London Bridge Atrocity

[JP]

What about people who do not disregard those beliefs. Those who see Islam as being under attack, in danger as it was in the day of Mohammed, and respond as the response was in those days.

[john]

Gabriella

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?

Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.

I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.

I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.

But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriella

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?

Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.

I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.

I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.

But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?

Has Gabriella said there can be nothing wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs? It seems to me she has not said anything of the sort?


There seem to me two major problems with the idea though that Islam is in any sense a root cause here. The first is that it as so often means reifying Islam to be something other than simply a collection of beliefs that is similar to other sets of beliefs, not all religious, which people cite as justification for their actions. That the actions if people citing the justification can be entirely different and that other justifications can lead to similar actions, surely brings into question treating one as unique in this fashion.


Secondly, but related, is the simplistic post hoc ergo proper hoc identification of cause. There are many countries where the rile if law seems questionable in 'Western' terms, indeed your use of 'Western' countries in your post is part of a circular argument since your definition of Western is to exclude countries where such disregard happens. So even though. China or North Korea or Russia or Uganda might carry out such actions, and are not Islamic is excluded because they are not Western, and then ignored as to why the issue is then obviously not just Islam.

In addition even where there are multiple executions such as in The US and even though there is arguably evidence of systematic racism in their applicatiion, we deem that as 'not as bad'. Further that it is a mete 75 years, since the Western countries were in a war where millions were executed for their religion, and that throughout the 70s to 90s there were more deaths through terrorism in Europe because of beliefs nothing to do with Islam than there have been here in the last 20 years or so. (and that leaves aside any questions over military actions in the last 20 years)


It's the poverty of history in this approach to Islam that I find bizarre. What is happening is neither unique nor novel. There seems to me an almost idolatrous tone in those who indulge in this that mirrors the loons of IS.


 

[wigginhall]

Yes, I keep thinking that the arguments that 'it's all the fault of Islam' actually mirror IS.   Very strange mirror image.

[trippymonkey]

Gabby I KNOW is a great lass - I DO hope she doesn't mind me saying this -  she relatively recently converted to Islam from a Hindu family. At least she does come here & chat a bit.
We live in an electronic world where anything we say can & WILL be used in evidence against us. 

I'm pretty sure MANY Muslims see these kinds of awful things seemingly approved of in Islam but can't, nay DAREN'T say anything due to other dickheads taking God's 'laws' & job into their own hands.
Maybe they realise Allah is either incompetent or is non-existent.

One can't be born a Muslim as one has to speak the Shahada of 'There is no god but Allah' etc etc & a child can't do that. So that rubbishes another Muslim so-called argument for Islam about us all being born Muslim. Yes, I'm afraid it really doesn't get any better than this.

You can go online & search very easily the verses that ante-Islamists cite re violence etc. What certain types of Muslims don't seem to be able to accept is that NO religion can be wholesale transported from so many centuries ago & dropped into the 21st !!
I'm pretty sure the moderate ones, those that just do the 'job' of Islam & get on with their lives with no problems at all - yes I KNOW they exist - are the ones who can get lots of s++t from stupid ignoramuses that feed into racist stuff & incite their own laws. We hear it quite often now due to what's been happening in Manchester etc.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What about people who do not disregard those beliefs. Those who see Islam as being under attack, in danger as it was in the day of Mohammed, and respond as the response was in those days.

Not really sure what you mean by Islam being under attack - could you be more specific as there are lots of different Islams depending on how teachings are interpreted and implemented in a particular place or group.

Do you mean continuing US and UK military support for the Saudi royal family despite Saudi human rights abuses against Muslims? Do you mean Western foreign policy that leads to regime-change in Muslim majority countries to gain access or control of natural resources such as oil and gas?

Well one response is that Khomeni preached revolt and martyrdom against tyranny as being part of Shia Islam to unite Iranians to overthrow the US-installed Shah in 1979 through a popular campaign of civil disobedience. The Shah had been installed by the US and UK governments after they organised a coup to overthrow the elected leader of Iran. Khomeni united various Iranian Muslim groups against the Shah and his Western allies under the revolutionary slogan "Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!" as a way of rejecting the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism.

Or do you mean further back during European colonialism, when a group of individuals formed a fledgling Islamist party and argued that Europeans were exploiting the Muslims and that defending Islam meant fighting back politically, economically, socially and physically against European colonists?

Islamists certainly view Islam as a way to mobilise public support for their political aims. Some Islamist groups use warfare to try to further their aims. In modern times, as they don't stand a chance against conventional weapons, some of them they are using asymmetric warfare tactics.

This was not the response in Prophet Mohamed's time - if his state was under attack he raised an army and met the opposing army on a battlefield even if he was outnumbered. But they didn't have highly explosive missiles and bombs capable of mass destruction back then.

[trippymonkey]

Ex post, G but you remind us all why Mohd was thrown out of Mecca & then came back with an army to take over?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In a discussion on 'The Sunday Politics' a few weeks ago, he was quite specific in some respects - in the cited case, blaming the disgusting attitude of Salford University which spawned this sad little non-entity who thought he was a hero:

(Jo Coburn interviewing Murray and Sara Khan, whose efforts Murray certainly supported, but suspected might be in vain)

Sorry - missed this - yes if he is being specific then I agree with some of his comments in this interview that the Islamic society at Salford failed and the authorities failed to tackle extremism by allowing Salford Islamic society to refuse to co-operate with anti-extremism measures.

[Rhiannon]

It really wasn't that long ago that a 'Western' country (Serbia) attempted to ethnically cleanse Albanians from part of its territory, the vast majority of whom were Muslim.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views you express here. BUT why do you see no fault at all with Islam itself?

Lets look at the reality of life in Muslim majority countries for instance; Pakistan where it ok to execute people for having different views (see post on Muslim topic about facebook). The Philippines where it is ok to summarily execute people the govt do not like without any kind of judicial process. Saudi Arabia where public executions and floggings are a major form of entertainment.

I will not even bother to mention the "minor" matter of these countries repressive attitudes to women.

I can think of no "Western Country" where such barbaric activity is normal.

But there can't be anything wrong with Islamic teachings/beliefs can there?

As I keep stating - I see faults with specific interpretations of Islam. I can't generalise and say I see a fault with Islam as though Islam is a single universally agreed upon concept. There are many interpretations. There is no single Islam.

And I hold people responsible for their interpretations and actions because an idea can't control someone's brain - that person has to interpret the idea and put their interpretation into action. Which is why there are many peaceful, law-abiding Muslims - because their interpretation of Islam is not the same as the interpretation of the terrorists.

It's like blaming the US Constitution for George Bush &co re-interpreting the words "imminent threat" to come up with the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq which conveniently allowed him and Blair to ignore the illegality of regime-change as a basis for war.

[trippymonkey]

If a line from a Quranic verse says Mohd walked down a road & turned left then is it at all possible to be translated as he went RIGHT?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabby I KNOW is a great lass - I DO hope she doesn't mind me saying this -  she relatively recently converted to Islam from a Hindu family.

You have a strange definition of "relatively recently". I converted 23 years ago. I was a Hindu for maybe 13 years, but given I was a baby and then a child during that time not sure it really counts. I was an atheist for about 10 years before I became a Muslim. My father likes what he understands of Islam, though he is critical of and opposed to certain interpretations.

But then again he is also critical of and opposed to certain interpretations of Hinduism.

I'm pretty sure MANY Muslims see these kinds of awful things seemingly approved of in Islam but can't, nay DAREN'T say anything due to other dickheads taking God's 'laws' & job into their own hands.
Maybe they realise Allah is either incompetent or is non-existent.

One can't be born a Muslim as one has to speak the Shahada of 'There is no god but Allah' etc etc & a child can't do that. So that rubbishes another Muslim so-called argument for Islam about us all being born Muslim. Yes, I'm afraid it really doesn't get any better than this.

You can go online & search very easily the verses that ante-Islamists cite re violence etc. What certain types of Muslims don't seem to be able to accept is that NO religion can be wholesale transported from so many centuries ago & dropped into the 21st !!
I'm pretty sure the moderate ones, those that just do the 'job' of Islam & get on with their lives with no problems at all - yes I KNOW they exist - are the ones who can get lots of s++t from stupid ignoramuses that feed into racist stuff & incite their own laws. We hear it quite often now due to what's been happening in Manchester etc.

You never did get back to me with the name of the translator of your copy of the Quran despite me asking at least 4 or 5 times this year. Can't take your claims about the Quran seriously if you don't want to state the name of the person who is translating the Quranic Arabic into English.

[Nearly Sane]

If a line from a Quranic verse says Mohd walked down a road & turned left then is it at all possible to be translated as he went RIGHT?

You are asserting objectivity in a valley of subjectivity

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ex post, G but you remind us all why Mohd was thrown out of Mecca & then came back with an army to take over?

You want a recap of the story? Ok, so he fasts, prays to one God, hangs out in a cave, feels inspired to preach monotheism by reciting the words of the Quran, which he said were revealed to him and weren't his own words.

Monotheism was bad for business as certain influential people in Mecca made a lot of money out of idol worship at the Kaaba by passing traders; plus he came up with all this nice stuff about rights that appealed to slaves and women, and so as he claimed to be a prophet of God, continued preaching over 13 years and his support increased because people loved the poetic words he was reciting, he was viewed as a threat to the power structure in Mecca. They try torturing some of his new followers and confiscating their assets but they won't recant.

So they try to kill him, he escapes penniless, runs away, is welcomed by the people in Medina because they consider him trustworthy and able to sort out all their tribal differences. He sets up a constitution with rights for Muslims and non-Muslims and acts as head of this new state for the last 10 years of his life. During this time more Muslims run away from being tortured or jailed in Mecca and turn up in Medina to join him. The Muslims try to gather intelligence about Mecca war plans and also recover some compensation for their confiscated assets by raiding caravans passing to and from Mecca. A few peace treaties and truces are signed with various tribes and the Muslims expand their strength by forming alliances for mutual protection with various tribes and by conquering certain tribes e.g.Battle of Khaybar. If the tribes break the peace treaties, the Muslims form an army and fight and kill some people and because of their own treaties with other tribes the Meccans eventually show up with an army to fight the Muslims.

There are a few battles. Eventually he returns to Mecca with his army and Mecca surrenders with very little bloodshed and most of the defeated are allowed to remain unharmed as they surrendered rather than fought. The Kaaba is cleared of idols as it is considered the house of the monotheistic concept of God built by Abraham.

I think I've covered the main points of the story.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Isn’t the real problem deeper than the content of any particular set of beliefs that have coalesced to constitute one religion or another? Scratch the surface of pretty much any religious texts and (with the possible exception of Jainism’s Aganas) you’ll find some nasty stuff, as you will some benevolent stuff too.

The question surely is what people do with moral narratives. Call it “moral philosophy” and you have ideas about how to live a good life that are reasoned but tentative, provisional. They’re change-apt as new and different thinking comes along. Consequently not many people will die (or kill) over the differences between, say, Aristotle and Plato. 

Call it “religion”, "faith", “revealed” etc and claim it to have been handed down by a morally inerrant god though and the narratives become certain, atrophied, unchangeable no matter what. That is, they become dogmatised.   

And the problem with dogmas (not only religious ones by the way) is that not only are they certain in their content, but that people who subscribe to them are certain that they’re right to do so. And once they’ve got themselves to that position, why then wouldn’t they die – or kill – to defend them, or to propagate them? After all, when in your head you know – really, really know – that if you don’t convert someone from his heathen ways he’ll go to hell, then it’s positively your duty to do the converting. You’d be acting immorally if you didn’t!

And where that leads is pretty much to what we see today– silos of certainty, some of them outright hostile to the others, some of them paying lip service to tolerance but hey, you know, we’re still right and they’re still wrong when all said and done.

As to what we do about it, in a word: education. Not education that religious claim X is right and religious claim Y is wrong (or vice versa), but rather that reason and scepticism and the ability to detect and reject bullshit arguments matter. Really matter. Even when the theist espouses reason altogether by claiming faith to trump reason or some such, that in itself is a bad piece of reasoning.

Will that ever happen, either at all or before someone with a “holy” text in one hand and the nuclear codes in the other has his way? Who can possibly say, but it’s worth trying I’d have thought.

How about teaching philosophy in primary schools and making it as compulsory as English and Maths at least until GCSE stage?

[SusanDoris]

Education it has to be, but it needs educators who are themselves critical thinkers, or who are able to set aside their religious beliefs to teach philosophy in a way that encourages critical thinking.

It's pi in the sky, for now, I think. *sigh*

[Nearly Sane]

So this philosophy that needed to be taught, the ideas that Plato wad supportive of tyrants, in the ancient Greek sense, and no one kills for that seems to show an ignorance of history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So this philosophy that needed to be taught, the ideas that Plat. supported of tyrants, in the ancient Greek sense, and no one kills for that seems to show an ignorance of history.

No - for a couple of reasons. First, taking, say, Plato as if he were some kind of end game would be precisely the same mistake as doing the same thing with a religious text. Rather the important principle is that his and subsequent thinking was human and therefore fallible. Second, subsequent thinking disagrees with him in any case and moreover there's no telling what philosophies may arrive in future. That though does not diminish from the primacy of rational thought and scepticism - which is what I was arguing for.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No - for a couple of reasons. First, taking, say, Plato as if he were some kind of end game would be precisely the same mistake as doing the same thing with a religious text. Rather the important principle is that his and subsequent thinking was human and therefore fallible. Second, subsequent thinking disagrees with him in any case and moreover there's no telling what philosophies may arrive in future. That though does not diminish from the primacy of rational thought and scepticism - which is what I was arguing for.

. But that means you have a decision which isn't about philosophy, it's about your philosophy. The idea that you are just being objective here isn't even wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But that means you have a decision which isn't about philosophy, it's about your philosophy. The idea that you are just being objective here isn't even wrong.

No - you're conflating the content of a philosophical position with a method that gets you there, ie rationalism. I advocate the teaching of rationalism, not of a position that may or may not be at the end of it. It's process, not product.

Why? Because rationalism entails doubt, the possibility at least of being wrong whereas dogmatism does not. And more harm comes from the latter than from the former.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No - you're conflating the content of a philosophical position with a method that gets you there, ie rationalism. I advocate the teaching of rationalism, not of a position that may or may not be at the end of it. It's process, not product.

Why? Because rationalism entails doubt, the possibility at least of being wrong whereas dogmatism does not. And more harm comes from the latter than from the former.

and you are judging the success of teaching or approach by whether it agrees by your conclusion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Isn’t the real problem deeper than the content of any particular set of beliefs that have coalesced to constitute one religion or another? Scratch the surface of pretty much any religious texts and (with the possible exception of Jainism’s Aganas) you’ll find some nasty stuff, as you will some benevolent stuff too.

The question surely is what people do with moral narratives. Call it “moral philosophy” and you have ideas about how to live a good life that are reasoned but tentative, provisional. They’re change-apt as new and different thinking comes along. Consequently not many people will die (or kill) over the differences between, say, Aristotle and Plato. 

Call it “religion”, "faith", “revealed” etc and claim it to have been handed down by a morally inerrant god though and the narratives become certain, atrophied, unchangeable no matter what. That is, they become dogmatised.   

And the problem with dogmas (not only religious ones by the way) is that not only are they certain in their content, but that people who subscribe to them are certain that they’re right to do so. And once they’ve got themselves to that position, why then wouldn’t they die – or kill – to defend them, or to propagate them? After all, when in your head you know – really, really know – that if you don’t convert someone from his heathen ways he’ll go to hell, then it’s positively your duty to do the converting. You’d be acting immorally if you didn’t!

And where that leads is pretty much to what we see today– silos of certainty, some of them outright hostile to the others, some of them paying lip service to tolerance but hey, you know, we’re still right and they’re still wrong when all said and done.

I agree that a dogmatic approach stifles freedom of thought and it should be avoided in religion, philosophy politics etc. Early Islamic tradition allowed for  multiple schools of thought but debate and freedom of thought became stifled for political reasons.

Islamic dogma is narrowing the space for debate in the Arab world, argues an Egyptian professor whose own life was overturned by persecution for free thinking.

Thirteen years after an Egyptian sharia court declared him an apostate from Islam, annulled his marriage and effectively forced him into exile, Nasr Abu Zayd looks back without rancor.

"I define myself as an ordinary Muslim who is able to think," he told Reuters during a recent visit to Beirut.

Today, constant claims to a monopoly of Islamic truth by Arab rulers and opposition groups scrabbling for legitimacy have stifled discussion, in contrast to debate flourishing elsewhere in the Muslim world, notably in Iran and Turkey, he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-scholar-idUSL0167412620080501

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

and you are judging the success of teaching or approach by whether it agrees by your conclusion.

What conclusion - that less harm is better than more harm? Well, I do think that yes and I also think that rationalism is more likely to achieve that than dogmatism.

Inasmuch as moral philosophy concerns itself with how we should lead a good life, I think too that it's reasonable to define "good" as something like, " causing least harm", and that some types of thinking are more likely to achieve that than others.

What I don't think though is what you seem to be implying I think, namely that that (or any other) outcome has anything to say to the epistemic truth of a proposition - ie, an argumetnum ad consequentiam. Indeed I'd hesitate to argue that moral philosophy has any epistemic truths - just provisional positions and arguments. My point rather was that the ability to identify and reject bullshit arguments for something is important, that it tends to reduce the risk of harm that dogmatism brings, and thus that it should be taught more consistently in schools.

Which doesn't seem controversial to me, particularly given the alternatives.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What conclusion - that less harm is better than more harm? Well, I do think that yes and I also think that rationalism is more likely to achieve that than dogmatism.

Inasmuch as moral philosophy concerns itself with how we should lead a good life, I think too that it's reasonable to define "good" as something like, " causing least harm", and that some types of thinking are more likely to achieve that than others.

What I don't think though is what you seem to be implying I think, namely that that (or any other) outcome has anything to say to the epistemic truth of a proposition - ie, an argumetnum ad consequentiam. Indeed I'd hesitate to argue that moral philosophy has any epistemic truths - just provisional positions and arguments. My point rather was that the ability to identify and reject bullshit arguments for something is important, that it tends to reduce the risk of harm that dogmatism brings, and thus that it should be taught more consistently in schools.

Which doesn't seem controversial to me, particularly given the alternatives.     

Harm defined by how yoi define harm? Aw, so circular

[trippymonkey]

Sorry about not getting back about ONE of the Qurans or books about the Quran I read !! I've only just found one again this last few days. Translator's name is Abdullah Yusuf Ali printed by Islamic Dawah Centre International.

Don't recall you telling me it was 23 years ago you converted. If I may, when you say you were a Hindu for 13 before that, were your family Hindu?

Slight sidestep... Re Zakhir Naik & his dodgy take on Islam. Do you regard him in any good favour? I have a booklet of him comparing the main religions of Islam, Judaism, Christianity & Hinduism. MMM?!?!?? He thinks pain travels along blood vessels which is why in Islam an animal has to be bled dry to get rid of possible bacterias but the animal doesn't feel any pain ?!?!!? because it's neck has been sliced wide open. It jumps & rolls around because of muscle spasm & not a reaction to pain !!! Excuse me?