Does Churchills warning hold any weight in the Modern world?

Great Debates
61

No. It just very predictably resulted in thousands of deaths in the ensuing riots. But that’s okay, since it wasn’t the result of an explosive device? Look, the point isn’t that there’s a one-to-one correlation between acts of Hindu extremists and acts of Moslem extremists. The point is that there are violent extremists of many types, and that there’s nothing special about Islam in that regard. The most prolific suicide-bombing group in the world is actually the Tamil Tigers, whose struggle has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. They don’t kill in the name of Hinduism, either, but rather in the name of Tamil nationalism. But then the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade is likewise an explicitly secular organization fighting in the name of Palestinian nationalism. Why should we treat the latter as Moslem fanatics when we don’t treat the former as Hindu fanatics?

Islam happens to be a convenient banner for a certain group of violent extremists. Islam is no more inherently suited to being such a banner than any number of other causes. Catholicism and Lutheranism were convenient banners during the 30 Years War, one of the most devastating conflicts in terms of percentages of population killed in human history. Christianity was a convenient banner during the Crusades, which resulted in the indiscriminate slaughter of vast numbers of Jews and Orthodox Christians in addition to the Moslems who were attacked unprovoked and forced to defend their homes. Judaism, if the Book of Joshua is to be believed, was the banner of a group of violent extremists who put entire cities to death to the last child. Violent extremists will use whatever symbolism they can get their hands on, and they have no compunctions about warping ideologies to further their ends. That they have so warped Islam says absolutely nothing about Islam.

62

Okay, so now I see it. Everything is equally equally bad in some unexplained way, we can judge nothing, because everything else is just as bad. It’s some perverse form of relativism.

I agree with what you said. Christianity was a convenient banner for slaughter in the Crusades. Which, per my original point, was a long time ago. I absolutely agree that this is roughly the stage that Islam is currently at. That is my whole point. It doesn’t excuse the Crusades, and it does not try to duck Islam’s problems by suggesting that everything else is bad too, or that, “Hey, even though other religions don’t seem to be generating suicidal nutcases who like to murder innocents (oh, but they’re not innocents, since they’re infidels), it must not be the religion, but something else. We must never blame the religion, because that would cast judgment.”

Well, I’m ready to judge. I haven’t seen people, in the name of the world’s other main stream religions, poison gassing animals, videotaping beheadings, and blowing up buildings with thousands of people in them. I may change my mind once I see more, but from the viewpoint here, it looks like Islam tends to generate these loonies in a way that other religions currently are not.

63

See, this confuses me. The group that really introduced suicide bombing as a largescale tactic was…wait for it…Hindu. The aforementioned Tamil Tigers. The group prior to that most famous for suicide tactics was Shinto (the Kamikaze) - they didn’t target civilians, but somehow I expect they probably would have if it would have been practicable. Of course, the context was rather different. The Palestinian conflict is generating suicide bombers because of the extreme assymetry of forces, which not coincidentally is the same reason as the other two groups. Suicide bombing of civilian targets is one of the only ways possible to strike, and so that’s what they do.

This is also why your quips about the lack of Hindu suicide bombers in Karachi is misguided. There haven’t been any notable suicide attacks on either side of the India-Pakistan conflict. That’s because there isn’t a pronounced assymetry of forces.

People generally kill each other for reasons relating to socio-economics and tribalism. Theological details rarely enter into it except as excuses. Since all the violence currently being perpetrated by Moslem extremists can be easily explained based on socio-economics and tribalism, I see no reason to think that the explanation must also include something about the peculiar theological details of Islam.

64

Pretty much how I’d describe large chunks of the US population and their ranting, religious leader if any of the patronising, one-dimensional comment on the ME here is anything to go by.

65

I don’t much care what they do in the Middle East. Apparently they prefer to live in the ignorance, poverty and squalor mandated by the strict interpretation of Islam – their problem (as long as they don’t try to export their misery to the rest of the world by means of terror – and realistically no Islamic country is ever going to be much of a military threat to anyone as long as they continue to embrace an anti-science idiotic ideologue, all Arab countries couldn’t even take on puny Israel 1/70 of their size. Pathetic). However it does worry me a great deal what the future of Islam and Europe will be. I don’t at all like the small influences on Danish society exercised by Islam today (the abomination of tent covered women, there are Arab ghettos Jews can’t go to and I couldn’t take my daughters to without veiling them. Some schools with majority Moslem students have been forced to exclude Jews and increasingly Christians are being forced out. Moslem immigrant groups have made a backlash against traditional Danish free clothing traditions in swimming pools, parks, beaches and public in general and harassing and threatening gay groups just when Danes stopped. Etc.). I heavily dislike the prospect of seeing Middle Age inspired Islamic thoughts gaining even more influence in society (Londonistan). Freja forbid! But should such a day come, as many statisticians predict, where Europe would be majority Muslim I figure I’d be too old to be much personally bothered, but I have two daughters (so far) whom I’d hate to leave to such a misogynist hateful ideologue. Besides, since I’m proud to be European and I believe a strict interpretation of Islam is a first class ticket to national failure, I wouldn’t like to see or be part of the generation that sent Europe down that road wretchedness and extinction. Perhaps Islam can be tempered and civilised like Christianity was. I dunno, it hasn’t yet and I don’t like to take the chance that it can’t.

Usual disclaimers apply; not all Moslems are terrorists, not all Islam is Wahabbism/Taliban/Iran fundamentalism, etc.

/Rune

66

In the last few years there were two infamous cases in sharia-ruled parts of Nigeria where women were sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.

The fact that something is in scripture doesn’t mean that every member of the religion believes it. If that’s the case, I think all the Christians in the world “have to” believe in stoning for adultery as well. Not every member of a religion is a fundamentalist.

This is just absurd. Loads of Christians will say that whatever happens is god’s will. Yes, it’s fatalistic, but I don’t think anything else you say flows naturally from that.

I think there are a couple of thousand who have. If Muslims “have to believe” this kind of stuff for one reason or another, shouldn’t there be a lot more of them? That’s the problem with your whole scenario, in fact. If Islam really leads to terrorism and holy wars and such, shouldn’t Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have millions more supporters than they actually do?

67

Yep the British Catholics would have been killed. It’s a nationalism thing not a religion thing. religion is just an easy way to tell the differences between the two communities. Many of the leaders of Irish nationalism were protestants as back in the day it was really only the protestants that got educated and had money e.g. Wolfe tone, Robert Emmet, Charles Stewart Parnell and many more.

68

Yeah, and that particular statement, thrown out about 1,000 times on this forum in the last year to just about any subject remotely involving religion or the U.S., is not one-dimension or stereotypical.

Why, we must have just a horribly ranting and raving populous and leadership; that’s why we’ve closed down all religions but Christianity and ensured that non-Christians cannot enter the country. Oh wait, we haven’t. We haven’t done anything close to that. In fact, we’re one of the most religiously tolerant countries in the world.

Please.

69

Admittedly, I’m from a western culture that can claim constant social development over the past number of centuries. I like what we have and the future barring outside influences seems positive enough for me.

There have been forces that challenge our glorious culture. Communism, Fascism, racism, Christian fundametalism comes immediately to mind. These have either been defeated or easily held in check. But Islamic fundamentalism has continued relentlessly for centuries and continues to increase as a threat. Isn’t it clear enough now that our way of life, particularly our freedom of movement has been irrevocably compromised ? Can anyone argue that there is a stronger retrograde force than Islamic fundamentalism in the world today?

70

Marley:

Islam isn’t christianity so your comparison doesn’t work. The quran is considered to be the direct word of god by all muslims. There are certain “crimes” mentioned in the quran which have specific punishments. Cutting off the hands of thieves is one and flogging for adultery is another.

Since these punishments are mentioned in the quran directly then they are considered part of islam. A muslim can’t decide not to go along with that bit. Stoning (rather than flogging) may have cultural origins but the general idea of dishing out physical punishment for adultery comes from islam.

You’re right that lots of people may say something is god’s will however I think that this concept (of humans being powerless in the face of whatever god chooses to do) runs through the teachings of islam more strongly than through christianity. But that’s just my opinion.

The quran bangs on endlessly about how god is all-mighty, all-powerful. About how god controls everyone’s fate, about how god is the best of planners etc etc. Christianity doesn’t really have this trait. Not to anywhere near the same extent anyway.

I’m sceptical that there’s all that many muslims in the world who are willing to die for the vague, nebulous causes that al Q spout. What I was saying was that if OBL better fitted the requirements for the mahdi then we would see a lot more people rally to his cause for religious reasons.

No because OBL can’t be the mahdi because he’s too old.

As I said OBL can’t be the mahdi so muslims just think of him as some kind of resistance fighter/terrorist without any divine links. Muslims who are sympathetic to him may think of him as fighting in defence of islam but they don’t ascribe any kind of divinity to him. No one does.

71

And what do Christians and Jews think the Bible is?

The Bible also prescribes punishments for these and other crimes.

Again, you’re wrong. Unless you think the world is divided into atheists and fundamentalists, you most certainly can “decide” not to believe particular ideas within your own religion.

But it’s in the Bible as well.

Oh, I see. It’s the extent. Although since you’re saying you have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian, they think it’s true anyway- so I don’t understand why the extent is important. Islam may well do this more than Christianity.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why more people aren’t supporting him. You’re saying they’re just waiting for somebody very similar but slightly younger to come around? I really don’t think most people are that picky. :rolleyes:

72

Quote:
Churchill himself is explaining that although the individual Muslim maybe a good person, he is defeated by the circumstances around him.
Yes, the circumstances in that case being the opression of the British Empire.

Oh yes, how unfortunate that we in America, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, etc. were ever part of the British Empire ! Oh would that we could have progressed under the Dutch like Surinam and Indonesia or perhaps the Spanish in South and Central America. Perhaps the French in St Pierre or Algeria and the Portuguese in Brazil. Oh that evil British Empire that spawned the likes of Churchill.

73

Marley:

They don’t think it’s God speaking directly to us in the first person. It’s not the direct word of god. Orthodox jews and some fringe fundamentalist christians think that the bible is the word of god but even then it’s not god speaking in the first person.

Different muslims have different interpretations of islam but if something is stated very clearly in the quran (like flogging adulterers) then no muslim can argue about it. I don’t really understand what you are arguing about. The punishment for adultery in islam is flogging, period. Ask a muslim.

You claimed that stoning adulterers and FGM are cultural things that are not linked to islam. I merely pointed out that, whilst you are correct in regard to FGM (to some extent), the idea of beating adulterers is linked to islam.

So what?

Christianity doesn’t advocate the stoning of adulterers.

No you can’t. I can’t decide I don’t think Jesus was god and still consider myself a christian.

You might be able to dismiss a few minor peripheral things but you can’t decide not to believe core things. Flogging adulterers is set out very clearly in the quran, the quran is the direct word of god - you can’t decide you disagree with it and still be a muslim.

Yes but it’s not in christianity.

In any case, the people in Nigeria are muslims not christians so the bible is irrelevant. Muslims who advocate flogging adulterers are acting in accordance with the quran not the bible.

I didn’t say that. You don’t seem to understand that islam and christianity are different. They are not the same.

You don’t have to agree with everything in the bible in order to be a christian but you do have to agree with everything in the quran to be a muslim. The quran is the direct word of god - it’s not possible to disagree with parts of it. Every bit of it is as valid as every other bit.

The only exception to this is where certain verses have been “abrogated” ie nullified by later verses. An example of this is alcohol - the first verse to deal with alcohol is quite lenient, saying that there is some benefit in alcohol. Later verses get gradually less lenient until finally it gets banned altogether. The later verse, banning alcohol, is considered to have abrogated the earlier verse, which says that alcohol is ok.

If a verse hasn’t been abrogated then it’s valid. The verse dealing with flogging adulterers hasn’t been abrogated, so it’s valid. To a muslim, that verse is god directly telling us to flog adulterers (on production of the requisite proof) so who are you to disagree with god?

As regards fatalism, the extent is important because religion pervades society and has an effect. If religion X is more fatalistic than religion Y then one would expect to find that society X is more fatalistic than society Y.

All I was saying was that I would bet that if OBL fitted the criteria for the mahdi there would be a lot more muslims flocking to his cause. As things stand he’s just a terrorist but if he had some claim to potential divine authority then he would attract more muslims. Muslims (like all religious people) are suckers for divine authority.

A lot of ordinary muslims are very “religious”. They read books on islam, they listen to tapes of sermons given by famous mullahs etc etc. Religion pervades muslim society to a much greater extent than religion pervades western societies. This is partly due to the fact that islam itself is so all-pervasive - giving rules on how to live your life down to every last detail.

Thus (I think) that they are extremely vulnerable to being exploited by religious crackpots. More vulnerable than western people anyway who live in secular societies where religion doesn’t play such a major role in their lives.

74

Exactly, all empires carry oppression, its the nature of empire, but alot of good things came especially from the British one. And, we gave most of the colonies up without fighting. We new, because of financial constraints adding to it, that our time had gone along with the rest of Europe.

75

But thank [your chosen deity here] you’re not a Muslim, right? Not a good time to be one in the Western world right now.

Personally, you may not be sickened by the notion that your government was doing God’s work when it killed 11,000 or so innocent Iraqi civilians in the recent war, but thats what your religious leader would have us all believe. Its much the same for jihadists; they’re also doing God’s work. We are the good guys, though - thats the difference.

76

Could you please elaborate? Perhaps provide an example of doing something that is haram but not sinful ?

77

I’m not sure where you are getting this idea (in which I suspect you are additionally confusing aspects of Sharia law with the Qur’an–they are not the same), but it is clearly contradicted by the fact that an enormous number of Muslims in a lot of countries do not adhere to the picture you have portrayed. Sharia has not been the practice in Malaysia, Indonesia, southern Philipines, or Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, the UAE, Qatar, or a number of other countries. Even in countries that we associate with Islamism, the imposition of this Fundamentalist version of Islam has been a recent change in their practices: Iran had to have it imposed on them when they backed the wrong group to overthrow the American-supplied dictator; Afghanistan had to have it imposed on them when the post-Soviet lawlessness allowed one organized group to bring in a stricter form of religion than the majority of Afghanis had generally practiced for years. Pakistan had no tradition of universal support for the harsher aspects of Islamism and their recent leanings in that direction have been the result of the Islamists marrying their religious beliefs to political beliefs that hold the West responsible for many of their troubles.

But Islamic Fundamentalism has not “contiuned for centuries.” (Well, techniucally, it has made it to the 200 year mark by a couple of years, but it has not been a widespread political force for much over a hundred years.) It is only a threat at this time because its proponents have successfully couched their political goals in terms of their religion. What seems to have “held back” various Muslim societies has been the same things that have held back other societies: statist empires that turn inward to consolidate power and challenges from outside powers.

Middle Eastern Islam was going through the same sort of advance and retreat in science and arts that Europe, Byzantuium, and far eastern Asia have cycled through on several occasions until it was seriously endangered by the nomadic peoples of central Asia. Later it got bogged down by the Ottoman Empire, much as Rome and Byzantium and various Chinese empires stagnated. (And the Ottomans also experienced periods of progress, just as the other empires did.) In the Far East, Muslim development in what became Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philipines was interrupted by European colonialism that had the good luck to bring their guns in before the local peoples developed a society sufficiently organized to oppose them.

78

I’m just going to quote my own post from the thread about colonialism…

Look, the British destroyed the economies and did oppress a lot of their colonies, mostly the ones in Africa and Asia. The other European countries were equally oppressive. It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me to attribute failings in the Middle East solely to religion, when there was clear economic disruption during the colonial period and there was political disruption inflicted by both the USSR and the US during the Cold War.

Churchill clearly believed in this system for much of his career.

79

Tomndebb:

This is where it starts to get a bit complicated. Not all muslim countries flog adulterers but the reasons they don’t are many and varied but none of the reasons are because flogging is not part of islam. The first thing to remember is that flogging is the correct punishment according to islam. The next thing to do is to look at why certain countries don’t do it. There are a number of reasons:

First of all, many muslim countries do not implement islamic law properly. Muslims constantly bemoan this - ask them. A common refrain among muslims is that islamic law is not implemented properly and, if it was, then many of the problems of muslim countries would be solved.

Secondly, not many cases of adultery get proved under islamic law because you need four witnesses. So, while the punishment is flogging, you don’t see it happen very often due to lack of evidence.

Thirdly, many muslim countries were former colonies of european powers and much of their law is partly based on the law of whichever european power colonised them. This tends to have the effect of moderating the islamic influence on their national law.

Thus, to take the examples which you gave:

Malaysia uses british common law but some of the rural areas are pushing for proper islamic law http://www.corpun.com/myj00104.htm

Indonesia has dutch influence on it’s law but they are mulling bringing in more islamic law including flogging for adultery

In Egypt the law is that a woman can be jailed for up to two years for adultery whilst a man can be jailed for six months. This isn’t flogging but the idea of state punishment for adultery is still present.

The United Arab Emirates has been known to dole out lashings to adulterers.

Libya thinks that flogging is the correct punishment for adultery too:

My point is that flogging is the correct punishment for adultery under islam. This isn’t a fundamentalist viewpoint, it’s the mainstream. It doesn’t happen all that often for various reasons (sharia not implemented properly, lack of evidence, influence of british or other law etc) but it is still the correct punishment and you won’t find a muslim anywhere who will disagree with me.

When I said:

there are, of course, many different interpretations of islam but whatever interpretation you happen to follow you still have to believe everything in the quran (since it’s the word of god an’all).

The quran says one hundred lashes for adulterers so that’s what islam says. Doesn’t matter what brand of islam you follow, the quran is pretty clear on this point. This applies to mainstream sunni and shia muslims anyway, dunno about ismaili, ahmadi etc.

80

Sorry. You could say the same thing about Christianity. Certain things are prescribed or proscribed in the bible, but various cultural reasons have caused Christians to fail to follow the rules.

While you claim that we only need “ask them” (whoever “they” are), I will note that many of your examples tend to point out pockets of Fundamentalist groups in larger societies that are not actually leading the societies in the direction you claim (any more than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell are actually bringing about serious changes in American society). Despite small pockets of adherents of Sharia (and it seems that I was correct that you were actually talking about Sharia, not the Qur’an), there is no serious movement to impose it on Turkey or Jordan or Egyptr or Syria Iran, for all the efforts of the ayatollahs has been resisting that sort of extreme implemetation of the law.

I’m sorry, but while Wahhabism and similar Islamist movements are a threat to some parts of the world, the notion of some vast Islamist threat to the world (or the idea that Islam, itself, is a threat to the world) is baseless (unless overreaction to those movements by outsiders actually drums up support for them as we did in Iran).