This week in Islam

[Argus]

Ok, but another example of an atrocity by an extremist kind of leaves our discussion about group generalizations in the dust doesn't it ?

I fail to see how. These sorts of stories demonstrate the level of religiously inspired extremism among so many Muslms.

[Michael Hardner]

But we're not speaking strictly about violence, as in terrorism (and there are few Muslim countries which don't have religiously inspired terrorism). The question is whether 'extremism' is widespread (by our standards) in the Muslim world. Sure, there are Muslim countries with little violence, mainly because they're autocratic dictatorships. But does that mean there are no extremists there? If they're stoning people for adultery then that's being done in Allah's name, because it comes from the Koran. To my mind that's extremism, and if the majority of people support it well...

So if we're going to open up the definition of violence, why are we going to focus it on 'stoning' vs 'capital punishment'. I would say it's because you come to the argument with your conclusion in hand.

Can you come up with any other common denominator?

I think you named some causal factors above - colonialism, history, geography and so on.

You said nothing about African ancestry. You spoke about Africa. There is a difference. In the first case, you're speaking about genetics. In the second you're speaking about geography and history.

Right - I did so in response to your suggestion that violence follows Muslims when they emigrate to other countries. The analogy still applies and you haven't explained that.

I suspect that you think that the generalizations in the analogy are also perfectly correct. Do you ? If not, why ? You have had a few posts to explain why generalizations are acceptable in the case of religion but not race.

[Michael Hardner]

I fail to see how. These sorts of stories demonstrate the level of religiously inspired extremism among so many Muslms.

You are taking the argument back to square one with this. We have already moved past this with our discussion of the racial analogy.

[GostHacked]

You guys can continue to deny the Islamic prominence in terrorism all you like. But it's a fact, and it's reality. Eventually you'll just have to deal with it. Despite the battle between the progressive/multicultural side of your brain with the logic and reason side.

Some might consider Putin the biggest current terrorist on the planet due to the situation in Ukraine. I don't think Putin is a follower of Islam either.

[Mighty AC]

I think you named some causal factors above - colonialism, history, geography and so on.

Are you arguing that religion is not a causal factor or just that it is one of many?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you arguing that religion is not a causal factor or just that it is one of many?

If I tried to argue that it was or wasn't, I'd be negating my own argument I think. I don't feel that it is, though. And I'm sure you could imagine Christians that lived in a violent culture might embrace the more violent parts of the bible, rather than what they do today by ignoring laws against divorce, lending money etc.

[cybercoma]

You guys can continue to deny the Islamic prominence in terrorism all you like.

Nobody's denying that.

[cybercoma]

No one has ever claimed that all terrorism comes from Muslims. But for ever guy like this you can come up with there are a thousand Muslim terrorists.

Why?

What you're saying is that there's been 4000 Muslim terrorist incidents in the US in the last 25 years. I don't think that's the case.

[Mighty AC]

And I'm sure you could imagine Christians that lived in a violent culture might embrace the more violent parts of the bible, rather than what they do today by ignoring laws against divorce, lending money etc.

Certainly. However, I would also argue that the religion plays a role. Adding wealth, stability and comfort (or something to lose) can lessen the negative side effects of religion but it doesn't ever seem to eliminate them. I think anytime we give supernatural or magical weight to a book or an idea, and then grant only a handful of men the "power" to interpret it for us, we are going to create problems.

[cybercoma]

The religion "plays a role" is vastly different from the religion "causes" terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

Certainly. However, I would also argue that the religion plays a role.

Something as culturally powerful as that is very difficult to assess, and the goal of analysis is antithetical to the goal of blaming.

[WWWTT]

No one has ever claimed that all terrorism comes from Muslims. But for ever guy like this you can come up with there are a thousand Muslim terrorists.

Why?

How about the drone strike king Obama?

I guess when you invade a country like Iraq, and are responsible for over 500,000 deaths, you're not a terrorist. But when you try to blow up some of those troops that invaded your country and killed family members, you're now an Islamic extremist "terrorist"!

I think if I was one of these alleged "Islamic terrorists", I would be envious of the US military invasion mentality/ability!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

How about the drone strike king Obama?

I guess when you invade a country like Iraq, and are responsible for over 500,000 deaths, you're not a terrorist.

Obviously not...would Canada plead with a terrorist to approve a cross border oil pipeline ?

[WWWTT]

Obviously not...would Canada plead with a terrorist to approve a cross border oil pipeline ?

Not when your guilty of things worse than some of these "alleged" "terrorists"!

See history of Native Canadians and Canadian military campaigns for more details! (if you thought I was going to come to the defence of any western nation guilty of more hideous crimes against humanity, you're dead wrong buddy!)

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

No one has ever claimed that all terrorism comes from Muslims. But for ever guy like this you can come up with there are a thousand Muslim terrorists.

Some funded by the west. So in the case of the Muhajedeen turn Al-Queda, that was CIA US sponsored terrorism group using Muslims. No wonder they are pissed. People don't like to be pawns in other people's wars.

[Argus]

So if we're going to open up the definition of violence, why are we going to focus it on 'stoning' vs 'capital punishment'. I would say it's because you come to the argument with your conclusion in hand.

First of all, I'm not changing the definition. I've already posted, well back in the thread, the survey of world Muslim atttitudes regarding Islamic law as an example that 'extremism' is hardly an isolated thing in the Islamic world. Extremism is not limited to blowing up churches and mosques and markets.

And trying to equate capital punishment as meted out in parts of the US to murderers, to, say, hanging a fourteen year old girl by the neck from a crane while a crowd watches because she was convicted of having sex seems like a ludicrous response and an almost desperate attempt to cover the extremism of the Muslim world.

I think you named some causal factors above - colonialism, history, geography and so on.

That would certainly have some impact on the state of Africa today. It's a stretch to suggest Muslims born in the United States or Canada are impacted by colonialism. And a number of the western terrorists were actually economically successful and educated, witness US army major Hasan, or Bilal Abdullah in the UK

Right - I did so in response to your suggestion that violence follows Muslims when they emigrate to other countries. The analogy still applies and you haven't explained that.

I said extremism, not violence. Are you saying violence follows Africans when they emigrate to other countries?

I suspect that you think that the generalizations in the analogy are also perfectly correct. Do you ? If not, why ? You have had a few posts to explain why generalizations are acceptable in the case of religion but not race.

Generalizations are acceptable in terms of the traits exhibited by any distinct group. And those traits can certainly follow that group when they move around. Witness Jamaicans or Somalians coming to Canada or the UK, for example. But I don't think Jamaicans or Somalians have a higher prediliction for crime because they have black skin but because they come from cultures and countries where violence is epidemic.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

You are taking the argument back to square one with this. We have already moved past this with our discussion of the racial analogy.

You might have, but you certainly haven't done much to convince me you're doing more than picking nits.

[Argus]

If I tried to argue that it was or wasn't, I'd be negating my own argument I think. I don't feel that it is, though. And I'm sure you could imagine Christians that lived in a violent culture might embrace the more violent parts of the bible, rather than what they do today by ignoring laws against divorce, lending money etc.

Sure. But there are Muslims who are living in peaceful countries who still embrace the 'violent parts' of the Koran, including some born in western countries.

Then again, what do you define as a 'violent culture'? Do you believe Saudi Arabia is a violent culture?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

First of all, I'm not changing the definition. I've already posted, well back in the thread, the survey of world Muslim atttitudes regarding Islamic law as an example that 'extremism' is hardly an isolated thing in the Islamic world. Extremism is not limited to blowing up churches and mosques and markets.

So somebody did a comparative study assessing violence at all levels then ? I thought you were talking about terrorism. It seems to me that such a study would falter on trying to decide what to include/exclude.

And trying to equate capital punishment as meted out in parts of the US to murderers, to, say, hanging a fourteen year old girl by the neck from a crane while a crowd watches because she was convicted of having sex seems like a ludicrous response and an almost desperate attempt to cover the extremism of the Muslim world.

I'm not trying to 'cover' anything. You very clearly have some extreme examples of atrocity, but the question I'm making headway on here is whether the religion is the cause, and if not ... then whether this religion is important in the discussion and how.

You are the one who is trying to rewind the conversation back before I started making the analogy. That may not be covering, but it's a kind of undoing.

That would certainly have some impact on the state of Africa today. It's a stretch to suggest Muslims born in the United States or Canada are impacted by colonialism.

Is it a stretch to say African Americans are still impacted by slavery then ?

I said extremism, not violence.

No - you have been explicit and that is what prompted me to look into this with some effort on my part.

Here are your statements in this discussion:

"It just seems to me that a disproportionate amount of the world's violence and barbarism seems to eminate from Mulim countries."

"But the situation with regard to religious violence and extreme intolerance amongst Muslims can't be ascribed to anything other than Islam"

"What causes Muslims in the US and Canada to want to blow up their fellow citizens?"

Are you saying violence follows Africans when they emigrate to other countries?

No - but anybody who is fond of generalizing about groups could blame race by pointing out lower productivity, employment of people of African decent. Many do point these things out, but they're not as well received (for some reason) as people who try to ascribe a general phenomenon of violence to a particular religion.

Generalizations are acceptable in terms of the traits exhibited by any distinct group. And those traits can certainly follow that group when they move around. Witness Jamaicans or Somalians coming to Canada or the UK, for example. But I don't think Jamaicans or Somalians have a higher prediliction for crime because they have black skin but because they come from cultures and countries where violence is epidemic.

So for some reason other factors come into play when it comes to race and genetics but not the more easily changed aspect of human living known as religion ?

We've arrived at a crossroads and this is really the only point you have to address:

Why do such factors apply to someone's religion, which is changeable and clearly does change quite easily in some cases ? Why do they not apply to race ?

It seems to me that you have two views of human nature that contradict each other sharply.

You might have, but you certainly haven't done much to convince me you're doing more than picking nits.

Then why would you restart the debate ? Just address my points instead.

I'll give you credit - the last poster I went to this length with left in a huff. I respect that you are willing to stick to the discussion.

[GostHacked]

Do you believe Saudi Arabia is a violent culture?

Definitely one of the most oppressive towards women and gays on the planet. Other countries get the finger pointed when they do bad things to women, but Saudi Arabia gets a pass most of the time.

Edited May 16, 2014 by GostHacked

[iolo]

Everyone who identifies his own view of what his society thinks with a world religion is nuts - look at the American fundamentalists who seem never to have read the new Testament other than Revelations. What we should avoid is letting these nutters be used to organise us behind colonial wars. Look at the way the strutters are trying to recruit us to fight for Nazis in the Ukraine, for instance.

[Argus]

Definitely one of the most oppressive towards women and gays on the planet. Other countries get the finger pointed when they do bad things to women, but Saudi Arabia gets a pass most of the time.

Saudi Arabia is not 'violent' but it is extremist. My point was that he seems to be trying to limit the discussion strictly to terrorist violence.

[Argus]

So somebody did a comparative study assessing violence at all levels then ? I thought you were talking about terrorism.

No, and no again. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to go back and read the thread, or at least, the first couple of pages. My response has clearly been on the subject of extremism. Violence certainly flows from extremism, but it is the topic of extremism in the Muslim world I have been adressing.

I'm not trying to 'cover' anything. You very clearly have some extreme examples of atrocity, but the question I'm making headway on here is whether the religion is the cause, and if not ... then whether this religion is important in the discussion and how.

In speaking of extremism we're speaking of culture, and the sheer broad reach of Islam in the places in which it has taken hold ensure that culture is deeply influenced by Islam and Islamic values. These values are inextricably hostile towards women and other religions, and oddly tolerent towards pedarasty, for example. This is something found through Muslim countries far and near, be they in the middle east, Asia or Africa.

You are the one who is trying to rewind the conversation back before I started making the analogy. That may not be covering, but it's a kind of undoing.

No, your analogy was incorrect even if based strictly on violence, but your attempt to isolate violence is a diversion from extremism, which is the real motivation here.

Is it a stretch to say African Americans are still impacted by slavery then ?

Again, this is simply a diversion. What influenced Africa in the past, or African Americans, still resonates, but the difference here is that Islam is a continuing presence which guides the values of its adherents far and wide. Slavery and colonialism are in the past, but Islam is not, and in fact, the interpretation of Islam and its guidance has become more extreme over the years, not less.

No - but anybody who is fond of generalizing about groups could blame race by pointing out lower productivity, employment of people of African decent.

Culture and values guide behavior. They would entirely explain differences in behaviour amongst people coming from different parts of the world, or even different parts of a country. There is simply no need to make any assumption that race is involved. Would an African boy born in Kenya but immeidately transported to Toronto and raised there have the same cultural dispostions as if he had been raised in Kenya? I don't think so.

It seems to me that you have two views of human nature that contradict each other sharply.

No, my view is that extremism flows from culture. There is no second view.

Then why would you restart the debate ? Just address my points instead.

Your points are basically non sequitors in that you have attempted to guide the discussion away from extremism towards violence, evidently because you feel this can be more easily defended.

I'll give you credit - the last poster I went to this length with left in a huff. I respect that you are willing to stick to the discussion.

I wish you had done the same.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Argus

[Shady]

It's really pretty simple. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But the vast majority of terrorists, at this point in time, are Muslims. I guess the question is why, and what can be done about it?

[GostHacked]

Saudi Arabia is not 'violent' but it is extremist. My point was that he seems to be trying to limit the discussion strictly to terrorist violence.

Terrorist activities are the ones we only seem to care about. If extremism is going on within Saudi's borders and does not affect anyone else... then it does not seem to be a big deal.