If I follow…the precise definition of “inherent” being demanded by FP is so restricted and narrow that it becomes absurd?
Rather, I think the problem is that it’s very carefully unexamined and unclarified so that it can mean whatever those who use it want it to mean.
Obviously, they don’t want to use it in its literal sense of terrorist violence being an innate part of and inseparable from Islam. Because that would imply they were claiming that Muslims in general are violent terrorists, which is, of course, ridiculous on its face.
But they don’t want to give up the smeary implication that Islam as a whole is just somehow more violent, naturally and intrinsically more violent, than other faiths.
For instance, they reject the alternative interpretation that global Islam nowadays is situationally violent, which is something that even the most forceful anti-Islamophobes are generally quite willing to admit. No reasonable person denies that the Muslim world nowadays is experiencing exceptionally high levels of violence, oppression and intolerance, and that most of the people perpetrating it are assiduously affirming it to be part of their Muslim religious identity. What reasonable people deny is the unsupported assertion that these phenomena can’t be accounted for by a complex of historical/cultural/social/economic factors, but must instead be fundamentally due to some kind of metaphorical “violence gene” that lurks in some unspecified way in the very essence of Islam.
When pressed about the specifics of the etiology of this allegedly inherent Islamic tendency to violence, the advocates of the “Islam is inherently violent” position tend to spuffle some vague boilerplate about references in the Qur’an endorsing violence so naturally that would influence followers of the Qur’an. (Although these advocates don’t seem able to explain why in that case we don’t see, say, exceptionally high levels of polygyny among Jews, given that Jewish scripture is likewise “inherently” polygynist in that it contains many references endorsing polygyny.)
So my point about the term “inherent” in the position “Islam is inherently violent” isn’t that I believe its advocates really intend it literally to imply “all Muslims are violent”, since obviously they don’t. Rather, the point is that its advocates need to address the question if you don’t intend it literally to imply “all Muslims are violent”, then EXACTLY what the fuck DO you mean by it, SPECIFICALLY?
Where’s a like button when you need one?
And again I have to point out that you have serious problems keeping track of a conversation.
[ul]
[li]The incidents I posted were in response to your claim’s that Andros’ cases didn’t count.[/li][li]Andros had provided those cases as additional support for the “some sports fans can really be dicks” suggestion.[/li][li]This hypothesis had been put forward as a counter proposal to Fuji’s claim that his cited incident should be interpreted from an Islamic perspective.[/li][/ul]
Context. It’s rather important if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Of course at this stage I’d say that’s a very big “if”.
You have a remarkable propensity for ignoring things and then pretending they never existed. I’ve noted this earlier in this thread.
The one who introduced the “Islam is inherently violent” theme to this thread is you, which sort of gives you some control over the meaning of the phrase as used here. But to the extent that you’re going to hold this out as a meaningful position, i.e. one which is actually held by a significant number of people and a part of the current political discourse, it would probably be something like the forumulation I’ve provided several times in this thread. To quote one recent example, that “Islamic teachings tend to promote violence and lend themselves to extremism” (as compared to the contrary position which would be that “current Islamic violence and extremism are solely the result of external factors, which would produce the same result in followers of other religions”).
None of this in any way addresses the point, and frankly you’re barely coherent (if at all) at this point.
Contrary to what you seem to be believe, the word “context” is not some sort of magic word that you can toss in to any random text to make it logically sound.
Yep.
That post restates the argument beautifully and leaves much less room for misinterpretation or charges of straw-manning.
But perhaps someone will be along shortly to object to the reductio ad absurdum Kim used. On the basis that the conclusion derived was… absurd. And anti-Muslim bigots don’t actually believe that conclusion, so therefore Kim’s wrong even though she’s right about their actual proposition. Or something like that, because it’s more important to show where Kimstu could possibly be wrong rather than to show where the bigots are wrong. Because intellectual rigor! of course.
ETA: Well, I predicted that wrong. Apparently, the problem with Kimstu’s argument is that Fotheringay-Phipps wanted a different phrasing of the relative positions. Softer language; tastes great, less filling!
Here’s a good article from TheHumanist.com, which lays out the two sides of the question along the lines of what I’ve been describing.
Will not appeal to various ideologues and strawman-lovers who infest this thread, but others might find it worthwhile.
Fortunately that’s a short article, so it’s not a huge waste of time, but I can boil it down for those who don’t want to take that time: Islam is like a road with a dangerous corner, and not all drivers negotiate that well.
Which is a fine analogy as far as it goes. Of course “as far as it goes” is a destination also fed by Christianity Freeway, which has switchbacks, low shoulders and its own poorly trained drivers. (There are perhaps other roads feeding Destination as well. But they’re probably all straight and paved with clarity.)
Clarity, and good intentions! The road to Destination…
That was not the point of my citing that article. The point was that it presented the two sides of the question in a straightforward manner.
I see you don’t like the notion that Islam may be more of a “dangerous corner” than other ideologies. Which is fine, and you may be right. But the point is that that - Islam is a more “dangerous corner” than a lot of other ideologies - is the other side of the question, and not the caricatured “all Muslims are violent” version that Kimstu and (apparently) you would prefer to attack.
The article doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that “Islam is a more ‘dangerous corner’ than other ideologies,” it attempts to justify that opinion by answering the seeming contradiction to the assertion that violent extremism is intrinsic to Islam contained in the fact that Islam has not historically produced continuous violence against other cultures during its 14 centuries of existence. It uses the analogy to point out that Islam as a religion can be used to justify violent extremism by those -analogically- careless or impaired drivers who take those dangerous doctrinal corners incautiously.
But the article fails because it tries to use that trite observation as a singular observation about Islam instead of its more justifiable utility as a general caution about human nature in the observance of any sufficiently complex and developed religious tradition.
Arguing that the article failed to justify that position (not that I agree with you, BTW) is missing the point.
Again: I cited the article to show what the position was, (in contrast to the strawman presentation here), not that the position was justified.
There is no fucking contrast. It’s the same position, just prettied up. An apologia for a position doesn’t actually make it a different position.
Look, just because you’re using a greater number of words to claim that extremism is an intrinsic feature to Islam (which is what the article and your preferred formulation are claiming), you can’t rationally avoid dealing with a) why violent extremism has not historically been a more widespread and constant manifestation of Islam and b) doctrinal and historical comparisons to Christianity showing an equivalent facility toward extreme interpretations.
The article fails to rebut the first and fails to examine the second. But yes, it does present your position in the most reasonable manner possible.
If you’re really going to insist that “Islam is a more “dangerous corner” than a lot of other ideologies” is the same position (just “prettied up”) as “all Muslims are violent”, then we’re going to have to leave it at that. I’m happy to be on my side of this one. 
If these two claims could be solidly established then they would indeed be valid arguments against the “more dangerous corner” position. But they have not been, at least here. (In this thread, they haven’t even been made, to my current recollection, let alone established.) I would suggest that you focus on trying to establish these claims rather than strawmanning.
Sorry, I misread, and partially retract this.
a) is not a valid objection to the “more dangerous corner” position.
b) would be (at least as regards to Christianity), if established.
[I misread a) as “more widespread than in other ideologies”, but it now seems to mean “more widespread than it actually was”.]
Let’s clear something up here. Fotheringay-Phipps: We’ve been arguing for a long time about what “Violence is inherent to Islam” actually means.
Using the definition you are arguing for, is that a statement that you believe is true? If so, or if not, how confident are you in that belief?
I couldn’t say for sure.
“Gun to my head and forced to choose”, I would guess that it’s more likely than not true to some degree (not nearly to the extent that you see today, though). This, based on what I’ve seen of history and the assessments of various experts on both sides of the argument.
But I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in that assessment. I think you would need to be a much bigger expert on Islam than I am to make a confident assessment here.
Thing is that I don’t think a lot of the people who argue against that position are experts either, and think they come to their position because it suits their sympathies.
And in any event, I object to trying to refute that position by caricaturing it.
(I alluded to this in post #354 above.)
If you’re going to insist that I’m insisting on that, then you should stop misrepresenting arguments. Seems like that’s a habit of yours.
I’m insisting that the position
taken in the context of a debate about how people of other religions or cultures should perceive Islam is the same position as
no matter how many times you try and walk it back by rephrasing.
Effectively, yes, that’s what you’re doing, by reference and affirmation at least.
I wouldn’t object to that particular formulation.
But Kimstu also said - and you endorsed - that the implication of that position is that “all Muslims are violent”. I quoted this above in post #358, and she reiterated the implication in the final sentence of #362, and you enthusiastically endorsed this reasoning (calling it a “reductio ad absurdum”).
So you own it. You’re not allowing for the possiblity that “Islam as a whole [could be] more violent” without having every individual Muslim be violent, which makes them equivalent.
So you’re bobbing and weaving here, trying to get the implication in without being tied to those words, especially when it makes you look ridiculous as it did here. But that’s what your position amounts to.
FP to help us understand your definition, perhaps you could indicate the practical significance of your claim that Islam is inherently violent.
Ignore for the moment the more extreme Wahhabi sects which I think we all agree at this point it time do promote violence among a significant portion of their adherents, and lets concentrate on the more moderate mainstream sects.
Are these inherently violent in the same way that Dungeons and Dragons is inherently violent? In that it involves violent imagery, but generally doesn’t make those who practice noticeably more violent. In which case who cares.
Or in your opinion are followers of the more moderate faiths more violent than they would be if they followed another religion?