Paris Attacks

[Badsmerf]

Wow. Russia held nothing back in their bombing. They even used white phosphorus. I read the assault they launched, with the powerful bombing capabilities, could barely be replicated by even the US.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think part of what makes them fearsome is their religious zealotry. Their version of Islam is central, but it need not be an indictment of all Islam.

The inability to make that distinction is very problematic.

Yes, this. The right wants to condemn all of Islam while the left wants to talk about how Islam is a religion of peace.

 

Religion is what the people make of it. Most of Islam is peaceful but there's nothing wrong with calling out the sects who promote violence, just as there's nothing wrong with calling out sects of any religion that promote violence.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, this. The right wants to condemn all of Islam while the left wants to talk about how Islam is a religion of peace.

 

Religion is what the people make of it. Most of Islam is peaceful but there's nothing wrong with calling out the sects who promote violence, just as there's nothing wrong with calling out sects of any religion that promote violence.

 

Exactly.  The right is bordering to over the cliff on Islamaphobia.  Absolutely.  But the left is a pack of hypocrites.  They have no problem attacking "Christians" about gay marriage but if you point out that ISIS is Islamic in nature they cry "racism".  (A preposterous charge in it's own right)

 

We have to be able to call this what it is without lefties being emboldened to yell "racist" - that has to stop.  It's worse than the Islamaphobia in some respects because that response is just stupid overreaction.  The left's response is more calculated and....I can't find the word for it but sinister comes to mind.  

 

Islam is being corrupted for many reasons social/political/economical/etc.  It has nothing to do with the true nature of the religion that it is so frequently being used as a catalyst for horrific violence.  But IT IS being used as such.  It is a central cog in what these zealots are doing.  Ignoring that or over generalizing it to all Islam are the absolute heights of stupidity.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Islam is being corrupted for many reasons social/political/economical/etc.  It has nothing to do with the true nature of the religion that it is so frequently being used as a catalyst for horrific violence.  But IT IS being used as such.  It is a central cog in what these zealots are doing.  Ignoring that or over generalizing it to all Islam are the absolute heights of stupidity.

This is the crux of the situation. Society is corrupting Islam and twisting it for their own benefit.

 

Not unlike what Christianity largely did in Europe for... Oh, I don't know, a millennia.

 

One cannot fully separate the governmental and societal influences from the religion. Both are being leveraged and used to feed off each other in a terrible, destructive way.

[TheLeviathan]

Yup, the Crusades were definitely Christian. Wasn't the end all be all of that religion either.

 

unfortunately the dominant voices in our country almost all take one ridiculous side or the other. I'm having trouble thinking of anyone able to separate these ideas.

 

I suppose it doesn't help when even an article as relatively factual and straightforward as Wood's gets the lefty treatment. (I'm sure some righties used it to enflame Islamaphobia) Doesnt leave a lot of room for good sense in the discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

Some righties? that's an understatement.....

 

I re-read it. I don't know that I agree (and I don't know why you can't understand I am saying OTHERS are saying it was a bad article, I am NOT, even though I keep typing that) that it paints all Islam as bad as some are saying it does.

 

But, I'm not Muslim. I don't see through their lens of hatred and prejudice. I can imagine what it is like, but I read that article as a white, wealthy, atheist. IF I was reading that as someone that had been treated badly for being Muslim, my lens would be different, and I might interpret it differently. Despite what the article tries to say, communication is a two way street*.

 

*actually, given there are millions (or thousands) of readers, it is like a crazy intersection......where you can take its meaning many different ways. It largely depends on you....not on the author.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I re-read it. I don't know that I agree (and I don't know why you can't understand I am saying OTHERS are saying it was a bad article, I am NOT, even though I keep typing that) that it paints all Islam as bad as some are saying it does.

 

But, I'm not Muslim. I don't see through their lens of hatred and prejudice. I can imagine what it is like, but I read that article as a white, wealthy, atheist. IF I was reading that as someone that had been treated badly for being Muslim, my lens would be different, and I might interpret it differently. Despite what the article tries to say, communication is a two way street*.

 

*actually, given there are millions (or thousands) of readers, it is like a crazy intersection......where you can take its meaning many different ways. It largely depends on you....not on the author.

 

And yet it's being made about the author.  We probably don't need to go down this route, but most of your response is some of the go-to liberal responses to situations that drive me up the freaking wall.  We all know what the righties do with fear mongering and oversimplification.  But the left's "I only see it through my prism of the world, so I can't understand" and "it paints all Islam" BS has got to stop.  No it doesn't paint all Islam - it paints ISIS.  And yes you can understand it, because it uses facts.  Calling ISIS Islamic is accurate.  Just like calling the Crusades Christian is accurate.

 

When did accuracy and truth take a back-seat to over sensitivity, subjective-only lenses, trigger words, and "isms" for the left?  And holy hell when will it stop?  I'd like one side of the aisle to at least be mildly palatable to listen to and if neither are going to indulge in facts we're in a lot of damn trouble.

[twinsnorth49]

 

This is the crux of the situation. Society is corrupting Islam and twisting it for their own benefit.

 

Not unlike what Christianity largely did in Europe for... Oh, I don't know, a millennia.

 

One cannot fully separate the governmental and societal influences from the religion. Both are being leveraged and used to feed off each other in a terrible, destructive way.

But there is no separation of those things within the religion, that is what IS leverages the most. The IS  is responsible for imposing Islamic law (sharia law) on society through what is devined  by Allah in the Qur'an. 

 

Are they leveraging that for political purposes? Absolutely. 

 

I'm not sure I agree that society is corrupting Islam, that's part of Woods point, the things IS adheres to exist, they aren't twisted interpretations. As far as the right Right creating an Islamaphobic environment, they aren't corrupting the religion, they're exploiting the fear created by focusing on the most literal interpretations of it and applying it in broad terms.

[Mike Sixel]

Uh, seeing thru a lens isn't a political thing, it is basic communications research. You are the one trying to paint a basic understanding of how communications work in a political way, not me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But there is no separation of those things within the religion, that is what IS leverages the most. The IS  is responsible for imposing Islamic law (sharia law) on society through what is devined  by Allah in the Qur'an. 

 

Are they leveraging that for political purposes? Absolutely. 

 

I'm not sure I agree that society is corrupting Islam, that's part of Woods point, the things IS adheres to exist, they aren't twisted interpretations. As far as the right Right creating an Islamaphobic environment, they aren't corrupting the religion, they're exploiting the fear created by focusing on the most literal interpretations of it and applying it in broad terms.

My point was a generalization about religion and society, not specifically Islam and ISIL. I didn't make that clear.

 

My point is that society, religion, and government are products of the individuals that represent them. Islam, or Christianity, is not inherently good or evil. America is not inherently good or evil. Its people - specifically the power brokers - are what define the religion, society, and government. The people choose to follow or they do not.

 

And all three of those things are intertwined. The people of a society take part of the religion and use it for evil. They build a government around these evil ideas.

 

Or vice versa. Maybe they do good with that power instead of evil.

 

That doesn't mean Islam itself is evil. That means the society built up around ISIL is evil and they use the parts of Islam that conveniently line up with their agenda. Or maybe they started with Islam and built the society of evil around it.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter. It's the people we should condemn. Islam, like literally every other religion on the planet - is used for both good and evil; the only difference are the people involved.

 

This argument reminds me of a question I posed to myself years ago but never developed an adequate answer, likely because there isn't an adequate answer:

 

Is the industrialized west more progressive and tolerant than much of the world because of Christianity or is Christianity more progressive and tolerant than much of the world because of the industrialized west?

 

The two things are impossibly intertwined. I don't believe anyone can answer the question earnestly. Nor am I sure the question is worth answering. What matters is the end result and the actions we take to get there.

[Willihammer]

IMO Obama and others who make claims about the "true nature" of Islam or any religion are barking up the wrong tree. Since Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same scriptural foundation, that conversation ends with a claim about which is the "correct" religion. The Talmud, Bible, Koran are books like any other works of art and so the interpretation depends as much on the reader as it does on the content. When groups are united by a common foe or cause, that's when there is a fracturing away from the main vein of the religion and that seems to be all that's going on with ISIS right now, from my view.

[Mike Sixel]

While I agree with that.....I do have a question.

 

If, say, 95%* of Muslims think the interpretation ISL is making is wrong.....and not true....what is the "most true" Islam? If almost every Christian church says it is ok to eat pork.....isn't that the "most true" Christianity, no matter what the book might say?

 

* I don't know what the number is, that's not the point of the question, is it?

[Willihammer]

 

While I agree with that.....I do have a question.

 

If, say, 95%* of Muslims think the interpretation ISL is making is wrong.....and not true....what is the "most true" Islam? If almost every Christian church says it is ok to eat pork.....isn't that the "most true" Christianity, no matter what the book might say?

 

* I don't know what the number is, that's not the point of the question, is it?

That depends whether you ask a Shia or Sunni. As I understand it, Islam started fracturing on day 1 due to debate about the true succession of Muhamed.

 

I mean, consider all the various fractions of Christianity. The big one, Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic. Catholic vs. Protestant, and all the variations of Protestantism (and Catholicism, Orthodox). Its the nature of religion and more broadly, the nature of art and reading IMO. Sunni and Shia are just as fregmented I'm sure. ISIS appears to be another sub-fragment of Sunni, localized to the Syrian-Iraqi situation. With a fair number of foreign extremists and psychos thrown in for good measure. But ISIS's interpretation of Islam is not more or less valid than any other.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

While I agree with that.....I do have a question.

 

If, say, 95%* of Muslims think the interpretation ISL is making is wrong.....and not true....what is the "most true" Islam? If almost every Christian church says it is ok to eat pork.....isn't that the "most true" Christianity, no matter what the book might say?

 

* I don't know what the number is, that's not the point of the question, is it?

See, I don't believe that question can be answered. Which faction of Islam are we referencing? What faction of Christianity are we referencing? There are dozens from which to choose and many vehemently disagree on some pretty fundamental things about their respective religions.

 

I firmly believe most people use religion for good, or at least an attempt at what they believe to be good... But inherently, a religion is nothing more than a set of guidelines that individuals use to steer their lives, for both good and bad.

 

I guess my point boils down to "Most people are either inherently good or just want to quietly live their lives." I don't really care about the religion, only what people do with it.

 

And given the wealth of Muslims around the world who aren't blowing up **** and declaring war, I have no reason to think Islam is any different than another religion.

[twinsnorth49]

 

IMO Obama and others who make claims about the "true nature" of Islam or any religion are barking up the wrong tree. Since Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same scriptural foundation, that conversation ends with a claim about which is the "correct" religion. The Talmud, Bible, Koran are books like any other works of art and so the interpretation depends as much on the reader as it does on the content. When groups are united by a common foe or cause, that's when there is a fracturing away from the main vein of the religion and that seems to be all that's going on with ISIS right now, from my view.

Thus the term "extremist". They have moved far away from the widely held interpretation. Interpretation is inherently prone to error because it's a human process, so I absolutely agree it depends entirely on the reader. Just as there is no "correct" religion, there is no "correct" interpretation, only where it falls in relation to the broader one.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't agree there is no correct interpretation of texts.....any interpretation of a text that says it is ok to kill innocent people is wrong, because killing innocent people is wrong. I am certain there is right and wrong in the universe......but, you can argue I might be wrong about that, therefore we can't be sure I'm correct. But, that's like saying that just because I can't prove some things scientifically they are wrong, which would blow up science......

[Willihammer]

 

Thus the term "extremist". They have moved far away from the widely held interpretation. Interpretation is inherently prone to error because it's a human process, so I absolutely agree it depends entirely on the reader. Just as there is no "correct" religion, there is no "correct" interpretation, only where it falls in relation to the broader one.

I think you're talking past me. "Extreme" is fine. "Not Islam," as Obama said, is dumb. ISIS may be extreme but its just as valid.

 

An English speaking, Christian American president saying what is and isn't Islam seems like an incredibly stupid road to go down, that's all I'm saying.

[Willihammer]

I'd add that when you step back and look at the situation ISIS faces - Assad's army on one side, Russian white phosophorus bombs from the other side, American and French air strikes from another - that seems like a situation ripe for extremism. Esp. if you buy into the conspiracy that those foreign powers were responsible for starting the war in the first place.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think you're talking past me. "Extreme" is fine. "Not Islam," as Obama said, is dumb. ISIS may be extreme but its just as valid.

 

An English speaking, Christian American president saying what is and isn't Islam seems like an incredibly stupid road to go down, that's all I'm saying.

 

it does reek of hubris, but I think he said it from hope for tolerance, and to fight against the fear mongering from many others......and not out of hubris. Who else could say "we should be tolerant and recall the bill of rights maybe".....

[twinsnorth49]

I think most of the debate on interpretation of Islam has to do with Sharia law, and ironically both IS and the conservative right pretty much align with and use the most extreme interpretation of it in their respective agendas.

 

Where the disagreement comes from among Muslims and people who argue that the most rigid interpretation of Islamic Law is incorrect, is that it's not a rigid and static belief. The rules are rigid, the interpretation and application are not. Often overlooked in discussion of this is the role of the Sunna and Hadith as supplements to the Qur'an.

 

I find these two passages to be very useful when people try to claim "correct" interpretation. It's pretty clear that the interpretations by IS and the Right are archaic interpretations, no longer in step with current times, and having not evolved, are no longer valid. Wrong? No. Invalid? Yes.

 

This is a pretty good example as to why Muslim world was considered to be so advanced and progressive at one time.

 

"The Qur'an contains a variety of law-making provisions and legal proscriptions interspersed throughout its chapters (suwar) and verses (ayat). A number of rules exist for interpreting these provisions, such as the position of a given ayah within the context of the surah, which in turn is interpreted in accordance with its place in the sequence of revelations, its reference to other revelations, and its historical context in relation to particular conditions which existed at the time of the given revelation. These and other rules are known as the science of interpretation (ilm usul aI-fiqh). According to these rules, for example, one initially is to refer to a specific provision and then to a general provision dealing with a particular situation. No general provision can be interpreted to contradict a specific provision, and a specific rule will supersede a general proposition. A general provision, however, is always interpreted in the broadest manner, while a specific provision is interpreted in the narrowest manner. Reasoning by analogy is permitted, as are applications by analogy, except where expressly prohibited. Simplicity and clear language are always preferred. Similarly, the clear spirit of certain prescriptions cannot be altered by inconsistent interpretations. A policy-oriented interpretation within the confines of the rules of jurisprudence is permissible and even recommended, as is the case with the doctrine of ijtihad (progressive reasoning by analogy)."

 

 

"Muslim scholars do not consider Islam to be an evolving religion, but rather a religion and legal system which applies to all times. It is, therefore, the application that is susceptible to evolution. Indeed, the provisions of the Qur'an are such that by their disciplined interpretation, with the aid of the Hadith and Sunna and other sources of interpretation, Islam can, as intended, provide the solution to contemporary social problems."

 

[twinsnorth49]

 

I think you're talking past me. "Extreme" is fine. "Not Islam," as Obama said, is dumb. ISIS may be extreme but its just as valid.

 

An English speaking, Christian American president saying what is and isn't Islam seems like an incredibly stupid road to go down, that's all I'm saying.

I see, agreed  then.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I'd add that when you step back and look at the situation ISIS faces - Assad's army on one side, Russian white phosophorus bombs from the other side, American and French air strikes from another - that seems like a situation ripe for extremism. Esp. if you buy into the conspiracy that those foreign powers were responsible for starting the war in the first place.

You're right and that's what I've been saying, it's the very reason ISIS and formerly Al Qaeda strive to destabilize the regions they are in. What is ripe for extremism is the conditions of isolation and desperation they create among the people they look to recruit.

 

The bombs may hurt IS from gaining any substantial territorial success and possibly fracture them from needed financing, but they certainly help them when it comes to furthering their propaganda campaign.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't agree there is no correct interpretation of texts.....any interpretation of a text that says it is ok to kill innocent people is wrong, because killing innocent people is wrong.

I disagree, partially because the text and its interpretation is fluid.

 

Today, an increasing number of people are against killing of any kind. I expect the death penalty to be eliminated from America within my lifetime, which would be the last state-sanctioned killing we allow (let's not get into the abortion and "life" vs. "conception" argument here, everyone... That's not the point).

 

Yet just 100 years ago, the death penalty was commonplace and few thought twice about it.

 

200 years ago... You get the point.

 

If you want to argue the "here and now" interpretation of a religion, I guess we could do that... But even that interpretation is ever on the move and apt to change rather suddenly (see 2005 gay marriage versus 2015 gay marriage).

[Willihammer]

 

You're right and that's what I've been saying, it's the very reason ISIS and formerly Al Qaeda strive to destabilize the regions they are in. What is ripe for extremism is the conditions of isolation and desperation they create among the people they look to recruit.

 

The bombs may hurt IS from gaining any substantial territorial success and possibly fracture them from needed financing, but they certainly help them when it comes to furthering their propaganda campaign.

I seriously doubt that ISIS theological goals are the ends and not the means. I'm much more inclined to think the typical member has secular goals.

 

The Syrian who want none of the following

 

-Assad

-Russian backed puppet gov't

-US backed puppet gov't

 

is probably going to gravitate towards ISIS, being that ISIS is now the biggest domestic opposition party. I don't think they need the mass murder and mayhem to motivate them towards that group.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're right and that's what I've been saying, it's the very reason ISIS and formerly Al Qaeda strive to destabilize the regions they are in. What is ripe for extremism is the conditions of isolation and desperation they create among the people they look to recruit.

 

The bombs may hurt IS from gaining any substantial territorial success and possibly fracture them from needed financing, but they certainly help them when it comes to furthering their propaganda campaign.

Yep, enter the "society" argument of my earlier post. Destabilization of a society is the easiest way to remold it into something new, often for malevolent purposes.

 

At times, ISIL puts on a good face and "helps" the citizenry of the Middle East but ultimately, their brand of crazy works best if you scare the **** out of the populace and make them desperate enough to follow you off a cliff.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I seriously doubt that ISIS theological goals are the ends and not the means. I'm much more inclined to think the typical member has secular goals.

 

The Syrian who want none of the following

 

-Assad

-Russian backed puppet gov't

-US backed puppet gov't

 

is probably going to gravitate towards ISIS, being that ISIS is now the biggest domestic opposition party. I don't think they need the mass murder and mayhem to motivate them towards that group.

I'm much more inclined to believe the conditions created in their country by outside forces make them much more susceptible to ISIS propaganda.  Mass murder and Mayhem is just another means to continue the ongoing destabilisation. 

 

Whether the average recruit will ultimately want to live long term under a  non secular ISIS regime is really beside the point at this time. I don't think we're really disagreeing here for the most part actually.

[formerly33]

 

While I agree with that.....I do have a question.

 

If, say, 95%* of Muslims think the interpretation ISL is making is wrong.....and not true....what is the "most true" Islam? If almost every Christian church says it is ok to eat pork.....isn't that the "most true" Christianity, no matter what the book might say?

 

* I don't know what the number is, that's not the point of the question, is it?

Like you, I don't believe that ISIS is "not Islam." Not having actually seen/heard Obama say this, I don't know his exact words; could he have merely been saying that the Islamic State doesn't define the religion? With that I couldn't agree more.

 

Like Wood, I think that ISIS leaders are indeed true Muslims. That doesn't mean that either of us think that non ISIS members aren't true Muslims. To take a stance on that issue would not only be joining them in a childish argument similar to that of Baptists and Catholics.

 

Religion is all about interpretation. I feel like the only reason anyone would take a stance on any given side over another would be because they were defending their religion of choice. And that, my friend, involves conflict of interest.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't agree there is no correct interpretation of texts.....any interpretation of a text that says it is ok to kill innocent people is wrong, because killing innocent people is wrong. I am certain there is right and wrong in the universe......but, you can argue I might be wrong about that, therefore we can't be sure I'm correct. But, that's like saying that just because I can't prove some things scientifically they are wrong, which would blow up science......

 

Some texts say, in effect "you should kill that guy if....."  or  "you should chop off that dude's hand if....."

 

What seems to be the issue is not so much interpretation but points of emphasis.  For many years the Christians emphasized some pretty hardcore stuff and did all sorts of horrible things.  Some still emphasize those same things just with less outward violence.  

 

ISIS is taking actual Islam and just picking and choosing the parts that serve it's purposes best.  What it believes are the "true" words.  And again, that makes is undeniably Islamic at it's core, but it need not speak to the many practicing Moslems around the world who are wonderful people.  (And, from my experience, kick ass cooks!)

[Mike Sixel]

 

I disagree, partially because the text and its interpretation is fluid.

 

Today, an increasing number of people are against killing of any kind. I expect the death penalty to be eliminated from America within my lifetime, which would be the last state-sanctioned killing we allow (let's not get into the abortion and "life" vs. "conception" argument here, everyone... That's not the point).

 

Yet just 100 years ago, the death penalty was commonplace and few thought twice about it.

 

200 years ago... You get the point.

 

If you want to argue the "here and now" interpretation of a religion, I guess we could do that... But even that interpretation is ever on the move and apt to change rather suddenly (see 2005 gay marriage versus 2015 gay marriage).

 

1800 slavery was wrong, even if "Christian" churches said it was ok. Denying basic rights to gays is wrong, even 10 years ago. There is right, and there is wrong. Regardless of what some book might or might not say. I don't expect everyone to agree on this....

[Mike Sixel]

I was just waiting for someone at work. Fox Business was on the tv. The vitriol aimed at the President (from the channel that worships the Bush presidency, you know, the one that f'd up Iraq and was in charge when 9/11 happened) that Paris is Obama's fault.......I can see why those that watch Fox believe Obama is evil. They don't even try to have a dissenting voice on. The fear and anger, I had to go back to my office and tell the person to meet me here....