Islam, the religion of peace...

Untrue and irrelevant. Nigeria as it exists, today, is the result of forced mergers of cultures imposed by European conquerors and does not resemble what it would have looked like without outside interference. On the other hand, the rioters in Baltimore were people who had also “lived together” for thousands of years, simply moving from Britain to North America.

It is less likely that we would have religious riots in the U.S., today, but we have had more time as a country to get past that point.

Quite a breathtaking rewriting of history you got there, tomndebb. Just googling around for a few minutes got me dozens of cites to the contrary, and indeed attribute the riots to nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment mainly aimed at Irish and German newcomers.

Please, if you can’t do your part to combat ignorance, at least refrain from actively spreading disinformation like this.

True and relevant.

The present political construction we call Nigeria vs. the present political construction we call the United States has nothing to do with it.

The riots were based on religion, nothing else. They weren’t rioting against European conquerors, or outside interference. They were rioting because of their Islamic religion. Because a newspaper columnist supposedly insluted Islam in a column about a beauty pagaent.

DR: [cites] attribute the riots to nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment mainly aimed at Irish and German newcomers.

But “nativism” and “anti-immigrant sentiment” were strongly tied to Protestant anti-Catholicism:

Sounds an awful lot like religious violence to me.

milroyj: So the most recent examples of religious riots in the U.S. are 150 years old […]

Does that mean that 150 years ago, Christianity was a bad religion?

It may have been a chicken and egg syndrome where historians can debate which came first, the nativist sentiment or the attendant anti-Catholic hysteria. But as milroyj notes, no such ambiguity can be found in the Nigerian riots.

No re-writing, at all, Doghouse. The rioters were the established British stock and their war cries were based on their religious beliefs. You might want to actually read the link you provided which documents the religious nature of the riots pretty clearly. As to making up or re-writing history, the events I mentioned happened and the motivation was vocally anti-Catholicism.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on the Know Nothing Party:

And, from the Louisville Courier-Journal:Louisville’s history has an anti-immigrant chapter. On Aug. 6, 1855, at least 22 people were killed in a riot by anti-foreigner and anti-Catholic factions who viewed the Germans and Irish entering the United States as a threat to the power of Protestants of English and Scots-Irish ancestry. That day is recalled as Bloody Monday.

Milroyj, the rioters were, indeed, motivated by religious beliefs, as no one has denied. The point is that you appear to be making some vague claim that this is related only to Islam. However, in a similar point of history in other nations we see the same sort of religious violence, regardless of the religion in question.

And I stand by my point that tomndebb’s charicarization of the rioters in Baltimore as “people who had also “lived together” for thousands of years, simply moving from Britain to North America” is an outright falsehood.

My last post was a “simulpost” with tomndebbs. Nonetheless, isn’t a little pedantic to now say you were only characterizing the religious makeup of the Baltimore rioters? If Nigerians are attacking other, ethnically identical Nigerians on the basis of religion, with no other dividing lines such as immigrant status or country of origin, doesn’t that yield a stronger implication of purely religious motivations?

No, my point is that Christian Fundamentalists, whom I do not support, and am not one of, are not wantonly killing people like Islamic Fundamentalists are.

Your idea of “similiar point of history in other nations” is disingenous, at best.

If you agree that religious violence is wrong, how is it absolutely condemned for Crusaders, witch-burners, or anti-Catholic rioters in 1850, but not as equally condemned for Islamist violence today, in 2002?

milroyj: No, my point is that Christian Fundamentalists, whom I do not support, and am not one of, are not wantonly killing people like Islamic Fundamentalists are.

But when they do—and they frequently have, and some of them do even today—does that make Christianity a bad religion?

If you agree that religious violence is wrong, how is it absolutely condemned for Crusaders, witch-burners, or anti-Catholic rioters in 1850, but not as equally condemned for Islamist violence today, in 2002?

Who here do you imagine is not condemning the Nigerian rioters for rioting and killing people in the name of religion? Of course such behavior is wrong! We’re just saying that such behavior is not unique to Islam, nor does it mean that all Muslims are violent bigots, nor does it mean that Islam is intrinsically a bad religion.

You seem to imagine that we’re saying that it’s not right to criticize or condemn violence committed by Islamic extremists in the name of Islam. Nobody’s saying anything of the sort.

What thread are you reading Doghouse? No one has denied the religious nature of the Nigerian riots.

  • Milroyj seemed to imply that the riots are peculiar to Islam.
  • I pointed out that similar religion-based riots have occurred in the U.S. and asserted that the U.S. riots should not be ignored because they are “history.”
  • Milroyj claimed that the Nigerians had been living together longer than the people in the U.S. and I pointed out that the Nigerians have been forced into proximity by colonial forces and that the rioters in the U.S. had as much common history as the Nigerians.
  • You indicated that you thought the U.S. riots were more motivated by nativism.
  • I suggest that the nativism is a result of religious discrimination. (While the German Catholics in Louisville were threatened, the larger Protestant German communities in Pennsylvania and Texas were never subjected to the same violence.)

I condemn the violence. Unlike your apparent intention, I do not condemn a multiplicity of cultures based on the actions of some adherents of a religion common to those multiple cultures.

This thread began as an attack on all the adherents of a religion based on the barbaric acts in which some of them have engaged. I have never claimed that those rioters were not motivated by their beliefs. I do point out that it is counterproductive to condemn every adherent of a religion simply because people (of nearly all religions) are capable of using religion as a way to incite hatred. It is lazy thinking that lets us paint everyone as “good” or “bad” based on one feature that does not dictate whether they are, indeed, good or bad.
If we formulate policy based on such broad strokes, we will alienate allies and offend neutral parties.
What is the difference between Osama bin Laden proclaiming that Christianity or Judaism or the West are evil and some poster on the SDMB proclaiming that Islam is evil? bin Laden can point to actual events where Christians or Jews or Westerners have done evil. By the logic of the broad paint brush, does that not make him right?

It never fails to astound me that some people actually have to be repeatedly reminded that Osama bin Laden and his followers murdered several thousand people in the name of their religion. I’d say that makes just a little bit of difference, pal.

So DR, are you suggesting that it’s okay to call another religion “evil” as long as you’re not actually murdering its followers? I agree that it’s better than slander and murder combined, but I wouldn’t exactly describe it as okay.

Maybe you are using it as a mantra rather than reminding anyone, as we all remember. Murdering several thousand people makes Osama evil; so successfully (it appears) dirtying Islam by doing murdering in its name makes him evil. Osama being Muslim does not make him evil. That’s the distinction you should try to remember.

If you read carefully and thoughtfully you’ll see tomndeb’s quote was equating the propaganda being spouted, nothing more.

Just can’t give up grasping at those straws of moral equivalence, can we? Murdering thousands of people is not on some kind of consistent scale of degrees along with giving one’s opinion (or “slander”, if you must). In the immortal words of Jules the Bad Assed Motherfucker, “It ain’t the same ballpark, ain’t the same league, ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport.”

DR: Osama bin Laden and his followers murdered several thousand people in the name of their religion

Which is a very good reason to avoid thinking like him—and that, I believe, was Tom’s point. Bin Laden is a classic worst-case scenario of what can happen when you start reasoning along the lines of “Well, some of the X people have done or are doing evil things, so it must be because X itself is evil.”

Yes, I hope that we all have logic and principle enough to resist the subsequent inference “So therefore we should just go out and kill all the X people!”—but I, for one, would rather not even start down that road of unreason.

“It ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league . . .”

Look, I happen to believe that both Nazism and Stalinism are inherently evil ideologies, and I’ve encountered many people who agree with me. Have I ever been tempted to murder people because of this belief? No, I have not.

Civil wars, riots and massacre committed in the name of religion are often based on an underlying ethnic issue. I’m not sure if it’s the case in Nigeria, but since the islamists are to be found in only parts of the country, I wouldn’t be surprised if they belonged to a different ethnic group too, and were as much (or more) pissed off because “these other guys” are in power than because they don’t share their religion. Not to say that religion plays no part, but it’s not necessarily the only issue and perhaps not even the main one.

Does anybody know?

Yes, tom, the fact that religion-based riots have occurred in the U.S. in freaking 1850 should be ignored, as that is irrelvant, as we are talking about Muslim riots that happened, oh, last week.

Do you compare apples and oranges much? Do you criticize Mexicans for the Aztec blood sacrifices that happened thousands of years ago?

Again, what do “colonial forces” have anything to do with religion-based murder, in this case? Or is that your craven attempt to justify religion-based murder?

Wonderous.

Come back for a quick check and one finds the same drooling idiocy, the same pimping of bigotry under more polite cover, and the same violent ignorance, even premeditated ignorance.

Now then if Milly were capable of lifting a finger to do some actual motherfucking learning, then he might inquire after the Xian on Muslim riots in Lagos not more than a year ago, and then add on to this, if the cognitive dissonance were not too much or if perhaps he did not slide into the easy explanation that they’re just nigs after all, reflect on the Xian on Muslim violence in Cote d’Ivoire not a few months ago. Milly et all, were they not so comfortable in their ignorant lazy bigotry, might very well like to read about that – ah but it is the nigs, eh? Doesn’t count against the White Xians, right boys? Or were you just to bloody lazy to inform yourselves?

He then might reflect on how these items strangely get spun in the US press as “tribal” or better ‘ethnic’ violence - but should Muslims engage in the same time honored human idiocy, well then it rather must be the religion, eh what?

Apples and motherfucking oranges are not being compared, what Tamerlane and Tom and others have, regretably, if not not utterly in vain, is alevate your gross, yet not unexpectecly bigotted habitual ignorance.

Now, what is occuring in Nigeria is but tangential to Islam per se, and has rather a lot to do with the general political crisis, one that is structurally similar to that of Cote d’Ivoire, only something of a mirror image (insofar as the Roman Catholic dominated southern elite in CI has held political dominance, the legacy of the colonial era and post-colonial interventions by the ex-colonial power and local power structures, whereas Nigeria is something of the reverse.)

And this is but in the same region. We might easily look to the rather bloody minded behaviour of certain Greek Orthodox and Catholic Xians in a region called the Balkans vis-a-vis Muslims, or the somewhat atrocious history of the Maronite Phalange etc.

No need to delve into what Milly evidently considers, in his ignorant, navel gazing manner, ‘ancient history’

As to clairobscur’s question:

As Tamerlane noted I believe - read the thread rapidly and with no small degree of disgust at the festering yet habitual ignorance on this issue of Islam - there is an historical divide in Nigeria between a largely Islamized North (the Sahel region) and a largely Xian South, the ‘Forest’ – a division that is replicated across West Africa and reflects both colonial and pre-colonial ethnic and climactic/social divisions.

The dryer North, the plains or Sahel, was historically characterized by larger states with some Islamic connexions, although state formation predates Islam. The South, different ethnicities and smaller states, and rather differnt social patterns. Both physically and socially the Sahel folks are distinguishable from the ‘Forest’ folks.

In the case of Nigeria, there is a division btw the Hausa-Fulani North, largely Muslim, and the Yoruba and Ibo (largely Xian, esp. the Ibo, the Yoruba more mixed Muslim-Xian) South. Interestingly, the ethnic divisions (these are ethnicities, not tribes for it is language, not descent that define them) trump religion in the Yoruba areas, to date.

The real struggle here is regional, btw North and South, over a dwindling economic pie (Nigeria’s economy is less than brilliant as one might suspect, given the kleptocracy that the Abache ran) with a growing population. Politics is rapidly devolving into the sort of grim logic of destruction that we saw in Rwanda or in Yugoslavia, especialy Yugoslavia. Should one want to investigate this, rather than fulminate in stinking filthy ignorance, one could research the development of Xian integrisme in the South, about as ugly as the ugly fundementalism being promulgated in the North.

Consolidating power. All about consolidating power. As it happens historically the Army has been Northern and largely Muslim - a British conciet held the Hausa and the Fula were more “martial” people while the Ibo and Yorubu were ‘commercial’ or some such nonesense. Nice old prejudices.

Well, rather enough of this. I have rather given up hope that any dent can be made on this topic, bigotry likes its self-serving ignorance.