But yeah, right now I think is a waste of time , because certain people (notably Odeon) are just gonna skim read it , then instantly revert to whatever notion they had before I posted. That's not communication is it?
And this you know, how? Because I disagree with you or because I think Al is a dimwit?
No, i surely wouldn't expect anybody to agree with me all the time. It's because you project opinions onto me, based purely on the point-of-the-moment, disregarding any context i've already supplied elsewhere. And...but this isn't an exercise in Odeon -bashing, it really isn't'
If I missed a context I should have been aware of, I apologise--I don't read everything here, and I don't always read them in a suitable order.
I could say that for Al, it's exactly what it is. Pick just about any thread, including this one.
I know a fair bit about Islam. Call it an obsession of sorts, call it whatever you want, but the fact is that I've read up on it over time, not because I'm about to convert (I'd probably pick Catholicism for reasons outlined elsewhere if I'd have any reason to seriously consider the existence of a higher being) but because various facets of it have interested me at one time or another. Did you ever read the Quran or the Hadith (or rather, their translations)? I did.
I know, because we discussed it before, and I clearly recall what you said,
Honestly, while I remember the discussions, I don't always remember who participated. Sorry about that, too.
Not that I recall every discussion on this board in every detail (I don't have that sort of memory )but because I found that one particularly interesting. You've evidently forgotten my response, which was yes I've read the Quran, but not the Hadith (though have taken an interest in various discussions about them) .
I have a vague recollection of it. You should read it. The two are rather different from one another.
I didn't mention it, but I've also read quite a lot of Sufi literature (as that interests me rather more. if I converted to any branch Islam , i'd surely convert to Sufism; though really, the chances I'll convert to any religion are pretty slim).
Why, if I may ask?
I've also looked into Muslim traditions such as fatwa (which seems pretty civilised , actually) in an effort to understand what's going wrong.
So is Jihad, but it depends so much on the Imam, and if I were to point at a problem, that's where I would start.
I'd rather hoped to pick your brains a bit there, since you do have extensive knowledge of Islam; but if you won't wear the notion that things are going pear-shaped, then I can't find a way to phrase the kind of questions I wanted to ask.
I don't think it's the religion itself but rather some of its branches. Look at the contexts in which groups like ISIS/Daesh or Boko Haram can thrive. They depend on an authoritarian model, one where an Imam will have influence far beyond prayer. Pretty sure I posted about this sort of thing some time ago.
The religion as such is no worse or better than Christianity. They have a lot in common but Christianity *as a religion* is far less dominant among its followers today, likely because of our relative advances in science, technology, and so on. The opposite could easily have been true if some things had ended differently.
Did you ever look into why some Muslims might object when somebody images the Prophet, or who's actually done it in the past? I did. Or did you ever study maths or astronomy from an historical point of view and discover exactly how much we owe to them? I did.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. I'm pretty sure i even said that Christians were the ignorant, marauding savages (or words to that effect) at one time. But Christianity is not above reproach is it?
Of course not, but when comparing the two religions, some take the rather simplistic view that since we (meaning Christians in name if not in actual beliefs) accept Jesus being caricaturised, they should accept the same happening to the Prophet.
And while I'd defend Charlie Hebdo's right to do it, I don't think the comparison is fair at all. It's about if you always should just because you can; while it may be your right to step up to Mike Tyson and tell him, to his face, that he is ugly, it is probably not the wisest move you can make. Freedom of speech won't help you much when they patch your face together again.
In most parts of the world, we are free to say what the helck we we like against Christianity, Jesus, and his various earthly representatives.
Yes, but to no small part because most of us aren't very religious OR have that kind of tradition. And still, do you remember the debates caused by Life of Brian some 35 years ago? Norway, of all countries, banned it. It's not that long ago. Go back a few more decades and things were very different.
Conversely, rather too many Muslims feel free to say that Christians (as well as moderate Muslims who wish Christians a happy Christmas. Especially those ) deserve to die, whilst bitterly complaining if other folk go so far as harmlessly mocking Islam. I see no point in discussing that turnaround if we're ruling out the hypothesis that doctrine plays some part in justifying the excesses of both populations; especially not on the simplistic grounds that one is as bad as the other, given the right circumstance. We'd have to (at very least) compare a number radically different religions such as Hinduism and Buddism, and see if their superficial appearance of being more easy-going and peaceful than the "People of the Book" holds water?
That's something I don't know, so I'm very much open to being educated there.
I've been thinking about learning Sanskrit, actually, because of that whole literary tradition associated with Hinduism, but I never seem to have the time.
Many people claim Buddhism to be the only world religion to never start a war but that's probably not entirely true--Sri Lanka comes to mind--but I don't know enough about it.
At present, it's my opinion that some religions are more dangerous than others, largely due to their authoritarian nature, .i.e, insistence on absolute faith, and obedience. I'd say that most Christian sects are more dangerous than most Muslim sects from that P.O.V., so that clearly isn't the whole story.
But is it the religion or the leaders? The same religion that urges us to turn the other cheek proposes some pretty horrific things elsewhere in the same book. It's the religion that brought us the Inquisition and only recently, close to 400 years after the fact, admitted that this Galileo fellow may have been somewhat unjustly treated. I'm betting that most people didn't as much as notice and wouldn't have cared if they had.
And only last week did the Pope authorise his priests to forgive an abortion--conditionally, of course--after a trial run of a year.
Islam is no different but I would say that their context and timing both are.
That opinion isn;'t inflexible. I've been considering these issues, and refining my ideas, for 40 years; that's just a statement of my curent perspective; and derives as much from my study of Psychology as it does from my study of religion; plus personal experience of actual people , ofc (It's pretty silly to study people in the abstact, without checking your theories against the real thing)
I wouldn't acuse anyone else of being "prejudiced" or "stupid" however if their view was rather more simplistic than mine. we all have our "thing", after all. And there is too much information in the world for us to process it all. What people think is largely conditioned by where their attention is directed , isn't it? We all live in very different worlds from each other, because we all absorb different information sets, according to circumstance and personal interest. In particular, i don't find Al stupid, just because he disagrees with me about a lot of things (more often than you do, in fact ) And I don't find you stupid either, just too quick to dismiss other people's POV , or maybe simply too quick, period?
Maybe.
But you do know that whatever it's between me and Al (or Benji) has little to do with this, right? I don't call them stupid because they disagree with me.
Nowhere in this thread have I felt the need to use any of it. This one is not so much a discussion about Islam as it is an exercise in legitimising Islamophobia. It's not an exercise in understanding, it's an exercise in condemning.
...in your opinion. I would suggest that you have a rather narrow definition of " Islamophobia" . i.e. , anything that's critical of Islam; and I'm sure you'd dismiss the thoughts of some of the Muslims of my aquaintaince on those exact same grounds...unless you knew they were Muslims?
Maybe, maybe not, but we probably won't ever find out how I'd react. You're free to have your theories, of course, but the likelihood is that I'd be silent.
I don't define Islamophobia as "anything critical of Islam", no. I do define it as extremely bigoted and Islamophobic to support Trump's Muslim ban at the US borders or his Muslim register, however. In my book, if you support a bigot's bigoted views you are a bigot. End of.
That's the kind of thing I am talking about. The kind about assigning blame.
Though maybe you would say that they are not "true Muslims" if they are critical of Islam? And you might, indeed be right. But those people are nonetheless part of the Muslim community, and pay lip service to Islam, (maybe mostly because they'd rather not be disowned by their families)
Why are you speculating about what I might say?
Fear of Islam surely exists. But if people had some other phobia , say arachnophobia , would you call them rude names them for that, and tell them to shut up about it, for fear of "legitimisng" their fear? well, maybe you would, but that wouldn't work as therapy.
At present, In Britain, it's not so very long since you couldn't mock Christianity without Christians getting offended all over the place and saying that it shouldn't be allowed (that's well within living memory) We have same thing with Islam now, don't we? So we can't pretend to be superior , but still, we're just as determined to cling to our rights as before. I note that you agreed that the freedom to mock is important , Odeon. But the freedom to ask if this religion might be dangerous (or some Muslim sects might be dangerous. And oppressive) is taking that freedom too far?
No, it's not. You have every right to think so, just as I have every right to disagree. I think, and I tend to state this rather strongly, that it's not the religion, it's the people. Yes, sects. That's where things can get authoritarian, when only a few have the power to interpret the writings.
(The classic example here is that like most people, I haven't actually read the Quran, I have read a translation of it. If you want to read the real thing, you need to not only learn a language and a writing system, but also make sure you have the cultural and historical context. That's where things tend to get dangerous.)
And why? Because you already reached a conclusion? And you believe that every other notion is stupid. People will only feel oppressed, or marginalised if you tell them what to think, won't they ?
It is their right to disagree with anything and everything I say, and call me whatever they want, just as it is mine. But I don't think I've been calling everyone stupid, have I? Al, yes. Benji, yes. Others?
"Is she gone yet?"