The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has been heavily criticized, for example during the Enlightenment.

"Fundamentalist Christians", are still a favorite subject of mocking and criticism, especially from the left. The stereotype is mocked openly on TV, in popular culture, etc.. They are blamed for all sorts of things in this country.

And yet, I'll just bet that some of the people most critical/mocking of Christian Fundamentalists (and I'm NOT pointing fingers at people here, but rather in society in general) are now some of the people talking about how we shouldn't criticize Islam.

 

[DJTJ]

I'm behind, but I wanted to add to this point because I feel that it's important and a common cause for consternation... Muslims saying Allahu Akbar in association with killing, along with the recruitment angle.

Saying the tenants of Islam are bringing these people together to commit violence as prescribed by a shared doctrine is false. I think it's important to differentiate the idea of using religion as a catalyst of violence and using religion as a rallying cry.

When resentment already exists against an opposing entity, religion (specifically in the ME) is the easiest card to play when trying to garner support and relate to potential allies. It also helps perpetrators sleep better at night when they can convince themselves that they have evidence supporting their claims (which is why ISIS types will use the same verses out of context that JSS posted earlier).

Non-ME, example:

In Bosnia in the 90's, Christians were essentially the aggressors in the conflict. Most would agree that Bosnia wasn't the second coming of the Crusades, but Serbs were very forthcoming with placing crosses on everything. They waved their three fingers around (Orthodox use them for crossing themselves) and made it clear they were using the morality of men to rid the region of the scourge/ regain territory. (~7,000 Muslims massacred in Srebrenica alone over one weekend). Still, you'd be hard pressed to find many people on this board (or otherwise) willing to blame Christianity or the teachings of Christianity for Bosnia. See: "It was a territorial dispute", "Stolen land", "oppressive government", "fallout from communism".

They weren't flaunting Christ because the Bible commanded them to. They did it because Serbs were Orthodox, because the cross was comfort, and they rallied support from the one thing Serbs all had it common.

As @gourimoko said, Allahu Akbar is an expression of victory, and it's only natural that Muslims would be shouting this if they were succeeding in ANYTHING.

This small point might not have been the most crucial in the conversation, but it is repeatedly discussed in the media, and -by extension- by people I see in daily environments. "See, their God commands them to do this!!"... No.

Bingo.

I play soccer with tons of Saudi's. I used to eat dinner with a friend at his home before he went home permanently. I heard this phrase every single day, understood what it meant, and had literally zero reason to feel threatened. They'd say it after goals. He'd say it if his meal turned out good. It became something I expected to hear when I was around people from that culture. Blaming it as anything else kind of feels like a stab at a great culture. It's an easy finger pointing tool, and it's something that a lot of Americans seemed disgusted to hear during soccer. Really disheartening.

Appreciate the Bosnia story. Will go read up on it. Probably wasn't even born yet.

 

[DJTJ]

"Fundamentalist Christians", are still a favorite subject of mocking and criticism, especially from the left. The stereotype is mocked openly on TV, in popular culture, etc.. They are blamed for all sorts of things in this country.

And yet, I'll just bet that some of the people most critical/mocking of Christian Fundamentalists (and I'm NOT pointing fingers at people here, but rather in society in general) are now some of the people talking about how we shouldn't criticize Islam.

Can vouch for myself and say no. The only thing I'm critical of is where I defer in stances on gay marriage. As a non-religious person, I'm self-aware enough to let people have their own belief system, because it's not mine to make.

Can also vouch that the pop culture and tv mocking is usually through comedy, and really, no political system, few religions, and no races are safe from being poked at or satired.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

=
First, I think it's completely illogical for it to be an Islam discussion without open knowledge of the actual sect of religion being scrutinized. It's like blaming Protestants for the Pope. There needs to be a better understanding of what's actually happening before religious slander can just be spread against the wall.

Sorry, but I really don't see an answer in there. Do you think it is okay to criticize Wahhabism, or not? and if you'd like to put a different spin on it, do you think Wahhabism deserves criticism?

Second, if there was a similar situation with Christianity, the term used against them would be the denomination followed by the descriptive term.

So I take it that you've never heard broad criticism of "Christian Fundamentalist" or "Fundamentalist Christians"? Never heard those phrases used critically?

Third, I disagree with what I THINK you're trying to get at. I don't see an issue with how Islam, or any other religion is practiced, and I don't believe I've ever made that claim.

Okay, so you're saying it is wrong to criticize the doctrines of apostasy, blasphemy, and the prohibition against proselytizing? Do you at least acknowledge that all three are in direct opposition to how freedom of religion and speech are practices and understood in the U.S.? And the fact that someone gets thrown in prison for committing those acts is something you just don't have an issue with?

I mean, I'll grant you that we shouldn't be going to war to force those changes in Islamic nations. But I'm simply talking about criticizing what many of us would consider violations of human rights.

 

[No Regard]

I would like to say that I don't point any fingers at the Islamic culture, which have a special place in my heart, especially the music. It is without doubt rich, valuable and beautiful, and it is absolutely terrible what a few shit holes have done with it’s reputation.

I would also like to point out, that I'm all for more spirituality in the world, and I try as best as I can to live a spiritual life myself.

But what I don't like how people are taking monopoly on spirituality; how some are dividing and fighting over which type of spirituality is right and wrong. This is exactly what religions do. Therefor must they be criticized.

The religious paradox is very strange indeed. They all speak about the same things; the same mystical power that inhabits all things, both animate and inanimate, which we - because of the shortcomings of words - call either God or Allah or The Ground or It or Whatever. And at the same time they are killing each other with ruthlessness and complete lack of compassion. That is not spirituality. It is totally unbearable though.

 

[No Regard]

A man blaming Muslim's for ruining the Christian morals set forth in Norway is completely true.

When you put it this way, it gets a totally different meaning.

What you say here bears more truth. You're initial statement however, did not.

 

[gourimoko]

And I'd say that a great many people may hold their beliefs, whether secular humanist, Nazi, Communist, Ayn Randian libertarian, etc., as being just as central to who they are as you hold religion. Just because a belief system includes a belief in an supreme mystical being doesn't make it more important, valid, or central to who one is than any other. Heck, a fair number of those secular beliefs systems have been openly referred to as a kind of religion.

People change their ideologies all the time. An ideology is something that should be grounded in facts. That's very different than a spiritual upbringing regarding what is most commonly the metaphysical.

Again, we shouldn't just ignore the fact that religion is just as protected, and for good reason, as race or gender.

When folks say they are Muslims, they may not even be referring to a belief system at all.

For example, my step-father, and tens of millions of Muslims like him, is a pork-eating, smoking, and sometimes drinking American. He also happens to be an agnostic. But, whenever asked, he will say: "Of course I am a Muslim!"

This is the problem with criticizing Islam. Is that you are grouping together so many diverse people, that have almost nothing in common and pointing to the fundamental common thread that runs between them.

It is a false and unfortunately dehumanizing approach to rationalizing the problem to a simple tribal conflict; when in fact, it's far far more complex.

 

[gourimoko]

@The Human Q-Tip ,

Just read your other response to me and I'm thinking we are talking past one another.

You say you should have the right to criticize a "belief system."
-I agree you should have the right to do so. But that doesn't mean all criticism is warranted or justified, simply because it is allowed.

You say Islam is part of the problem with terrorism.
-I disagree.

Concisely, I disagree because ISIS does not represent, in any way, Islamic beliefs. That was the first point I made, and it is the sum of all the points I am making with respect to this disagreement.

 

[No Regard]

But you're again ignoring the unique role that religion plays in an individuals life.

People change their ideologies all the time. An ideology is something that should be grounded in facts. That's very different than a spiritual upbringing regarding what is most commonly the metaphysical.

Again, we shouldn't just ignore the fact that religion is just as protected, and for good reason, as race or gender.

A lot of people never change their ideologies. Some actually swear to their ideology as if it was a religion.

An ideology should perhaps be grounded in facts, but a lot of times it’s not. Ideology is more normative than anything else, which we clearly can see in the word's etymology. Ideology comes from the French idéo and logie. The first part comes from Greek and means idea, which quite certainly is not equivalent with facts. It should be perhaps, but that is not the same thing.

There is a huge different between race and gender and religion, which you completely ignore: The two former are not optional and they are, as @The Human Q-Tip has said time and time again, not a part of a belief system.

 

[gourimoko]

A lot of people never change their ideologies. Some actually swear to their ideology as if it was a religion.

An ideology should perhaps be grounded in facts, but a lot of times it’s not. Ideology is more normative than anything else, which we clearly can see in the word's etymology. Ideology comes from the French idéo and logie. The first part comes from Greek and means idea, which quite certainly is not equivalent with facts. It should be perhaps, but that is not the same thing.

I never said it had to be. I said "should," just as you do here.

There is a huge different between race and gender and religion, which you completely ignore:

No, I didn't ignore it, I addressed it 3 times in this thread. You just don't like the answer.

You feel comfortable criticizing religions, without understanding them. This is no different than criticizing races (or more analogously entire cultures) of people.

For example, if we were to start a thread discussing the "Evils of the Jews," it'd be closed. Instantly. As being anti-semitic, and rightfully so. How can you speak about millions of people whom you do not know? People that are certainly diverse in their thinking and attitudes, in their worldviews, in their life experiences.

But we need pages upon pages of 'debate,' and I use that term loosely, to discuss the evils of Islam?

Anytime you want to know if something is bigoted, substitute the term "Jew" in for whomever is the object of criticism.

 

[Otsego Mar]

The NBA had a little segment on it being Chinese New Year for the next 2 weeks. I understand there is a rather large fanbase in China, but do we think the NBA would ever celebrate (or at the least mention) an Islamic holiday? Just a thought. You might answer "well yea if they had a 300 million fanbase", but I don't think the answer is that clean-cut.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

People change their ideologies all the time.

Some people do, and some don't. Some people change their religion as well, and/or the degree/fervency of belief changes. I don't think religious belief systems are deserving of any different consideration or protection than secular belief systems. And that's coming from a Christian, not a secular humanist.

An ideology is something that should be grounded in facts.

Perhaps that's your belief, but many of them aren't, or are premised on a belief in "facts" that are equivalent to faith. Nazism is one example, and there are many others. In any case, I don't see why that should make any difference at all in the degree of protection to which they are entitled, or whether or not they should be subject to public criticism.

That's very different than a spiritual upbringing regarding what is most commonly the metaphysical.

I don't think the difference is relevant to the degree of protection to which they are entitled.

Again, we shouldn't just ignore the fact that religion is just as protected, and for good reason, as race or gender.

Political beliefs and expression are equally "protected", though, and as we know, people can get extremely emotional about those as well. And yet, we consider open discussion of those beliefs perfectly acceptable even if someone is highly offended. And I'd point out that while race and gender are "protected", they are not protected from criticism.

When folks say they are Muslims, they may not even be referring to a belief system at all. For example, my step-father, and tens of millions of Muslims like him, is a pork-eating, smoking, and sometimes drinking American. He also happens to be an agnostic. But, whenever asked, he will say: "Of course I am a Muslim!"

If you're going to redefine "Muslim" as something other than "a believer in Islam", then you should at least acknowledge that is not the definition most other people are using. That's not how most other people are using the word, though, and I daresay there are a great many Muslims who would disagree with the idea that someone who doesn't not believe in God and Muhammed as his prophet is a Muslim..

This is the problem with criticizing Islam. Is that you are grouping together so many diverse people, that have almost nothing in common and pointing to the fundamental common thread that runs between them.

What common thread? You just said that someone can be a Muslim and not even believe in Islam. And if that's your view, then criticizing Islam is not grouping together everyone who considers themselves a "Muslim."

 

[gourimoko]

Because you continue to ignore the facts.

Like what? You gave me the facts that some folks are using Islamic terms and expressions, the Islamic faith and tradition, towards their own political and terroristic ends.

I'm sorry if I fail to see how that reflects the religion of 1.6 billion people worldwide.

I am sorry. It was not my intention to be hostile.

Yet you continue to be hostile throughout your posts.

I'd rather you present your argument concisely and calmly, if you please, because I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say.

Do they both include a reference to holiness?
Are they both used in the everyday language, where the holiness is not necessarily important any more?
Do their meanings both depend on a given context?
Are they still not in a sense analogous?

No, they aren't. As has been explained by myself, and two others in this thread.

Why even argue this point? It's kind of ridiculous. Do you speak Arabic? I do. Allah is referenced, repeatedly in conversation, regardless of what you are doing so long as you do not believe it to be deliberately sinful.

You got to be kidding me.

Saying “Allahu Akbar” after you’ve eaten burger does not have the same meaning as saying the phrase when you cut of a man's head.

But what you're missing is that the phrase cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the religious nature of either action, because neither was grounded in Islam itself. Both acts could be, in fact, sinful; yet the phrase could still be heard.

Little kids say "Allahu Akbar" when playing... It's such a common phrase.

If I say that “God is great” after I’ve gotten an C on my English exam, than it is obviously not the same as if I say “God is great” while setting of a bomb in a public marketplace.

You are praising God for the C on your exam.
You are praising God for setting a bomb in the marketplace.

You got the C on the exam; God would've gotten an A.
You set the bomb in the market; God wouldn't have done it in the first place.

This is nevertheless an off-track of the actual meaningful discussion, and an effective way for you to try to escape the argument I’m making.

It's your premise to your argument. I'm simply demonstrating to you an example of your own self-imposed ignorance.

Nice try. But it doesn’t work as @The Human Q-Tip made clear in his post.

He didn't make anything clear. We substitute religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, routinely in logical arguments regarding specific protected segments of the population. Those classifications are considered, generally to be defining and practically immutable for most people.

I get your point, but it doesn’t make any difference for what I’ve been saying.

Sure it does. I'm directly addressing your argument.

If the KKK could find justification in Christianity for their gruesome acts, than Christianity most certainly is a part of the problem.

Huh?

So if I go through thousands of ancient texts that are only loosely related to one another, and are quite contradictory in many ways, and find passages that I can twist and completely out of context; then the billion plus people who don't subscribe to my incorrect interpretation are somehow dragged along with me?

Because that exactly describes what al-Baghdadi and others have done, using works that are not of Muhammad, that are not of the Qu'ran, to justify their actions.

This is not Islam.

Yet, millions of Muslims feel obliged and unfortunately required to apologize for the actions of a small sect of fanatic rebels who are in essence bastardizing their religion.

I don't want to go on and on with this... I'd rather you just address these few points made, then continue from there.

 

[AZ_]

You can misinterpret the teachings of any religion in an effort to promote violence or terror.

I'm not sure I'd label the teachings as "the problem."

 

[The Oi]

You have to admit the whole not eating pork thing is ridiculous.