Well of course there is a link; nobody has suggested that the root cause of the Paris attacks was the exploitation of coffee workers in Columbia or aboriginal land rights in Australia. That much is uncontroversial. The real question is whether the Islamic faith can be regarded as culpable in any meaningful sense for acts of appalling violence committed in its name.
Haider makes an interesting point that criticism of islam itself is avoided by some on the liberal left for fear that their criticisms will be seen as criticisms of the followers of islam (who are for the most part non-white people) and therefore inherently racist, when it isn't. I get that. I don't happen to agree however that when many in this thread say 'the problem is not islam, it's those who adopt a particular view of it' they are doing so for fear of being called out as racists, though of course there may be the odd poster here or there who does. It seems to me that they are putting that point of view across because it is the point of view they hold. By the same yardstick, you would doubtless agree that there are some (whether in this thread or the wider world) whose worldview is 'Islam is bad' essentially because they ARE racist.
Personally however I simply do not see how you can regard the religion of Islam as being generally responsible for what some, but not all of its adherents do. More importantly, by sharing the blame between the religion and its followers by necessity you are (partly) exonerating the people who actually committed these atrocities: 'I had to do it, that's what God wants'. If it was so clear that God wanted bloody Jihad, why don't all practising muslims hold the same view? And if there is scope for debate between Muslims about it, culpability must lie with those who choose to follow one particular path that involves violence and murder rather than another that does not.
Put the problem another way. Various statistics have been bandied around as to what proportion of the overall muslim population is actually supportive of, or worse prepared to commit, acts of violence in support of the ISIS world view. Whether it is 0.01%, 1.5%, 13.794% or whatever it seems clear to me that a very sizeable majority of muslims do not support acts of violence as a way of promoting islam. Is it your position that they are not really proper muslims because if they were they would all be supporting Jihad?
Look at the problem from yet another angle. Christianity as I think every poster to this thread would acknowledge has had some unbelievable atrocities committed in its name. The Spanish Inquisition (I bet you didn't expect me to mention that), the ambush of the Knights Templar, the crusades and so on. However it is undoubtedly true that as you yourself have pointed out, with occasional exceptions like Waco, atrocities committed in the name of Christianity in the modern age tend to be very few and far between. Can Christianity, however, against that dark background claim credit for the fact that people don't by and large commit the sort of mass murder we saw in Paris in its name? No of course it can't - what has changed is not the religion per se, it is how people interpret and practice the religion. It seems to me that just as Christianity itself cannot be given the credit for the renaissance, no more can islam be expected to bear the blame for ISIS.
Many don't even recognise there is a link, or they do their very utmost to render it completely obscured and meaningless.
The first step is recognising there is a link. Of course, like you mention, it's a question of how culpable is Islam, and its very most religious doctrine, in the violence.
That, is the very debate we should all be having, and it ties in with the reformation debate - whether it's necessary, etc etc.
Haider makes an interesting point that criticism of islam itself is avoided by some on the liberal left for fear that their criticisms will be seen as criticisms of the followers of islam (who are for the most part non-white people) and therefore inherently racist, when it isn't. I get that. I don't happen to agree however that when many in this thread say 'the problem is not islam, it's those who adopt a particular view of it' they are doing so for fear of being called out as racists, though of course there may be the odd poster here or there who does. It seems to me that they are putting that point of view across because it is the point of view they hold. By the same yardstick, you would doubtless agree that there are some (whether in this thread or the wider world) whose worldview is 'Islam is bad' essentially because they ARE racist.
I've been called a racist twice in this thread, by two different moderators who completely misunderstood my argument, and I didn't receive an apology from either of them. Other people have been dismissed as trolls and bigots.
Of course though, that's not to say that there aren't people out there that are genuinely bigoted against Muslims as people. People who hold racist views about Arabs, and hold bigoted views about Muslims as individuals.
But the key is not to conflate anyone who goes near this discussion in a critical manner as belonging to said group of bigots. It's lazy, and it's intellectually dishonest. It's all too often an easy go to for people who wish to shut these kind of discussions down. And it shouldn't be accepted.
Personally however I simply do not see how you can regard the religion of Islam as being generally responsible for what some, but not all of its adherents do.
You're talking about Muslims and conflating it with Islam. Islam is a set of ideas, Muslims are people. Islam has a holy book, which serves as a doctrine for its adherents.
Said doctrine can influence beliefs, and have real world consequences. It's that simple.
By holding Islam somewhat culpable, and holding a discussion as to what degree, you're analysing the role the religious doctrine plays. Not holding Muslims as a single group responsible. It's a very important distinction.
More importantly, by sharing the blame between the religion and its followers by necessity you are (partly) exonerating the people who actually committed these atrocities: 'I had to do it, that's what God wants'. If it was so clear that God wanted bloody Jihad, why don't all practising muslims hold the same view? And if there is scope for debate between Muslims about it, culpability must lie with those who choose to follow one particular path that involves violence and murder rather than another that does not.
Sorry mate, but that's nonsense in respect of exonerating the extremists who put their violent beliefs into practice and often for political gain.
It goes fundamentally back to you misunderstanding who is being held responsible when Islam is critiqued, it's the idea, the belief system, the reglious doctrine and pretext - not anyone who identifies with the word Muslim.
The likes of IS do genuinely believe they're doing God's work. That is the problem. Of course there's also an argument they exploit verses within the Koran to serve their political agenda, this isn't clearly black and white, it's a nuanced issue.
Like you said, most Muslims do not think the way they do, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss the core links to religious doctrine that make up IS's wider ideology. And to do so does not absolve them of responsibility for their crimes, it's an attempt to understand why they do what they do, and what the solution is to tackling them and their ideology. Other considerations will of course be political and geopolitical.
But we must seek to understand every facet of such groups and what we can do to counter them.
Put the problem another way. Various statistics have been bandied around as to what proportion of the overall muslim population is actually supportive of, or worse prepared to commit, acts of violence in support of the ISIS world view. Whether it is 0.01%, 1.5%, 13.794% or whatever it seems clear to me that a very sizeable majority of muslims do not support acts of violence as a way of promoting islam. Is it your position that they are not really proper muslims because if they were they would all be supporting Jihad?
No, of course not. This is the problem with Islam as a faith, there is no central figure like Catholicism for example. There is a one primary holy book, and you interpret that and crack on with your faith. Many Imams preach differing interpretations of said faith.
There is benevolence in the Koran, and there's violence in the Koran, quite a lot in fact.
This is where the problem lies.
People are not inherently violent by nature, so of course most Muslims will be against violence.
The problem comes when there's a regional political situation conducive to violence for example, and then violent passages in the Koran suddenly take much more precedence in such a scenario, you'd imagine people could be much more receptible to them. And they can then be used to serve a political agenda.
They can then come together to form a separate ideology of many facets, like for example IS: political, geopolitical, secatarian and religious facets all come together to form a single distinct ideology.
Of which Islam is inescapably a part. And that's where this debate is currently focused, necessarily so, IMO.
To defeat an ideology like IS you have to dissect every one of those facets, many people have gone over the others, the role Islam plays is the single one that most tend to shy away from and hasn't been sufficiently analysed or critiqued. And it's a problem because without that their wider ideology can remain unchallenged.
Look at the problem from yet another angle. Christianity as I think every poster to this thread would acknowledge has had some unbelievable atrocities committed in its name. The Spanish Inquisition (I bet you didn't expect me to mention that), the ambush of the Knights Templar, the crusades and so on. However it is undoubtedly true that as you yourself have pointed out, with occasional exceptions like Waco, atrocities committed in the name of Christianity in the modern age tend to be very few and far between. Can Christianity, however, against that dark background claim credit for the fact that people don't by and large commit the sort of mass murder we saw in Paris in its name? No of course it can't - what has changed is not the religion per se, it is how people interpret and practice the religion. It seems to me that just as Christianity itself cannot be given the credit for the renaissance, no more can islam be expected to bear the blame for ISIS.
It's an interesting point, but I think it's a flawed one. Not sure about the equivalences, or the relevance of some of those examples to the present day. It isn't a question of seeking to credit Christianity either, it's a question of seeking a solution to a current problem - which is violence committed in the name of Islam.
Maybe the wider Muslim world and Islam needs its own renaissance, maybe in time we can hope to expect the people who interpret their faith in the violent manner they do to become an even smaller minority than they currently are, but that doesn't ring true at present. This kind of radicalism seems more common than ever.
What I will say though, as per your example, is Christianity did have a reformation, the church accepted the separation of state and church (or had no choice but to), of secular democracy. There was a reformation. And it came in both the manner the religion was practised, and the detachment of the Christian church from state power.
I don't know, I don't have all the answers like I've said, and I welcome differing views and perspectives to contribute to a debate. I just don't necessarily think discussing apples helps when we're talking oranges.
