Congrats, you have managed to find a valid argument against literalism and fundamentalism without even trying to address moderate religious people. Not impressed.
Do you agree that ones perception of reality comes from what we believe, and that what we (society) believe generally comes from the religion in the culture?
So even though politics is the main issue with the Middle East, the reason for these differences is our outlook of the world, which again is derived from our beliefs.
Take Israel and Palestine. The centre of this issue is that the Jews literally believe that God gave the land of Israel to them, which is of course religious. And one can easily argue that the United States support of Israel derives from the same beliefs, both of which derive from a book. It could also argued that Biblical prophecy require the Jews to control all the land they previously did, and the Jewish temple, whose site is currently occupied by Islam’s 3rd holiest building, to be standing.
To overemphasize the role that religious beliefs have played in all aspects of Middle Eastern society and culture is impossible. Three of the world's major religions, as well as smaller sects that continue to exist today, arose from these lands. Up to modern times in the Near East, religion and politics were inseparable, and to some extent this is still true today. For the majority of these peoples, their primary identity has been religious. People thought of themselves first as Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians, and second as a member of some ethnicity or as an inhabitant of a specific locality. This primary identification with religion had the deepest of roots, extending back to the most ancient Mesopotamian states. During the Sasanian dynasty of Persia (A.D. 224- 636), the system of separate religious communities, governed by their own religious leaders under the authority of the king of kings, was crystallized. This religious and political identification was paralleled at roughly the same time in the Greek orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire. In the seventh century A.D., when the Sasanian Empire fell to the Arabs, the empire's administrative structure lived on in the Islamic concept of Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). Ahl al-Kitab embraced those religions based on earlier revelation, particularly Christianity and Judaism. Its system and structures were adopted by succeeding Muslim rulers and have continued until this century.
From: http://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/guide/nes-religion.html
Religion is in the very being of the people in the Middle East, including the political leaders. It is virtually impossible for decisions and actions to be made that are not derived or significantly influenced by the religion of the individual and/or country/culture.
If true, it may prove to be the downfall of Islam. If the moderate majority cannot denounce the fanatical actions of a minority, then the non-Islamic world's perception will be that of a violent and fanatical religion. And will seek to condemn and destroy it.
I sincerely that either you are wrong, or that the moderate minority can overcome that injuction to save the religion.
true but its a translation is a good start.
I was recommended this one http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/
the copy I have also has extensive commenteries to the text, which is really very usefull.[/QUOTE]
Nice. At least you sorta brought a source. However:
1. You failed to address any of the pertinant issues of my post. Including the fact that I did acknowledge reglion as an issue -- but then brought hard research to demonstrate why it's not the only issue.
2. Then you brought proof in the mode of Sam Harris. Which is cool. At least you're bringing a sorta thinker into this. Here's the issue... scholars (atheists, mind you) have stated that Harris gets it wrong for the exact same reasons you get it wrong. Check out:
Blind Fain: Sam Harris attacks islam
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/blind-faith-sam-harris-_b_8686.html
"Sam, you’re oversimplifying.
You’re attributing this behavior to religion alone, when logic and facts tell us it’s driven more by culture and politics than it is by theology. There are more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide, yet the vast majority of suicide bombers come from one language group (Arabic) comprising no more than 20% of all Muslims.
...
In the nexus of history, culture – and yes, religion - that is the Middle East today, many factors are at play. Overlooking all but one of them plays into your personal agenda, Sam, but does violence to the truth. How is it that millions of Muslims lived peaceful lives over the last 1300 years, and virtually all of them continue to do so today, if suicide bombing reflects something inherent in the religion?"
Then there's this one from Atheist Scholar Meera Nanda --
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/Volume121issue3_more.php?id=2030_0_42_0_C
"The End of Faith is a rationalist jihad on jihadi theology. Disturbed by the rise of religious violence around the world, especially the 9/11 attacks on America, Harris has taken on the traditional theological beliefs about God and afterlife that motivate some to kill innocents. Brushing aside political and historical factors that have contributed to religious extremism, Harris singles out theological beliefs as the primary and pretty much the sole cause of religious violence.
...
The Jains of India may not be committing acts of suicide bombings, as Harris reminds us repeatedly, but can one honestly say that Jains and pious Hindus have shown any ‘one-ness’ with the Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities in India? Has their Hinduism prevented Tamil Tigers from conducting suicide bombings against the equally ‘spiritual’ Buddhists of Sri Lanka or the Buddhists from discriminating against the Tamils? Didn’t Zen Buddhists actively and enthusiastically support Japan’s ultra-nationalism in the brutal imperialist wars against China and Korea? There is a complex history of nationalism, spiritualism and violence behind each one of these historical episodes.
Harris appears oblivious to the authoritarian implications of the one-ness he worships. Shedding one’s ‘I-ness’ is a recipe for group-think and authoritarianism."
And Tekken, do you want to account for how, while Harris calls into questions all reglions, as Nanda notes, he also is pushing for his own brand of spiritualism to replace it. How does that factor into a religion free world. He's militantly telling everyone to replace one belief set with another.
Futher, even as an atheist he fails the rubric layed out by the great atheist Bertrand Russell, who said "I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine."
As I suggested in my previous e-mail, all you've succeeded in doing is trading one militant dogma for another. So no, as far as I'm concerned, while citing Harris is at least bringing something to the table, it ain't much. And you're still not addressing any of the issues I raised.
So sorry kid -- no cigar. Keep trying to buy an arguement son.
I can agree with your thoughts on the interpretation of Islam. I've always personally felt that Islam failed to progress after decree's by imam's that there would be no further interpretation of the words of Mohammed/Alah.
If I remember correctly this actually decree was during the 1600's(?) At any rate I'll find the actual date and names and post it. It's fundamental for understanding the emergence of radical or militant Islam to some extent.
Additionally there have been denouncements from moderate muslims - but they simply don't garner the sort of press that sensational reporting about anything radical in regards to Islam. In short... no one is interested in moderate Islam. It doesn't jive with most people preconceived notions of Islam. Again - if you go back over much of the work in Orientalism by Said he covers the factors that contribute to just this situation.
Here are moderate muslims condemning the 9/11 attacks:
The bold was added by me to underscore their statements. This is only some. There are others... but again it's not the kind of stuff that makes the front page. That is not down to the moderate Muslims of the world but rather to the news editors of primarily American media. Moderate Muslims condemning terrorist attacks doesn't sell newspapers or bring in reams of viewers.
My fault for not fully explaining 'new wars' (I didn't want to go too far off topic, but perhaps I should have explained the concept properly if I was going to use it in making my point). 'New wars' are not really that 'new', it's more of a term of convenience. I suppose the only aspect of 'new wars' that makes them unique to the last few decades is that they tend to take place in the context of states disintegrating under the pressures of globalisation. Here is an extract from a presentation that I conveniently delivered just today on old and new wars:
Grossly simplified, but there it is.
I also like this word, I will endeavour to use it more often in conversation...Don't be snarky mother!!!
No, I believe everything is about politics. Politics is simply interaction between human beings conducive to human relationships (both cohesive and conflictual). It is the foundation of all interest, of thought, of ourselves, of our worldviews and of our humanity. Even religion is a form of politics. I believe the root word of religion means 'to follow'; it is but one manifestation of basic political community.
Yes, my point was: There are secular people who are of the mental disposition required to be capable of going on random killing sprees, and there are secular people who are of the mental disposition required to randomly kill themselves, therefore it is perfectly plausible for secular people to carry out these actions simultaneously, as has already been established on this thread. Your argument was that only someone with religious beliefs could carry out a suicide attack, I believe this has been successfully refuted with factual evidence provided by several members on the thread, including yourself . Therefore, I think that point at least has been buried.
Than who admits to? Religion is playing a significant role in the fragmentation and factionalisation of Iraq, but it is a long way from the dominant role and not even on the same page as the causal role.
I think you have these factors mixed up: whilst there exists notable interplay between politics and religion, it is a conspicuously biased relationship. Religion itself is a product of political circumstance, and I believe this shapes religious belief and interpretation more than religious belief influences political worldview. You talk about religion as though it were absolute, inherent and homogenous, when in fact a person's worldview (including their religious perspective) is the sum of their political experience.
Yes, but our beliefs are a product of our experience. Our experience influences everything we do, and the outcome of every action is transcribed onto our beliefs, which in turn guide our actions in the future. So you could just as easily argue that every single thing we do influences our beliefs.
These political differences of which you speak have immensely deep and complex psycho-cultural histories. I can't stress enough how important it is that you should learn about the historical pretexts of current conflicts, half of the work has already been done for you as so much good reading material has already been recommended on this thread. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain from greater knowledge and understanding. Otherwise it is just an opportunity missed.
Slip> Some great stuff you posted from moderate Muslims. There is a truly massive amount of material detailing moderate Islamic retaliation to terrorist activities, but very little of it is to be found in the mainstream media. Who really wants to see 'the enemy' on T.V saying how much they don't hate you? Not very interesting at all really.
Sorry, Devoken, "new wars" aren't new. History always recycles.
Ok, what bothers me most about Sam Harris, well one of the things that bothers me greatly rather, is why is he being held up as some expert in historical trends and modern international politics. The man is a philosopher, which is all good and well. But philosophy isn't history or political science. Whenever I see someone from one field trying to make commentary on a field outside their perview, I tend to get leery on principal. There is an unfortunate truth that being an expert in one field makes you an idiot in many.
Good point. Philosophers are great at discussing philosophy with other philosophers, but as soon as they try to talk about real things with normal people, they just sound like numpties.
I'm not referring to anyone in particular, of course.
I wasn't aware of any rule that stipulates that I need to state my religion (if any) prior to posting historically accurate information germain to the original question.
I can't believe anyone (other than possibly dogmatics like Tekkengod) would hold Harris up as any sort of expert in history or politics. Like I said, his secular (fellow atheist) critics take him to task regularly on that. Plus, beyond the texts of the particular religious works, he never cites historical evidence or research.
It's also intersting to see how people out of the Rhandi movement and others tear him apart for essentially wanting to replace religion with eastern spirtuality.
Further, it's pretty sad that he goes on about the importance of Morals and Ethics and then supporting the use of torture *eh hem -- foreceful questioning* on Muslim combants -- "Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary." (Harris - 199)
In fact, how does Harris reconcile his comments on the violence of other religions with this comment from his own work "End of Faith": "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (Harris - 52-53)
You're right. The moderates have to find a person or persons in position of authority, more than the local Imam, to denounce the acts. And the press does bear responsibility. The other flaw in the moderate position is that all too often, at least those who do get quoted in the media, all too often do not condemn the act, just the fact that it was done in the name of Islam. So the public is left with 2 views. 1) Islam is a violent fundamentalist religion. or 2) Muslim faithfuls are a violent bunch of people even when not coofftopicnded by the religion.
no good reason to not disclose that info, unless its something you know will be ridiculed? and its very relevant as it speaks for your position and particular beliefs.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
dog·ma·tist (dôg'mə-tĭst, dŏg'-) pronunciation
n.
1. An arrogantly assertive person.
2. One who expresses or sets forth dogma.
If anything surpasses the overall ignorance of your religion posts, it's how arrogantly you assert that you are correct and state that anyone who disagrees is clearly blinded by dogma.
It's also interesting that you allow for a subjective reading of Harris's work (supressing the parts you don't agree with). That's something you don't do for any religions. In fact you argue a completely objective reading of those texts -- namely that because of the violence in the passages we need to throw it completely out. Put a different way, the "convert-by-the-sword" sections are what negates any value in the text.
*ring ring* it's hipocracy calling.
Beyond that I also think it's scary that your considering death for thoughts as opposed to action. Glad to see that... don't you see that pretty much eliminates any difference between you and those you hate?
Oh wait -- except that you think you're right and they're wrong. But isn't that what they think as well? Oh, but wait, your really really right because you've told youself that you are right. Remind me how you're neither dogmatic or a dogmatist.
Face it kid, you're logic is fundimentally flawed and you are two blinded by personal ideology to see it.
I'm still waiting for you to address any of my direct rebuttals to your responses to my posts.
And why are there even political differences in the first place? Is it not due to ones perception of the world…
Religious is at the very heart of most people and will always influence their every decision, including political ones.
That people in general admit to. Religion has a massive influencing factor - the people in Iraq are religious to their very being. No decisions can ever be made without being filtered though their religious beliefs of which derive how they view reality. Hence politics and religion are completely intertwined, but I hold that religion to be the bigger factor since such beliefs form who these people are, how they view the world, and what decisions and actions they make.
I hold this to be the complete opposite. People do not get their world view of the cosmos, reality, morality, what happens after death etc from politics… they get it from their religion. George Bush did not veto stem cell research because of politics; rather he did it because his religion tells him that the ‘soul’ enters the ‘being’ at the moment of conception. Likewise the Israel/Palestine conflict is derived entirely from Biblical beliefs.
Politics can and do change, but religion pretty much never does.
People in Iraq still hold the same exact beliefs despite the radical shift in politics. According to your argument this change in political circumstances would also change the religious beliefs, but it doesn’t. Also look at the big variation of Christian beliefs, moderate to extremist, in the United States. The currently politics is shaped a group of peoples notion of Christianity. If someone who had an even further literal interpretation of Christianity became president then the politics would change accommodate that interpretation, such making homosexuality illegal?
For the most part yes, but not with religious beliefs. You cannot ‘experience’ such beliefs. Such beliefs come from what you are told to believe (often as children)… what you are told you must accept - have faith - as true. They derive from a book, not experience.
Of course. But religion dominate the outlook of most people and therefore can never be influenced, but only influence.