Middle East where the process of modernization took place at a different time, and for different reasons.
It also absolves the non-Islamic world of any responsibility, as if modern capitalism had not had as traumatic an effect on the Middle East as it has had everywhere else. After all, a lot of the militants who are making IS work are not even from the Middle East, and their Islamic heritage comes form South Asia or North Africa. To understand the objection, imagine someone saying that only Italian Americans can sort out the problem of the Mafia, or only Black Americans can deal with the Black Panthers or the 'Nation of Islam' -the Black American experience is one in which Black Americans have felt at best marginalized, at worst excluded from the 'American dream' but it means that the anti-State violence of the Panthers or the Apartheid solutions of Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan are themselves part of the broader question of who the American state is for and cannot therefore be seen in isolation as solely 'Black' issues or 'problems'.

It presents is with an unsolvable problem, because most religions are based on ancient texts that contain values and principles which can be extracted without too much collision with modern life, but rules and regulations -especially those relating to diet and dress- which do. It means on the one hand that the modern state is as much a part of the IS problem as it is for Islam in general, but that in their attempt to create a Caliphate based on a pure concept of Islam, IS is no more guaranteed a success than Muhammad at Medina, not least because of the problems he faced in attempting to create his 'Community of the faithful' and the salient fact that not long after he died, it fell apart. Barely a generation after Muhammad's death, the central power structure of Islam had removed from Medina to Damascus, and an internal rift was beginning to open up over who was best qualified to be Caliph, an issue that has never been and probably never will be resolved, although the Saudi Arabians think otherwise.

The modern state has been just as problematical for Israel, where the biblical claims made by some -Likud for example- begs the question of what the political geography of Ancient Israel looked like compared to modern day Israel, with Likudniks blithely assuming all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and across the River Jordan is the 'Land of Israel' when a more precise reading of the Bible as a source says something else, and that is before one gets into the torturous debate about what, exactly, a 'Jewish state' should be, a matter on which even Ben-Gurion and the Rabbi's could not agree. The exploitation of the Palestine issue by radical Muslims has been as chronic and facile as it was by Arab nationalists and Arab Marxists and revolutionaries decades ago. But this isn't the thread for a debate on the 'two-state solution'.

In sum, how can the modern world accommodate religious practice that was first described thousands of years ago? It is as pertinent today to violent Islam as it is to Hindu violence in India, Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka, Christian violence in too many other places. But is this a problem inherent in religion, or is it 'merely' politics?

[broncofan]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/norway-s-muslims-form-human-shield-around-synagogue-1.2112780

For every Muslim extremist there are thousands of decent Muslims. It's only fair that I include this for some perspective. It actually makes the problem more complicated when you realize how marginal the violent extremists are and that in percentage terms they don't have much support.

I will point out though, that extreme beliefs exist on a sliding scale, so that there may be many Muslims who think the violence against cartoonists is unacceptable but who think homosexuality is or should be a capital offense. Or that it is permissible to punish apostasy by death, even if they would not carry out the punishment themselves. I am curious about how prevalent those particular views are and whether we think they are just internal issues to be worked out in certain Middle Eastern countries.

For instance, if a gay American traveled to Iran and was charged with engaging in prohibited sex, is it our position that he should have followed the rules of the country he's in and that a pending execution is an acceptable punishment for not understanding the mores of that society?

[broncofan]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...ogue-1.2112780

For every Muslim extremist there are thousands of decent Muslims. It's only fair that I include this for some perspective. It actually makes the problem more complicated when you realize how marginal the violent extremists are and that in percentage terms they don't have much support.

I will point out though, that extreme beliefs exist on a sliding scale, so that there may be many Muslims who think the violence against cartoonists is unacceptable but who think homosexuality is or should be a capital offense. Or that it is permissible to punish apostasy by death, even if they would not carry out the punishment themselves. I am curious about how prevalent those particular views are and whether we think they are just internal issues to be worked out in certain Middle Eastern countries.

For instance, if a gay American traveled to Iran and was charged with engaging in prohibited sex, is it our position that he should have followed the rules of the country he's in and that a pending execution is an acceptable punishment for not understanding the mores of that society?
I realize the answer to this rhetorical question may seem like an emphatic yes to many people. While I agree that one should be aware of the laws in any foreign country they travel to and comport with them, I think it's problematic when something that is seen as neither legally nor morally wrong is a capital crime in a different jurisdiction. Discrimination against gay men and women is not a cultural value but a human rights violation. Enshrining that discrimination in law is abhorrent and I think it's worthy of condemnation whether it's an Iranian or an American being executed for having consensual relations with members of the same sex.

[broncofan]

But is this a problem inherent in religion, or is it 'merely' politics?
The two only diverge where secular politics is not so anathema to fundamentalists that it cannot be tolerated regardless of the composition of the citizenry. If members of a faith are not content to live in a society based on at least some secular principles and instead mandate that citizens of non-state religions submit to a religious imperative or are subject to criminal penalties for blasphemy, the root of the problem is religion.

[Stavros]

The two only diverge where secular politics is not so anathema to fundamentalists that it cannot be tolerated regardless of the composition of the citizenry. If members of a faith are not content to live in a society based on at least some secular principles and instead mandate that citizens of non-state religions submit to a religious imperative or are subject to criminal penalties for blasphemy, the root of the problem is religion.

I read that several times, and I am not sure. Although I agree that many members of religious faiths accept that they must respect the laws and customs of the state where they live, even if it is secular or of a different faith, the source of divergence lies in the holistic nature of most major religious systems which, by incorporating politics into their belief makes it difficult, if not impossible to separate religion from politics. It is part of the controversy in the UK, for example, over the ordination of women priests and bishops in the Church of England, gay marriage, and abortion, issues on which many Christians take a religious view, complaining that the moral life of the country is being undermined by secular changes which are now infiltrating religious life-not forgetting that the UK is, officially a Christian state, whose head of state is head of the Church.

It is precisely because there are Muslims who call for the imposition of 'Shari'a law' and Muslims who do not, that you can see how the radical groups are in fact using their holistic view of Islam to both shame their fellow Muslims (if that works) while appearing to threaten the existing Christian and secular powers that be. It begs the question however -what exactly is Shari'a law? Is there no flexibility in its application? Who makes legal decisions? I suggest when you pursue these questions, you end up with a political weapon in your hand, looking exactly like the Kalashnikov's beloved of bin Laden and the IS militants, rather than that absent book the Quran.

The same obsession with the monotheist faith rooted in a text that cannot be changed can be observed in the consequences of (mostly American) Christian evangelism in East Africa and Russia, where the attempt, successful or otherwise to criminalise homosexual behaviour raises the same question about religion and the state. My view is that they ought to be separated, because in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-reigious society that is the only way to balance out belief and practice in as harmonious a manner, and that is also how I think most people like it. It does not downgrade a religion, but does raise questions about how people of different faiths co-exist, as they have done all over the world for millenia. I don't see why the actions of a fringe minority should threaten that, but we can't at the same time isolate such people and tell them to sort it out as if we had no role to play. Not slaughtering their fellow believers in other lands might be a good place to start.

[youngfit93]

I think people need to look deeper.

Just remember the US has killed far more Muslims then Muslims killed US in fact in 2013 3% of terrorists attacks where made by "muslims"

[broncofan]

I in fact in 2013 3% of terrorists attacks where made by "muslims"
I was wondering if you could post the site that reported this statistic. I would be surprised if this is the case. About 20% of the world's population is Muslim. If Muslims carried out 3% of the terrorist attacks worldwide, that would make them under-represented by a factor of nearly seven. I am just curious what definitions are being used (this is especially an issue since you put scare quotes around the word Muslims).

[Stavros]

I was wondering if you could post the site that reported this statistic. I would be surprised if this is the case. About 20% of the world's population is Muslim. If Muslims carried out 3% of the terrorist attacks worldwide, that would make them under-represented by a factor of nearly seven. I am just curious what definitions are being used (this is especially an issue since you put scare quotes around the word Muslims).

The Global Terrorist Index Report from last year may be the most up to date survey, based on the definition of terrorism as "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion or intimidation". It is a 94 page report but worth reading. The link is here:
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Terrorism%20Index%20Report%202014_0.pdf

The summary has these points to make:
Key trends
In 2013 more than 80 per cent of the lives lost to
terrorism occurred in only five countries; Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.

The largest year-on-year increase in deaths from
terrorism was recorded between 2012 and 2013
increasing from 11,133 to 17,958.

102 of 162 countries covered in this study
experienced no deaths from terrorism in 2013,
while 60 countries recorded one or more deaths
from terrorism.

87 countries experienced a terrorist incident in
2013, slightly up from 81 in 2012.

The number of countries experiencing over 50
deaths in one year hit an all-time high in 2013 at
24, five greater than the previous high of 19
countries in 2008.

Putting terrorism in context
Around five per cent of all the 107,000 terrorist
fatalities since 2000 have occurred in OECD
countries.

Homicide claims 40 times more people globally
than terrorism with 437,000 lives lost due to
homicide in 2012, compared to 11,000 terrorist
deaths in 2012.

Approximately 50 per cent of terrorist attacks
claim no lives.

The long term indirect costs of terrorism can be 10
to 20 times larger than the direct costs.

[Odelay]

Man, the US administration policy on training Syrian rebels is looking more and more like a clusterfuck.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/02/obamas-bay-of-pigs-islamic-state-isis-syria-iraq-special-forces/


The Syrian project resembles 1961 in two ways: What happens when the fighting starts is undecided, and the intended strategic objective is wholly implausible. Before this project proceeds, Obama owes U.S. citizens answers and some evidence that phase two has been studied and makes sense.

The entire piece is worth a read.

[broncofan]

Thanks Stavros..I'm looking at your link right now.

[Stavros]

Man, the US administration policy on training Syrian rebels is looking more and more like a clusterfuck.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/02/obamas-bay-of-pigs-islamic-state-isis-syria-iraq-special-forces/

The entire piece is worth a read.

Thanks for the link. This morning I read Patrick Cockburn's The Rise of Islamic State. ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution (Verso 2015) in which he repeatedly points to the role played by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the funding of the Syrian opposition -but primarily the Salafi groups including the al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda before it became IS even if SA now regrets doing it. But here is the nub of the problem, from p58
"The 'War on Terror' has failed because it did not target the Jihadi movement as a whole, and above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries who fostered jihadism as a creed and as a movement. The US did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American establishment."

-And it goes without saying that a lot of the arms sold to Saudi Arabia end up in the armouries of IS just as they have got their hands on the American weaponry that was sold to the Iraqi military and abandoned by the soldiers in the last year or so when they ran away from IS in Iraq. Clusterfuck seems too mild a word for it!

[yosi]

Islam Is ‘Not A Religion Of Peace’

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/prominent-islam-critic-ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-not-religion-peace

[fred41]

None of the monotheist religions (Abrahamic big three) are rooted in peace. The difference, I believe, is that Christianity, for instance, is often practiced in countries with a secular government, whereas in the middle east, where Islam rocks, government and religion are deeply intertwined...where Islam comes first. There's a good article on this by Kenneth Krause...see if I can dig it up.
On another note - I really like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and not just because I find her attractive.
Going to have to come back to this topic when I have all my faculties...Just discovered an excellent (and fairly cheap) baby Amarone that I drank without any food...

[bobvela]

None of the monotheist religions (Abrahamic big three) are rooted in peace.

That depends on how far back you focus and how much time in-between is ignored... which when speaking of being 'rooted' is quite a bit of time.

I must pause here and say that I am by no means a person of faith. While raised Catholic for 15-20 years (and trying to separate myself from it even then), I am best considered an agnostic (I don't know if there is a God and I really don't spend much time thinking or worrying about the topic). So what follows hopefully is not read as being form a bible thumper.

Aside from the God of Abraham kind of being crewel with that whole "kill your son to prove your faith" thing and much more (flood, pillars of salt, etc wrath), much of the older scriptures (of all three Abrahamic religions) tell of rather violent times of this people vs that, often in the name of their beliefs or other petty grievances.

Scripturally speaking, Jesus showing up was a rather big thing. Not just in the "I say I'm the son of God... so you should listen up" sort of way, but in a more fundamental "things are now going to change a bit with regards to messaging, and I don't just mean with me letting one of my followers betray me and me do nothing" bit, but a partial breaking from the past and a generally more peaceful message... hence stoning insolent children no longer being an acceptable thing.

Don't believe me? When did Jesus say "Hey flock, would you mind kicking that guys ass for me? He's rather offended me with his different views?"

You do see results like that from one and only religion today. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/middleeast/isis-said-to-burn-captive-jordanian-pilot-to-death-in-new-video.html)

To quote one book which I thought rather summarized the time well:


And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.


The difference, I believe, is that Christianity, for instance, is often practiced in countries with a secular government, whereas in the middle east, where Islam rocks, government and religion are deeply intertwined...where Islam comes first.

There is a good reason for that, it was Jesus who was preaching the whole "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", a truly secular message of religion and government not being one in the same... while a ~500 years later Mohammed was setting up a system where government and faith are tightly intertwined along with a good bit of "Here is a list of people who you shouldn't like, and by not like I mean convert, tax or kill... and in that order."

There is a limited argument to be made for the difference between how such religions are practiced and what they actually preach fundamentally, often pointing to the Christian Crusades... while ignoring the Muslim conquests which lead up to them.

State religions on the Christian side are not unheard of, today we know of the Church of England, at the time of the founding of the US there were several official state religions, adherence to was necessary for public office in a given state. Heck even today a number of European countries have some form of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax">church tax</a>... we see only one Jewish state (in which there are multiple non Jews in government), and several Islamic ones... and when comparing the requirements or suggestions of faith installed into the laws of all it is clearly that only one faith has a difficult time separating itself from governments that it can control.

[Stavros]

So many acts of violence have been committed in the name of religion to imply that the religion is at fault, regardless of the context or contexts in which religions are developed. But I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth could predict that 1500 years after his death the Christian Kings of Europe would claim a 'divine right' to rule and take such delight in the harassment and murder of one set of Christians against another because they did or did not accept the Pope as the Minister of God on Earth. In fact, he might be -one would hope that he would be- appalled, as the meaning in the Crucifixion is that if there was to be a human sacrifice, Jesus offered himself as the last for all time, to relieve other humans of their need for human sacrifice when there is none. Moreover, Jesus offered love as a solution to human problems, yet this seems to be the hardest thing to do - compared to resentment, which seems to be at the root of political, perhaps all violence.
It is futile to look at the origins of religion in the context of secular politics or the modern state because religion was the science of its times, and the modern state as we know it did not exist. Perhaps the most difficult question to answer in the modern age is why so many people adhere to religious belief rather than secular, non-religious belief, as an explanation for life on earth, and as a guide to how to live one's life. It clearly brings comfort to a lot of people, yet for others in the wrong time and place can become a sentence of death, and on that score, no religion is short of fanatics and murderers who claim the authority of God for what they do. It could thus be not the fault of God, but the assumption of God-like powers by men with guns, or seated at the controls of an aeropane. That need for absolute power, even if only for a few minutes, points towards issues of power as another elusive enigma wrapped in the mystery of religion -or maybe that is where they meet with such devastating consequences?

[trish]

The world into which Christianity was born was henotheistic. Rome had no difficulty accepting the religions, gods and goddesses or other cultures into an expanding pantheon. Rome may not have practice separation of temple and state, but the effect of recognizing all temples approximates a kind of secularism. If you were a client state, Rome was interested in your political fealty, not your religion. However, Christianity proved to be a different animal: it was not only monotheistic but virulently proselytizing. It eventually consumed Rome and spread to the rest of Europe and the British Isles, subsuming pagan cultural practices while displaying little tolerance for pagan priests, witches, gods and goddesses. Christ may have had something different in mind, but he had little control over what Christianity would become centuries after his death.

Europe also was the home of the Enlightenment. The influences of Voltaire, Locke, Spinoza and others in Europe and Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington and others in North America are directly and perhaps singularly responsible for inspiring the secular governments we find there today. (Since we have a historian on board, I know I’m going to regret that last statement.)

Like Rome (though not a consolidated empire) the Indian subcontinent was home to plethora of gods, goddesses and religions. Hindu is more an of religions than a single religion. Like Christianity, Islam is monotheistic, proselytizing and virulent. When it made contact with India it swept through the continent eventually making millions of converts. However, Allah did not join the Hindu pantheon. Allah will not tolerate other gods and idols. Perhaps because India wasn’t a monolithic empire like Rome, Islam did not consume India like Christianity consumed Rome, though the relationship between Islam and Hindu is not an easy one. Pakistan, very definitely does not have a secular government. India does or does not depending on who you ask. I imagine India’s government is perhaps more like Rome’s was: not secular but displaying the tolerance of its henotheism whenever that tolerance is reciprocated.

The two younger Abrahamic religions seem to have little capacity for tolerance. Their adherents (at least their more fundamentalist ones) yearn to live within like-minded communities. They suffer a phobia of the “sins” and religious transgressions of those who don’t believe as they do. They fear that somehow those transgressions will rub off. That fear becoming collateral damage to God’s wrath. Every other year Pat Robertson warns that tornadoes may tear up your town if it harbored homosexuals, or if its schools teach “evolutionism.” Jesus was a revolutionary. He pushed for tolerance. Though we was successful in creating a new religion, two of its founding principles and directives (monotheism and go-out-and-convert-the-sinful) conflict with what I like to see as the main principle, tolerance. I excuse the oldest monotheistic Abrahamic religion (which suffers from a lot of self-directed intolerance) on the grounds that it doesn’t seek (at least not to my knowledge in the modern day) to gain converts among the pagans.

[Stavros]

The world into which Christianity was born was henotheistic. Rome had no difficulty accepting the religions, gods and goddesses or other cultures into an expanding pantheon. Rome may not have practice separation of temple and state, but the effect of recognizing all temples approximates a kind of secularism. If you were a client state, Rome was interested in your political fealty, not your religion. However, Christianity proved to be a different animal: it was not only monotheistic but virulently proselytizing. It eventually consumed Rome and spread to the rest of Europe and the British Isles, subsuming pagan cultural practices while displaying little tolerance for pagan priests, witches, gods and goddesses. Christ may have had something different in mind, but he had little control over what Christianity would become centuries after his death.

Europe also was the home of the Enlightenment. The influences of Voltaire, Locke, Spinoza and others in Europe and Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington and others in North America are directly and perhaps singularly responsible for inspiring the secular governments we find there today. (Since we have a historian on board, I know I’m going to regret that last statement.)

Like Rome (though not a consolidated empire) the Indian subcontinent was home to plethora of gods, goddesses and religions. Hindu is more an of religions than a single religion. Like Christianity, Islam is monotheistic, proselytizing and virulent. When it made contact with India it swept through the continent eventually making millions of converts. However, Allah did not join the Hindu pantheon. Allah will not tolerate other gods and idols. Perhaps because India wasn’t a monolithic empire like Rome, Islam did not consume India like Christianity consumed Rome, though the relationship between Islam and Hindu is not an easy one. Pakistan, very definitely does not have a secular government. India does or does not depending on who you ask. I imagine India’s government is perhaps more like Rome’s was: not secular but displaying the tolerance of its henotheism whenever that tolerance is reciprocated.

The two younger Abrahamic religions seem to have little capacity for tolerance. Their adherents (at least their more fundamentalist ones) yearn to live within like-minded communities. They suffer a phobia of the “sins” and religious transgressions of those who don’t believe as they do. They fear that somehow those transgressions will rub off. That fear becoming collateral damage to God’s wrath. Every other year Pat Robertson warns that tornadoes may tear up your town if it harbored homosexuals, or if its schools teach “evolutionism.” Jesus was a revolutionary. He pushed for tolerance. Though we was successful in creating a new religion, two of its founding principles and directives (monotheism and go-out-and-convert-the-sinful) conflict with what I like to see as the main principle, tolerance. I excuse the oldest monotheistic Abrahamic religion (which suffers from a lot of self-directed intolerance) on the grounds that it doesn’t seek (at least not to my knowledge in the modern day) to gain converts among the pagans.

It is difficult to reply to such a confused set of ideas, but I will try.
I am not sure why anyone would claim the Romans were tolerant of other religions, 'throwing Christians to the lions' does not seem tolerant to me, and although they did not invent Crucifixion, it was reserved as the most despicable form of punishment -the clue might be the view from Rome that Jesus was a truly nasty pest, Pontius Pilate washing his hands not amounting to much of an excuse. Perhaps if we looked beyond their splendid roads, their urban planning, their development of law and their homo-erotic sculptures, we might not find the Romans either so boring, or so benign.

This thread is in danger of morphing into the other God thread, but there must be a theme in the history of ideas which links the word's religions and the various strands of philosophy -and not just Western European philosophy- and that is the question of whether or not, left without law or politics humans revert to what Hobbes called 'a state of nature' in which human relations are characterised by violence and greed in which life is 'nasty, brutish and short'. In fact there is plenty of evidence that human societies without government develop rules which enable them to co-exist with others free of violence, trading if not always sharing resources, inter-marrying, and so on.

Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, the Hindu -and throw Plato into this mix-are united in their determination to provide their social milieux with tools for living -a set of laws, values and beliefs designed first and foremost to provide the framework for peaceful living. In essence, at the level of design, all religions are 'religions of peace'. If people believe there is an all-seeing, all-powerful God who has the power of life and death, to claim to be speaking on behalf of this God -and to be believed- endows the 'Prophet' with awesome social power. That religions use threats when people are being or threaten to be disobedient is part of the need for social order in which certain acts are sanctioned. Whether or not any of the aforementioned messengers of God would approve of the way in which their ideas have been developed into ideologies of power that emphasise chastisement rather than love, war rather than peace, I doubt. Even in late times, we have the example of the violence perpetrated in the name of Karl Marx that he would have found both appalling, and remote from his analysis of capitalism. How one gets from Volumes 1 and 2 of Capital, to Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot is a mystery to me but there is precious little evidence that these 20th century killers ever read Capital, or in Lenin's case, understood it. I doubt the majority of young so-called Jihadis have ever read the Quran and understood it least of all in the context in which it appeared, but many have read the violent tracts of Sayed Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, and a plethora of online nutcases and prefer to be pictured holding a Kalshnikov rather than the Quran.

It is absurd, as Bobvela implied with his link, to claim some special agency of violence by Muslims against non-Muslims as an enactment of the faith -where is the recognition that beyond state violence, social violence against Muslims is happening on a regular basis in the USA, the UK and Europe, Myanmar, Thailand, India, China, Sri Lanka and Australia to name just a few from recent news stories?

As for the USA, is it not a paradox of the American Revolution that the constitutional separation of Church and State took place where the issue was not that the founding fathers were not Christians -they were- but that the impetus for many of the early 'Pilgrims' (are Pilgrims different from Settlers?) was precisely the religious freedom defined in terms of Church loyalties, and that persuaded them to leave this arena free for all?

Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana an extension of Constitutional rights to Americans in Indiana, or a violation of them, and indeed, the Constitution itself?

[broncofan]

Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana an extension of Constitutional rights to Americans in Indiana, or a violation of them, and indeed, the Constitution itself?
That's the pretense. Indiana is part of the U.S and any citizen would have the full protections of the first amendment without the passage of a state law purporting to mimic the spirit of the first amendment. Insofar as the Religious Freedom Act itself would offer protection, it would be deciding by legislative fiat what would otherwise be determined by a court according to constitutional principles (this could get more layered depending upon whether the Indiana law is exempting someone from a federal mandate or protecting them from adverse consequences by a private individual).

Anyhow, it seems to me that it misses the spirit of free practice. It is the most authoritarian and intolerant interpretation of free practice. Is one only practicing his religion if he can prevent others from taking actions he finds disagreeable?

Religions are only religions of peace for their followers. Of course everyone has the right to convert and become part of the flock, but what about the various prescribed judgments in this life and the next for those who don't believe? Surely there are peace-sustaining edicts intended to protect human life as well as property....but what about the legislation of sexual morality beyond the bounds of informed consent (masturbation, sex of partners)? Or the advantages that are supposed to accrue only to those who believe in the right deity and the punishments reserved for those who don't believe, even if by any objective standard these are peaceable people who are destined to roast for eternity? I think all religions are by design inherently hostile to non-believers. That's why I think a focus on the Koran misses the point because the only way Judaism and Christianity (the latter in my understanding also uses the old books) is not violent is if one cherry-picks the text.

Yes, I know this has become an all religions post, but I think the issue is broader than Islam or the Koran.

[broncofan]

I realize some of what I say about religion can be said about any ideology. A person who believes strongly in any idea will believe others should believe it too. But religion uses a manipulative set of tactics to instill fear in people, to demand punishment and ostracism for non-conformers, and even to endorse violence.

[trish]

It is difficult to reply to such a confused set of ideas, but I will try.
I am not sure why anyone would claim the Romans were tolerant of other religions, 'throwing Christians to the lions' does not seem tolerant to me, and although they did not invent Crucifixion, it was reserved as the most despicable form of punishment -the clue might be the view from Rome that Jesus was a truly nasty pest, Pontius Pilate washing his hands not amounting to much of an excuse. Perhaps if we looked beyond their splendid roads, their urban planning, their development of law and their homo-erotic sculptures, we might not find the Romans either so boring, or so benign.
Well you got me there, the Romans showed no tolerance toward anyone who opposed or was perceived as being opposed to Rome; and as you point out, crucifixion was one of mode of displaying their displeasure (making this thread Holiday appropriate).

My claim, however, was with respect to religion. The worship of Egyptian deities did not automatically land you in the arena. There was no effort to convert the pagans in conquered territories to the religion of Rome. Obeisance and taxes were required.

My interest, however, is directed more toward the suggestion raised by Bobvela: Christ’s directive “give unto Caesar” and others like it is what renders Christianity amenable to secular government. I do not see Christianity as more amenable to secular government than Islam in particular or some other religion, say Hinduism. In fact, I see the coupling of monotheism with the proselytizing directive (which was and still is enthusiastically taken up by the followers of new religion) to become “fishermen of men” as incompatible with religious toleration. I always found it amusing that of His ten demands the God of Abraham wasted the first three on self-aggrandizement and intolerance toward other religions (You shall have no other gods before me. You shall make no idols. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain). With the spread of Christianity pagan religions went underground or died out entirely. Atheists kept their disbelief to themselves. In Alexandria, Hypatia was flayed and killed by angry Christians. Witches were burned at the stake in Europe and the Americas at the behest of crazed Christians.

It is not because of any difference between Christianity and Islam that the nations Europe and North America are now ruled by secular governments and the nations of the Middle East and North Africa are not. The former nations fell under the influence of the Enlightenment and adopted for themselves the political values of Enlightenment philosophers; while the people of the Middle East and North Africa were colonized and exploited by those same European nations that regarded themselves as enlightened. Surely to them, Sharia must now look a lot better than Enlightenment politics. (Not to mention that, in the interest of large oil concerns, we've propped up divine monarchies there for decades.)

[Stavros]

That's the pretense. Indiana is part of the U.S and any citizen would have the full protections of the first amendment without the passage of a state law purporting to mimic the spirit of the first amendment. Insofar as the Religious Freedom Act itself would offer protection, it would be deciding by legislative fiat what would otherwise be determined by a court according to constitutional principles (this could get more layered depending upon whether the Indiana law is exempting someone from a federal mandate or protecting them from adverse consequences by a private individual).

Anyhow, it seems to me that it misses the spirit of free practice. It is the most authoritarian and intolerant interpretation of free practice. Is one only practicing his religion if he can prevent others from taking actions he finds disagreeable?

Religions are only religions of peace for their followers. Of course everyone has the right to convert and become part of the flock, but what about the various prescribed judgments in this life and the next for those who don't believe? Surely there are peace-sustaining edicts intended to protect human life as well as property....but what about the legislation of sexual morality beyond the bounds of informed consent (masturbation, sex of partners)? Or the advantages that are supposed to accrue only to those who believe in the right deity and the punishments reserved for those who don't believe, even if by any objective standard these are peaceable people who are destined to roast for eternity? I think all religions are by design inherently hostile to non-believers. That's why I think a focus on the Koran misses the point because the only way Judaism and Christianity (the latter in my understanding also uses the old books) is not violent is if one cherry-picks the text.

Yes, I know this has become an all religions post, but I think the issue is broader than Islam or the Koran.

I think you probably need to see the reward/punishment factor in religion much as you see it in the law -the whole point of having a law is to present society with a structure, with the proviso that if a law is broken, punishment will follow -precisely what that punishment should be is clearly something that changes over time, though execution and eternal damnation does seem rather excessive to many of us, even if many other contemporaries have expressed a desire to punish people in as gruesome a fashion as IS, and it is perhaps interesting that their punishments induce horror -yet capital punishment as such is still common in the USA.

There is also the theme that links religion as an ideology to nationalism -as in 'Do you belong here'? Can you be a non-Muslim and live in Saudi Arabia? A non-Jew in Israel? It is clearly possible in both cases, even if militants think otherwise. I don't think this is an issue that Muhammad every came close to resolving in his own mind. The Constitution of Medina indicates his intention to integrate the Jews into his Community of the Faithful, whereas they allied themselves to a hostile faction in the town and lost out as a result. Muhammad had many conversations with Christians who lived in the vicinity of Mecca at the time, and there are enough references in the Quran that laud the 'people of the book' -as well as hostile verses- which suggest this was an unresolved issue, and which, dare I say it, points to the human element in religion, since we must suppose God has no problem with believers whoever they are.

[Stavros]

Well you got me there, the Romans showed no tolerance toward anyone who opposed or was perceived as being opposed to Rome; and as you point out, crucifixion was one of mode of displaying their displeasure (making this thread Holiday appropriate).

My claim, however, was with respect to religion. The worship of Egyptian deities did not automatically land you in the arena. There was no effort to convert the pagans in conquered territories to the religion of Rome. Obeisance and taxes were required.

My interest, however, is directed more toward the suggestion raised by Bobvela: Christ’s directive “give unto Caesar” and others like it is what renders Christianity amenable to secular government. I do not see Christianity as more amenable to secular government than Islam in particular or some other religion, say Hinduism. In fact, I see the coupling of monotheism with the proselytizing directive (which was and still is enthusiastically taken up by the followers of new religion) to become “fishermen of men” as incompatible with religious toleration. I always found it amusing that of His ten demands the God of Abraham wasted the first three on self-aggrandizement and intolerance toward other religions (You shall have no other gods before me. You shall make no idols. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain). With the spread of Christianity pagan religions went underground or died out entirely. Atheists kept their disbelief to themselves. In Alexandria, Hypatia was flayed and killed by angry Christians. Witches were burned at the stake in Europe and the Americas at the behest of crazed Christians.

It is not because of any difference between Christianity and Islam that the nations Europe and North America are now ruled by secular governments and the nations of the Middle East and North Africa are not. The former nations fell under the influence of the Enlightenment and adopted for themselves the political values of Enlightenment philosophers; while the people of the Middle East and North Africa were colonized and exploited by those same European nations that regarded themselves as enlightened. Surely to them, Sharia must now look a lot better than Enlightenment politics. (Not to mention that, in the interest of large oil concerns, we've propped up divine monarchies there for decades.)

Rather than say you are wrong about Rome, I would suggest you alter the perspective. The Roman Empire was both created and retained through military force, but also through the co-option of local elites into the higher strata of Rome where class was as important a form of social stratification as it had been in Greece. Whether this buttressed existing local elites, or created new ones who saw an opportunity and took it, is too varied an issue to be debated here, but it is also the case that there were urban riots and rebellions (eg, Spartacus) some of which rejected Roman power, others 'merely' complaints about living standards. Thus Rome can be seen to have been an 'informal Empire', a model copied by the British in, for example, West Africa, where a limited military presence enabled the Empire to function through a mixture of local elites and Christian missionaries, all of whom formed part of the economic nexus that tied the relationship together, just as the Roman Empire successfully used universal forms of coinage and literacy to establish lines of communication and transaction that linked the centre to the periphery. Recalticance could be fatal -the claim that 770,000 troops were sent to defeat the 20,000 or so Carthaginians cannot be truly verified, yet there are no records from Carthage because it was all but wiped off the face of the North African Earth.

Ideologically, all of the three monotheist religions thus challenged Rome, challenging the plethora of Gods with one absolute and all-powerful God -Plato's 'pure form' in another sense-, but replacing fatalistic inertia with individual purpose and salvation. Thus Jesus was rejecting the temporal power of Rome and insisting that spiritual power was all that mattered, because if you believed in his mission, that commitment to a personal God who would save your soul, it would enable you to have both a personal relationship with God, and form ties with a community of people who shared your belief. All of the rituals and practices common to religion follow. The ancient pagan religions did not offer this personalised salvation and eternal life, but note too how pagan rituals became absorbed into Christian practice much as happened with the Jews and Muslims. Indeed, from this perspective, you can see how unoriginal Muhammad's core message is. We may never know where the idea of one God began, Akhenaten in Ancient Egypt was a monotheist, and may even have been murdered by the pagan priests who saw this as a threat to their livelihoods, and while it did not catch on everywhere, it has clearly had universal appeal. It is also argued that Buddha by offering a concept of personal salvation or release from the material world, is part of the same trend toward the individualization of religious thought.

What seems to happen after foundations are laid, are splits and divisions among believers -the Pharisees and Sadducees in Judaism -one democratic the other elitist; the 80 odd Christian communities that existed with their own peculiar versions of Christ's message (these are the 'Gnostic' communities) before Paul developed the church as an institution which aimed to standardise all the ideas and practices of Christiaity -and not long after Muhammad's death as the locus of Islam shifted from Mecca to Damascus, a ferocious debate about whether the Caliph could be any believer or had to be someone related to Muhammad, the clue being a terrible anxiety about the purity of the faith being practised and the potential for new ideas to lead Islam away from 'the straight path' -but a set of arguments that has beset all religions, because after all they are human creations.

In the case of the USA, 1776 was a 'bourgeois' revolution that took the English Revolution to a new level, but are these not revolutions led by money in the sense that people, regardless of their faith, resent taxes that are taken from them but which do not then get spent on the society in which they live? Ideologically, there was nor rejection of Christianity in America; even in the fiercely anti-clerical revolution in France, resentment was aimed as much at the spendthrift monarchy as it was the Church, again, because many people saw them as leeches living off the blood of the people; an intimate relationship between Church and state did not exist in America as it did in France, and particularly in Russia.

Ultimately I think the problem is how each age interprets ancient texts of religion, because just as we practice punishment for crimes differently in the first quarter of the 21st century than we did in the last quarter of the 20th, there is always something that is living and something that is dead in ancient texts. That is what makes them interesting.

[trish]

Rather than say you are wrong about Rome, I would suggest you alter the perspective. The Roman Empire was both created and retained through military force, but also through the co-option of local elites into the higher strata of Rome where class was as important a form of social stratification as it had been in Greece. Whether this buttressed existing local elites, or created new ones who saw an opportunity and took it, is too varied an issue to be debated here, but it is also the case that there were urban riots and rebellions (eg, Spartacus) some of which rejected Roman power, others 'merely' complaints about living standards. Thus Rome can be seen to have been an 'informal Empire', a model copied by the British in, for example, West Africa, where a limited military presence enabled the Empire to function through a mixture of local elites and Christian missionaries, all of whom formed part of the economic nexus that tied the relationship together, just as the Roman Empire successfully used universal forms of coinage and literacy to establish lines of communication and transaction that linked the centre to the periphery. Recalticance could be fatal -the claim that 770,000 troops were sent to defeat the 20,000 or so Carthaginians cannot be truly verified, yet there are no records from Carthage because it was all but wiped off the face of the North African Earth.
So far, this is pretty much the way I see it.



Ideologically, all of the three monotheist religions thus challenged Rome, challenging the plethora of Gods with one absolute and all-powerful God -Plato's 'pure form' in another sense-, but replacing fatalistic inertia with individual purpose and salvation. Thus Jesus was rejecting the temporal power of Rome and insisting that spiritual power was all that mattered, because if you believed in his mission, that commitment to a personal God who would save your soul, it would enable you to have both a personal relationship with God, and form ties with a community of people who shared your belief. All of the rituals and practices common to religion follow. The ancient pagan religions did not offer this personalized salvation and eternal life, but note too how pagan rituals became absorbed into Christian practice much as happened with the Jews and Muslims. Indeed, from this perspective, you can see how unoriginal Muhammad's core message is. We may never know where the idea of one God began, Akhenaten in Ancient Egypt was a monotheist, and may even have been murdered by the pagan priests who saw this as a threat to their livelihoods, and while it did not catch on everywhere, it has clearly had universal appeal. It is also argued that Buddha by offering a concept of personal salvation or release from the material world, is part of the same trend toward the individualization of religious thought.
The emphasis Jesus was said to have placed on the spiritual nature of His message would have allowed Christianity to co-mingle with the other religions in Rome’s empire in spite of it being a monotheistic offshoot of Judaism. [After all, Judaism was monotheistic and yet had a place within the empire.] One could give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s (the material world is immaterial after all) and retain what really mattered (spiritual salvation).
Christ’s crucifixion was the reaction of a Roman “governor” of far flung satellite member of the Empire to a minor (perhaps only perceived) threat to their client’s (Herod’s) hegemony in the region. In hindsight, probably the wrong reaction. But does this single martyrdom and the wonderful message of spiritual salvation explain the exponential spread of Christianity throughout the next one thousand years? The later Church quite self-consciously propagated a self-reproducing, memetic form of Christ’s monotheism. Good News. Spread the Word. Be ye Fishermen of Men. Missionaries. Miracles. Promises. Wherever Christians went, the coupling of intolerance for other deities and missionary zeal snuffed out all other religions while subsuming their more recalcitrant practices.


In the case of the USA, 1776 was a 'bourgeois' revolution that took the English Revolution to a new level, but are these not revolutions led by money in the sense that people, regardless of their faith, resent taxes that are taken from them but which do not then get spent on the society in which they live? Ideologically, there was nor rejection of Christianity in America; even in the fiercely anti-clerical revolution in France, resentment was aimed as much at the spendthrift monarchy as it was the Church, again, because many people saw them as leeches living off the blood of the people; an intimate relationship between Church and state did not exist in America as it did in France, and particularly in Russia.

I certainly wouldn’t deny the motivations, forces and inducements behind the U.S. revolution were multitudinous and that economic self-determination was of primary importance to the merchant class and the wealthy. It should be noted, however, that a significant portion of those classes who took an active role in the revolution were deists. Even many self-educated frontiersmen, such as Ethan Allan, were staunchly atheistic. The U.S. Declaration of Independence makes a reference to Nature’s God, not the God of Abraham. The concept of “Nature’s God” is a weak brew of pantheism, agnosticism and atheism for eighteenth century atheists and agnostics who felt uncomfortable coming out of the closet. This enlightenment approach to religion undeniably influenced the early founders of American democracy to craft a secular government, much opposed by many Christians at the time.

[Stavros]

I don't disagree with what you say, but I do wonder if you and others are attempting to force a clean break between the religious and the secular where the reality is that one morphs into the other, so that no clean break is possible. This attempt is particularly noted with Islam where people who clearly detest it claim that it is in many ways different from the other monotheist faiths, or for that matter, any religion, when it is not. Seen from the perspective of the history of ideas, you cannot separate out the secular from the religious as if they came from different sources, because the sources are the same and defined in relation to each other; thus the two are doomed to be related for all time. It thus becomes a matter of choice, and that is political.

[trish]

I do think there are some, a few of the so called “new atheists” for example, who seem to think the lines between the religious and the secular can and should be sharply drawn. I do not think they can be, for the reasons you cite; namely

Seen from the perspective of the history of ideas, you cannot separate out the secular from the religious as if they came from different sources, because the sources are the same and defined in relation to each other...

My main concern here was to emphasize that Islam is no more incompatible with secular government than is Christianity; that the governments of the West and those of the Middle East were formed, not just under the influences of two distinct branches of the Abrahamic tradition at different stages of historical development, but at different times, in different geographies, under different social conditions, different institutions, different philosophies and under different geopolitical and economic circumstances. Moreover, the governments and political and economic circumstances under which each of the two religions have evolved and now continue to evolve, have shaped and are now shaping the futures of those religions. Over the past few centuries secular governments and Christianity have been learning how to co-exists. Am I right in thinking that to date Islam has not really had the benefit of such an experiment?

[Stavros]

Over the past few centuries secular governments and Christianity have been learning how to co-exists. Am I right in thinking that to date Islam has not really had the benefit of such an experiment?

No.
There are numerous examples of co-existence at the religious level, and examples of what might be called 'secularist' government although it is a slippery term.
The Ottoman Empire is regarded by some as the last Caliphate, although the actual status of the last Sultans is disputed, or at least their effective rule as Sultans. That aside, the 'Young Turk' revolution of 1908 began a long experiment with secular government that has only been challenged since Erdogan's rise to power, giving an emphasis to Islamic issues which the military, who see themselves as the guarantors of Turkish identity disagree with.

In Iran, the attempt by the Shah in the 1960s to expropriate the property of the Shi'a Ulema, and the 'White Revolution' gave that country a secular appearance which meant that much of the opposition voiced its concerns in the language of Islam and thus enabled the Mullah's to form the backbone of what became the Islamic Revolution.

In Jordan, and also the West Bank -including the period between 1948 and 1967- Christians and Muslims co-existed without a problem, and still do, and, for example, you can buy alcohol in many places in Jordan and the West Bank.

Lebanon has a curious constitutional arrangement dating from the late 1940s which parcels up every government job among the 19 or so confessional groups in the country which means no single religion or confessional group dominates.

Both Iraq and Syria under their respective Ba'ath parties were considered secular states, indeed, according to some, that is what was wrong with them. The same was true of Egypt under British rule, and on through the nationalist revolution of 1952 until after the assassination of Anwar Sadat when Mubrak began appointing Islamists to positions in education and the justice system to appease the opposition, a form of window dressing which he actually came to regret.

The Yemeni revolution of 1962 actually overthrew a religious form of government, by a long line of Zaydi Imams, and became a sort-of secular government, but was split when Britain lost control of the Aden protectorate in the late 1960s and it became a separate 'Socialist Republic' supported by the USSR and where, as in Afghanistan, women had equal rights, and so on.

So while you may not have a secular form of rule as you understand it in the US, many Middle Eastern governments have not been overtly religious -so the religious government experiment is quite new, and is seen as a response to the failures of Arab Liberalism, Arab Nationalism, and the Arab Socialism of Hafez el-Asad and Saddam Hussein, if you call that socialism.

[trish]

Thanks for the examples: Even more evidence that Islam, like its sibling, Christianity, is not incompatible with secular government.

[Stavros]

The worrying trend is the fetish among the so-called radicals that any form of non-Islamic government -as defined by them- is incompatible with their version of the state. The fact that Muhammad lived among Christians and Jews and, indeed, derived a lot of his ideas from them, is either considered irrelevant, or carefully expunged from the record, just as the unelected crooks who run Saudi Arabia have erased so much of the diverse history of the Hejaz they invaded in 1925. This corrupt, violent and unelected ally of the USA practices the ideology of a man (Abdul Wahab) who became so confused and distressed with the diversity of Islam as it had developed between the death of Muhammad and the 18th century, that he dismissed it all as a perversion. His own brother said he was mad, but this complete dismissal of everything that does not fit with a simplistic version of the faith appeals to those who can't be bothered to read, or who rely on the interpretations of the faith which reinforce the mono-cultural argument which apparently has no complications. It is not much different from Leninism which sought to end politics itself by making argument pointless -the cadres received their daily dose of knowledge from the central committee, what was there to discuss? Saudi Arabia, one of the USA's closest allies in the Middle East -spends $60 million on Syria, $60 billion on weapons, but still relies on the armed forces of Pakistan to help out with its latest local war in the Yemen, perhaps because so many of the lads in the Kingdom's own army are the sons of Yemeni immigrants...with friends like these...