The arguments by the bigotted hate mongers who constantly advance only the black-and-white vision have no other objective than to in the end build the acceptance and the basis for the radical eradicating type solutions. It is not an accident that the same kind of discourses - the same or near same words, plausible-deniable phrases almost lifted directly from the history - are repeated.
Depending on who you’re listening to, Iran’s the Amsterdamn of the ME or a powderkeg ready to blow its nuclear load on the world. Whatever they are, our policies towards them have changed from “Axis of Evil” to peaceful nuclear future. That’s something I credit Obama and liberals with.
What evidence would you accept that Muslims’ feelings towards America has changed?
And I suppose the thousands of middle class European Muslims who have joined ISIS are motivated by the American troop presence in Europe during WWII, and not the desire to violently establish and Islamic state, as they claim.
Hank, Hank, Hank. When are you going to learn? It’s not what these people actually say that’s important, it’s what secular white Western randoms on the internet have to say about what they say that counts.
There’s nothing special about Islam. It’s just another Abrahamic religion. The problems that occur in some Muslim-majority countries - oppression of women and LGBT people, for instance - are the same problems that occur in any impoverished, insular society. Arguably, they are the default state of affairs, and Enlightenment values are the aberration.
Now, then, how might the situation be improved? In no particular order:
Enlightenment ideals, and a secular, democratic model being framed as a viable alternative to the status quo. This means you can’t, say, invade a Muslim nation on false pretenses and kill vast numbers of people, then act surprised when your victims don’t rush to adapt your ideology. Secular, democratic nations must refrain from invading and manipulating their poorer, weaker brethren. This includes the practice of installing secular dictatorships, which is part of what discredited the idea of secular government in parts of the world.
Economic opportunity. The more trade, the better. Wealthier people, and wealthier societies, have less need for the aspects of society that encourage repression and regression: tribalism, warlords, rule by elders, rule by priests, and so forth. Wealth - so long as it’s spread around - can, by itself, cure many ills.
Exposure to Enlightenment ideas, and how they can be squared with Islam. The Bible didn’t change in the West, society did, and Christianity changed to match. This is normal, and to be encouraged. Mere exposure to new ways of life can work wonders. There’s the famous instance of the introduction of television to rural India leading to an increase in the status of women. Poor people are cut off from examples of the other ways people can live their lives; wherever possible, introduce unfettered communications.
Whoever said such a stupid and pointless thing deserves of solid rebuke. Point them out for us, Hank, that we may all join in. Uppity appears to be focused on US actions in Iraq, so it can’t be Uppity. Your many fans await your clarification!
It says “thousands died in the early stages of the war”. I just don’t know what you’re saying? WW2?
I can tell you glam ISIS videos on the Internet have attracted several hundred teenage adventurers from the UK, about half have said to have returned. But I just don’t know what you’re saying - what thoughts are you trying to link up?
Excuse the diversion, but this interests me. I had the impression that it was a one-way trip, a few had escaped, but not many. Half, really? Not questioning your veracity, but it tickles my curiosity knob.
It is not critics of Islam telling them they are right, it is the collections of hadith considered most authentic by traditional and orthodox Islam!
I am 100% in favor of the efforts to promote different interpretations that you cite. But it is not enough. Until you find a way to excise the worst of the misogyny and justifications for violence from the texts, the very notions that traditional Islam is an acceptable basis for laws and codes of conduct MUST be simultaneously challenged.
No, the most pious of Muslims are not the ones most likely to become terrorists. But the decisions of the ones who do are still informed by Islamic source texts and history of violent conquest.
Yes, that is a known fact. The power vacuum that was filled is largely a result of failed American foreign policy. The nature of the organization that filled the vacuum is largely the result of Islamic source texts, mythology, and history.
You should note that while, as you point out, mainstream Islam in Europe is not primary source of most of the terrorist violence directed at non-Muslims, it* is *responsible for the widespread tolerance of extreme social control of, and violence against, women within it’s own communities: Here we can see the often cited mainstream Muslim authorities in Britain counseling victims of domestic violence. They tell them not to go to the police, and even, disgustingly, advise one victim to “be courageous enough” to ask her husband if his attacks are because of her cooking.
No, it’s like Australia- many go for a while, for the adventure.
You occasionally get snippets about numbers from MI6 when they report to one Parliamentary committee or another. It’s their job to keep track of the back and forth and to watch the returnee.
This is a slightly amusing insight into the reality:
This is a very common mistake, to regard Islam simply as camel flavored Christianity. It is not, it is very different in many ways, and those differences must be taken into account if one is interested in improving the situation.
Also, oppression of Muslim women is certainly not limited to some Muslim-majority countries.
“I’m not saying that the most conservative and extremist interpretation of Islam is right, I’m just saying that the most conservative and extremist interpretation of Islam is right.”
And there are plenty of traditional and orthodox Muslims who reject that those ahadith are authentic. Shias, for one, who completely reject any Sunni claims about ‘Ā’isha’s being nine at the time of her marriage.
You keep saying that, but then you keep reiterating that the texts themselves are clearly intended to be interpreted only one way, the extremists’ way.
They are being challenged, and the texts are being re-interpreted without the misogyny and the justifications for violence (seriously, that’s SIS’s* entire purpose as an organization*). But then they’re attacked by the likes of you and Khuldune, condemned as cocktail-party dissemblers who are engaging in “apologia” and refusing to acknowledge the “truth” that what Islam really teaches is what the extremists believe, for doing the very thing you and he demand of them: eliminating the misogyny and the justifications for violence in the Qur’an and the hadith!
You have set up a situation where moderate Muslims literally cannot win - either they aren’t doing enough to change the misogyny and violence in Islam, or they’re hypocrites for even trying to change the misogyny and violence in Islam.
No, I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is supported by the texts that are widely considered to be the most authentic collections.
What is the meaning of “plenty” in this context? These are the collections considered the most authentic by Sunni Muslims, who are, what, 85-90% of Muslims? This comes across as similar to those who argue against the wisdom of wearing a seat belt. “Plenty of people have survived crashes without seat belts”.
How is it “the extremists’ way” when such a high percentage of Muslims support things like killing those who leave Islam, and cutting of people’s hands and feet for theft, or that a wife should always obey her husband?
The criticism is that limiting the struggle to an attempt to whitewash Islamic texts and history dooms the effort, since the violence and misogyny is so thoroughly embedded. No matter how hard you try, if all that is done is to try to convince people that the texts do not really mean what they say and what they have been interpreted as meaning throughout the centuries, there will always be substantial numbers who interpret them in the more violent and oppressive manner. Muslims must be convinced to elevate humanistic values above Islamic values. When certain Muslims argue that this or that horrible behavior is acceptable or preferred because the Prophet engaged in it, one of the acceptable answers must be so what?
I am not saying it is easy being in that position. I am arguing for for a more prominent humanistic approach that mitigates both the influence of the verses of the Koran and the example of Mohammed as reported in hadith. I do recognize that there are major pitfalls in this approach, as you point out. But there is no meaningful approach without major downsides and potential for anti-pattern effects, including yours.
Again, I am not arguing that the approach you favor be abandoned, I am saying that the limitations inherent in this approach should be recognized.
Christianity, and especially Western Christianity has established a sort of filtering system over the codes, rules and moral obligations that were laid down when the religion was established. There is hardly a Christian today who tries to follow *everything *that is written in the Bible. Instead they follow the parts that are considered acceptable today. That is a good thing.
This certainly is helped by the fact that we know very little about the historical Jesus Christ. The Bible does not tell us what Jesus considered to be a suitable marrying age for girls, whether he favored democracy over feudalism, whether he would have supported giving women a higher education or whether he considered slavery to be wrong. This provides Christians with the freedom to project their own moral views upon Jesus and to adapt those views as they evolve over the centuries, all the while imagining that they are being faithful to the essence of Christ’s teachings.
Muslims are faced with the problem that we do know a lot more about the founder of their religion. Mohammed was a 7th century ruler and - unsurprisingly - a product of his time. A lot of the views he held and that are apparent from his writings and his biography were common in his time. Today they are outdated but as they have been written down in detail they cannot be filtered away as easily. Still - eventually it is going to happen. Rules that are considered morally untenable today will eventually be explained away as metaphors, tradition errors or whatever. Peoble shape their religion to match a code of morals that suits them.
The solution to the problem of Islamic extremism is not to be found within the religion. Societies (or parts thereof) that are backwards thinking or prone to violence will seek out and uphold the ancient codes of Islam that support their preferred view of the world. (When Christianity was as old as Islam is today, Christians very readily did the same.) But as soon as Islamic nations find political stability and economic prosperity these tendencies become less prevalent. Combine that with higher education, a free press and cultural exchange across borders and you have something you can work with. It is not going to make the problems go away tomorrow or even in the next decade - but nothing else will either.