Barcelona

[Munificent_Fool]

Religion is a part of this problem. Islam is a part of this problem. No two ways around it.

 

[Flem274*]

It's pretty rich for Christian nations to be sneering at Islamic ones tbh. Sure the west has dragged itself out of that era, but only very recently and for a long time the Islamic world was far more enlightened and tolerant than the west (dark ages etc). ISIS and the late era Ottomans before them are an insult to previous Islamic states.

i don't expect scaly to know much about that tho

 

[hendrix]

Religion is a part of this problem. Islam is a part of this problem. No two ways around it.

No **** but it's a far way removed from this type of statement to the bullshit Scaly just spouted so it's pretty disingenuous to say this in the follow up of what Scaly just said. It's the same thing as Trump and his "from both side" comment - in the context of the situation your defending something indefensible.

 

[hendrix]

It's pretty rich for Christian nations to be sneering at Islamic ones tbh. Sure the west has dragged itself out of that era, but only very recently and for a long time the Islamic world was far more enlightened and tolerant than the west (dark ages etc). ISIS and the late era Ottomans before them are an insult to previous Islamic states.

i don't expect scaly to know much about that tho

This is not particularly relevant and will lead the conversation down a rabbit hole.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

No **** but it's a far way removed from this type of statement to the bullshit Scaly just spouted so it's pretty disingenuous to say this in the follow up of what Scaly just said. It's the same thing as Trump and his "from both side" comment - in the context of the situation your defending something indefensible.

I can see why you might say that but it wasn't intended as a reinforcement of anything he said. Certainly not as a defence of his views. It was intended as a rebuke to those who say after every one of these attacks that it has nothing to do with religion. Some of us are getting fairly tired of it.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

It's pretty rich for Christian nations to be sneering at Islamic ones tbh. Sure the west has dragged itself out of that era, but only very recently and for a long time the Islamic world was far more enlightened and tolerant than the west (dark ages etc). ISIS and the late era Ottomans before them are an insult to previous Islamic states.

You'd have been better to say to the extent that the West has helped initiate and protract violence, poverty etc. in Muslim majority countries, we oughtn't pretend we have nothing to do with this. The fact that we used to be as barbaric is a second or third order point imo.

i don't expect scaly to know much about that tho

Nor do I. Which Islamic states did you have in mind exactly?

 

[hendrix]

You'd have been better to say to the extent that the West has helped initiate and protract violence, poverty etc. in Muslim majority countries, we oughtn't pretend we have nothing to do with this. The fact that we used to be as barbaric is a second or third order point imo.

Indeed.

 

[hendrix]

I can see why you might say that but it wasn't intended as a reinforcement of anything he said. Certainly not as a defence of his views. It was intended as a rebuke to those who say after every one of these attacks that it has nothing to do with religion. Some of us are getting fairly tired of it.

but...no one said that here?

 

[Munificent_Fool]

but...no one said that here?

No one here.....as of yet. But we're being treated to it by a lot of the media and intellectuals covering it. And there are undoubtedly people on here who think the same, which I find just as insidious and retrograde as the bigoted crap which Scaly posted.

 

[Flem274*]

You'd have been better to say to the extent that the West has helped initiate and protract violence, poverty etc. in Muslim majority countries, we oughtn't pretend we have nothing to do with this. The fact that we used to be as barbaric is a second or third order point imo.


Nor do I. Which Islamic states did you have in mind exactly?

yeah, but much of the sneering also comes from a place of complete ignorance of what the world used to be like

the Abbasid dynasty springs to mind immediately as a place much much better to live in than any contemporary christian state of its day (and many since). The Islamic world carried the torch of civilization for quite some time after the fall of the Western Roman and Sassanid Empires.

 

[Spark]

No one here.....as of yet. But we're being treated to it by a lot of the media and intellectuals covering it. And there are undoubtedly people on here who think the same, which I find just as insidious and retrograde as the bigoted crap which Scaly posted.

I very much doubt anyone here believes something as extreme as "Islam has literally nothing to do with Salafi-jihadist terrorism".

 

[Munificent_Fool]

I very much doubt anyone here believes something as extreme as "Islam has literally nothing to do with Salafi-jihadist terrorism".

Saying Salafists are perverting the scripture draws very near to that. And there are people on here spinning that ****.

 

[hendrix]

Saying Salafists are perverting the scripture draws very near to that. And there are people on here spinning that ****.

I'm not saying that but I am saying that to properly disagree with the overall meaning of such a statement you have to consider that:

a) The scripture is not the entire meaning of the religion.
b) You probably need to have a decent grasp of classical Arabic and Islamic literature to have a proper opinion on the scripture (which not even native Arabic speakers have)
c) Meaning the interpretation obviously becomes very important, hence scholars.

So saying that they're "perverting the scripture" might not be accurate but again if you're going to disagree with that notion you damn sure can't pronounce the opposite is true (i.e. they're simply following their religion and their religion has led them down this course).

 

[Munificent_Fool]

yeah, but much of the sneering also comes from a place of complete ignorance of what the world used to be like

Some of it, sure.

the Abbasid dynasty springs to mind immediately as a place much much better to live in than any contemporary christian state of its day (and many since). The Islamic world carried the torch of civilization for quite some time after the fall of the Western Roman and Sassanid Empires.

We're not comparing it to christian states with which it was contemorary, though. You stated ISIS and the later Ottoman's were a disgrace to previous Islamic states.

And a lot of that so called torch carrying happened in direct opposition to theocracy and religious rule.

 

[hendrix]

So yeah I do think one can say that jihadi and terrorists are taking a perverted interpretation of Islam in contrast with mainstream Islam. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

 

[Flem274*]

We're not comparing it to christian states with which it was contemorary, though. You stated ISIS and the later Ottoman's were a disgrace to previous Islamic states.

they are. do you think ISIS want poetry about hot chix, greek philosophers, being reasonably chill to other religions and booze in their little state?

 

[Munificent_Fool]

So yeah I do think one can say that jihadi and terrorists are taking a perverted interpretation of Islam in contrast with mainstream Islam. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

That jihadists constitute a numerically smaller number of people than non-jihadists or people who adhere to what you call mainstream Islam, I obviously won't disagree. But their, the jihadis', views do not become perversions simply because they are at odds or incongruent with the mainstream. I hope you would agree with that. My issue is with the perceived double-standard. Why are only the marginal, violent believers or extreme conservatives considered perverted, yet those who have a conception of Islam that is so denatured of scriptural and historical basis, are not? Why are Muslims who are peaceful people but only nominally religious considered to be representative of Islam by so many people?

 

[Munificent_Fool]

they are. do you think ISIS want poetry about hot chix, greek philosophers, being reasonably chill to other religions and booze in their little state?

I think we're just going to end up having a relativistic discussion here.

But yes, well done to Islamic civilisation for allowing their Christian Aramean subjects to translate Aristotle to them. That was very chill of them. Until, you know, they weren't..........again.

 

[hendrix]

That jihadists constitute a numerically smaller number of people than non-jihadists or people who adhere to what you call mainstream Islam, I obviously won't disagree. But their, the jihadis', views do not become perversions simply because they are at odds or incongruent with the mainstream. I hope you would agree with that. My issue is with the perceived double-standard. Why are only the marginal, violent believers or extreme conservatives considered perverted, yet those who have a conception of Islam that is so denatured of scriptural and historical basis, are not? Why are Muslims who are peaceful people but only nominally religious considered to be representative of Islam by so many people?

No, I don't. A religion is something people practice with some type of consensus. People pray at mosques and practice religious events as a community. It's not total consensus, but it's pretty common. And where there's a break in consensus you have different schools.

And even if the "true" interpretation Qura'n's words did align more closely with ISIS' interpretation than the mainstream view, I still don't think that changes much. In New Zealand the law technically states that abortions are only legal if the doctor believes the mother's health to be at risk. However, doctor interpretations of this law have pretty much meant that abortions are legal in New Zealand, and I don't believe that anyone has been prosecuted as a result of this law. The end result: can you get an abortion in New Zealand simply for not wanting to have a baby right now? Yes. That's a description of reality. It's annoying that the lawmakers haven't gotten around to editing the law. But it doesn't change the consensus and the actual reality of getting an abortion in NZ.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

No, I don't. A religion is something people practice with some type of consensus. People pray at mosques and practice religious events as a community. It's not total consensus, but it's pretty common. And where there's a break in consensus you have different schools.

And even if the "true" interpretation Qura'n's words did align more closely with ISIS' interpretation than the mainstream view, I still don't think that changes much.

That changes everything for mine. One of the reasons why I think moderates and critics have such a hard time arguing with fanatics is precisely because the latter can often find a lot of scriptural basis as well as historical examples in the life of Muhammad for what they want and are doing.

I get the point you're trying to make about religion being more than words on a page. But I think my point stands anyway. If the books say; don't do A, and most do, except for a tiny minority, I'm not going to turn around and say the minority is perverting the religion just because the majority ignore or no longer take seriously that part of the scripture. It can't simply be the case that the religion is an amorphous phenomenon best understood by the interpretations most wide-spread. Especially when there are so many passages which leave little room for 'development of doctrine' or progression/evolution.

Anyways, I feel we've had this discussion before so perhaps we should just agree to disagree.