No true Muslim puts terrorism on his porridge.
Regards,
Shodan
Seriously? You can’t really believe this, can you?
I strongly disagree with this, both for historical and for textual reasons.
European and American history are rife with people who justify barbarous acts with references to their religion–I’m sure I don’t need to provide examples.
Textual objections have two grounds. First, you say that jesus doesn’t tell people to smite nonbelievers, but you gotta remember that Christians don’t just read the gospels, they read the Old and New Testaments. Calls for smiting nonbelievers appear throughout.
Second, though, Jesus says some crappy things. Some examples:
The text has plenty of support both in Old and New Testament for violence; and historically many Christians have made ample use of the text to support their violence.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE IS HAPPENING TODAY. I’m not staking out an extremist everything-is-equal position. What I’m suggesting is that the differences in amounts of Christian terrorism and Muslim terrorism in modern times are due to factors outside of the intrinsic nature of each religion–factors that include political, cultural, and economic phenomena.
Where in the New Testament are the calls to smite unbelievers?
So wiping the dust from your feet means the same thing as “kill them all and let God sort them out”?
Regards,
Shodan
See the stuff I quoted, and the link below.
No. The bit about how they’d get fucked up worse than Sodom is something that could be used to justify violence. I’ll freely admit I don’t know of specific examples where that specific passage was used to justify violence, though.
Here are some examples of which scriptures were used to justify the Crusades. And this passage has, in a parable, a King that (arguably) represents God saying, " But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Are you disputing the specific passages I mention have been used to justify violence, or do you dispute my larger claim, that Christians have cited passages from the New Testament to justify violence?
Can a Christian commit adultery?
I always thought “everyone sins” was part of Christian theology.
I’d like to see a cite for that, por favor. You become a Christian when you are Baptized. That’s non-revokable in most mainstream sects (including Catholics).
You may be thinking if Ex-communication, but that does not undo Baptism.
I’m not saying that people haven’t warped Christianity and scriptural passages into justifications for violence. And, make no mistake, I’m not saying that Islam is fundamentally violent, or that terrorist acts represent the mainstream of Islamic culture and belief.
What I am saying is that the Christian authorities have historically had to warp it, and twist it pretty far out of shape in order to get a theological justification for violent behavior.
By comparison, the Koran has a lot of relatively unambiguous passages advocating jihad, and the argument seems to be whether jihad is a figurative battle within and for one’s own self and community, or whether it’s to be taken more literally as a war on Allah’s behalf.
In short, Islam has it easier, in that it’s not a matter of coming up with allegorical statements justifying things, there are direct references to jihad all over the place and unscrupulous imams and other Muslim leaders can hoodwink the ignorant into thinking that this kind of thing is true Islam.
Which is not that far from what historical Christian leaders did- they just had to work a little bit harder.
Ultimately though, I do think “radicalized Muslim” has some value as a descriptive term; clearly they’re outside the mainstream with their views, and they’re also doing things in the name of Islam, even if it’s pretty repugnant stuff to more enlightened Muslims.
It’s not any different than describing the abortion doctor killers of the 1990s as “radicalized Christians”, as they were doing what they saw as God’s work, even though it was far out of bounds as far as mainstream Christianity and the text of the Bible is concerned. And it’s just as incorrect to tar Christianity as a whole with the brush of these lunatics’ actions as it is to tar Islam with the brush of ISIS or Al Qaeda.
You know, this is one of the areas I think the right has us fairly accurately pegged. Many of us are guilty of bending over backwards for Islam and speaking with derision about Christianity.
Here’s my two cents:
Religion can be dangerous. Christianity can lead to anti-intellectualism and anti-science nonsense. But it’s not an existential threat. It’s a threat to ideas. Radical Islam, or whatever you want to call it is dangerous in an existential way–its members are actually out there killing people and using the Koran to justify it.
But here’s the rub for me: “No religious test…” I can’t take that to mean anything other than: you’re welcome to practice any religion or no religion in the United States. And if we’re going to keep that (and I think we should) then we’re going to face some risk. We will be hit again by terrorists–just a matter of time. But to ban Muslims, or subject them to something unconstitutional, well…I can’t get behind that.
Does anybody read OP’s anymore?
Fnark…
My bad…I ended up responding more to the later posts than the OP.
Fundamentally, I think you’re right. They’re just young people doing bad shit and trying to justify it.
Too late for me to just clear my post. Just ignore it.
Finding fault with the tenets of Islam is in no way the same thing as banning Muslims. The former is a contest of ideas; the latter has no basis either in US law or the principles espoused by US law.
Interesting read indeed, thanks Aspidistra.
The problem is the term radicalized is used incorrectly. Violent Islam is no more radicalized than the crusaders were. It’s the Muslims who are committed to peaceful coexistence with others that are the radicals in their society.
[quote=“drewder, post:74, topic:761725”]
The problem is the term radicalized is used incorrectly. Violent Islam is no more radicalized than the crusaders were. It’s the Muslims who are committed to peaceful coexistence with others that are the radicals in their society.
[/QUOTE] Stuff and nonsense. Islam has 1400 years in which it moved away from many of the incidents reported in the Qur'an and the Hadiths. The Islamists are following a specific sect, Salafism, that developed in the nineteenth century, (much like Fundamentalists in Christianity), claiming to have found the "true" version of their religion. Claiming that the new sect that has re-written the rules to match their own beliefs is the "real" Islam while the overwhelming number of believers who have never bought into those beliefs are "radicalized" is just silly. It is very much a matter of claiming that the current True Prophet of Christianity is Jack Chick with his re-writing of history and belief based on his own warped version of his interpretation of what he considers the literal Word of God.Since they seem to be advocating what is for them a return to ‘traditional’ values, to a previous time and system of governance and society (which may or may not have ever actually existed in such a form), wouldn’t it be more accurate to call them reactionary Muslims than radical Muslims? I guess in some ways they’re both, but radical is less specific.
Radical simply means change at the root. A faction of the Republican party in the years surrounding the Civil War were known as (called themselves?) the Radical Republicans because they were so opposed to slavery that they wanted instant and uncompensated emancipation among similar ideas.
Radicalism tends to attract people who are willing to include violence in their plans, so Radical Islam picks up the epithet.
A reactionary is one who is opposing a recent change or turn of events, reacting to it. It is not a reference to someone who is simply ultra conservative. Given the length of time and the number of cultural adaptations that Islam has undergone since the time before the first caliphate, using the word reactionary would not be applicable to someone who wants to return to a period before all the changes–they are not reacting to recent changes. (One can find reactionaries among some of the political wings, reacting to political events following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and, later, the ending of the Cold War, but it would not be a good description of the overall movement.)
The journalist I was talking about was interviewed today on NPR’s Fresh Air. She’s got a lot of interesting shit to tell-- definitely worth listening to the podcast if you can get it.
And yet in 2016 there is a wide discrepancy among the various religions exhibiting this behavior. As time goes forward it should get historically better if all the religions are the same.
Magiver: History does not progress in a linear fashion. Religions, cultures, nations, and societies grow and dwindle in moral strength. Germany was one of the most civilized nations on earth…but still fell into the Nazi hell-hole. It wasn’t anything intrinsically wrong with Germany: the overall situation made Nazism possible.
Islamic culture was just about the most advanced on earth…until Genghis and Tamerlane stomped all over it.
Look at the Counter-Reformation for a nasty example in Christendom. A major religion’s moral progress was reversed, for a period. This kind of bad thing can…and does…happen. (Christianity in the U.S. took a nasty moral reverse in the 1980s and is still working to recover.)