Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:My position is this
Most muslims (in the UK at least) abhor terrorist attacks and are disgusted its done in the name of their religion and god. I feel sorry for them. But just because I feel sorry for them does not mean I like Islam. I believe it to be backward looking, oppressive to women, abusive of children and has a streak of intolerance and associated violence that goes back to its origins. [..]
I think you are mistaking Islam for current Arab culture.
To my unending surprise, I agree with Finn.
Once in a blue moon you see the light nimh.
Islam historically (and thats what you're talking about when you talk of things "going back to its origins") has not been more oppressive to women, abusive of children or had more of a streak of intolerance and violence than other religions - if anything, less so at many times.
Current Arab culture, however, surely is among the most oppressive cultures in the world where it comes to womens' rights.
The same goes for other noted abuses. Women's genital mutilation is at its most brutal in the Horn of Africa - which has everything to do with culture, and very little with Islam.
I'm no fan of Islam, by the way, nor of any religion. But I am for sorting things correctly.
I am a big fan of Islam and just about every other religion, but then I don't confuse the sublime thought with the profane behavior.
nimh wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:My position is this
Most muslims (in the UK at least) abhor terrorist attacks and are disgusted its done in the name of their religion and god. I feel sorry for them. But just because I feel sorry for them does not mean I like Islam. I believe it to be backward looking, oppressive to women, abusive of children and has a streak of intolerance and associated violence that goes back to its origins. [..]
I think you are mistaking Islam for current Arab culture.
To my unending surprise, I agree with Finn.
Islam historically (and thats what you're talking about when you talk of things "going back to its origins") has not been more oppressive to women, abusive of children or had more of a streak of intolerance and violence than other religions - if anything, less so at many times.
Current Arab culture, however, surely is among the most oppressive cultures in the world where it comes to womens' rights.
The same goes for other noted abuses. Women's genital mutilation is at its most brutal in the Horn of Africa - which has everything to do with culture, and very little with Islam.
I'm no fan of Islam, by the way, nor of any religion. But I am for sorting things correctly.
thanks for that clarification nimh, i had no idea what finn was on about
but i still contend there is an intolerant and violent thread within islam which can be traced back to its beginnings,
kharjiites, (then various other sects i forgot) wahhabits muslim brotherhood, bin ladenism
i am the first to admit my knowledge of the history of islam is poor, but if itsn ot islam which influences arab culture, what is it?
I think nimh and finn, though I have no doubt they have very good intentions, are incorrect about the Islam v Arab culture = violence, abuse against women, etc argument...
It is not to say these horrid aspects of Islam are universal--but Arab culture is shaped by Islam. Islam runs through that culture in such a way that the two cannot be separated.
Islam does have a strain (or more than one) that advocates these horrible actions by some adherents. Wahhabism is one. Read Bernard Lewis, Zakaria, Thomas Friedman. They aren't ideologues. They are lifetime student of the Middle East.
However, if you can disprove their (and my) theory, I'd really like to see your evidence. Sincerely.
PM Blair dresses down MSM
Question:
More civilians have been killed by the Americans and the British than have been killed by these attacks.
Prime Minister:
Excuse me. First of all - I don't accept that at all incidentally
WASHINGTON, D.C., Jul 28 (OneWorld) - At least 24,865 Iraqi civilians have died since the U.S.-led coalition began its war in their country but the real figure is unknown because coalition forces, flouting the Geneva Conventions, refuse to aid an accurate count, said a leading medical journal.
[..] The journal cited the work of Iraq Body Count (IBC), a British-U.S. non-profit group that last week reported that 24,865 civilians had died in the two years since the war in Iraq began in March 2003. The IBC database, from which data for the dossier were drawn, lists only those deaths reported by two or more news agencies, The Lancet said. [..]
Coalition spokespersons, faced with a rising death toll of Iraqis killed in bomb and gun attacks on politicians and local police and civilian targets, have laid the blame for these deaths squarely at the feet of terrorist groups. [..]
The IBC, in its 28-page dossier, said [..] U.S.-led forces killed nearly 37 percent of the total [..] Criminals, accounting for 36 percent of civilian deaths, came a close second to U.S.-led forces. Insurgents, however, accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 percent.
''Unknown agents'' were responsible for 11 percent of deaths, according to IBC.
The IBC dossier covered civilians, army and police recruits, and serving police. [..]
The death toll closely resembled a U.N.-funded survey that last year found 24,000 conflict-related deaths since the U.S.-led invasion.
American Fatwa against Terrorism
WASHINGTON. 29 July. A council of 18 prestigious sunnite and shiite jurists and scientists from the US and Canada on Thursday night published an Islamic legal judgement (Fatwa), in which every form of terrorism and the use of violence against civilians is condemned. Muslim jurists and associations in Europe have recently published similar fatwas.
The fatwa, which was presented at a press conference in Washington by the President of the North-American islamic law council (Fiqh Council), Muzammil Siddiqi, and will be read out during the important Friday prayer in many mosques in North-America, amongst other things says: "Every act of terrorism that targets civilians is forbidden in Islam. It is forbidden to a Muslim to involve himself with or support persons or groups that commit terror attacks or acts of violence." Whoever attacks the life and property of civilians through suicide attacks or other forms of violence "is a criminal and not a martyr". Moreover, the Fatwa lays down that "it is the religious and civic duty of a Muslim to cooperate with the authorities to protect the lives of civilians".
The fatwa is supported by the main Muslim organisations in North-America. Furthermore, the Council of American-Islamic Relations [the same that has been vilified by American conservatives-nimh] has started a campaign with radio and TV messages under the title "Not in the name of Islam", in which it is confirmed that Islam forbids terrorism. Whoever commits such acts of violence in the name of Islam, betrays his religion, the messages state. [..]
There are some ideas which are truly hateful, creationism being one.
I've only just properly picked up on this post, silly of me still having problems with big words like cogent.
Finn wrote
I see it requires more than a single cogent sentence to convey what one is "going on about" to you Steve.
That presumes I'm presented with one.
No, it presumes that you can recognize one.
Now worries though, if the following commentary doesn't break through for you, I'm sure nimh will be willing to add his illumination.
Ignoring the typo, I think commentary is rather a grand word to describe the following four sentences:
(to which my responses are in blue)
You make the common mistake of the anti-religion set, you confuse the practices with the teachings, and you blame the religion for the sins of those who claim to follow it.
Not true. I believe some ideas are wrong and damaging in and of themselves. You seem to labour under the naive belief that all religions are somehow perfect, and its just imperfection in the human condition that results in wrong doing. This is just not true. All sorts of truly terrible things are done because people act with a clear conscience, knowing that they are doing Gods will. Its not just the individual or the individual act which is to blame but that set of religious ideas which motivates and justifies such behaviour, be it teaching creationism as a fact, mutilating the genitalia of children, or detonating a bomb on a bus.
Not true. You continue to confuse the practices with the teachings, and likely because you feel compelled to connect religion with the misdeeds of man. I don't think I could have been clearer in stating that religion is in no way perfect---for no other reason than it is the product of imperfect man.
Since you have made the argument that there are sets of religious ideals which motivate and justifies immoral behavior, perhaps you can provide us with specifics.
Evolution is a canard, but not an unexpected one, but please provide us with evidence that there are any (major) religious ideals which countenance, let alone encourage, the mutilation of children or the murder of innocents.
Current Arab culture is far more influenced by antecedent machismo and humiliating defeats in modern war than what is written in the Koran.
Well it might be, but I wasnt talking about "current Arab culture" I was talking about the harm that bad ideas can do, in particular the idea a disaffected young man from Leeds has in his head that martyrdom will result in a plentiful supply of virgins.
And you are making a, frankly, ignorant argument that Islam encourages young men to kill innocents for the promise of deflowering virgins in paradise. Clearly you do not believe you are talking about current Arab culture, but you are, because you are, just as clearly, not talking about the integral teachings of Islam.
What has informed the culture, has far more influence on the religion than the religion has on the culture.
That is certainly not true in recent examples where British born muslims, educated in the uk, fond of cricket, football and fish and chips have been inspired by their religious beliefs to commit acts of terrorism, rather than use the democratic and political processes which are available to them. Please illustrate your statement above with an example to support your contention.
With pleasure.
It is patently absurd to suggest that the London bombers were Islamic adepts. Look to the profiles of the individuals responsible for the London bombings. They are all the products of relatively well off, educated, middle class families. They are, indeed, disaffected youth and just the sort one might expect from the social ranks not consumed with ekking out a living. In former years they would have been Marxists or Anarchists, but they would have remained terrorists.
An exception to this is Confucianism which is, arguably, not a religion at all.
In which case why mention it?
Because I knew that there were those who so misunderstood religion (the sort who might blame Islams for recent terrosim) that they might attempt to convert Confucianism to their wrongheaded theories.
As a response to another post in this thread -- There is not a mandatory over or under lay of Taosim with Confucianism. To suggest that the two belief systems are either synonomous or attached at the hip is simply wrong.
I've only just properly picked up on this post, silly of me still having problems with big words like cogent.
Finn wrote
I see it requires more than a single cogent sentence to convey what one is "going on about" to you Steve.
That presumes I'm presented with one.
No, it presumes that you can recognize one.
Now worries though, if the following commentary doesn't break through for you, I'm sure nimh will be willing to add his illumination.
Ignoring the typo, (which, of course, you did not) I think commentary is rather a grand word to describe the following four sentences:
(to which my responses are in blue)
You make the common mistake of the anti-religion set, you confuse the practices with the teachings, and you blame the religion for the sins of those who claim to follow it.
Not true. I believe some ideas are wrong and damaging in and of themselves. You seem to labour under the naive belief that all religions are somehow perfect, and its just imperfection in the human condition that results in wrong doing. This is just not true. All sorts of truly terrible things are done because people act with a clear conscience, knowing that they are doing Gods will. Its not just the individual or the individual act which is to blame but that set of religious ideas which motivates and justifies such behaviour, be it teaching creationism as a fact, mutilating the genitalia of children, or detonating a bomb on a bus.
Not true. You continue to confuse the practices with the teachings, and likely because you feel compelled to connect religion with the misdeeds of man. I don't think I could have been clearer in stating that religion is in no way perfect---for no other reason than it is the product of imperfect man.
Since you have made the argument that there are sets of religious ideals which motivate and justifies immoral behavior, perhaps you can provide us with specifics.
Evolution is a canard, but not an unexpected one, but please provide us with evidence that there are any (major) religious ideals which countenance, let alone encourage, the mutilation of children or the murder of innocents.
Current Arab culture is far more influenced by antecedent machismo and humiliating defeats in modern war than what is written in the Koran.
Well it might be, but I wasnt talking about "current Arab culture" I was talking about the harm that bad ideas can do, in particular the idea a disaffected young man from Leeds has in his head that martyrdom will result in a plentiful supply of virgins.
And you are making a, frankly, ignorant argument that Islam encourages young men to kill innocents for the promise of deflowering virgins in paradise. Clearly you do not believe you are talking about current Arab culture, but you are, because you are, just as clearly, not talking about the integral teachings of Islam.
What has informed the culture, has far more influence on the religion than the religion has on the culture.
That is certainly not true in recent examples where British born muslims, educated in the uk, fond of cricket, football and fish and chips have been inspired by their religious beliefs to commit acts of terrorism, rather than use the democratic and political processes which are available to them. Please illustrate your statement above with an example to support your contention.
With pleasure.
It is patently absurd to suggest that the London bombers were Islamic adepts. Look to the profiles of the individuals responsible for the London bombings. They are all the products of relatively well off, educated, middle class families. They are, indeed, disaffected youth and just the sort one might expect from the social ranks not consumed with ekking out a living. In former years they would have been Marxists or Anarchists, but they would have remained terrorists.
An exception to this is Confucianism which is, arguably, not a religion at all.
In which case why mention it?
Senior Tory says that suicide attacks are 'totally explicable'
By Nigel Morris and Colin Brown
Published: 03 August 2005
A senior Tory has broken ranks with his party by saying that the London suicide attacks were "totally explicable" because of the deep anger felt by many British Muslims over Iraq.
The Tory leadership distanced itself from Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, after he said the link between the Iraq war and the terror campaign could not be ignored.
The Government found itself under pressure over the connection yesterday as Muslim leaders told Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, of the anger felt in their community about British foreign policy. They also said that disproportionate targeting of Asians by police under stop-and-search powers threatened to stoke up resentment among Muslims. Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Grieve said: "I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.
"And I don't know quite how we are going to tackle that. I don't actually think that simply by going round and visiting community leaders we're going to get to some of these underlying issues." He said many Muslims he met felt angry because of the "tension between their world view and the world they live in".
Mr Grieve added: "I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim."
A Tory spokesman said Mr Grieve was expressing a "personal view", adding: "It's not necessarily shared by other members of the Shadow Cabinet."
Asked if she agreed with Mr Grieve, Ms Blears said: "No, I don't. I think people can fundamentally disagree with policy issues, with foreign policy ... but I don't see any justification for people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other people."
Ms Blears met Muslims from Oldham and Rochdale yesterday in the first of a series of meetings around the country to examine ways of improving community relations and tackling extremism. She acknowledged that the impact of the Iraq war on British Muslim opinion was repeatedly stressed, but she argued that anger over the invasion had to be channelled through the democratic process. Ms Blears also sought to assuage anger over comments by Ian Johnston, chief constable of British Transport police, that Asian men would be singled out for stop-and-searches and that police will not "waste time searching old, white ladies".
Three days ago Ms Blears backed the chief constable, but appeared yesterday to change her position. She said: "I don't think we should be ruling out anybody in terms of how you exercise stop-and-search powers. You could equally have white people who could be the subject of intelligence you get. Just picking up people on the basis that they are Muslims is never going to get the results you want."
Riaz Ahmed, a councillor who was Mayor of Oldham during the 2001 race riots, said that it had been a "very positive meeting".
But Zahid Maqbool, editor of The Revival, a magazine for Asian youths published in Oldham, said: "The concerns we have with regards to such policies as stop-and-search, the non-acknowledgment of international foreign policy and the new labelling of Muslims as extreme, she didn't really answer those questions in what I consider to be an appropriate fashion. She skipped over things at best."
He complained that Ms Blears did not explain what she meant by her insistence that stop-and-searches should be "intelligence-led". He added: "It was almost as though she was pushed for time, she was then on to the next group - it was like finish with one, on to the next."
But Ms Blears rejected the criticism: "We did have quite a good discussion, certainly around stop-and-search and making sure powers are used properly, that they are intelligence led, that they are not targeted at any particular part of the community."
Meanwhile, Tony Blair was reported to have telephoned the President of Brazil last night to express his regret for the killingof a Brazilian man mistaken for a terrorist. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's office said Mr Blair had given an assurance that there would be an investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July. And yesterday, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged that the presence of British troops in Iraq was helping to fuel the insurgency in the country. He disclosed that the Government was seeking to cut British troop numbers in Iraq "because - unlike in Afghanistan - although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem".
His remarks reflect a shift in the Government's approach since the London bombings to recognise that some extremists are using the Iraq war as an excuse for terrorism.
Interviewed in the Financial Times, Mr Straw said that the Government believed the Iraqis would meet the deadline next month for a new constitution, leading to elections in December.
A senior Tory has broken ranks with his party by saying that the London suicide attacks were "totally explicable" because of the deep anger felt by many British Muslims over Iraq.
The Tory leadership distanced itself from Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, after he said the link between the Iraq war and the terror campaign could not be ignored.
The Government found itself under pressure over the connection yesterday as Muslim leaders told Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, of the anger felt in their community about British foreign policy. They also said that disproportionate targeting of Asians by police under stop-and-search powers threatened to stoke up resentment among Muslims. Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Grieve said: "I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.
"And I don't know quite how we are going to tackle that. I don't actually think that simply by going round and visiting community leaders we're going to get to some of these underlying issues." He said many Muslims he met felt angry because of the "tension between their world view and the world they live in".
Mr Grieve added: "I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim."
A Tory spokesman said Mr Grieve was expressing a "personal view", adding: "It's not necessarily shared by other members of the Shadow Cabinet."
Asked if she agreed with Mr Grieve, Ms Blears said: "No, I don't. I think people can fundamentally disagree with policy issues, with foreign policy ... but I don't see any justification for people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other people."
Ms Blears met Muslims from Oldham and Rochdale yesterday in the first of a series of meetings around the country to examine ways of improving community relations and tackling extremism. She acknowledged that the impact of the Iraq war on British Muslim opinion was repeatedly stressed, but she argued that anger over the invasion had to be channelled through the democratic process. Ms Blears also sought to assuage anger over comments by Ian Johnston, chief constable of British Transport police, that Asian men would be singled out for stop-and-searches and that police will not "waste time searching old, white ladies".
Three days ago Ms Blears backed the chief constable, but appeared yesterday to change her position. She said: "I don't think we should be ruling out anybody in terms of how you exercise stop-and-search powers. You could equally have white people who could be the subject of intelligence you get. Just picking up people on the basis that they are Muslims is never going to get the results you want."
Riaz Ahmed, a councillor who was Mayor of Oldham during the 2001 race riots, said that it had been a "very positive meeting".
But Zahid Maqbool, editor of The Revival, a magazine for Asian youths published in Oldham, said: "The concerns we have with regards to such policies as stop-and-search, the non-acknowledgment of international foreign policy and the new labelling of Muslims as extreme, she didn't really answer those questions in what I consider to be an appropriate fashion. She skipped over things at best."
He complained that Ms Blears did not explain what she meant by her insistence that stop-and-searches should be "intelligence-led". He added: "It was almost as though she was pushed for time, she was then on to the next group - it was like finish with one, on to the next."
But Ms Blears rejected the criticism: "We did have quite a good discussion, certainly around stop-and-search and making sure powers are used properly, that they are intelligence led, that they are not targeted at any particular part of the community."
Meanwhile, Tony Blair was reported to have telephoned the President of Brazil last night to express his regret for the killingof a Brazilian man mistaken for a terrorist. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's office said Mr Blair had given an assurance that there would be an investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July. And yesterday, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged that the presence of British troops in Iraq was helping to fuel the insurgency in the country. He disclosed that the Government was seeking to cut British troop numbers in Iraq "because - unlike in Afghanistan - although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem".
His remarks reflect a shift in the Government's approach since the London bombings to recognise that some extremists are using the Iraq war as an excuse for terrorism.
Interviewed in the Financial Times, Mr Straw said that the Government believed the Iraqis would meet the deadline next month for a new constitution, leading to elections in December.
