Religion
Related: About this forumDo 9/11, San Bernardino and Nice illustrate a problem with Islamic theology?
Hundreds of passages of the Quran advocate violent Islamic supremacism over non-believers.
Time to ask if GW was not an imbecile -again- when he claimed "Islam is a religion of peace"?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Or so we're told around here quite frequently.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)
Cayenne
(480 posts)
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Clearly there is a problem with both, but the problem with Islam is rearing its head now.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)In the Middle Ages, Christianity was much more fiercely evangelical than it is now. If you practiced a different religion and you wouldn't convert, you got burned. If you practiced a type of Christianity that didn't agree with the Roman Catholic church's doctrine, you got burned. Thankfully, the Protestant Reformation happened and put a stop to a lot of that shit.
Christianity was in it's adolescence then, and I think Islam is going through a lot of the same things, although there are some important differences. Sooner or later, the different branches of Islam are going to have to come together and repudiate this madness that has gripped certain radical sects of Islam and work with us to end it.
One thing must be acknowledged, though, and that is Saudi Arabia's role in all of this. We need to go in there and cut the funding of these radical groups off at its source. If that means overthrowing the Saud family, so be it.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Not being a Christian, I strictly do not care. Besides, the Crusades were A/ a counter attack to Muslim invasions, and B/ happened about one millenium ago.
Anyway, what has Christianity to do with a question about the fact Islam today appears to motivate a large minority to support forcible expansion of their ideology?
rug
(82,333 posts)You're peddling a hoary argument.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The XIXth century opened in the Mediterranean with the Barbary Wars.
The origin of the Barbary wars was official Muslim supremacism:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
It continued during the full length of both centuries in Saudi Arabia, parts of which have continuously been forbidden land to 'impure' non-Muslims (Queen Elizabeth II had to be made an 'honorary male' by religious decree to be able to visit parts of the SA kingdom)
And anyone who did not notice a rise of Muslim Supremacism in the late XXth century needs to go and consult an optician: Iranian theocracy, oil monarchies pumping billions to export wahhabi/salafi Islam, Taliban regime, gradual radicalization of Pakistan, etc
rug
(82,333 posts)Saudi Arabia as a state is scarcely a century old.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703523
Your understanding of history is as odd as your understanding of theology.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)While greed was certainly another motivation, the Quran was the sacred justification used by Barbary Coast officials. To repeat:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
As for historical correction, it would carry more weight if it was not just word nitpicking:
rug
(82,333 posts)Jack Sparrow is a closer answer.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)That's a nice, sweepingly unsubstantiated statement
I suppose if I came with any quote proving the contrary, you would call the author an unknowledgeable person, or discredit them for any other reason.
Since people like Edward Said are unlikely to have said the Barbary Wars were about Islamic supremacism, you should be pretty safe with your sweeping statement.
rug
(82,333 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Whoever wrote that bit at the State Department would have been extra careful to tread lightly for fear of being called **drum sound** an islamophobe.
That fake word which has enjoyed far too much success for far too long to silence criticism of the significant minority which believes in a supremacist Islam.
rug
(82,333 posts)It must be wearying checking the shadows.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)OK: let me try this: a State Department historian writing on an official website:
"there are no historical facts known about Jesus (or Moses, or Muhammad)"
We have zero historical proof of any of these three figures (the only 'facts' about Jesus and Muhammad we have were transmitted by members of their respective sects = untrustworthy)
That is a fact. But I can garantee you the State Department historian who would write that on the official website would be looking for a new job the next day.
And yet, in your own -probably slightly insincere- words, "events 200 years ago? D'uh, yes".
rug
(82,333 posts)From the Barbary Wars (on which you are demonstrably wrong) you go to Jesus, Moses and Mohammad and regurgitate trite internet thoughts on their historicity.
I was more entertained when you were suggesting sinister motives for the State Department to rewrite 200 year old history.
Oh, I'll remember to petition John Kerry to move to amend the Democratic Party Platform to declare that Jesus, Moses and Mohammad never existed.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Ottoman-Wahhabi War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Wahhabi_War
rug
(82,333 posts)Which one was fighting for Islam as dictated by the Quran?
Couldn't be 19th century nationalism rearing its head, could it?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)If you want to ascribe all motives other than Islam to Islamic wars, suit yourself.
If you want to claim ISIS is not an Islamic State, again, it's your prerogative.
But the fact you reassemble facts to fit in your preconceived conclusions shows. A bit.
rug
(82,333 posts)I bet you think the Revolutionary War was about religion too.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I'll even highlight for you the explanation of the Ottoman-WAHHABI War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Wahhabi_War
I see you're busy finding all reasons that would NOT be religious.
The name of the war makes it harder, but I wish you luck.
rug
(82,333 posts)Wheee!
It's no substitute for critical thinking though.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)You now have learnt what anyone knowing the KSA knows: that it is the product of a power deal made between al Saud an al Wahhab: al Saud got the state power (even though his family did not descend from the self-proclaimed prophet Muhammad) and al Wahhab got the religious power, the Islam practiced in the region becoming that of his sect.
So you can now see why as an answer to your original question about proof of the Islamic supremacism in the XIXth and XXth centuries, I mentioned the Barbary Wars and the Saudi State (First, Second, then KSA) before the end XXth century Islamic bulge.
rug
(82,333 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Or are you claiming Islamic supremacism dos not exist?
Hint: Islamic supremacism is promulgated in at least three ayahs of the Quran.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll repeat it for you:
1) The Barbary Wars were about piracy.
2) The consolidation of Saudi Arabia, decades later and a thousand miles away, was a nationalist movement following, and organized under, a much different ideology from the Empire it was breaking free of.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)1- Barbary Wars: I gave you reports of Barbary diplomats contradicting your preconceptions
2- Ottoman-Wahhabi War: you still refuse to read the very name of the war
There is not much hope of discussing historical events when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
rug
(82,333 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)That which disproves your preconceptions belongs to the bathroom.
Eloquent, witty and conclusive, I dare say.
rug
(82,333 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)OK then
rug
(82,333 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I just note you had zero substantive answer to the Jefferson diplomatic dispatch on the Barbary War or the mere name of the Ottoman-Wahhabi War.
May I suggest you do not dig your hole further by your objectionable recourse to uncivil -and empty- grandstanding?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now, if you're going to go on about digging a hole, I suggest you use a megaphone because it's getting difficult to hear you down there.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Yeah, right. Sure. As long as they pay the Jizzya, submit to discriminatory clothing, can't bear arms while Muslims can, etc, etc,..
I have seen toilet door messages more honest than this bag of disinformation lies.
Cayenne
(480 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)And the partition referred to is the division of the subcontinent by the British a quaret century earlier?
Cayenne
(480 posts)There is just something different about Islam from all other religions. Free people should be allowed to have their own opinion. "Islam is a peaceful religion" and "Christians are just as bad or worse" just chafes more and more.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)and conquest.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)The British did just about everything they could to prevent Jewish immigration and land purchases.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Maybe Irgun was formed over a dispute about Deuteronomy.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Culture, religion and ethnicity are the prime movers in these conflicts. Colonialism not so much. Britain is the cause of a lot of screwed up regions of this world but blaming them for this is just ridiculous.
rug
(82,333 posts)When empires impose artificial boundaries, this happens.
There's not a thing ridiculous about it.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)... Still often appealed at times to old religious sentiments.
The very term Zion of course, was just such an appeal.
Much American support for Israel sustains it... from residual religious sentiment.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The wars I had in mind were of course the 1967 and 1973. The war against Brits was minor and given up after WWII.
Arguably your comment on Deut. is essentially correct though.
Response to rug (Reply #9)
Brettongarcia This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)So what exactly are you saying here? That 2016 Muslims are no more advanced/educated than Christians a thousand years ago?
What an incredibly bigoted statement.
Thought I'd be the first to blame Crusades and Inquisition and get that out of the way.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)I think these radical muslims are following the example set by Muhammad.
Im by no means an expert though.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Like, how does Mobammed Atta - a coke snortin, alcohol drinking, stripper loving dude become the face of Islamic terror? Because we avoided a real investigation of 9/11 then destroyed the only secular/progressive society in the mid-East, we are reaping what we sow. But ask W, he was having a great ol time hamming itup in Dallas yesterday...
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Have you been a coke snortin, alcohol drinking, stripper loving dude?
Become a saint by becoming a martyr. Religion washes whiter.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're not even correctly stating Islamic theology.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony
I'll simply give you a starting point on Islamic theology.
http://www.religionfacts.com/salvation/islam
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I would suggest that you do not try to teach me Islamic theology. It's weird.
Yes, sinners might not access paradise (note the delicacy with which all non Muslims go to Hell, regardless of their merits, but never mind this weird dictate of Allah)
BUT waging jihad is the most efficacious ticket to heaven. It's highway to heaven VIP.
So the 9/11, San Bernardino or Nice terrorists are in heaven. Unless they come back.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52 : 72
rug
(82,333 posts)Now do you even know what a jihad is, outside whatever internet backwaters you get this stuff from?
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
I suggest you use better sources than The Cult of Dusty.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Do a word count of the word 'jihad' in the Quran and hadiths.
Do it all by yourself, not relying on websites.
Now, separate the uses of the word jihad
- as an internal, spiritual effort on self on one hand, and
- as a holy war to be waged on the infidels on the other
Do not hesitate to come back to me if you ever manage to find the first use as even approaching the vastly predominant second understanding of the word.
rug
(82,333 posts)Try it:
Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I offered you a very simple, objective test: doing by yourself a semiological work on the Quran and hadiths, the foundational texts of a violent ideology. Just count the uses of the word hadiths in both texts, all by yourself, and see for yourself if it's peaceful or violent.
You counter with a piece written by proponents of said ideology, piece which is just propaganda not relying on an impartial analysis as the one I proposed.
I suppose any impartial observer could conclude I am offering an objective way to weigh our different conclusions while you only offer a partisan view.
PS: do you support the right for the State of Israel to exist?
rug
(82,333 posts)To answer your question, at the moment I am debating your right to exist.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)You appear to be talking about Iraq, but no one can call Saddam's Iraq 'progressive'. And as for 'secular': Saddam added "Allahu akbar" to the flag in 1991 - he wasn't above using religion to make himself look better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq#1991.E2.80.932004 , and he treated Shia Muslims pretty badly.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Factor in women's right,medical opportunity for women' general human rights. Not saying Saddam was a benevolent dictator, because we know he made sure there was no political opition, particular Sunni or Shi'ite. So he had the most secular society in the ME. We destroyed Iraq and the Iraqi military.....no frriggen wonder the radical religious marginalized the key state in the ME.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Being a murderous dictator is profoundly unprogressive.
Yeah, you're wrong.
Eko
(7,281 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I would grant you the Quran is as violent and weird as the Old Testament it copied/pasted.
The New Testament is weird too, but comparatively refreshingly far less violent.
Eko
(7,281 posts)but you seem to be singling out the qua ran when it is not alone in its violence.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I am sure you know it is quite easy for some clerics to inflame Muslim crowds by chanting 'jihad'. Large swathes of today's Muslim population ascribe to such religious violence.
Are you trying to tell me that there are not at least two million Christians here in the good ol USA that think killing abortion providers or gays or African Americans or even Muslims is alright because their bible tells them so?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Go to two rallies and shout:
- rally one: thousand of Muslims in Pakistan: shout Muhammad was gay scum
- rally two: thousands of American Christians: shout Jesus was a gay scumbag
Now, would you be willing to bet money on which rally you'll escape from alive?
Eko
(7,281 posts)but I noticed you never answered the question. Why not?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Let's take an example I never wrote about on DU: Jewish hassidic extremists are nuts. Their views can be downright dangerous. However, I do not worry too much about them because worldwide, they are far below one million fighting age adults.
For perspective, let's grant you your number of two million of fundamentalist Christians ready to kill for their faith (and I doubt one could find studies backing one tenth of that figure)
Nowhalf of Muslims worldwide say it's OK to kill adulterers and blasphemers (Pew Research). 1.6Bn believers, one quarter of fighting age minimum = 400M. Half OK = 200M.
So here you go: below one M Jews, your 2M Christians. 200M Muslims ready to kill.
Like I said, it's all a matter of risk weight.
Eko
(7,281 posts)If so you are more apt to be killed by a white christian guy than a muslum person. Thats some real risk weight.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)ALL countries see crime for countless reasons: theft, sex, jealousy, anger, whatever.
Living in ANY country will expose me to these murder motives.
From black/white/asian males/females/transgender. Whatever.
The religious crime motive is an extra, additional one.
Which, today, comes from mostly one religion: Islam.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I quantified for you how many millions might kill in the name of their religions.
You haven't provided an answer.
Eko
(7,281 posts)Is that because of religion or other societal reasons? A more apt comparison would be to walk into a church in the deep south and yell obscenities about Christ then walk into a Muslim church in America and yell obscenities, which one do you think would be more dangerous?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)there are 1.2 Billion self-identified Muslims in this world. Want to declare war on all of these people?
Reminds me of the 60/70's when all of the RWNJ's were convinced that the Commie's were going to do us in. Turns out that we could have saved 50,000 American lives by carpet bombing Vietnam with $10.00 bills. Oh well........
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Chinese Commies or Russian Commies disappeared.
Did the billion+ of Russians+ Chinese disappeared? No. Communism disappeared.
Nowadays, no sane country on earth wants to reinstate Communist regimes.
In the same way, the problem is not the 1.6Bn people who have the misfortune of living under Islamic totalitarianism. It's to debunk that oppressive ideology which calls for the stoning of gays, adulterers and blasphemers. That ideology is NOT progressive.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)All teach hatred and the abuse of women. All justify killing cause their God says it's cool. Religion is a curse not a blessing.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Somehow, violence committed by Christians a thousand years ago, an age when people were regularly burnt at the stake, 90% of the world was illiterate, and human beings were just generally inferior to what they are today....
...justifies constant brutal murders by Muslims in 2016.
This is either incredibly naieve, or incredibly bigoted, basically arguing that 2016 Muslims are somehow intellectually/culturally inferior to the rest of the world. But I don't think these DUers even realize that that is essentially what they're arguing.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)There are plenty of Christians who hate for God. He'll lone lone wolves are everywhere, haters using excuses like the fellow in NortH Carolina who killed in a church cause religion.
Haters hate and need little excuse and religion is the excuse
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And so does Christianity.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)This has provided a pretty good pretext to recruit these people. Blaming Islam for this
Is nothing but a distraction.
demosincebirth
(12,536 posts)years ago
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Good one. I needed a laugh.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)These incidents illustrate the key problem with religious thinking - most notably, the belief that divine orders can be found in old books, and that a god's rules supercede human rules.
Without that, then the horrible verses and teachings found in various religions (Islam, Christianity, even Judaism) wouldn't be the problem they were (and/or are). Current Islamic (and Christian) terrorism. Opposition to LGBT rights and equality. Etc., etc.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Judaism might be equally toxic as Judaism, we'll never know, they're beat by Islam 1:100.
And Nobel prizes don't count as geostrategic assets. Which is probably unfortunate.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Just given the three big ones we have, it seems like the Abrahamic religions do at least mellow a bit with age, provided their power is curtailed.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)What has the USA done in the past 40 years?
We invaded Iraq under false pretenses - Desert Storm 1 - 1984.
Clinton wrongly embargoed Iraq for 8 years, creating huge problems for the youth of Iraq.
Then we let W invade again in 2003, even though we knew there was no reasontdo do it.
Why are we surprised that we have a generation of radical mid-easterner's who hate us?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)NB: that propaganda was paid for by oil petromonarchies which were the friends of allies of the US.
Now, explain to me why these friends financed madrasas in Pakistan for decades where the curriculum taught what filthy unbelievers in Islam were?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and ignore the fact that the US and the West have spent many decades severely screwing them over.
You're responding to someone that doesn't believe that 9-11 was in response to our earlier actions in the ME, because Muslims and Middle Easterners don't have normal human emotions and can't possibly be motivated by revenge. They're just a bunch of religious nuts. That explains everything.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Isn't it possible that "revenge" is just one of many motivators? That elements of Islamic theology, including battling non-believers and killing them, MAY just play a role too?
Or no, is it solely just because "the US and the West have spent many decades severely screwing them over." Funny how the UK spent all that time screwing over India, and yet Gandhi wasn't a terrorist.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Revenge was a major reason for 9-11. (I never claimed it was the only reason. We aren't all bad and the people in the ME aren't all victim.) Anyone at the time leading up to 9-11 that was paying attention to US behavior knew a major terrorist attack on American soil was only a matter of time.
No one was screwing the US over and the US spent decades terrorizing the ME. What the US has been doing for decades approaches genocidal. Much of the ME is a disaster area. Eliminate the US from the equation and the ME would be in far better shape.
The Neocon dream list of nations to destroy are Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran. The US has made great progress on that front. Also before the Neocons, the US was brutalizing the ME.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Seems questionable at best. Conflict in the ME has been happening for thousands of years. The US has only existed for less than 250 years.
And what about Gandhi?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)US behavior is far more relevant to this issue than Gandhi. What's our excuse for terrorize the ME for so long?
Our unprovoked attack against Iraq certainly has far more to do with this current conflict than anything. Add on to that our flooding of weapons to the region, our assistance in murdering Qaddafi, our support for the fundies against Assad, our support for Saudi Arabia's slaughter against Yemen, our decades long support for the destruction of Palestine, etc. And those are just some of our current offenses.
The US has for decades has systematically destroyed secular nations and forces in the ME, while often propping up the fundies. We have control over our actions and our actions are what we should be concerned over.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Groups of people in the ME a couple thousand years ago committed genocide against other groups. The only thing that's "worse" is the advanced weaponry some groups now have. Of course the US has been involved in supporting individuals and/or regimes who allow us access to their oil. This is obvious to everyone, I would hope. But unless you have evidence that every single Islamic terrorist is specifically acting just to get "revenge" for western interference in their governments, then you also have to accept that when some of them claim they are fighting a holy war against infidels, they actually fucking mean it.
Oh and the point about Gandhi is to illustrate that it isn't just interference in local affairs that causes terrorism, otherwise Gandhi and the Indian independence movement would have been terrorists too. There are other factors.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)And fyi, racism isn't the only type of supremacism that exists.
Religious supremacism is as bad as racism.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Admittedly on a semantic quibble. I don't really think it's the theology that's the problem. Coming up with guesses about the nature and attributes of a putative deity isn't really what makes impressionable young imbeciles want to blow up random strangers. It isn't even studying the nature of religious beliefs that does this. There are indeed a few driven to foment terrorism by genuine, albeit twisted, study of the hypothetical divine, but I'm willing to bet few of the bombers/shooters/suicide attackers can name the 8 classical schools of aqidah for example, although doubtless they can pronounce them better than I.
But other than a few dozen agitating Imams it is no more theology that drives Islamic terrorism than the corollary drives Christian terrorism. Do we really think for a second that folks like Rudolph and Roeder spent their time pondering whether Aquinas was right about the moment of ensoulment when they killed in tantrums about abortion? No I'm not exculpating the belief. I remain convinced that their respective beliefs played large, in some cases total, roles in motivating their evil acts, but I've yet, in scores of conversations on the topic, to meet one fundamentalist with a sound and consistent theology.
Admittedly that's like saying I've never met an NBA center with achondroplastic dwarfism. You just can't really combine the two. Since fundamentalism assumes inerrant literalism and since a reading of either holy text by anyone beyond first grade renders that conclusion laughable, it's definitional that the pursuit of fundamentalism entails a theology which is merely a hodgepodge of increasingly wild mental acrobatics trying to reconcile the irreconcilable rather than a meaningful attempt to understand God (no I'm not suddenly converted; much ink and trillions of pixels have been spent trying to understand nonexistent characters like Leopold Bloom. Why should the granddaddy of all literary characters be any different?)
So what drives religious terrorism, which yes I reassert really is religious terrorism, if not theology? These cretins either ignore theology or do such a hamfisted job of it that I'm a better ballet dancer than they are theologians. What drives them to kill is their unthinking credulity, their sheer narcissistic gullibility in thinking that an omnipotent universal creator needs, wants and commands them personally to achieve his goals. A being that can envisage, design and incarnate a 46 billion light year universe by a mere whim needs Abdul al-Benghazi to knock off a few American tourists at the local disco with a C4 waistcoat to fulfill his divine plan. They believe this because religion has filled for them a deep need to assuage their insecurity and self-loathing and inability to deal with a nonteleological reality. Religion made them a meaningful "us" confronted by a "them" worthy only of death, followed by eternal torture for good measure.
Religions (well, most of them) are not to blame for the carnage they have caused because they made up theologies about Leopold Blooms in the sky. They are to blame because they separated humanity based on which chapter of Ulysses they think is the best, and then said that anyone who isn't a devoted fan of chapter VI is a worthless maggot who fellates putrid demons and must be put out of their misery right sharpish. If religions were actually more about theology and less about how terrible "they" are, we wouldn't be in this mess.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You seem to be using it in a very limited sense - that of intellectual discourse happening at an institutional level.
But very simply it can be defined as "a system of religious beliefs or ideas." The theology of the Westboro Baptist church is such a system. They believe in a judgmental god, one who disapproves of specific ideas and acts, and who will punish people engaging in those acts. Because of their theology, they actually believe they are *saving* people by protesting homosexuality. They aren't the caricature you portray in your Ulysses comparison. They believe that shit with intensity. It's their theology.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)As you note, the precise definition refers to a rigorous quasi-philosophical discipline typically handled by stuffy academics. I would wager most religious types are born, grow old, and die without ever troubling themselves with such self-indulgent navel-gazing.
I believe the OP is instead referring to a gestalt of things: the assorted contents of Islamic scripture, tradition, and jurisprudence.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I'm not trying to play pedantic games that theology is too academic or limited a term. I'm more than happy to agree that theology can be broadly applied to general religious beliefs perfectly well. I further certainly agree that these loons really do believe what they say. I've made the point many times here that they really are religious and religion really inspires terrorism.
But what I'm trying to say, none too well apparently, is that it's not religious doctrine or tradition or whatever other defintion of theology that drives the actual terrorists very much. It's their religion, but not their understanding of what their religion teaches, that drives them. In short I think that religious motivation rarely gets more detailed than "Me Good Muslim - them Bad Muslim/Infidel. Kill because Imam/ISIS said so." I really doubt they are pondering much on the nature of jihad or the nature of the hidden Imam at even a vulgar level.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The folks who oppose LGBT rights, as I pointed out, have a fairly detailed thought process. They believe certain things are opposed by their god because of what they read in their holy book. They believe people will be punished for doing those things. They believe they can save those people by reminding them they will be damned to hell. They also believe that they themselves will be judged by their god if they don't do everything they can to stop enabling those things. Thus the Kim Davises and bigoted bakers of the world.
It's much more detailed than "me good, them bad" on that issue - why should radical Muslims be different? There are very specific ideas in Islam about converting people and conquering/killing its enemies.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)No I think we need to separate the apologists from the doers. We rarely hear from actual shoot/bomb/kill terrorists. Instead we hear from spokespeople and propagandists behind the scenes. When the people who actually pull triggers and plant bombs speak, or when we backtrack from the social media or relatives' statements, a lot of what gives the apologists here and elsewhere in the Guilty White Left some semblance of cover for their absurd "religion had nothing to do with this" lie is that we find people who have little and incoherent understanding of their faith (same for Christians and Muslims. Robert Dear gave no religious arguments for why God wanted him to save baby parts any more than the ISIS prisoners in this article can explain Islamic arguments, which are very easy to find as you say, for what they do https://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/). They don't follow even basic doctrine (he drank booze so he can't be a Muslim!) and are not especially pious or devoted.
But, as again the article explains better than I, these people really are religious and really see themselves fighting for a specific interpretation of Islam. They just don't understand it, can't explain it and don't follow it themselves for the most part. Even the people who recruit and radicalize them but don't get their hands dirty aren't much better (what was that quite high-ranking fundamentalist cleric with the killed Pakistani model doing drinking with her, an unrelated female, in daylight during Ramadan?) The people we hear giving anything approaching reasonable, even what qualifies as such in the fantasy world of theology, explanations for why God hates gays/wants infidels killed/ thinks killing a doctor is more virtuous than aborting a blastocyst are never involved in terrorism themselves. They are the apologists for it, but the people who actually do it are simply seeing religion in basic tribal I'm right they are not exclusionary terms.
I mean really with all the multifarious examples of religiously-inspired terrorism in the last few decades, most but not all Islamic, I'm having a very tough time thinking of any actual perpetrator who either could later explain, or had earlier set the stage for, their own actions in any kind of reasonably cogent theological construct. And no I'm not limiting that to dense 70,000 word deconstructions of Barthes or an encyclopaedic commentary on hadith; I'd settle for "I killed them because scripture says X and it justifies the taking of life because God thinks Y is more important than Z, as we can see in story A".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Well, primarily that's because they are killed in the attacks themselves. But of the ones we HAVE heard from, there is no question religion is heavily in their thoughts, and not just simplistic "me good them bad" nonsense you're peddling. And plenty of otherwise devout Muslims who AREN'T terrorists drink, eat pork, maybe even engage in homosexual sex.
You seem to want to dehumanize these murderers, to make them stupid or simple or even non-thinking at all, to set them apart from the rest of us decent normal human beings, or the actively horrible people who are training them (and therefore are so smart they don't really believe the religion themselves?). Newsflash: religious terrorists are mostly if not all "normal human beings" themselves, with normal intelligence and everything. Able to function in society and even engage in complex planning. Who knew?
Let me ask you this: how many people volunteering at a church's soup kitchen do you think would be able to provide the "reasonably cogent theological construct" for why they are doing it? Or are many of them simply going to say "Because Jesus said to care for the poor."? Are you going to dismiss their devotion to their religion because they don't process it at a deep enough level for you?
I think your point is lost in a bigger reality: very, very few people even CARE to explore their theology to its academic peak. They don't need to. What they do understand is reasonably complex in its own way - it's coherent, and it makes sense to them. That's part of the appeal of religion with its simplistic models and messages.
I believe what you are doing here is trying to reframe the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (where you have failed in the past), adding elements from PZ Myers' "Courtier's Reply." Essentially then declaring that religious terrorists only superficially qualify for the label of the religion they claim, because they simply cannot understand the detailed aspects of their religion's most advanced ideas.
Kind of like when Scott Roeder killed George Tiller because he felt stopping the "murder" of "unborn babies" was more important than Tiller's life, based on his understanding of the bible? He used that defense in his trial. But I guess since he didn't quote Thomas Aquinas he wasn't a true religious believer, huh?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)In the case of Christianity, you **might** have a case, because 'do not do unto others' is a very unlikely justification for colonialism and enslavement (it's just a **might** because Paul specifically never condemned slavery)
But in the case of Judaism or Islam, one can find tons of theological justification for doing practically anything to anyone not of your faith.
So, ultimately, the problem lies with the abrahamic texts (of all 3 religions) which lend themselves much too easily to horrible behavior.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Since that phrase is followed by an indication of exactly why they are responsible for it.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)advocate violence too.
Some folks seem to require permission for their bigotry.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)"Islamic theology" is diverse. There are many divisions, sects, interpretations, and practices. I'm not any more worried that a Muslim in our hometown is going to commit some random violent act than I am that a local Christian will.
Murfreesboro, TN isn't the border region of Pakistan.
