Attacks in Paris

BillyShears said:


The only thing that really moves forward is time.
Click to expand...

I know it must feel like that at the moment but humanity always rises above the violence, bigotry and oppression.
After falling out with my family over business deals and then spending a few years away in Andalucia and Dubai, I decided to be good to everyone and love the world. That's my only goal in life now. This is my new Mantra. You are welcome to join in me in the new dawn of hippy-dom as we whistle tunes of positivity!

 
RichardDunneOwnGoal said:
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

I haven't got the time or inclination to begin to deal with this lot. Just to be clear, however, am I right in understanding you that whilst you regard Islam as culpable for atrocities committed by its adherents, you do not attribute the credit for the (comparative) absence of atrocities committed by fundamentalists to Christianity?

Do you just not see the inconsistency between those two positions?

GTG, long drive up before kick off ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.