Yeah, Iām not following you on this one. Are you asserting that there are more beheadings than bombings and shootings and kidnappings? Or that there is some specific āIslamicā āmethodā being used? Because I would be surprised. But at any rate, whatever is being used - guns, bombs, acid, knives, bludgeons, cat-o-nine tails - they are north being used by state actors, they are being used as tools to promote terror, which is not an iron age tradition, but belongs to the twentieth century.
I donāt see the difference in methods between Islamic terrorists, Zionist terrorists, the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Front, Eric Rudolph, or the kidnappers of J P Getty III.
āRespect for religionā has become a code phrase meaning āfear of religionā. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect. -Salman Rushdie, writer (b. 1947)
Thatās from Iād say the best email I get every day, the Word of the Day by Anu Garg. Weird name, great information bite.
First of all, the violent do have veto power over liberal civilization. We are violent.
Anyone who needs to offend in order to show they arenāt afraid to is welcome to it, but I can understand that about myself without such nonsense. Iām nothing special so my expectation is that most people can as well.
whether Iām being told not to say or do something by an extremist, or Iām being told I must because not doing so gives aid to the enemy, itās just some asshole wrapped in one flag or another feeding me bullshit.
Maybe, maybe not. Iām getting a āislam is a unique evilā vibe off your comments. I donāt think Iām the only one, either.
Iām not so sure thatās correct - a friend of mine is working on the topic of Franco-phone Africa, and she has spent a fair amount of time reading french anti-racist media from the 50s and 60s, especially during the Algerian war. Iām fairly certain that many of the papers took a pretty strong stand well before this magazine existed.
What part of what heās saying is āgratuitousā exactly?
I think that being critical of the magazine doesnāt equal āwe agree with the terroristāā¦
If you donāt see any differences in their methods then you obviously know very little about them, none of your counter examples have used suicide bombings, beheadings or crucifixions.
The standard modus operandi of terrorists are bombings and shootings, with suicide bombings being only common amongst the Tamil Tigers (who primarily targetted the military) and Islamic terror groups (who target the public at least as much as they target the police and military). Other instances of suicide bombings throughout history have either been isolated instances in non-conflict situations, or used as a military tactic against non-civilian targets (mostly by the Chinese and Japanese), i.e. not terrorism. The most brutal massacres recently, which have seen indiscriminate beheadings and crucifixions, have been solely the domain of Islamic groups - this is what I was specifically referring to with my āIron ageā comment. Of course all humans, regardless of religion or lack thereof, sadly have the capability to commit massacres and genocides. But as disgustingly barbaric as the likes of the Rwandan Genocide and Srebrenica were, this current shower of assholes seem capable of upping the depravity to yet another level.
Are their actions at least in part caused by their religious beliefs? Yes, they most certainly are. Does this mean all Muslims are to be tarred with the same brush? Of course not, the great majority of Muslims view such actions as abhorrent, and incompatible with their religion. But that doesnāt change the fact that genuine religious belief is informing their actions, and uniquely so in the modern era. Because of that, criticism of these specific beliefs is vital.
I think that there are many other forms of insular group think that can lead to thoughtless violence: other religions (including Christianity), fearful nationalism (including the US), racism, etc. Islam is not unique in that sense.
However, Islam, with its insistence that state and religion must be one, is especially prone to reform resistant despotism. By creating a state that has both religion and the government it means that criticizing the government is criticizing the religion. And criticizing the religion can be punishable by death.
The tenets of Islam speficically include that the Quran must be taken literally. That makes liberalizing Islam difficult if not impossible. And even moderate Islamic scholars do not deny that the punishment for apostasy is death. There are similar exhortations in the Bible to kill for ācrimesā against god. But fortunately for the rest of us, most Christians belief in the Old Testament is not so literal, and most if not all Christians cherry pick the from the OT.
So, yes, I think Islam is more potentially prone to dangerous groupthink and scriptural literalism than many, and probably most, other religions as they are currently practiced. In that sense it is somewhat unique. But is not the only source of violence and human rights abuses in the world. Be that as it may, donāt pretend that Islam doesnāt play a large and often decisive role in the violence that is perpetrated by Muslim extremists, nor reflexively cry āIslamophobia!ā when someone points out the obvious.
Imma just leave this here.
Worst bit at 4:40, but the whole thing is worth listening to.
I think there are some interesting issues on both sides here. On the one hand, I can understand how different perspectives would lead to very different conclusions about issues such as conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, a lot of arguments I hear on these kinds of interviews are similar to the ānot all menā argument. If the statistic about support for ISIS is accurate, it should be taken very seriously. Apparently 1-2000 French Muslims have gone to fight for these groups, and up to 27% of 18-24 year olds have sympathies for them. This is not a tiny minority, and I donāt really think thereās much nuance to be seen when it is well known what ISIS do. I agree with Arsalan Iftikhar that there are great things about Islamic history and culture, that mainstream teaching does not support this and that other groups have also been violent. Still, he doesnāt properly answer the question - he dismisses it with an appeal to the majority of peaceful Muslims, while dismissing right wing groups as racist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim etc. Maybe they just support the ideology without being extremists or advocating violence? Or maybe we should recognise and address the dangerous elements in extremist ideologies without using moderates as a shield?
Apparently you are not familiar with Charlie Hebdo, as they have published cartoons about the Church that have also been considered offensive. The German satirical magazine TITANIC also was not afraid to be offensive about the Vatican leaks: http://www.pi-news.net/2012/07/feige-titanic-dreckspatzen-und-papst-cover/ (Link is to a German article about how the cover of that issue was pulled for libel).
Europeans are less squeamish about being dicks in their satire, it seems. Both TITANIC and Charlie Hebdo are not afraid to do stuff that in the USA only Larry Flynt would touch.
Towards a context:
http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/107589955860/dear-us-followers
Basically this. Iāve always felt that that, for all the high-minded idealism concerning freedom of expression, American satire is very muted. Itās weird if one considers all of the horrible shit the US government and US corporations have done all over the world. Youād think thereād be a wealth of material.
Unlike you, I think that rigidly disinterested skepticism and being too cool for school is actually a cover for having nothing interesting to say. Or nothing interesting to draw.
Youāre glossing over tons of history and nuance within the religion. Some branches of Christanity also demand that the religion runs the state (Dominionists for one).
Yet, tons of liberal Muslims existā¦
I just think youāre wrong about that. Sorry.
I just calls them as I see themā¦
Look, since the Islamic world was one of my subfields (meaning Iāve read at least a book or two about the subject), Iām going to tell you that you re just glossing over the complexity of the religion. Much like christanity and buddhism, there are a multiplicity of interpretations of the Qāuran, and there is nothing that says the faith canāt fit into the modern liberal system of statehood. Youāre talking about a religion that encompasses a billion people, which has no real top down structure in place.
Iām gonna suggest here that you go read a book or two to possible get some perspective on this topic. There is a big difference between how some hardline salafist interpret the Qāuran (and the Hadiths) vs. how most Muslims actually practice their faith - which has an incredibly strong emphasis on reading and understanding the text (the text themselves are central to practice). I can even recommend some, if youād like. Talal Asad is always great, Samira Hajās book discusses specifically the question of Islam and Modernity (Reconfiguring Islamic Tradition), anything by Ussam Makdisi, John Chalcraftās The Invisible Cage, Lara Deebās An Enchanted Modern, Joseph Massad Colonial Effects and Desiring Arabs, Isa Blumi, Oh, of course, Edward Said is a must - itās hard to understand the history that underlays the current conflicts without a strong grasp of the Orientalist construct.
You can think that but there the examples of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. to deal with. However I agree that Christianity can also be dangerous. It certainly has been as dangerous as Islam in the past however reform has made it less dangerous. But I agree the Dominionists, people who turn back the clock on Christianity, are also dangerous. its not a zero-sum game. They can both be dangerous.
Your reflexive defensive of Islm ignores the facts. even as you point out how many books youāve read. Maybe youāre reading the wrong ones. Or maybe remembering them selectively. Sometimes being knowledgeable about a fabric actually just makes people able to rationalize about it more if they have an existing bias, as you seem to. My post was pretty mild and yet you still canāt accept it. I think thereās a problem on your end.
Unlike you, Iām not a mind reader that gets things wrong, in fact Iām not a mind reader at all.
You should try using your powers for good, or at least accuracy.
Suicide bombings became common during the Vietnam war, if not earlier. Speaking of previous wars, have you heard of a ākamikazeā?
Yes, we absolutely must not get the false impression that all terrorism is Muslim. Nor should we pretend the opposite, and pretend that Islam isnāt a driving factor in terrorism my Muslim extremists.
