As does, and has, Catholicism.Originally Posted by liam88
Interesting dicussion the other day-thought I'd seek a few opinions on here. Working on the basis that more fanatics act and commit atrocities in the name of Islam than of any other faith what is responsible for this?
I've heard two theories that can be sumarized as:
a) Islam is a fanatical religion i.e. it provides the basis for fanaticism. Hindu or Christian teaching, for example could not, in the 21st century, be used in the same way as Islamic teaching to justify terrorist actions, opressions of rights, coups etc. Islamic scripture can be interpreted in a raidcal way and is interpreted as such by many Islamic clerics/leaders. Basically Islam is responsible for 'Islamic fundementalism'.
b) The dominance of Islam throughout the Middle East-a generally volitile region-has led to it inevitability in being drawn into politics e.g. 'Western Interference'/Israel/Pakistan vs India etc. Essentially politics is responsible for 'Islamic fundementalism' as Islam is used as a cover for both those on the side of and against the fundementalism.
EDIT: Just to clarify these are two positions that came up in discussion and are NOT MY OPINION. I am posting them up to see what other people thought of those two positions-do people generalyl agree with one or the other or do people diagree with both-and on what grounds? I have no feelings against Muslim's [see post 11] and am not intending to incite trouble-i'm literally posting up two views i've heard to find people's critique on what is an interesting discussion. I can see how these views can be applied but do not strictly agree with either (primarily because I don't know enough to). I am also fully aware that Islam is not one blanket religion and that views, practices and customs differ even within sects
Would you adhere to either of those theories or would you follow another?
Last edited by liam88; 05/04/2006 at 9:41 PM.
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
As does, and has, Catholicism.
The fundamentalists of right wing Christianity in the US are just as big a danger to world peace as their fundamentalist counterparts in Islam. These lunatics are convinced that we are in end times and actually want to bring on the Rapture hence their support for Israel.
The Iranian PM has a similar viewpoint - he's reckons an Islamic Messiah is just round the corner.
Last edited by hamish; 05/04/2006 at 7:07 PM.
And it has an effect on us over here. They're censoring the word "ass" on Paramount Comedy for christ's sake.
This issue is far too complex to look for very simplte catch-all answers to it. It's dangerously easy/convenient to believe that there is something inherently wrong with Islam, when the reality is dramatically more complicated than that.
The bottom line is that ANY ideology or doctrine that maintains that it's view of the world is right - to the exclusion and detriment of all other views - inherently contains a basis for fanaticism. This is true not just of religion, but also of areas such as politics (communist v capitalist ; republican/royalist v parliamentarian ; fascism, nazism etc etc), science, animal rights etc.
There are plenty of political fanatics and fundamentalists in the world e.g. the anti-government ultra-right wing in the US, the numerous left-wing guerilla movements that pop up all over the world, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, fascists etc etc.
There are also plenty of religious extremists from faiths other than Islam. What about the anti-abortionist christians in the US who fire-bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors ? Or the Christian churches in parts of Africa who carry-out the most extreme cruelty against children in the belief that they are possessed (interesting programme on this last night on BBC2). Northern Ireland was a religious conflict (in so far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflcit could ever be labelled as such), with extremists on both sides.
And then there are fanatics of other movements outside of political and religious ideology - e.g. the animal rights activists who will attack the people and property of those who disagree with their own doctrine regarding the sanctity of animals.
So this notion that fanaticism is the exclusive preserve of Islam is both incorrect, and conveniently lazy thinking for those with a hidden agenda on the topic. There are plenty of Christian and Jewish fundamnetalists and extremists around as well. If I knew more about the oriental religions, I'm sure we'd be able to highlight some of them as well.
Secondly - to address your 2nd point above, people will conveniently take religion and twist it to provide moral and political justification for whatever their own fringe and unpopular views are. People in the west seem to think that Islam is all about arranged marriages to your cousin, women being made to wear head-to-toe veils, and having your hands chopped-off if you steal. That is simply not true of the religion. There are some narrow sects within Islam that follow such strict and absurd rules (e.g. Wahabbi'ism - which unfortunately is an incredibly well-funded sect by the Saudis). But there are likewise some Christians sects with absurd/extreme rules - such as never being alowed to eat in the presence of any one else (the 'Brethren' sect). A lot of the elements that we subscribe to islam are actually more cultural baggage from certain Islamic countries or regions, rather than religious rules from the faith itself. There are plenty of countries in the Islamic world - Turkey being a fine example - where arranged marriages, veils etc are considered as alien as they are to us. Meanwhile - Hindu India is just as keen on arranged marriages as Muslim Pakistan is. That is because arranged marriage is a cultural tradition in that part of the world - regardless of any specific religion.
The bottom line is that any ideology that claims that it is right and everyone else is worng will most likely generate fanatics at some point or another. To try to pretend that this is the exclusive preserve of Islam - or indeed even religion as a whole - is thoroughly wrong.
In Monday's Guardian media section, I read that the word "bullsh!t" is now "officially" banned from media use in the US - on stage, TV etc.. One can get fined for using it.
Hope that doesn't give you ideas Dahamsta.
Ok I think some people are missin my point here. Firstly these were not my arguments-two contrasting theories that came up in discussion.
Secondly i'm not naivve-I know that there are and always have been digusting fanatics all over the world for all manner of reason; from Bader Meinhof to above mentioned pro-life/pro-choice militants fanatics have caused all manner of atrocities around the globe I agree here; most beliefs lead to some fundemntalists.
The issue here is the scale. In a few hours on 9/11 Al Qaeda killed more people in the name of Islam than the IRA had in the name of Republicanism and pro-life militants had in the name of unobrn babies, put together over the last forty years. The susequent bombings in Bali, Madrid, London etc. have killed more than pretty much any IRA/ETA/Bader Meinhof bombings.
The abilty to carry out such attacks isn't jsut down to logistics (though Al Qaeda is organised better than msot multinationals) it is down to support-the IRA had Repbulicans in Ireland and US mainly, ETA had those in the Baque region Al Qaeda have sympathisers across the Muslim World and numerous associated groups. I can see here where the two theories fit in-the huge supprot for Al Qaeda is either political i.e. thousands linked by a common beleif (Islam) symapthise in each others political goals-Palestine, Iran, Chechnya etc. OR such support is down to a fundemental nature or Islamic teaching linking all the supporters.
re. Adam's reference to Catholicism-I don't know if this was a specific argument to me on the basis I am a devout Catholic (maybe the Sikh airline bombing would have been a better example) but I think's it's bizzare to say Catholicism has, in recent times bred the same extremisim as Islam. Obviously Crusades, South America conquest saw massive atrocities in the name of Catholicism but you much remember- the Pope-head of the Catholic church apologised andcondemed these. He also called for Republicans to end violence in Northern Ireland-you couldn't fight in the name of Catholicism in Northern Ireland without denying the Pope-the head of Roman Catholic church and thus contrevening Catholic teaching. So where exactly is this extremism you refer to Adam-please elaborate-maybe your going to bring up the old Pope/AIDS/Africa chesnut in which case i'll point to the Catholic teaching agaisnt sex before marriage.
It's the same as your reference to a word being banned on paramount-i'm not denying that there a fanatical/extreme (?) views in every religionor belief but planes being flown into buildings and suicide bombings seems a very different level of extremism to banning one word on one tv channel hence the debate is Islam more radical than other religions.
Guess you can sum it up: in the 21st Century more pople have been killed in the name of Islam than in the name of any other religion; why? Is it the politics or the theology of Islam?
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
Between 100,000 and 250,000 Iraqis civilians have been killed in Iraq by Bush and his cronies. If we're gonna play the numbers game remember that. A British medical body - can't recall the name just now - said several months ago that 100,000 civilian killed was a conservative number. ]
That's from a war initiated by a right wing so-called Christian President and his neo-con cronies who cherry picked dodgy (at best) data to create "proofs" for this illegal obscenity.
Nobody can verify the actual numbers. Why? Because the puppet Iraqi government forbids journalists getting them.
As General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts".
Fundamentalists of any religion must be resisted with vigour and honesty. They are a cancer and corruption on any society.
Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition Liam. And it might not be a good idea to fix atrocities in the present either. The present is just pinpoint in history. I'd wager there were plenty of people making much the same comments as you in those times.
In all seriousness Liam, you do realise that posting about Islam in the manner you do, whether intentional or not, paints a picture of a closed-minded sectarian trying to paint a distorted picture of reality? That may sound offensive but it's not intended to, it's simply an image that has formed. Perhaps you should stick to studying your own religion, or try to frame your observations in a less biased way.
Speaking entirely personally, I don't like the way you post about many topics on Foot.ie. I find your comments and observations not so much offensive as inflammatory, probably intentionally so. And that, as the operator of this site, I do find offensive.
adam
Last edited by dahamsta; 05/04/2006 at 9:07 PM.
I'm not sure where you are going with that comment Liam. Was there no history prior to the 21st century or is that a convenient way to have a go at Islam?
Did you ever notice that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they have belly buttons. Think about that...take as long as you want.
Interesting points there Adam-I never meant to be inflamotary or offensive and you'll notice I abck most of my posts up with facts....I persume the other main topic your reffering to is our discussion on the Anti-War march?
re. Muslims I have nothing against them-that would be insane to judge people on their faith. I don't agree with the beliefs of their faith but i respect it-I actually campaign for the Rohingya people of Burma who are Muslim and argue strongly in defence of the Kurdish race. I feel uncomfertable using terms like "Muslims" as I discovered a long time back (being half Irish half Burmese and living in the UK) that tarring any group of people with the same brush is hurtful and dangerous.
I think if you re-read the thread you'll actually fail to find me posting my opinion on Islam. Basically I was involved in a discussion-two contrasting views about Islam came up; I put them up on a current affairs board to see people's critique of them-what's wrong with that?
Finally I'd happily argue in defence of the revisionist historiography of the Inquisition as personally I agree with Kamen's analysis-but maybe that's for another thread?
Sorry I've obviously phased all of this wrong as I'm being mis-interpreted. The theories I posted up (not my view) are regarding the place of Islam in the 21st century.
Beofre this there was terible fundemntalism of different kinds-Christian fundementalism during the crusade's, Facism in Europe in the 40', Communism in eastern Europe, apartheid in South Africa. The point was in the 21st century Islam has been used as the reason for the worst terrorist atrocities and in the discussion I had one person claimed this is down to ISlam theology whilst one claimed it was down the the politicising of Islam thanks to the political cliamte of the middle east. IT's jsut two opinions on an indisputable fact and not an attack on Islam in any way-sorry if it came across otherwise!
Last edited by dahamsta; 09/04/2006 at 1:03 PM.
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
I appreciate the post edit above Liam, and would suggest that you frame your threads in that manner in future. I have to say, despite that, I still get a sense of bias from your posts and opinions. Perhaps I'm wrong about. Or perhaps you can't see it.
That's fair enough and I would refer you to dcfcsteves post for an eloquent response.
Did you ever notice that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they have belly buttons. Think about that...take as long as you want.
Liam, I think the question you should be asking is not whether Islam is inherently "fanatical" (whatever that may be - and remember, your definition will be framed from a non-Islamic point of view). The real question is what drives people to commit the acts you talked about in the name of Islam?
Everyone's heard Karl Marx's quote "Religion is the opium of the people". Actually, that's not what he said at all...
You take the situation of the poor of the Muslim world (which is pretty much the overwhelming majority). They're expolited, kept in poverty, oppressed, see no benefit from the natural resources around them (particularly oil), etc etc. Eventually they're gonna get cheesed off enough to kick back, so they look for a flag around which to gather.
Previously, they would've looked to the Soviet bloc, and if not out-and-out Communist (like the Iranian Communist Party at the time of the revolution against the Shah in 1979), then they would've adopted some kind of left-nationalist approach e.g. the various factions of the PLO - Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc.
The Iranian revolution was an eye-opener for many people at the time, in a similar sense to the electoral victory of Hamas being an eye-opener. If offered a different - and successful - approach to going down the traditional Communist road. Not long afterwards, the Soviet bloc disintegrated so that alternative model was no longer there to be followed anyway. Radical Islam filled that vacuum and gave people a channel for expressing their resistance to whatever it was they didn't want to have to put up with.
The important thing is that the poor and oppressed have flocked to radical Islam not because it lets them give vent to some previously-suppressed psychotic tendencies that racist western commentators like to suggest were always there, simmering below the surface - but because radical Islam is pretty much the only show in town when it comes to organising resistance.
Hamas didn't win the Palestinian election on account of having the best suicide bombers. They also have a massive welfare organisation, dispending aid to people who badly need it. Yes, doing so with a soup bowl in one hand and a Koran in the other, but they're the only ones willing and able to offer resistance to the Israeli authorities, so naturally they're gonna appear attractive to people driven to the point of desperation. If an Israeli tank flattens your shack in whatever refugee camp you've been ghettoised into, then you're gonna pay attention to the guy who offers you a tent afterwards. If he offers you a Kalashnikov as well, odds are you'll take that too.
The surprising thing is not the growth of radical Islam and the ferocity of the acts that some organisations engage in. The surprising thing is that more people aren't queueing up wherever they do their recruiting.
Revenge for 2002
Terrific post Dr. Nightdub - you might find this interesting.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12480.htm
Full text.
Sample
"Add to this the rather mean spirited history of the church (the Spanish Inquisition, the rape of the Indian culture during the westward expansion, the brutalization of black slaves, the New England torture of witches, and the church’s longstanding support of America’s military-industrial complex) and you have a misguided church that apparently has very little to offer the world. As James Hillman wrote in his book, A Terrible Love of War: “Western Christianity’s god comes front and center when war is in the air. War brings its god to life.”
There's a very simple answer to your question Liam, and I'm shocked you didnt ask it.
If you have a friend or colleague who is arguing that Islamic theology is breeding fundamentalist terrorists, ask him to provide evidence for this. This is easier in Islam than in pretty much any other faith, as their holy book is considered to be literally the word of God. Ask him where in the Koran does it say that it is ok to kill people ? If he's vaguely well read he may be able to refer to the odd section in isolation - but taken in its entirety, islam preaches non-violence.
I'm amazed you didn't just request this information back from your friend, rather than just absorb his view and come on here looking for other people to do the analysis for you.
As for the "indesputable fact" that the name of Islam has been used as justification for the worst terrorist atrocities in tghe 21st Century - that century is barely 6 years old, or 6% through. It would be like claiming early in the 20th Century that the Turks were the greatest genociders of the 20th Century, because of what they did in Armenia. the events of 40 years later in Germany show how ridiculous such a claim would have been.
A football match does not finish in the 7th minute. Nor does a century end in its 6th year.....
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 05/04/2006 at 11:50 PM.
Not arguing in this debate but surely everyone has bias in their opinion? Isn't that the point really? Again not not trying to say that who's got "good" bias or "bad" bias in this paarticular argument
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Throughout the Middle Ages, Islam was regarded as a peaceful and tolerant religion (Even though before that, there has been an attempt to impose islam in Europe and they got as far as Poitiers were they got stopped in 732 AD). Cities such as Granada and Cordoba are a reflection of this flamboyant period. They were places of prosperity and tolerance between catholics, jews and muslims. It was nevertheless the thirst for power and glory of the papacy and kings loyal to Rome that brought an end to all this. For many decades to come catholicism became responsible for oppression and persecution. The church also promised forgiveness to those willing to combat other religions or offering money to the clergy. All this subsequently led to great instability in Europe with the emersion of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin). It also led to a gap between christianity ass a whole and islam. The gap has never been filled since and both sides are responsible for this.
Nowadays radical muslims (individuals and nations included) behave the same way as christians did at that time.
To us westerners of the 21st century it all seems barbaric and horrible.
Another thing we should not forget is that islam got hijacked by an intellectual minority (exactly as catholicism was during the MA).
Scriptures are interpreted att will by clerics and most ordinary people believe them without any questioning of what really lies behind.
Of course there are many other problems linked to fundamentalism such as social issues, education, economy...
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
I think that her basis for it was Shiah Law -the covering a women etc. I know that this isn't universal in Islam but her argument (not mine) appeared to be Islam is the only religion that has strict rules in how women dress etc. and is therefor relativly for fanatical than other religions (She's a bit of a feminist take note).
Adam fair play but I really am not bias-like I said I just don't know enough about Islam to be-hence posting this up here as I know there are a lot of people e.g. Steve, Dr. Nightdub etc. who are better read on the issue than me (and possibly the others involved in the discussion). I apoligise to everyone if I came across as secaterian becuase I'm not -as I said I would campaign for the Rohingya people or the Kurdish people if I was in any way 'anti-Muslim'.
Steve re. the century only being 6 years old I appreciate that point and in a way that's the essence of the discussion-"Islamic fundementalism" wasn't a big issue in the Middle Ages (As Londonirish said) and hoepfully won't be in 50 or 100 years; just like German right wing facism or left wing etorrism is no longer one of the biggest universal issues. That's the interesting thing-why has Islamic fundementalism emerged now? The tehology hasn't really changed has it so maybe it's the politics? I guess you could ask the question (again asking a question not stating an opinion) is Islam involved more in politics now than it has ever been in history (perhaps especially since the end of the British EMpire?) and is it the religion most involved in politics in the world?
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
This is an example of how people take 'pop Islam' views that are floating around and use it to assert that they understand the religion as a whole.I think that her basis for it was Shiah Law -the covering a women etc. I know that this isn't universal in Islam but her argument (not mine) appeared to be Islam is the only religion that has strict rules in how women dress etc. and is therefor relativly for fanatical than other religions (She's a bit of a feminist take note
Sharia law is merely one of the many codes of religious/spiritual laws within Islam. Just like the Wah'habi sect, it has the backing of the phenomenally wealthy Saudis, who fund and promote it heavily throughout the Islamic world. As a result, it is by-far the most prominent of the religious and spiritual codes in Islam.
There is a huge range of variance within the interpretation, implementation and adherence of Sharia law throughout the Muslim world. Only 2 countries in the world have religious law fully ensconced within their structures/constitution : Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some other Islamic countries have Sharia law running alongside traditional juduicial courts - with the Islamic ones only governing a few fringe areas of the law. the biggest Islamic nations in the world - indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey - have little or no sharia law in their constitutions/structures.
The fact that Sharia law is by no means universal in its application, or in its interpretation, shows that a lot of the elements ascribed to it are nothing more than local cultural baggage. Therefore - whilst Turkey actually has laws against the enforcement of a religious dress code in schools and work places, Saudi Arabia strictly enforces it, and has religious police to monitor adherence. This is not about Islam - it is about local cultural traditions that over time have got tied-up over-time within local religious traditions. Just because Irish Catholics walk Croagh Patrick bare-foot doesn't mean that all Christians worldwide must indulge in a similar activity.
Your friend is guilty of taking the few publically percieved elements of what Islam is all about, and using that as the basis for her arguement. She clearer lacks a genuine understanding of the religion, as if she did she wouldn't make such lazy generalisations. Meanwhile, there are other religions that have sects that place women at a lower position than men (in fact - most do. Including Catholicism), so why didn't she chose to mention those ?
There's quite a few books and documentaries on why fundamentalist Islam has arisen at this stage in time. It appears to be the combination of a number of factors - but the single biggest catalyst is the foreign policy of outside governments. Prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, fundamentaluist Islam was a very fringe and unpopular activity. It had a couple of intellectual and spiritual leaders, and organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood, but it was rejected by the overwhelming majority of Mulsim people and nations. The Afghan war created a cause celebre for people to politicise the religion into a battle between Islam and outside elements. The huge flow of US funding that the Mujahadeen - incl Osama Bin Laden - received from the US helped them in this.
After Afghanistan, the fundamentalists were able to take advantage of the heightened sensibilities in the Muslim world to then turn their target on the presence of foreign (i.e. US) soldiers in Saudi Arabia - Islams holiest soil - during and since the first Gulf War. In the years that followed, the fundamentalists festered more and more dissent in the Islamic world at what they said was anti-Islamic activity by Western nations (e.g. Palestine). They kept plugging away at the fringes of Islamic society, making in-roads particularly amongst young disaffected Muslim youth who believed their message that the West was anti-Islamic and that their religion needed to over-turn the evils of Western civilisation. When September 11th happened, the fundamentalists had a well of popular support. Everythign that has happened since then has merely magnified that. I'm convinced that histoiry will show that the Iraq War was one of the most stupid foreign policy errors since appeasing Hitler and invading Vietnam. I'd say it's miles bigger than Vietnam - which remained an isolated conflict.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks