Muslims

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Spock

yumpin yimminie, don't start me on the p.c. christians and the crusades crappola!!

Funny, I never thought the Crusades were very p.c.

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry for skipping posts, there's a lot of activity in here.

I do not understand the Islam is a violent religion sentiment expressed by some in this thread.

Islam is violent because their founder of 1500 years ago waged war on another people (I think Muhammed did that)? I think this has more to do with the cultural aspect of Islam than religious, but regardless, this does not stand up to scrutiny.

Time for "Choose your own adventure in the Muslims thread"! (This is for anyone who cares to respond. )

If you believe that Islam is violent because of some of Muhammed's actions, go to page 1. If you do not believe this, go to page 2.

Page 1

Do you then believe that Judaism and Christianity are also violent religion? I mean, God told Moses to make those idol worshipping people drink melted gold. Even children! This undoubtably would have killed any who suffered this punishmemt. This is but one of a number of violent events in the Old Testament, yet Judaism and Christianity are not considered violent religions.

Or are they?


Page 2

Do you feel that Islam is violent for reasons other than Muhammed's actions? Or perhaps you do not think it is violent at all.

Personally I think some Muslims are violent, but Islam is not violent. This is an important distinction.

[-elfearz-]

Apologies in advance for a very long, very rambling post

I don't know anything about the history of Islam, or the history of Christianity...but I think it is a strange basis to use to judge the character of any religion. The way a religion is practiced, like anything else, can evolve over time. If the concept of Jihad as a spiritual battle is more referable to the modern practice of Islam than to the religion's history...does this really matter, if it is the interpretation that the majority of Muslims today choose to accept?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that looking at the lives of Mohammed and Jesus, the founders of their religions, and their early followers is a valid way of seeing what both religions are about. As history progresses and the religious movements gain the distance of many centuries between them and their founders, it becomes less obvious what the true nature of the religions is, because you get all sorts of variants and less purity.

This is fair enough...but the actions of the early followers of those religions are rooted in a specific social and cultural context - and there would have been factors other than religion impacting upon them and shaping their behaviour. Obviously social and cultural factors have changed a fair bit since then, and while it's true that as religions grow you get more variants, I think this should be allowed to happen.

In any case, if variation is what has in fact happened, I do not think it makes sense to judge a religion based on history

Sorry – I don’t mean to be critical, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way – this line of reasoning genuinely confuses me (and I think it may be more because I am missing something than because of a flaw in your reasoning)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe that this is true. Muslim extremism and terrorism is the cause of hostility, rather than the hostility being the cause of the extremism and terrorism. America did not invade Afghanistan until 9/11, and there was extremism expanding in Islam well before all the recent terrorism.

This is true, but the extremism did not develop in a social vacuum. And extremism did not flourish in all Islamic nations. Your examples seem to be centred around the Middle East - given the political complexity in this region, and various social factors, I don’t think it’s fair to attribute all extremism to something in Islam itself.

I know very little about the rise of Islamic extremism, (and am hoping that someone else does – and please correct me if I say anything wrong!)…but from the little that I have read, in Afghanistan at least, during the Soviet Wars, the population suffered from high levels of poverty and appalling education levels – and the only places which poor families could afford to get their sons educated was in private madrassas, which were driven and sponsored by groups in the upper echelons of society, like the JUI.

The JUI grew out of a fundamentalist Islamic school (the Deobandi school), but it became very politicised and factionalised rather than purely religious. Many of the madrassas in rural areas (eg the Haqqania madrassa, which many of the Taliban attended) had mullahs who were semi-educated, and quite far-removed from the original religious agenda of the Deobandi school.

The Taliban’s rise to power was more the result of political factors than religious belief in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Wars, Afghanistan was flung into civil war, and the Taliban was seen as a force which could bring order to the region. They spread using military force, and eventually gained control of Afghanistan. Religious extremists – yes, but their rise to power was political, and even their religious education was influenced by political factors, and was not ‘pure’. There are extremist groups in all societies, and in all religions probably – but when they gain widespread power and/or influence, it is usually the result of social factors, and the case of Afghanistan is no different.

It is also worth noting that the Taliban (or indeed any group before them, I think?) never enjoyed widespread support in Afghanistan. The region is extremely fragmented, there are many different religious (strands of Islam?) & ethnic groups, and historically, different groups have fared differently under different leaders. As a result, there is always discontent, and political unstability. It seems unfair to make generalisations about Islam based on who is in power, or who has been in power, in this context.

I have mentioned only Afghanistan as an example because I know absolutely nothing about the rise of modern radicalism in any other Middle Eastern country. I am not sure how al Qaeda developed – I believe it had something to do with the Soviet Wars

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But extremism was expanding in Islam well before all of these more modern events as well (except perhaps the situation with Israel). I haven't researched the birth of modern radicalism as much as I one day will have, but I know it's been spreading for a long, long time, since well before all the more recent hostility in the West toward Islam.

Yes, there was hostility towards the West before the events that you mention. It is my understanding though, that the hostility dates back at least to the time of the Soviet Wars, when al Qaeda was born, and that it did grow out of some context. I won’t say any more – I don’t know enough

But Islamic hostility towards the West has increased exponentially since the wars on Afghanistan and, particularly Iraq, and we begin to see signs of hostility within the Islamic populations in Western nations, and I think this is attributable to a perceived Western attack on Islam. I know that the increase in Western hostility itself was largely a response to 9/11; I am not trying to argue who ‘started it’. I was just agreeing with Serenoli, who pointed out that if there are more ‘violent interpretations’ of Islam around at the moment, then this probably due to a perceived threat to the religion from the West

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There also is a great deal of hostility in Western culture toward Christianity. I've encountered a lot more people, both on Entmoot and at college, who have a great deal of anger against Christianity than who have anger toward Islam. Much of modern culture is turned against Christians and stereotypes them as stupid people who rely on blind faith and savagely conquer anyone who disagrees with them . An insane stereotype, but it exists and I've seen it a lot, coming through in people's arguments and treatment of Christians at different times both here and elsewhere. This is largely a Western attitude. I think it's very sad and I view it as highly ignorant. I expect that's how many Muslims view people like me, as well. But in spite of living in this culture, you won't see any Christian violence or much retaliation at all against people who make these stereotypes and claims in the West. You will see some response stereotyping, the lilly livered liberal with whom anything goes, but all this cultural stratifying could never be a source of violence, here.

I’m sorry you have to experience this . I’m not religious myself, but I know similar comments are made over here, and yes – the stereotype is insane, sad and ignorant.

The difference is the scale of the ‘assualt’, I suppose. Disparaging comments about Christians (or ‘lilly livered liberals’, I suppose ) are made by intolerant individuals…but there is no large scale threat or attempt to ‘destroy’ either. Given the political and military power of the US and its allies, and given that Islam is only practiced by a relatively small minority of people in most Western countries, I guess some Muslims feel differently.

Nurv, I am on page 2, and agree with you!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You do realise, Brownie, that you just said, apparently, that fundamentalists can be tolerant?

1) Fundamentalists are those who put 'written doctrine ahead of present-day realities.'
2) It seems fair to equate this with the 100% faith you speak of.
3) Those with 100% faith 'learn how to accept the fact that some other people they must coexist with also have 100% faith, but in something quite different'.
4) You say that 'In the end, it's agreeing to disagree'; 'it' presumably being the aforementioned learning how to accept the fact etc.
5) You say agreeing to disagree is a form of tolerance.

Therefore, Fundamentalists are tolerant.

QED

That was what I was trying to get across. Though it takes some effort on their part, and in some religions more than others, all fundamentalists can learn to coexist if they are willing to try.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

Apologies in advance for a very long, very rambling post I don't know anything about the history of Islam, or the history of Christianity...

Perhaps you shouldn't then post a rambling post.

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

Sorry – I don’t mean to be critical, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way – this line of reasoning genuinely confuses me (and I think it may be more because I am missing something than because of a flaw in your reasoning)

To criticize what you admittedly know little or nothing about, is as to spam.

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

I know very little about the rise of Islamic extremism, ....

Again. Don't comment until you do know something worth commenting about. Do some research or ask viable questions but to offer up commentary is folly.

[Lief Erikson]

Spock, we need to reply to arguments, not try to disqualify people from speaking! I'm very glad elfearz and Nurvingiel are posting on this thread, and find their posts very interesting, as I do yours .

None of us are experts in Middle East affairs, but we're just contributing what we do know to explain our views .

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Spock

Perhaps you shouldn't then post a rambling post.

Yes...point taken

Originally Posted by Spock

To criticize what you admittedly know little or nothing about, is as to spam.

I wasn't criticising anything . I was asking for clarification on an argument which - as I understood it - did not seem logical to me. Given that Lief's posts generally seem to be very well thought out and logical, I wondered if I was missing a part of his argument.

In any case, I certainly wasn't criticising anyone's view on the content of Islamic or Christian history, which is what I admittedly know nothing about. I was expressing doubts about the value of using history as a basis for judging a religion as exists in today's context

Originally Posted by Spock

Again. Don't comment until you do know something worth commenting about. Do some research or ask viable questions but to offer up commentary is folly.

Lief said that contemporary Muslim extremism predates Western hostility towards Islam. My point was that even if this is true, it is very likely that there were a whole range of social and political factors which helped contribute to the rise of contemporary Muslim extremism, and that I don't think it is fair to put the extremism down to something inherently violent in Islam without taking these things into account.

I used the example of Afghanistan because it is the one situation I know anything about; but I am fully aware that I only know the tiniest percentage about Afghani politics & history. So I concede that the specific examples I can offer in support of this point are, at present, limited, but I thought the point was worth raising

I'd love to hear how Lief, and you, and others would respond, because at the very least, I, personally, will learn something new. But I'm sorry if reading my post has been a waste of your time

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do not understand the Islam is a violent religion sentiment expressed by some in this thread.

Islam is violent because their founder of 1500 years ago waged war on another people (I think Muhammed did that)? I think this has more to do with the cultural aspect of Islam than religious, but regardless, this does not stand up to scrutiny.

Time for "Choose your own adventure in the Muslims thread"! (This is for anyone who cares to respond. )

If you believe that Islam is violent because of some of Muhammed's actions, go to page 1. If you do not believe this, go to page 2.

Page 1

Do you then believe that Judaism and Christianity are also violent religion? I mean, God told Moses to make those idol worshipping people drink melted gold. Even children! This undoubtably would have killed any who suffered this punishmemt. This is but one of a number of violent events in the Old Testament, yet Judaism and Christianity are not considered violent religions.

I consider pre-Christian Judaism to have been a violent religion. I think it also was a very good religion (and like Islam, violence is FAR from the only thing in it, of course) and I think the violence was also in good cause. But I definitely believe it was violent, and more violent than Christianity. Much of the violence in Judaism, Christians wouldn't now participate in either, because we go by the New Covenant, while all they had was the Old. So even though it was good, it wasn't quite so high a moral standard as we have now. Exact justice is not so high as mercy, in my view, though justice is also critically important (and is the one of the reasons Jesus died on the cross).

As for Christianity . . . brownjenkins, IR, Spock, Gaffer and I, and others posting occasionally, have been debating that at very great length over the last few pages. Right now I don't really feel up to trying to summarize all of that to explain my arguments . Maybe later . . . or maybe I'll just give post numbers, after looking over that thread a little.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Page 2

Do you feel that Islam is violent for reasons other than Muhammed's actions? Or perhaps you do not think it is violent at all.

Personally I think some Muslims are violent, but Islam is not violent. This is an important distinction.

I don't believe that, because of the history (particularly that which surrounds the founder), and the current Muslim trends. This is another thing we've been debating at very great length over the last few pages.

Originally Posted by elfearz

I don't know anything about the history of Islam, or the history of Christianity...but I think it is a strange basis to use to judge the character of any religion.

History is a very, very important basis for judging the characters of religions, elfearz. It's an important basis for judging everything about us. History defines who we are. We are the way we are, with the values we have, largely because of history. The histories of religions (and the histories of countries, societies, customs, economies, etc.) defines their present day realities. If historical Islam is highly violent, this may well be a reason that present day Islam is becoming more violent.

Originally Posted by elfearz

The way a religion is practiced, like anything else, can evolve over time.

Many fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, do not believe that this is good. Fundamentalism has a strong presence in Muslim history.

Originally Posted by elfearz

If the concept of Jihad as a spiritual battle is more referable to the modern practice of Islam than to the religion's history...does this really matter, if it is the interpretation that the majority of Muslims today choose to accept?

The history defines who we are. It's easy to revert back into a practice that is all over your history. You can see how different the cultures here are from the Muslim response to the cartoon crisis. Millions of Muslims were outraged and many hundreds of thousands engaged in largely peaceful protests against Denmark and the West in general. That has nothing to do with jihad, of course (historical jihad, anyway. Modern Muslims could very easily consider it to be a spiritual battle, and thus a jihad). It just shows how these ancient cultures and perspectives are still strongly engrained in the majority of Muslims' mentalities.

I'm afraid I see modern liberalism in Islam as a passing phenomenon that won't last.

Originally Posted by elfearz

This is true, but the extremism did not develop in a social vacuum. And extremism did not flourish in all Islamic nations. Your examples seem to be centred around the Middle East - given the political complexity in this region, and various social factors, I don’t think it’s fair to attribute all extremism to something in Islam itself.

Cultural, social and political factors are of course part of it. Culture, society and politics also come from history . Also, with Islam in particular, they are often very tied together. I read in a book about Islam that in it, often culture, religion, society and politics are all bound together. This is especially true with states that are ruled by Sharia Law. Sharia Law is supposed to organize how you are to live all the details of your life.

To a large extent, anyone's viewpoints are determined by culture, society and politics (all of which come from history), but with Islam, these largely come from religion.

Thanks for raising those points about the Taliban and Afghanistan! It's very interesting to hear about that. Your point was that the Taliban's rise to power was not due to the people choosing them because of agreeing with their religious values, correct?

I have no problem with what you were saying, really. I haven't researched it myself, but I am sure you're right.

Culture and society are factors in how people behave, and most importantly the force that drives everything: history. Religion also is often a factor in people making the decisions they do. I'm not saying it's all religion. However, I think that Islam is a violent religion, and this in part defines the culture and society that these people will grow up in, and the history influences people's mindset as well.

Originally Posted by elfearz

But Islamic hostility towards the West has increased exponentially since the wars on Afghanistan and, particularly Iraq, and we begin to see signs of hostility within the Islamic populations in Western nations, and I think this is attributable to a perceived Western attack on Islam. I know that the increase in Western hostility itself was largely a response to 9/11; I am not trying to argue who ‘started it’. I was just agreeing with Serenoli, who pointed out that if there are more ‘violent interpretations’ of Islam around at the moment, then this probably due to a perceived threat to the religion from the West

I'm positive also that this is another factor.

Originally Posted by elfearz

The difference is the scale of the ‘assualt’, I suppose.

But look at the cartoon crisis! That was a huge reaction, largely religious, to a very small scale 'attack'.

Originally Posted by elfearz

Disparaging comments about Christians (or ‘lilly livered liberals’, I suppose ) are made by intolerant individuals…but there is no large scale threat or attempt to ‘destroy’ either.

I'm sure that seeing the West as an aggressor and a threat is a significant factor in the spread of Muslim extremism. I think it's the religion also, and I believe history bears this out. Culture, politics and society are also influencing factors, but with Islam, much of that has its roots in the religion. I can find you a citation for that claim, I think . . .

Originally Posted by elfearz

Given the political and military power of the US and its allies, and given that Islam is only practiced by a relatively small minority of people in most Western countries, I guess some Muslims feel differently.

Do you have a statistic for that? I'm just curious, because I'm not sure it's true. England and France have massive Muslim populations, and they're among the most politically significant Western countries.

[Spock]

the naivete on this subject just boggles the mind

not knowing and knowing you don't know, yet posting an opinion -thus based upon ignorance (not knowing) is folly.

this is exactly the frame of mind which will get us killed -again-

I have to leave this forum for now. It isn't good for my wa.

[Lief Erikson]

I hope you come back to the thread soon, for I'll miss you!

About expressing views without being experts: Again, none of us are experts . Elfearz says she is happy to learn, and so am I. She has taught me some things I haven't known before about Afghanistan history, and I have explained some things about early Islam that may interest some people. Even if she expresses a largely unsupported opinion (as I occasionally have), she doesn't state it as fact but as an opinion, and this provides reason for others a chance to research and reply. Which increases her understanding and theirs! It's win-win . So I'm happy we're all posting here.

I wish you weren't leaving .

[Insidious Rex]

Id say the hubris of telling millions of muslims that they dont know their own religion and culture is far worse then giving your opinion on the subject when you arent a learned expert.

[Lief Erikson]

I think there are periods of history where vast numbers of Christians haven't known their religion. However, the true nature of the religion will revive and doesn't die completely. This is no different with Islam.


You might also ask, "What right do you have to make such claims about a religion you're not a participant of?"

The history books and modern trends are what I'd point to, in response to that. Reading history books is how I came to my current view.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Spock

To criticize what you admittedly know little or nothing about, is as to spam.

Again. Don't comment until you do know something worth commenting about. Do some research or ask viable questions but to offer up commentary is folly.

Actually, as per rules, to spam is to post the same thing over and over again. Personally I wouldn't put getting into a discussion with the honest disclaimer that you're not an expert on the matter under the same category as spamming. (I'd be guilty soooo many times. Ditto on the rambling posts. Oh, and I'd be a fool as well, apparently.)

Gosh, this thread goes on on a considerable speed, I can hardly keep up. (It's a good thing it goes into circles now and then. Just kidding. )

Serenoli, it has been most interesting to have read your view on this topic. It adds a dimension to this debate it had been sorely lacking.

I once read a quote that said "All religions are paths up the same mountain." I think it is curiously apt. I always thought that within the large paths of the religions, everyone follows his or her own little road that is part of the big paths. I take it not all small paths reach the top of the mountain. I think the religion is not defined by what it says, but how you practise it. In my most humble opinion, that goes for christianity as well as for the islam.

This idea I heard a few months ago in a debate about the difference between christianity and the islam. It said that christianity as a religion had been through dark times but had finally reached and passed a point of enlightenment in which understanding/acceptance and tolerance of other religions beside christianity were the main characteristics. In that view the islam, being 'younger' so to speak, didn't have that enlightened period yet, which would explain the current violence and succes of its fundamentalism. I don't know enough to reach a conclusion on that, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a site that cites the population number of Muslims in Europe. Apparently there are 15 to 20 million, 4 to 5 percent of the population. And there are around 4 million Muslims in the US. Just mentioning, since we were talking about whether or not being few in number in the West is a reason for increasing radicalism in the East. Does 4 to 5 percent seem like a large or a small number? For myself, I don't have enough experience to venture an opinion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I once read a quote that said "All religions are paths up the same mountain." I think it is curiously apt. I always thought that within the large paths of the religions, everyone follows his or her own little road that is part of the big paths. I take it not all small paths reach the top of the mountain. I think the religion is not defined by what it says, but how you practise it. In my most humble opinion, that goes for christianity as well as for the islam.

I'll wait to hear Serenoli's reply before responding . I'm very, very curious to hear what she thinks on this.

EDIT: Oh, but before I just leave it at that for the time being, I have one question for you, Eärniel. Why do you think the major religions lead all the way up the mountain, and the smaller religions don't?

PPS: Oh yes, a second question. In the past, some of the most widespread religions of the time involved human sacrifice. Wouldn't they also lead to the top of the mountain?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Spock, we need to reply to arguments, not try to disqualify people from speaking! I'm very glad elfearz and Nurvingiel are posting on this thread, and find their posts very interesting, as I do yours .

None of us are experts in Middle East affairs, but we're just contributing what we do know to explain our views .

I agree. I also find your posts interesting.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I consider pre-Christian Judaism to have been a violent religion. I think it also was a very good religion (and like Islam, violence is FAR from the only thing in it, of course) and I think the violence was also in good cause. But I definitely believe it was violent, and more violent than Christianity. Much of the violence in Judaism, Christians wouldn't now participate in either, because we go by the New Covenant, while all they had was the Old. So even though it was good, it wasn't quite so high a moral standard as we have now. Exact justice is not so high as mercy, in my view, though justice is also critically important (and is the one of the reasons Jesus died on the cross).

As for Christianity . . . brownjenkins, IR, Spock, Gaffer and I, and others posting occasionally, have been debating that at very great length over the last few pages. Right now I don't really feel up to trying to summarize all of that to explain my arguments . Maybe later . . . or maybe I'll just give post numbers, after looking over that thread a little.

I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying.

Going into a deep debate about the violence or lack thereof in Christianity would be OT in this thread, so maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. The basis of my argument is that I don't see why Christianity gets a "get out of jail free" to its historical violence just because Jesus is awesome. I also think Jesus is awesome, but this opinion of Islam strikes me as unfair.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe that, because of the history (particularly that which surrounds the founder), and the current Muslim trends. This is another thing we've been debating at very great length over the last few pages.

Yes, and we've been debating this for good reason too.

I don't think us folks over here have a very good perspective of current Muslim trends. I also like how socially progessive Muslim countries like Malaysia have been throroughlly ignored in this thread.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Many fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, do not believe that this is good. Fundamentalism has a strong presence in Muslim history.

And in Christian history. (Not letting that one slide. )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's a site that cites the population number of Muslims in Europe. Apparently there are 15 to 20 million, 4 to 5 percent of the population. And there are around 4 million Muslims in the US. Just mentioning, since we were talking about whether or not being few in number in the West is a reason for increasing radicalism in the East. Does 4 to 5 percent seem like a large or a small number? For myself, I don't have enough experience to venture an opinion.

I don't know if that is, relative to Middle-eastern and significant south-east Asian Muslim populations, if that is a large number or not. However I would venture that these numbers are large enough that they make some kind of difference in the population.

Originally Posted by Spock

the naivete on this subject just boggles the mind

not knowing and knowing you don't know, yet posting an opinion -thus based upon ignorance (not knowing) is folly.

this is exactly the frame of mind which will get us killed -again-

I have to leave this forum for now. It isn't good for my wa.

I hope your "wa" gets better and you come back to us.

But, I think all of us have a similar lack of knowledge about the subject. Perhaps in discussing the issues and doing a little research we will know more. The first step to learning, IMO, is to humbly say that you do not know.

Also, "get us killed"?

Good point about the Taliban -elfearz-.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Going into a deep debate about the violence or lack thereof in Christianity would be OT in this thread, so maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, actually it's already been done in this thread .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The basis of my argument is that I don't see why Christianity gets a "get out of jail free" to its historical violence just because Jesus is awesome. I also think Jesus is awesome, but this opinion of Islam strikes me as unfair.

I can summarize my points on this very briefly. I went into more detail in some of my previous posts in this thread.

1# Christians have used violence against specific groups in the world that they viewed as practicing dangerous evil. Muslims, on the other hand, have attempted to conquer the whole world and nearly succeeded, in the 7th and 8th centuries AD. It is the same now. Christians still use violence against specific groups they view as practicing dangerous evil, but Muslim extremists have declared war on all the world (including fellow Muslims) that does not follow their fundamentalist creed. My point is the scale and the goal. Declaring war on the world vs. declaring war on specific apparently evil groups.

2# There is no parallel for jihad written into Christian religious texts.

3# Muslim violence throughout history has exceeded Christian violence, in spite of the fact that Christianity existed for six hundred years longer than Islam. I don't have specific numbers and citations for this, so I can't prove this claim, and I can understand people needing proof to accept it. However, I can point to major wars and violent acts Christians committed in history and show that equal or often larger scale acts occurred in Islam's history.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think us folks over here have a very good perspective of current Muslim trends. I also like how socially progessive Muslim countries like Malaysia have been throroughlly ignored in this thread.

Just to let you know, according to this article from BBC News, Malaysia's non-Muslim population is not equal under law.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

And in Christian history. (Not letting that one slide. )

No one's been letting it slide . We've already been discussing it at great length in this thread, actually!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

Apologies in advance for a very long, very rambling post

I don't know anything about the history of Islam, or the history of Christianity...but I think it is a strange basis to use to judge the character of any religion. The way a religion is practiced, like anything else, can evolve over time. If the concept of Jihad as a spiritual battle is more referable to the modern practice of Islam than to the religion's history...does this really matter, if it is the interpretation that the majority of Muslims today choose to accept?


This is fair enough...but the actions of the early followers of those religions are rooted in a specific social and cultural context - and there would have been factors other than religion impacting upon them and shaping their behaviour. Obviously social and cultural factors have changed a fair bit since then, and while it's true that as religions grow you get more variants, I think this should be allowed to happen.

In any case, if variation is what has in fact happened, I do not think it makes sense to judge a religion based on history

Sorry – I don’t mean to be critical, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way – this line of reasoning genuinely confuses me (and I think it may be more because I am missing something than because of a flaw in your reasoning)



This is true, but the extremism did not develop in a social vacuum. And extremism did not flourish in all Islamic nations. Your examples seem to be centred around the Middle East - given the political complexity in this region, and various social factors, I don’t think it’s fair to attribute all extremism to something in Islam itself.

I know very little about the rise of Islamic extremism, (and am hoping that someone else does – and please correct me if I say anything wrong!)…but from the little that I have read, in Afghanistan at least, during the Soviet Wars, the population suffered from high levels of poverty and appalling education levels – and the only places which poor families could afford to get their sons educated was in private madrassas, which were driven and sponsored by groups in the upper echelons of society, like the JUI.

The JUI grew out of a fundamentalist Islamic school (the Deobandi school), but it became very politicised and factionalised rather than purely religious. Many of the madrassas in rural areas (eg the Haqqania madrassa, which many of the Taliban attended) had mullahs who were semi-educated, and quite far-removed from the original religious agenda of the Deobandi school.

The Taliban’s rise to power was more the result of political factors than religious belief in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Wars, Afghanistan was flung into civil war, and the Taliban was seen as a force which could bring order to the region. They spread using military force, and eventually gained control of Afghanistan. Religious extremists – yes, but their rise to power was political, and even their religious education was influenced by political factors, and was not ‘pure’. There are extremist groups in all societies, and in all religions probably – but when they gain widespread power and/or influence, it is usually the result of social factors, and the case of Afghanistan is no different.

It is also worth noting that the Taliban (or indeed any group before them, I think?) never enjoyed widespread support in Afghanistan. The region is extremely fragmented, there are many different religious (strands of Islam?) & ethnic groups, and historically, different groups have fared differently under different leaders. As a result, there is always discontent, and political unstability. It seems unfair to make generalisations about Islam based on who is in power, or who has been in power, in this context.

I have mentioned only Afghanistan as an example because I know absolutely nothing about the rise of modern radicalism in any other Middle Eastern country. I am not sure how al Qaeda developed – I believe it had something to do with the Soviet Wars


Yes, there was hostility towards the West before the events that you mention. It is my understanding though, that the hostility dates back at least to the time of the Soviet Wars, when al Qaeda was born, and that it did grow out of some context. I won’t say any more – I don’t know enough

But Islamic hostility towards the West has increased exponentially since the wars on Afghanistan and, particularly Iraq, and we begin to see signs of hostility within the Islamic populations in Western nations, and I think this is attributable to a perceived Western attack on Islam. I know that the increase in Western hostility itself was largely a response to 9/11; I am not trying to argue who ‘started it’. I was just agreeing with Serenoli, who pointed out that if there are more ‘violent interpretations’ of Islam around at the moment, then this probably due to a perceived threat to the religion from the West


I’m sorry you have to experience this . I’m not religious myself, but I know similar comments are made over here, and yes – the stereotype is insane, sad and ignorant.

The difference is the scale of the ‘assualt’, I suppose. Disparaging comments about Christians (or ‘lilly livered liberals’, I suppose ) are made by intolerant individuals…but there is no large scale threat or attempt to ‘destroy’ either. Given the political and military power of the US and its allies, and given that Islam is only practiced by a relatively small minority of people in most Western countries, I guess some Muslims feel differently.

Nurv, I am on page 2, and agree with you!

This was not a rambling post, no more so than anyone else's here ever is!! It was concise, and full of great information and thoughts. I very much enjoyed reading what you had to say, Elfearz. I can see you put a great deal of thought and time into posting here to contribute to the topic at hand, and I truly enjoyed reading what you had to say. I look forward to seeing more cool contributions of yours like this one in the hot threads! Your voice is interesting, and just as valuable as input as any of us other mooters. You had a lot to say, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading every minute of your post!

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

EDIT: Oh, but before I just leave it at that for the time being, I have one question for you, Eärniel. Why do you think the major religions lead all the way up the mountain, and the smaller religions don't?

PPS: Oh yes, a second question. In the past, some of the most widespread religions of the time involved human sacrifice. Wouldn't they also lead to the top of the mountain?

For your first question: The quote said "all religions." And although I was indeed mainly thinking of christianity and islam when I wrote that post (since those were mostly discussed here), I don't think I used the distinction 'major religions'.

For the second, I think you can practise religion perfectly without human sacrifice (the aztecs may disagree with me here.) Whether they reach the top of the mountain... I suppose it will depend on what you think the top of the mountain is. The quote doesn't define it. Maybe we all just walk up there to find out.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I can summarize my points on this very briefly. I went into more detail in some of my previous posts in this thread.

1# Christians have used violence against specific groups in the world that they viewed as practicing dangerous evil. Muslims, on the other hand, have attempted to conquer the whole world and nearly succeeded, in the 7th and 8th centuries AD. It is the same now. Christians still use violence against specific groups they view as practicing dangerous evil, but Muslim extremists have declared war on all the world (including fellow Muslims) that does not follow their fundamentalist creed. My point is the scale and the goal. Declaring war on the world vs. declaring war on specific apparently evil groups.

2# There is no parallel for jihad written into Christian religious texts.

3# Muslim violence throughout history has exceeded Christian violence, in spite of the fact that Christianity existed for six hundred years longer than Islam. I don't have specific numbers and citations for this, so I can't prove this claim, and I can understand people needing proof to accept it. However, I can point to major wars and violent acts Christians committed in history and show that equal or often larger scale acts occurred in Islam's history.

Very nice summary Lief.

re: 1

The scale and the goal? Well, Hitler was a Christian. I think we all know the scale and goal there.

"Muslims, on the other hand, have attempted to conquer the whole world and nearly succeeded, in the 7th and 8th centuries AD." The whole world now? Maybe you meant the whole of the civilized world at the time?

The British Empire once covered one third of the Earth's land mass. Do you think England is a violent country? Under Genghis Khan, the Mongols conquered from Turkey to China. Is Mongolia a violent country? I think parallels between a country and a religion are valid in this case.

And "apparently evil groups" can be, and have been, just about everyone. Take witch burnings for example. IIRC they happened right up until the early 1800s. The witch (or randomly persecuted townsperson) in question wasn't always burnt at the stake. One perfectly acceptable test of the day was to drown the victim. If they survived, then it must have been through magic, therefore they were a witch and were killed. If they drowned, then they weren't a witch, and they were given a post humous apology and a Christian burial. Oops!

Another "evil group" was the aboriginees of Australia, whose children were forcibly relocated to residential schools. ("Rabbit Proof Fence" is a brilliant movie about this issue, based on real people.)

Still another "evil group" was various native groups in North America. They too were sent to residential schools where people were forced not to speak their language, forced to go to church and be Christian, and in some cases, abused. Reparations for this are still ongoing in Canada. (Possibly also Australia.)

But that's less bad than Muhammed declaring war on his neighbour (which I'm not condoning either) because the Christians of the time thought they were evil. I do not think so.

"Apparently evil groups" does not justify or lessen the impact of violent acts.

re: 2

Until proven otherwise by a Qu'ran sholar or a knowledgable Muslim, I firmly believe that there is a perfectly valid liberal interpretation of jihad. I think that is jihad is a spiritual battle within one's own soul. I like this concept and it also does exist in Christianity (though I like the concept here too).

I'm pretty sure I got that from one of the UBC Muslim Student's association displays.

re: 3

My violence is less violent than your violence? At some point we just have to say that in history, human beings have been (and still are) violent. I'm not condemning Christianity with citations of various violent or mad things that we've done in the past because of the same reason I don't think Islam is violent - it would be an unfair and IMO inaccurate assessment of the religion.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Muslim holy wars (or whatever) killed more people than Christian holy wars (or whatever).

By your reasoning, the religion of the perpetrators of the greater amount of acts would be a more violent religion. I know have an odd mental image of God/Allah with a clipboard, keeping track of who killed whom.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Just to let you know, according to this article from BBC News, Malaysia's non-Muslim population is not equal under law.

Well crap.

That's one thing about Sharia law that I strongly disagree with. (I think that's Sharia law.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No one's been letting it slide . We've already been discussing it at great length in this thread, actually!

Heh. Yeah. Let me know if you ever want to drop this debate like a burnt souffle. (Personally I'm getting quite into it. It's my new GLBT. )

It bears mentioning that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God. We're closer in doctrine than most other religions, and yet it's "West" and "East" that divides us until it seems like we have nothing in common.