No, the thesis is yours. You say theology makes people violent. This can be refuted on a prima facie basis simply pointing out that most people with the same theology don’t become violent. The ball is then in your court to show that the theology is a motivating factor rather than a post facto justification.
Jihad refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers.
Yes and yes.
It only takes on a “violent” connotation in the case of self-defense.
I never said they were all the same. But this incident proves that Christianity, like Islam, is capable of inspiring its adherents to threaten violence to defend it when those adherents perceive it as being under attack, and an artwork can be perceived as such an attack. That kind of thing is not unique to Islam. It’s not even unique to religion. Try displaying an artwork depicting someone doing something really disrespectful to an American flag (say, using it as toilet paper) and I’ll bet that at least some Americans are going to threaten to kick your ass.
I said nothing of the sort.
I disagreed with your thesis that the content of theology has nothing whatever to do with the actions of fanatics.
I am not saying “theology makes people violent”, but something rather more nuanced than that - that theology, in addition to a host of other factors, is something which has to be taken into account in understanding the motivation of religious fanaticism.
No. That is one meaning, but not the only one (and historically not the primary one).
You have provided no proof for either assertion.
Even with the use of “scare quotes” around “violent”, this quite contradicts your earlier assertion: “Jihad refers to a spiritual struggle, not a crusade against unbelievers”.
Then I take it you disagree with DtC on this point. My argument with him is on exactly this: that the content of a particular theology is irrelevant in understanding the motives of religious fanatics.
It’s not a thesis it’s a rebuttal to your thesis. There is no visible evidence that specific theological content plays any role in religious fanaticism. If you want to contend that it does, then you have the burden of proof.
Except there is no evidence that this is the case.
That’s the meaning in the Qur’an and in mainstream Islamic theology.
Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense. If you really think that Osama bin Laden is an exemplar of mainstream Islamic thought then you don’t really know much about it. Bin Laden is to Islam what Fred Phelps is to Christianity.
There’s another video with some clearer depictions of the work here. (NSFW)
Sorry, you don’t get to turn it around. You made the extraordinary claim; you prove it.
Except that there is tons of evidence, some of which I posted.
Untrue. Are you contending that there is nothing in mainstream Islam corresponding to jihad “of the sword”?
If so, it is easy to prove you quite wrong.
Come back with some proof that the only meaning of jihad is “spiritual struggle”.
“Sometimes a spirtual struggle requires physical self defense” = weaseling justification. The two are not of the same order. Anything can be justified by reference to “self defence”!
Indeed, Bin Laden is profuse in his claims that he is acting in “self defence”:
I am not contending that Bin Laden represents “mainstream Islamic thought”. Is that the best you can do? Simply assert you are right and generate straw-men?
You are the one trying to assign a cause to an observed phenomenon. You have the burden of proof. I don’t know why you’re having so much difficulty understanding that.
Except that there isn’t and you haven’t. It’s circular to cite the fanatics themselves.
That’s correct. There is nothing of the sort in mainstream Islam. Is that really a surprise to you?
Your cite backs me up. Read it again. It says that Jihad is first and foremost a spiritual struggle and that violence is only advocated in self-defense. Your article explicitly says that the bin Laden brand of Jihad is the province of “extremists.”
Your own linked article says exactly the same thing that I said. Learn to read with more comprehension.
So?
You are trying to contend that he is not distorting the theology. Either you think he has the theology right or he doesn’t. If he does, then you’re saying he’s mainstream. If he has it wrong, then you have to admit he’s distorting it.
We did not invade Afganistan. We threw out the Taliban, which no one important recognized- at the request of the now legit government.
Nor have we invaded Iran. “Maybe mights” don’t count. :rolleyes:
It doesn’t matter who recognized the Taliban or not. We invaded Afganistan, and the now “legit government” didn’t exist at the time, so it could not have been at their request. I don’t agree with Diogenes, though, as there was no effective way to treat the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan as a police action without invading.
You are the one making an extraordinary claim about observed phenomenon.
No it isn’t.
Yes, since it is wrong.
From the article which you have acknowledged as correct:
Now, you were saying jihad of the sword does not exist … ?
Seems to me you are engaged in the wrong argument. People in the West do distort the meaning of “jihad”, because they think it means converting others by war. This is not correct. What it means, is “stuggle”. But you are quite wrong in asserting that it does not mean “violent struggle against external enemies” on occasion.
Now with the weasling again. The article does not “back you up”. The concept of jihad of the sword exists, but obviously, most Muslims belive Bin Laden is applying it incorrectly.
Really? You claimed jihad was “spiritual” and jihad of the sword “doesn’t exist”. The article claims, just as I do, that there is more than one kind of jihad - spiritual and “jihad of the sword” - that is, struggle against enemies.
False dilemma. He’s quoting real theology, but applying it to facts which other Muslims do not believe justify triggering jihad “of the sword”. It is his facts which are “incorrect”, according to at least some brands of mainstream Islam, not his theology. For example: Bin Laden evidently believes his struggle is defensive, against Western “offences”.
Thing is, the theology supplies the pattern - it creates an easy mechanism for extremists to use. Mainstream Muslims cannot deny that their own theology creates a legitmate and sanctioned call for “jihad of the sword” - armed struggle against vaguely defined “injustice to Muslims”. They can have quite legitimate disagreements over what constitutes “injustice to Muslims” sufficient to invoke such struggle. As the article quite correctly points out, most Muslims believe Bin Laden is wrong in this respect.
Thus, theology itself has an effect on the legitimacy and channeling of violence - in direct contradiction to the extraordinary notion that the content of a people’s ideology has no affect whatsoever on their actions.
I’ve said nothing extraordinary. I’m only showing that your hypothesis about the cause of religious fanaticism has a hole in it, since most people who ascribe to those theologies don’t become fanatics. In order to make your hypothesis fly, you’ll have to explain what prevents the majority from becoming violent.
Not in the way that you were suggesting. Your article says that phrase refers only to self-defense.
Only in self-defense.
Yes, the article DOES back me up.
Not in the way you were suggesting, not as an aggresive campaign against unbelievers. You’re trying to play gotcha with the specific phrase, but that’s an irrelevant point. I said that jihad only takes a connotation of physical confrontation when it comes to self-defense, and I was right.
And the article explains that “enemies” only refers to people who attack you. This kind of jihad is only sanctioned as self-defense.
In other words, he’s ditorting it, just like I said.
It’s not vaguely defined at all. The vast majortity of Muslims understand what constitutes self-defense.
No it doesn’t, as evidenced by the fact that most all of them understand it and do not become violent. It’s people who already want to become violent for other reasons who find ways to distort and misinterpret the theology, just as with any other religion.
It is you who are advancing the hypothesis - the extraordinary one that the content of theology has no affect whatsoever on action. For which yiou have advanced no proof whatsoever, except for the trite observation that not all who share a theology become violent.
No, you were not. You claimed that there was only one meaning - a spirtual one - and only as an afterthought contradicted yourself by reluctantly admitting that it may also mean “self-defense”.
Quite obviously I was right all along, when I pointed out that jihad has two meanings - “inner struggle” and “physical struggle against enemies”.
The “…in self defense” bit
Please point out where in the article in mentions that jihad can only be waged in “self defence”.
I’ll save you the trouble - it doesn’t.
Here is a relevant quote:
The operative phrase is not “self defence”, but to fight those who “transgressed against them”.
This distinction is important. Take the example of offensive cartoons. Fighting against those who produce offensive cartoons cannot be said to be “self defense” but can easily be seen as fighting against those who “transgress against Islam”.
Evidently a significant minority disagrees. That’s why understanding their theology is important - it allows one to understand why the conflict exists and what fuels it.
Given your views, I would bet that the big blow-up over cartoons is a total mystery. Yet with a correct understanding of mainstream Islamic theology, it becomes instantly comprehensible.
Yes it does, which is why we have this problem in the first place - only you are quite willing to simply ignore the evidence and replace it with happy wishful thinking.
You’re up to your usual games I see. Of course you had to throw the word “historically” in to give yourself a few thousand years to backpedal into. In our times, today, Islam is used as an excuse to murder people. That is a fact. Do you deny it? I’m sure there have been those of other religions that committed murder or other atrocities in the name of their religion, but—again, in our times—that is a rare occurrence compared to the incidence of Muslim’s committing these acts because, and this is the crucial part, because of their religion. Cites for this have already been offered you by others.
The vast majority of thsoe who sharet the theology don’t become violent. Also, Christian theology doesn’t change, yet sometimes Christianity producs more fanaticism and sometimes less. Obvioulsy the theology is not a variable.
The primary meaning is theological and, for most Muslims, is the only meaning that’s ever applicable.
Which is defined as “…those who fought you because of your religion and drove you out of your homes, and came to the help of those who drove you out.”
In orther words, it refers to direct self-defense.
less than 1% is not a significant minority.
It’s understandable that mainstream Islam would find the depoiction of Mohammed objectionable, but most Muslims didn’t become violent about it.
You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence other than the circular arguiment that religious zealots justify themselves withad hoc and a posteri distortions of whatever religion they chance to be a part of.
Whoops, I forgot the Lord’s Resistance Army.
No he doesn’t; he just has to demonstrate that not all religions have the same proportion of fanatics.
How many buddhist fanatics have there been, percentagewise?
How about scientologist fanatics?
He would have to remove all other variables and show that theology alone was accountable for any difference in ratio.
They emerge under pressure. believ it or noyt, there are Buddhist terrorists.
Scientilogy is really more of a scam than a religion but I guess they have Tom Cruise. also, most members are kept in the dark about the theology.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It may come as a shock to you but most of them don’t.
The guerilla tactics and the terrorism are a result of the apartheid. Without the apartheid, there would be no terrorism.
To answer your"points",you seem a little confused about cause and effect,no I’m sorry but the terrorism continues and continues to get a remarkedly restrained response from the I.D.F.,stop murdering Israeli civilians at random and maybe in time they’ll start trusting the Palestinians a little more.
Oh and as to the potential shock to me when I find out that most Palestinians actually DONT celebrate the deaths of Israelis or Westerners whether military or civilian …well I dont think that I’ll be needing sedation for a little while yet.
I’m speaking from my own first hand experience,visual and aural,NOT from something somebody told me about or something I saw on T.V.
Perhaps if you have ever been there in the first place it might be a good idea to pay another visit to Gaza/WB pretty soon.
Your ideas about the Palestinian mind set is not out of date,it never was in date.
To make it clear for you "love thy neighbour "has never been one of the great Palestinian virtues reference Israel.
Please have the dignity and the moral courage to debate the things that I have actually said and not make nasty little slurs against me,I have never EVER said that I consider the Palestinians to be sub Human EVER.
That is one of the most cowardly and untrue non points ever made on these boards.
Finally actually I am quite reasonably well educated,I cant assess my own humanity as that is a subjective thing,that said I dont think that many Palestinians
will be giving me lessons on that particular topic any day soon.
As to not wasting time trying in the future to enlighten me!well you certainly haven’t made any attempt in this post,mostly I suspect because you can not.
Your entire post has been a personal attack on me plus one “No it isn’t.Yes it is”
You dont really seem to have anything of any value to contribute to the debate to be honest.
Oh and as to my "prejudice"I have actually spent some time living amongst the Palestinians and did know more then a few personally,funnily enough it was the Israelis who questioned me and made me leave the country.
So what book or T.V. programme are your opinions based on?