The special case of islam?

Homepage Forums Theism The special case of islam?

This topic contains 28 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Strega 2 days, 6 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6447

    David Boots
    Participant

    Is the religious violence in islam any different from other religions?

    The catholic church paid a bounty during the inquisition. Hitler invoked god to persecute the jewish. Israel commits and committed acts of atrocities against palestinians.

    But not all religions are the same. muslim dogma reveres the koran as the actual words of god as dictated by an angel. Those words are the final message of god to the world. The koran is unalterable and perfect.

    This is a problem. How can an ideology adapt to a rapidly changing world when it is believed to be based on the literal words of god?

    According to some – it is not possible to moderate islam. When the president of a nominally secular country states ‘There is no moderate or immoderate islam. islam is islam and that’s it.’ it is hard to perceive how any real change in this dogma is possible.

    #6448

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Whoever says that Isis has nothing to do with Islam is living in a fantasy world.  What solutions to the problem of Islamist terrorism do you propose?

    #6565

    David Boots
    Participant

    Very good point. It is easy to observe and complain and difficult to change.

    If it were up to me I would focus on the economics of islam, the unchecked population growth and of course the indoctrination at a young age.

    #6566

    Strega
    Moderator

    What would you offer to the young men that would be a better option for them than joining the jihad movement and getting food and water for you and your family?

    #6567

    David Boots
    Participant

    What would you offer to the young men that would be a better option for them than joining the jihad movement and getting food and water for you and your family?

    I think the notion that terrorism is a result of social and economic circumstances is probably unfounded. Bin Laden was wealthy. Lots of westerners fighting for isis come from middle class families. The notion also does not explain how other people in the same socioeconomic circumstances do not turn to terror.

     

    If the three pillars of any religious dogma are: Education/Indoctrination, Economics and population growth then some ideas occur to me.

    Education – refuse to allow religious schooling until the age of say ten.

    Economics – remove all tax exemptions for religious organisations. Legislate to allow victims of terrorism to bring claims against the organisation(s) that promoted the dogma that resulted in the violence.

    Population – remove any subsidy or public funding whatsoever for families with more than two children.

     

    #6569

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    Strega wrote:
    What would you offer to the young men that would be a better option for them than joining the jihad movement and getting food and water for you and your family?

    It’s same reason people join gangs where I come from. It’s the same thing…

    #6573

    Strega
    Moderator

    I wonder how many food and medicine packages we could drop instead of bombs, for the price.

    #6574

    David Boots
    Participant

    Stega I think the idea that helping people rather than using force to change them is an attractive idea.

    But western countries have given billions of dollars to various countries in aid. Some of those countries have extreme theocratic views. It is not clear to me how this has helped reduce religious violence.

    #6575

    Strega
    Moderator

    When you give billions of dollars to a government to distribute benefits, I think you probably lose the credit for it as the government claims it.  Distribution of food regularly, accompanied by mechanisms for those populations to create their own food source, may need to be done in a different way.

    #6576

    David Boots
    Participant

    What is it that suggests being poor causes you to be a terrorist?

    #6577

    Davis
    Participant

    The thing is, poverty linked to terrorism is something of a myth. It is true, some very down trodden people end up being recruited an do the unthinkable, but there is absolutely no shortage of middle and upperclass Americans and European (even non-muslims who converted) who went to Syria to help do (which they knew well in advance) was unthinkable mass cruelty, destruction, rape and murder. The pilots of 9/11 were not from poor backgrounds. Many who go wen’t to join Al Qaida were Saudi Arabians, some distantly related to the King and quite well off. I think the film Syriana showed quite well that those who participated in extremism and terrorism came from many different backgrounds of which, in this film, few were the sterotypical poor guys. There is the rich Persian connection, the rich Gulf-country weapons buyer, the rich Gulf-country recruiter, the not poor Lebanese torturer and the poor unsatisfied alienated Indian workers in some gulf country.

    That isn’t to say that poverty has nothing to do with terrorism. That can very well be the case in Palestine and Pakistan. The following traits come up often in profiles of those who do the unthinkable: loneliness,  lack of stimulating work, social repression, alienation (especially facing discrimination), nihilism, lack of a satisfying life, tiring of hedonism (for the non-poor), bordom, general moral outrage, frustration, etc leads to extremism…which may or may not lead to terrorism. They tend to be intelligent (if not educated) both in their deep understanding of complex theology (or at least one version of it) as well for their competence to be trusted to manage funds, learn on the job, decision making, intelligence collecting and execution. Yes, there are poorer terrorists (especially in France and some out of control migrants in Germany) but unfulfilled resourceful intelligent frustrated young men

    #6579

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Muslims with money have more time to study their scripture, rise in power, and fund extremism like Bin Laden. There are plenty of poor who join because they’re “bought” from their parents and then indoctrinated and trained. A country like Saudi Arabia doesn’t just enable scriptural literalists, but is a source of funding for Sunni/Wahabi activism, as (say) Qatar is friendly to Shiite movements in Iran and Syria.

    Whatever we try so far fails, and is often even how Islamists hope we react. Taking out Saddam Hussein without a good replacement plan started to fail as soon as he was defeated, and it kept escalating further out of control. We we even caused more Americans to die than Bin Laden did.

    I’ve decided that the only possible solution is to support promising, moderate Muslims in earnest, and sanction countries intolerant to religious freedom of choice. It’s a human rights issue, whether people call it Islamic Extremism, or not. (I mention that because of the whole desperate issue of using vs suppressing that phrase. What difference has it made, one way or the other?)

    Secularism has to be our primary human rights statement to intolerant Muslim countries. Part of the problem is the new, populist support for western religion, and (e.g. Bannon/Trump/et al) demonization of secularism. I think the most salient issue is about people in power who force and fester the intolerance, regardless of religion.

    #6580

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    Distribution of food regularly, accompanied by mechanisms for those populations to create their own food source, may need to be done in a different way.

    I’ve seen sustainable solutions that only work if you involve the people who you are trying to help in the entire process. Distributing aid is sort of like handing a homeless drug addict a $20. It goes nowhere to advance a long term solution.

    #6582

    David Boots
    Participant

    I think the question of motive has to be examined. How is it that any modern society can accept any justification for these terrible acts of religious violence? Whether it be poverty or injustice or some other motive surely this is not an acceptable motivation for killing people?

    Why should we suspend normal judgement for extreme religious violence? If any other person other than a theist walked into a building and blew it up there would never be a hint of suggesting this act was justified by socioeconomic disadvantage or some other perceived injustice.

    Only religion demands such an extraordinary  privilige that such terrible acts are justifiable.

    #6593

    Davis
    Participant

    Yes…David. I really do think that this is by far, the most important question.

    How is it that any modern society can accept any justification for these terrible acts of religious violence?

    While it may seem that some Gulf countries are “modern” they are only superficially so. There is still female subjugation, virtual slavery and other forms of dhumanization. They are not modern. On top of a free market, wealth, order, education, health and swanky architecture, you also must break down the structures that enable dehumanising others (by race, class, gender, sexual orientation). In reality, the religion or ideology is irrelevant. If you allow dehumanisation, then doing the horrific and unthinkable is a piece of cake. The extremism is happening in Bhuddist Malaysia, Atheist North Korea, Jewish Occupied Palestine, Tribal Pakistan etc. Permit dehumanisation…and socially accepted cruelty follows.

    Whether it be poverty or injustice or some other motive surely this is not an acceptable motivation for killing people?

    You would think this is an obvious no brainer. 🙁

    Why should we suspend normal judgement for extreme religious violence?

    We shouldn’t. Ideology/religion, no matter how deeply felt, is no excuse for being cruel.

    If any other person other than a theist walked into a building and blew it up there would never be a hint of suggesting this act was justified by socioeconomic disadvantage or some other perceived injustice.

    Yes.

    Only religion demands such an extraordinary privilige that such terrible acts are justifiable.

    Most religions and some non-God ideologies (Stalinism, some forms of anarchism, facism, naziism, neo-naziism etc). All ideologies that dehumanise others, just like most religions.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.