Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Although I know you weren't suggesting this, your post reminded me of the gap between people who sometimes say that America should stay out of the affairs of other nations, but also say that we should help other countries economically because it will lead to moderation and more personal freedom. Quite a dichotomy, in my view. Either you stay out of another country's affairs, or you don't.
Now, to your post...are you saying we should financially assist Iran and we'll all live happily ever after?
How we involve ourselves in another countries affairs matters. Done in a spirit of generosity and concern for the welfare of the beneficiary will lead to different results than military intervention or aid with the intent to coerce the beneficiary to do our will.
To the second point, economic development doesn't only come in the form of cash payments. Iran, as well as other countries, are complex and the solution needs to be complex as well. Are you saying that we should invade Iran and we'll all live happily ever after? I doubt it, but my original point was that just because we don't agree with a government or societies norms doesn't give us the right to forcibly change it.
I'll be honest, whether I'm right or not, I can tell you what I think we should do in Libya or Egypt, or lots of other countries. But in the case of Iran, I haven't the foggiest idea of what is the right thing to do...because I think that government is nuts and unpredictable.
Its very difficult responding on a forum like this as I could be typing forever and not even scratch the surface - it is also difficult to set down a point succinctly and not lecture on views - its not my intention to lecture on a personal view.
I dont wish to rattle through my qualifications as my purpose here is not to sell my identity - I am however speaking from an academic and not a lay perspective.
The reason I have raised the points is that in academic circles (both muslim and non-muslim), the views expressed here on Islam (political or otherwise) are known to be uninformed views - for example, the public perception of any legal doctrine is very different to the academic consensus - academic consensus deals with a much broader base of information and in a more objective manner.
I have tried to impart some of this objectivity here purely as in academic circles they write off the lay position as uninformed and thus irrelevant - my position is that all views are relevant however the underlying facts should be debated until everyone at least understands them.
I see that KOB states that he reads Arabic but only just speaks it - the Koran is ancient poetry - to understand it, one needs to be fully fluent in arabic language and culture and also with the historic context of the work - even then it is tough! Simply reading and forming a view will inevitably lead to confusion and conflict - in addition there is the weight of culture and history to consider.
@KOB - you state my argument is "You are wrong, but I'm not going to correct you and tell you why your points are invalid...they are. And you need to correct them"
I am saying that the points you make to support your position are simplifications and too narrow to stand the test of academic rigour - I cannot correct them as there is too much to consider in a post like this - it is the subject of a lifetime's study - I have however told you why I consider your inaccuracies have extrapolated to a combined global inaccuracy and suggested perhaps a helpful way to approach the subject with new eyes - you do not need to correct your views - you are entitled to your views - however, from my understanding of your views, they will likely not lead to a resolution of the issues and nor do they foster further dialogue - you risk repeating jargon and propaganda and that will surely not lead to a solution - my aim here is to try to expound a view that will challenge you to consider the issue again and work in your mind to a resolution for peace that may be propagated throughout society, individual by individual.
The debate in the West is considering one side - the debate in the East is considering the other - while we're distracted arguing, the situation is worse and the profiteering continues.
The broadest summary I can provide is that we are at war and have been at some time (cold or active) - propeganda is part of war - both sides engage in this blaming the other and demonising eachother to justify their position - the root of the problem is not politicised Islam anymore than it is the Zionist agenda - the root is that society is run on principles of greed, the effect is what you see manisfested, division, mistrust, accusations and death.
If we engage with only the symptoms then we have no hope of dealing with the underlying condition.
For example, @person raises a very good point - what is the solution? If we engage in finding the solution - such as say facing the causes of greed, poverty, oppression etc (and it always comes down to a division between those that have and have not) then we will be able to eradicate the symptoms - extreme people are powerful in extreme conditions... we have to tackle the causes that lead to extremity rather than holding galvanised positions.
Let me try one more example - Hamass is an extreme party - you see a palastinian supporting hamass ergo the palestinian needs to change their position or Hamass needs to go? You ask the palestinian and he says his uncle, father, brother and who knows who else were killed in Israeli / american strikes, his home is gone, his livelihood is gone, he has nothing - Hamass turns up and feeds him, gives him money and shelter and a gun to take revenge... who is at fault here? Is it political islam? Is it the west? how are we going to sort it out? Do we even care if we have food on our table and security for our family? Isnt it easier to tell the palestinian to be less extreme and be more like us - happy people who dont carry guns? when will it end if we dont end it ourselves, one by one and each of us personally.
@Zero, I do disagree with your viewpoint, but not in an angry way...just in a discussional way (yes, I know discussional is not a word, but I like it).
Let me give a slightly different example. There has been a lot of revisionist thinking about the causes of the Civil War. When I was young, we were basically taught that the North was fighting to end slavery and the South was fighting to uphold their State's Rights. In recent years, there is more of a view toward economics. But to me, the bottom line was, how do the leaders get all those voluntary enlistees to want to fight for them? The average solider who enlisted, didn't know anything about national and world economics of the time. He was from some little village or city where he knew about States Right (albeit it in a rather simplistic manner) or Slavery. That's why he actually went to fight.
There is some minority of intellectuals in the Middle East who understand the philosophical side of Islam. But to be honest, I'm not sure they matter that much to what is happening in the Middle East. Members of the various branches of Al Quida who are actually committing their deeds against other cultures aren't intellectual about Islam. The people who participate in the family honor killings aren't intellectual about Islam. The masses operate on emotions and gut instincts, not intellectual facts.
So I care far less about people who have an intellectual/factual opinion about Islam, than I do the everyday people who actually live it.
There is some minority of intellectuals in the Middle East who understand the philosophical side of Islam. But to be honest, I'm not sure they matter that much to what is happening in the Middle East.
Members of the various branches of Al Quida who are actually committing their deeds against other cultures aren't intellectual about Islam.
The people who participate in the family honor killings aren't intellectual about Islam.
The masses operate on emotions and gut instincts, not intellectual facts.
So I care far less about people who have an intellectual/factual opinion about Islam, than I do the everyday people who actually live it.
I understand your point on the historical context of enlistment in the civil war - this point still continues today - social consciousness lags behind innovation - in the information age, this gap has widened so in effect our actions hardly match our powess and knowledge.
I agree - we can however work to increase the dissemination of the reasoned intellectual understanding.
Its difficult to justify calling them Muslims at all - 'politically motivated freedom fighters with radicalised war idiology' is probably a more accurate a description of the AQ franchise.
Family honour killings are cultural phenomenon not unique to Islam - the behaviour is complex and takes many forms at root and propagated by ignorance.
The masses are you (and each of us) - all you have to deal with is you - if you say the masses act by attachment then you act by attachment - free yourself and you free the world.
Its a good point on the division between intellectuals and people on the ground - that said, I can only see a global solution in dealing with the root causes of the entire problem - my issue is that whatever happens on the ground, it is driven by the entire system - you feed prosperity at one end and reap misery at the other.
But the system is made up of people - if we all stopped and did nothing, the world would stop - if we all had a wider, more objective, more reasoned and concilliatory view then we may be able to actually solve the issue - looking and labelling just adds to the cycle.
The Buddhist principles are one path to that - by eliminating suffering and awakening to illusion, we are each better able to contribute to a different system.
Tom, what do you mean by Big Brother? Keep in mind that I have proclivity towards paranoia. Which is nobodies fault. It just is.
Learn kindness Learn fellowship Learn kung-fu
Respect Sifu (yes that is wise in school as I found out a few times) Respect Grand Master (that always made me hesitate) Control fire
Positive role models for me. My next door neighbor is an old karate teacher. He always talks to me when I wander over to his garage. His wife is involved in politics and social gatherings. I entered data on the computer during the Obama campaign. People went door to door 'canvassing' and my role was the computer thing which they built me up as a computer genious because I had the patience to stick with the task for example I had used a spreadsheet before and in these I put data for example the canvassers phone numbers. I got stopped for speeding on the way to the democratic party headquarters because I didn't see that the school zone light was on. Thank god for peaceful processes as I wasn't incarcerated for working in politics.
Oh nothing Jeffrey, it is part of the novel 1984, there are 3 main slogans which the ruling party enforces, "war is peace" is one of them. My point was just that this problem will not be resolved with violence, you can never properly resolve a violent issue with more violence, in the long run anyway.
The reason I have raised the points is that in academic circles (both muslim and non-muslim), the views expressed here on Islam (political or otherwise) are known to be uninformed views - for example, the public perception of any legal doctrine is very different to the academic consensus - academic consensus deals with a much broader base of information and in a more objective manner.
I don't think this is convincing. I've spent the last 4 years in academia and found it to be a very unenlightened place with little objectivity. Teachers were slavish and devoted to one ideology, because that's how you got ahead in the history department. Academic Consenus does not equal truth.
I see that KOB states that he reads Arabic but only just speaks it - the Koran is ancient poetry - to understand it, one needs to be fully fluent in arabic language and culture and also with the historic context of the work - even then it is tough! Simply reading and forming a view will inevitably lead to confusion and conflict - in addition there is the weight of culture and history to consider.
Curiously, you have the longest posts of anyone here, but spend most of the time rationalizing why you continue to fail to address any of my very specific and limited questions to you.
I am saying that the points you make to support your position are simplifications and too narrow to stand the test of academic rigour - I cannot correct them as there is too much to consider in a post like this - it is the subject of a lifetime's study -
See above. By your logic, you can't argue anything since any given study could occupy a lifetime of study.
I have however told you why I consider your inaccuracies have extrapolated to a combined global inaccuracy and suggested perhaps a helpful way to approach the subject with new eyes - you do not need to correct your views - you are entitled to your views - however, from my understanding of your views, they will likely not lead to a resolution of the issues and nor do they foster further dialogue - you risk repeating jargon and propaganda and that will surely not lead to a solution - my aim here is to try to expound a view that will challenge you to consider the issue again and work in your mind to a resolution for peace that may be propagated throughout society, individual by individual.
My posts were not intended to find "solutions," but to get to the bottom of the matter and see whether or not violence against religious minorities are aberrations, or symptomatic of an ingrained political/religious ideology. I claim that it is not an aberration. I spoke nothing of peace, solutions, or dialogue. You can't have effective dialogue if one party cannot acknowledge the uncomfortable truth of religious scriptures.
The broadest summary I can provide is that we are at war and have been at some time (cold or active) - propeganda is part of war - both sides engage in this blaming the other and demonising eachother to justify their position - the root of the problem is not politicised Islam anymore than it is the Zionist agenda - the root is that society is run on principles of greed, the effect is what you see manisfested, division, mistrust, accusations and death.
Not relevant. What does that have to do with my claim that minorities are made dhimmis or second class citizens under Sharia?
Let me try one more example - Hamass is an extreme party - you see a palastinian supporting hamass ergo the palestinian needs to change their position or Hamass needs to go? You ask the palestinian and he says his uncle, father, brother and who knows who else were killed in Israeli / american strikes, his home is gone, his livelihood is gone, he has nothing - Hamass turns up and feeds him, gives him money and shelter and a gun to take revenge... who is at fault here? Is it political islam?
Hamas still opts for crucifixion as a death penalty and is a terrorist organization.
Is it the west? how are we going to sort it out? Do we even care if we have food on our table and security for our family? Isnt it easier to tell the palestinian to be less extreme and be more like us - happy people who dont carry guns?
I'm happy, and carry a gun in my professional and personal life. ; )
Its difficult to justify calling them Muslims at all - 'politically motivated freedom fighters with radicalised war idiology' is probably a more accurate a description of the AQ franchise.
My reason precisely why I could not take many academics seriously. Utterly amoral individuals who see no difference between liberal democracy on one side and head-chopping, child-torturing, Jew-hating brigands on the other.
Have you ever read a biography on Muhammed and the life he lived? The things he said?
I'm sorry your experience of academia wasnt immediately rewarding - its a personal journey though so dont give up.
I cant address your specific points as theyre so far down the line of argument that I'd have to take you back to basics and we have little time for that - I'd need to rework the foundation of your knowledge base as you take a lot of things for granted that arent true - if that were not the case, you would not have the view you have... the information is out there though so if youre so inclined to consider it then its up to you...
OK - so the Muslims need to face it and change - funny thing is that they say the same about the West... back around we go.
I cant address your specific points as theyre so far down the line of argument that I'd have to take you back to basics and we have little time for that - I'd need to rework the foundation of your knowledge base as you take a lot of things for granted that arent true - if that were not the case, you would not have the view you have... the information is out there though so if youre so inclined to consider it then its up to you...
Well don't go back to the basics. Just pick anything I've stated about Sharia. One thing. Say it's wrong, proceed to give the correct view, and cite a chapter/source/jurisprudence scholar who disagrees with me. If you can't do that, then please at least give me a link to a place wheree I can begin "reworking my knowledge foundation."
Ex:
Me: Sharia mandates death for apostasy. (Hadith- Sahih Bukhari 9:57) You: No it does not. Here is a link or source from accepted Koranic scholars stating why it is not so.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Sharia mandates death for apostasy. (Hadith- Sahih Bukhari 9:57)
Me: So what do we do? Shoot those who propagate sharia and force everyone to adopt western style democracy at the end of a gun on our dime?
Really. I accept your view of the harm that sharia law can do. I just don't see military intervention as a practical way to solve it.
Comments
I dont wish to rattle through my qualifications as my purpose here is not to sell my identity - I am however speaking from an academic and not a lay perspective.
The reason I have raised the points is that in academic circles (both muslim and non-muslim), the views expressed here on Islam (political or otherwise) are known to be uninformed views - for example, the public perception of any legal doctrine is very different to the academic consensus - academic consensus deals with a much broader base of information and in a more objective manner.
I have tried to impart some of this objectivity here purely as in academic circles they write off the lay position as uninformed and thus irrelevant - my position is that all views are relevant however the underlying facts should be debated until everyone at least understands them.
I see that KOB states that he reads Arabic but only just speaks it - the Koran is ancient poetry - to understand it, one needs to be fully fluent in arabic language and culture and also with the historic context of the work - even then it is tough! Simply reading and forming a view will inevitably lead to confusion and conflict - in addition there is the weight of culture and history to consider.
@KOB - you state my argument is "You are wrong, but I'm not going to correct you and tell you why your points are invalid...they are. And you need to correct them"
I am saying that the points you make to support your position are simplifications and too narrow to stand the test of academic rigour - I cannot correct them as there is too much to consider in a post like this - it is the subject of a lifetime's study - I have however told you why I consider your inaccuracies have extrapolated to a combined global inaccuracy and suggested perhaps a helpful way to approach the subject with new eyes - you do not need to correct your views - you are entitled to your views - however, from my understanding of your views, they will likely not lead to a resolution of the issues and nor do they foster further dialogue - you risk repeating jargon and propaganda and that will surely not lead to a solution - my aim here is to try to expound a view that will challenge you to consider the issue again and work in your mind to a resolution for peace that may be propagated throughout society, individual by individual.
The debate in the West is considering one side - the debate in the East is considering the other - while we're distracted arguing, the situation is worse and the profiteering continues.
The broadest summary I can provide is that we are at war and have been at some time (cold or active) - propeganda is part of war - both sides engage in this blaming the other and demonising eachother to justify their position - the root of the problem is not politicised Islam anymore than it is the Zionist agenda - the root is that society is run on principles of greed, the effect is what you see manisfested, division, mistrust, accusations and death.
If we engage with only the symptoms then we have no hope of dealing with the underlying condition.
For example, @person raises a very good point - what is the solution? If we engage in finding the solution - such as say facing the causes of greed, poverty, oppression etc (and it always comes down to a division between those that have and have not) then we will be able to eradicate the symptoms - extreme people are powerful in extreme conditions... we have to tackle the causes that lead to extremity rather than holding galvanised positions.
Let me try one more example - Hamass is an extreme party - you see a palastinian supporting hamass ergo the palestinian needs to change their position or Hamass needs to go? You ask the palestinian and he says his uncle, father, brother and who knows who else were killed in Israeli / american strikes, his home is gone, his livelihood is gone, he has nothing - Hamass turns up and feeds him, gives him money and shelter and a gun to take revenge... who is at fault here? Is it political islam? Is it the west? how are we going to sort it out? Do we even care if we have food on our table and security for our family? Isnt it easier to tell the palestinian to be less extreme and be more like us - happy people who dont carry guns? when will it end if we dont end it ourselves, one by one and each of us personally.
Let me give a slightly different example. There has been a lot of revisionist thinking about the causes of the Civil War. When I was young, we were basically taught that the North was fighting to end slavery and the South was fighting to uphold their State's Rights. In recent years, there is more of a view toward economics. But to me, the bottom line was, how do the leaders get all those voluntary enlistees to want to fight for them? The average solider who enlisted, didn't know anything about national and world economics of the time. He was from some little village or city where he knew about States Right (albeit it in a rather simplistic manner) or Slavery. That's why he actually went to fight.
There is some minority of intellectuals in the Middle East who understand the philosophical side of Islam. But to be honest, I'm not sure they matter that much to what is happening in the Middle East. Members of the various branches of Al Quida who are actually committing their deeds against other cultures aren't intellectual about Islam. The people who participate in the family honor killings aren't intellectual about Islam. The masses operate on emotions and gut instincts, not intellectual facts.
So I care far less about people who have an intellectual/factual opinion about Islam, than I do the everyday people who actually live it.
I understand your point on the historical context of enlistment in the civil war - this point still continues today - social consciousness lags behind innovation - in the information age, this gap has widened so in effect our actions hardly match our powess and knowledge.
I agree - we can however work to increase the dissemination of the reasoned intellectual understanding.
Its difficult to justify calling them Muslims at all - 'politically motivated freedom fighters with radicalised war idiology' is probably a more accurate a description of the AQ franchise.
Family honour killings are cultural phenomenon not unique to Islam - the behaviour is complex and takes many forms at root and propagated by ignorance.
The masses are you (and each of us) - all you have to deal with is you - if you say the masses act by attachment then you act by attachment - free yourself and you free the world.
Its a good point on the division between intellectuals and people on the ground - that said, I can only see a global solution in dealing with the root causes of the entire problem - my issue is that whatever happens on the ground, it is driven by the entire system - you feed prosperity at one end and reap misery at the other.
But the system is made up of people - if we all stopped and did nothing, the world would stop - if we all had a wider, more objective, more reasoned and concilliatory view then we may be able to actually solve the issue - looking and labelling just adds to the cycle.
The Buddhist principles are one path to that - by eliminating suffering and awakening to illusion, we are each better able to contribute to a different system.
(sigh)
I don't think this is convincing. I've spent the last 4 years in academia and found it to be a very unenlightened place with little objectivity. Teachers were slavish and devoted to one ideology, because that's how you got ahead in the history department. Academic Consenus does not equal truth.
Curiously, you have the longest posts of anyone here, but spend most of the time rationalizing why you continue to fail to address any of my very specific and limited questions to you.
See above. By your logic, you can't argue anything since any given study could occupy a lifetime of study.
My posts were not intended to find "solutions," but to get to the bottom of the matter and see whether or not violence against religious minorities are aberrations, or symptomatic of an ingrained political/religious ideology. I claim that it is not an aberration. I spoke nothing of peace, solutions, or dialogue. You can't have effective dialogue if one party cannot acknowledge the uncomfortable truth of religious scriptures.
Not relevant. What does that have to do with my claim that minorities are made dhimmis or second class citizens under Sharia?
Hamas still opts for crucifixion as a death penalty and is a terrorist organization.
I'm happy, and carry a gun in my professional and personal life. ; ) My reason precisely why I could not take many academics seriously. Utterly amoral individuals who see no difference between liberal democracy on one side and head-chopping, child-torturing, Jew-hating brigands on the other.
Have you ever read a biography on Muhammed and the life he lived? The things he said?
I cant address your specific points as theyre so far down the line of argument that I'd have to take you back to basics and we have little time for that - I'd need to rework the foundation of your knowledge base as you take a lot of things for granted that arent true - if that were not the case, you would not have the view you have... the information is out there though so if youre so inclined to consider it then its up to you...
OK - so the Muslims need to face it and change - funny thing is that they say the same about the West... back around we go.
Ex:
Me: Sharia mandates death for apostasy. (Hadith- Sahih Bukhari 9:57)
You: No it does not. Here is a link or source from accepted Koranic scholars stating why it is not so.
Really. I accept your view of the harm that sharia law can do. I just don't see military intervention as a practical way to solve it.