Islam a religion of peace/violence...?

[indra_fanatic]

Ebia,

There are differences between public and private condemnations. To discern the difference, we need to find out what proclamations are being made for internal, and not just media, consumption. What are these imams saying to their congregations, in their native languages?

The reason I address this is because there is a lot of precedent for this sort of doublespeak in the Islamic fundamentalist world. For instance, Yasser Arafat was well-known for issuing condolences for 9-11 to Western media personnel, but MEMRI and many other interpreters caught him red-handed praising Allah for it on PA state television.

 

[JunkYardDog]

Is that the same "none" as in the number of condemnations of Sept 11th that you implied I'd find? If you expect to be taken seriously, then when someone provides the evidence you asked for and implied would be sufficient then you have to accept it, not just keep asking for more.

JunkYardDog: Produce ONE example
Me: Ok, there you go.
JunkYardDog: PRODUCE ANOTHER ONE

ebia said in post 18, "[font=&quot] That aside, there are heaps of muslim leaders that have spoken out against attrocities done in the name of Islam"

As I understand the word "heaps" it means something similar to or greater than lots.

ebia has produced five so far related to the many incidents that were listed. Her five covered two specific instances. No outcry over Michael Pearl or the other beheadings. No outcry over the assasination attempt against the pope. None for Munich. None for Klinghoeffer. None for more than 200 dead Marines in lebanon. None for the embassy bombings in Africa. None for World Trade center I. None for the roadside bomb designed to take out children getting candy from GIs. None for all the bombs designed to take out Muslims wanting to join their own police force and military in Iraq. None for Sumara. None for the busses in Israel. Need I go on?

There is only ONE constant about these: Muslim men between 17 and 40.

Speaking of cotton wool. You have it in the ears and the eyes.
[/font]

 

[ebia]

ebia said in post 18, "[font=&quot] That aside, there are heaps of muslim leaders that have spoken out against attrocities done in the name of Islam"

As I understand the word "heaps" it means something similar to or greater than lots.

Yep.

ebia has produced five so far related to the many incidents that were listed. Her five covered two specific instances. No outcry over Michael Pearl or the other beheadings. No outcry over the assasination attempt against the pope. None for Munich. None for Klinghoeffer. None for more than 200 dead Marines in lebanon. None for the embassy bombings in Africa. None for World Trade center I. None for the roadside bomb designed to take out children getting candy from GIs. None for all the bombs designed to take out Muslims wanting to join their own police force and military in Iraq. None for Sumara. None for the busses in Israel. Need I go on?

You didn't ask for one of each. You asked for one of any of them. I met your challenge, you should have the grace to back down on the point.

There is only ONE constant about these: Muslim men between 17 and 40.

Because you've chosen attacks done by Muslim men. If you had listed ALL the attrocities committed in the world between those dates and proved that they were all committed by Muslim men then you would have a point. As it is, your list proves nothing.
[/font]

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

There are differences between public and private condemnations. To discern the difference, we need to find out what proclamations are being made for internal, and not just media, consumption. What are these imams saying to their congregations, in their native languages?

I was asked to provide instances of public, unreserved, condemnation. You can't critisise me for providing what I was asked to provide.

The reason I address this is because there is a lot of precedent for this sort of doublespeak in the Islamic fundamentalist world. For instance, Yasser Arafat was well-known for issuing condolences for 9-11 to Western media personnel, but MEMRI and many other interpreters caught him red-handed praising Allah for it on PA state television.

I dare say that has happened on occasion, but it's a hefty accusation to make to say that is widespread, and one the accusser needs to provide evidence of significant proportion of double standards if they want it to stand. I can't reasonably be expected to provide transcripts of every sermon delivered in every mosque in defence of Islam.

 

[indra_fanatic]

I was asked to provide instances of public, unreserved, condemnation. You can't critisise me for providing what I was asked to provide.

True, but now I am asking for something more. It isn't that difficult, though. It is not hard to obtain tapes of state-run Arabic language networks like al-Jazeera, especially in Islamic states with a lot of Westerners working in them like Saudi Arabia... you just need a VCR, in fact.

Actually though, some of this is publicized well enough to enter the domain of common knowledge, with no translation necessary. Egyptian national television does not exactly seek to conceal the fact that it airs a series based on the Protocols. One can easily find this out through many media sources, but do know that oil sheiks own significant amounts of stock in the "Big Three" media giants (AP, BBC, CNN) and can easily sway the networks into downplaying disagreeable stories.

I dare say that has happened on occasion, but it's a hefty accusation to make to say that is widespread, and one the accusser needs to provide evidence of significant proportion of double standards if they want it to stand. I can't reasonably be expected to provide transcripts of every sermon delivered in every mosque in defence of Islam.

I already gave you a good source: www.memri.org . They are probably the leading organization obtaining documents in Arabic media and translating them for the West. There are others, but they (run by former Mossad translators, I believe) are the preeminent ones in the field.

As for the nature of my allegation (i.e. that Islamic religious leaders make different statements in English and in their native language), you must recall that by its very nature Islam is an extremely private religion and in general has a good deal of antipathy towards sharing sacred teachings and edicts with the nonbelieving West. Even in Koranic days, Mohammed and his followers would often enter into treaties with rival clans/sects that were worded differently for his believers and for the other party.

 

[indra_fanatic]

Because you've chosen attacks done by Muslim men. If you had listed ALL the attrocities committed in the world between those dates and proved that they were all committed by Muslim men then you would have a point. As it is, your list proves nothing.
[/size][/font]

No one has ever claimed here that Islam has a monopoly on carnage or that it is the only religion to have ever engaged in holy wars. In recent times though, the great majority of religious terrorists and extremists in general have been fundamentalist Muslims.

Perhaps in another century, a fanatical sect of Mormonism or Bob Jones-style Baptism will emerge as a major threat to world peace, but we're talking the here and now.

 

[ebia]

True, but now I am asking for something more. It isn't that difficult, though. It is not hard to obtain tapes of state-run Arabic language networks like al-Jazeera, especially in Islamic states with a lot of Westerners working in them like Saudi Arabia... you just need a VCR, in fact.

You might not have noticed that I'm not in an islamic state, let alone an Arabic one. Neither do I speak Arabic.

Actually though, some of this is publicized well enough to enter the domain of common knowledge, with no translation necessary. Egyptian national television does not exactly seek to conceal the fact that it airs a series based on the Protocols. One can easily find this out through many media sources, but do know that oil sheiks own significant amounts of stock in the "Big Three" media giants (AP, BBC, CNN) and can easily sway the networks into downplaying disagreeable stories.

You need evidence that they do. And, by the way, the BBC is not a private company, does not have shareholders, and is very difficult to sway, so your info on that seems a bit dodgy.

I already gave you a good source: www.memri.org . They are probably the leading organization obtaining documents in Arabic media and translating them for the West. There are others, but they (run by former Mossad translators, I believe) are the preeminent ones in the field.

Naming a few possible sources of information doesn't constitute giving evidence of an accusation.

As for the nature of my allegation (i.e. that Islamic religious leaders make different statements in English and in their native language), you must recall that by its very nature Islam is an extremely private religion and in general has a good deal of antipathy towards sharing sacred teachings and edicts with the nonbelieving West.

This is maybe true of the Arabic culture, but (as we've said before) the Arabs are not the only Muslims.

Even in Koranic days, Mohammed and his followers would often enter into treaties with rival clans/sects that were worded differently for his believers and for the other party.

Like no-one in Christian Europe ever did anything similar.

 

[ebia]

No one has ever claimed here that Islam has a monopoly on carnage or that it is the only religion to have ever engaged in holy wars. In recent times though, the great majority of religious terrorists and extremists in general have been fundamentalist Muslims.

I'm not at all sure that's true. The majority who have impacted on the USA and Australia, perhaps if you limit yourself to the last couple of decades. I doubt either of us are in a very good position to generalise about the which groups are causing the most terrorism within the 3rd world, and including the whole 20th century would give a very different slant.

Perhaps in another century, a fanatical sect of Mormonism or Bob Jones-style Baptism will emerge as a major threat to world peace, but we're talking the here and now.

Well, actually we are talking about whether or not Islam is or is not intrinsically violent, so only looking at a period when Islamic violence is on a high (assuming that it is) biases the conversation.

 

[gnine]

How does anyone know that the vast majority of muslims deplore terrorism?- Has anyone done a survey on this? Of course the ones that go on TV are going to "deplore" it. The ones that support it are hardly going to admit it on Western TV, are they? There are real concerns of a statistical sampling error here.

Its likely that Muslims in the west have different attitudes to those in the Middle East.

Have a look at this site Pew Global Attitudes

can read about Pew here and the methodology here

All information copyright of Pew Global Attitudes Project

These are striking figures and suggest that around 50% of Muslims in some countries DO actually support terrorism - either directly or indirectly.

But because Islam is man-made, probably the other 50% are peaceful... as I've been arguing - what islam teaches in reality is unknowable, because its from a dead dude whose no longer around to clarify - its how its interpreted by its followers now thats important.

 

[ebia]

How does anyone know that the vast majority of muslims deplore terrorism?-

As I've said, my opinion is based on the (pretty large) number of Muslims I've met in Britain, Australia, UAE, and NWFP Pakistan. (Plus, to a less extent, the pretty close eye we all keep on Malaysia and Indonesia here in Australia).

Has anyone done a survey on this? Of course the ones that go on TV are going to "deplore" it. The ones that support it are hardly going to admit it on Western TV, are they?

Um, actually, some do.

There are real concerns of a statistical sampling error here.

I don't think anyone claimed to have produced statistical data.

Its likely that Muslims in the west have different attitudes to those in the Middle East.

Most Muslims don't live in the Middle East. Arabia accounts for a pretty small proportion of Muslims compared to North Africa, greater India, or Indonesia.

I wish people would stop equating Muslim with Arab.

can read about Pew here and the methodology here

Hmm. Would like more info on how the info was gathered in Pakistan. It says it was mostly urban, but not whether all the urban areas were covered. The same questions would get very different answers in Islamabad, Karachi and Peshawar.

I'd also be slightly concerned about question MQ.29f1 and MQ.30f2
- I had to read it a couple of times to figure out whether they want to know if "I think it's justified to use violence to defend Islam" or if "I think other people justify using violence to defend Islam". Maybe it's clearer in other languages or when being read to you, but it's a poorly worded question in a world where violence is part of life.

Q18 is very interesting. Especially the response in Turkey!

But because Islam is man-made, probably the other 50% are peaceful... as I've been arguing - what islam teaches in reality is unknowable, because its from a dead dude whose no longer around to clarify - its how its interpreted by its followers now thats important.

Very true.

 

[indra_fanatic]

I'm not at all sure that's true. The majority who have impacted on the USA and Australia, perhaps if you limit yourself to the last couple of decades.

Terrorism and irregular warfare have not been in widespread use for more than the past few decades, so this doesn't really count. However, what about the Moro terror offensive in the Philippines in the early part of the century?

I doubt either of us are in a very good position to generalise about the which groups are causing the most terrorism within the 3rd world, and including the whole 20th century would give a very different slant.

What is going on in southern Thailand? What is going on in the southern Philippines with all those people getting beheaded? What is going on in Indonesia on the few outlying islands that (once) had substantial Christian populations like Molucca and what went on on East Timor?

Those are just three examples from your neck of the woods.

Well, actually we are talking about whether or not Islam is or is not intrinsically violent, so only looking at a period when Islamic violence is on a high (assuming that it is) biases the conversation.

Hence my request that we go to doctrinal sources and inspirations for modern-day Islam in peacetime nations. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Malaysia are not being invaded or threatened by infidels, so I would expect the rhetoric of their governmental leaders and imams to reflect this lack of hostility, but does it?

 

[ebia]

Terrorism and irregular warfare have not been in widespread use for more than the past few decades, so this doesn't really count.

Really? What concept of 'few' are we working to?

However, what about the Moro terror offensive in the Philippines in the early part of the century?

What about it?

What is going on in southern Thailand? What is going on in the southern Philippines with all those people getting beheaded? What is going on in Indonesia on the few outlying islands that (once) had substantial Christian populations like Molucca and what went on on East Timor?

Those are just three examples from your neck of the woods.

I'm not claiming that these attrocities don't happen outside the 1st world, I'm suggesting that once you look to the third world you find a vast array of attrocities that have nothing to do with Islam attacking non-Islam (Rwanda, to name a particularly vile example). Such a vast array that Muslims don't look any worse than anyone else. Citing individual examples either way won't prove or disprove my suggestion. Unless someone has done some very serious research on the matter it remains a suggestion, but an important one.

Hence my request that we go to doctrinal sources and inspirations for modern-day Islam in peacetime nations. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Malaysia are not being invaded or threatened by infidels, so I would expect the rhetoric of their governmental leaders and imams to reflect this lack of hostility, but does it?

I'd rather look to the people than governments. Governments have a vested interest in stirring people up. Despite that, the goverment of Pakistan isn't great, but it's no worse for inciting hatred than the government of India. Malaysia's governement is usually pretty reasonable, which is why everyone acts surprised on the rare occasions when it is not. Indonesia seems to have calmed down lately. Does anyone ever hear anything from Bangladesh? The Emirates, Oman? Are the Muslim countries, on average, any worse than their peers in stirring up hatred? Are the Imams and Mullahs of Pakistan any worse than their Hindu counterparts in India? The secular leads in the least westernised parts of China? The secular leaders of N. Korea?

 

[indra_fanatic]

Really? What concept of 'few' are we working to?

The past two decades, as you said. Prior to that, I will concede that most (not all) terroristic acts were done in the name of Marxism.

What about it?

I was demonstrating that prolonged, coherent Islamic insurgency campaigns predate the Western colonization of the Middle East by a significant timespan.

I'm not claiming that these attrocities don't happen outside the 1st world, I'm suggesting that once you look to the third world you find a vast array of attrocities that have nothing to do with Islam attacking non-Islam (Rwanda, to name a particularly vile example).

I was listing examples from your part of the world, but to bring up Africa, for every non-religious tribal civil war like Rwanda, there are two wars that do involve either Islamic wars upon non-Muslims (like Libya vs. northern Chad, northern Sudan vs. southern Sudan, northern Nigeria vs. southern Nigeria, and so on) or inter-clan wars where both sides are Muslim (like what is still going on in Somalia).

While on Africa, though, I would like to add (though admittedly this is a bit off-topic) that many ghastly conflicts such as the aforementioned Rwanda and Congo are virtually completely ignored by the United Nations, or else pushed into the periphery, because of that organization's single-minded focus on Israeli and Taiwanese issues (which together take up about 40% of all U.N. time).

Such a vast array that Muslims don't look any worse than anyone else.

Maybe not, but there seems to be a disproportionate involvement.

Citing individual examples either way won't prove or disprove my suggestion. Unless someone has done some very serious research on the matter it remains a suggestion, but an important one.

Several years ago I heard that circa 90% of world conflicts either involve Muslim/non-Muslim warfare or intranecine Muslim strife. Not sure if I can give a valid current quote for that, but based purely on a numbers game, I would not be surprised if the actual breakdown is close to that figure.

I'd rather look to the people than governments. Governments have a vested interest in stirring people up.

Governments are also far more educated than the publics they rule. You are right, a lot of stuff is their fault, but they still know more than the masses.

Despite that, the goverment of Pakistan isn't great, but it's no worse for inciting hatred than the government of India.

I really doubt that. In fact, it is against Indian law to defame other religions (i.e. Islam), whereas in Pakistan, a person can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to death for "defaming the Prophet" on only one eyewitness.

Malaysia's governement is usually pretty reasonable, which is why everyone acts surprised on the rare occasions when it is not.

I never denied that its government is not "reasonable" overall--all religions are tolerated and the very large Chinese Christian/Confucian minority is completely unmolested, but fiery rhetoric is still used for the purposes of funding insurrections elswehere. Plus, you forgot that it is essentially an autocratic, one-man state--elections are widely believed to be rigged, and Mahatir Mohamed had an interesting habit of locking up all of his rivals for sodomy.

Indonesia seems to have calmed down lately

Indonesia doesn't involve itself in foreign wars--primarily just paramilitary occupations/cleansings of isolated Christian or animist-populated islands.

Does anyone ever hear anything from Bangladesh?

In general, nations that are so extremely poor that they are essentially constantly on the brink of mass starvation can devote little attention to organized terror--something I pointed out earlier.

The Emirates, Oman?

I never argued that the oil kingdoms directly get their hands dirty and blow things up. What I said is that they serve as significant fundraising bases for conflicts elsewhere.

Are the Muslim countries, on average, any worse than their peers in stirring up hatred? Are the Imams and Mullahs of Pakistan any worse than their Hindu counterparts in India?

Hinduism does not, by its nature, seek an absolutist theocratic state or world. Yes, there are pockets of Hindu extremists, but they do not receive any kind of official encouragement.

The secular leads in the least westernised parts of China? The secular leaders of N. Korea?

China and Russia have a love/hate relationship with Muslims. They want to crush the dissidents in their western/southern provinces, but want to help them where they are in a position to harm the West or its regional rivals (i.e. they support the Arabs, Pakistan, etc. and are helping build Iran's reactor).

 

[ebia]

The past two decades, as you said. Prior to that, I will concede that most (not all) terroristic acts were done in the name of Marxism.

Ok. Was just trying to make sure we don't end up talking at cross-purposes.

I was demonstrating that prolonged, coherent Islamic insurgency campaigns predate the Western colonization of the Middle East by a significant timespan

Ok. Don't have a problem with that.

I was listing examples from your part of the world, but to bring up Africa, for every non-religious tribal civil war like Rwanda, there are two wars that do involve either Islamic wars upon non-Muslims (like Libya vs. northern Chad, northern Sudan vs. southern Sudan, northern Nigeria vs. southern Nigeria, and so on) or inter-clan wars where both sides are Muslim (like what is still going on in Somalia).

What I'm asking for is a serious study that quantifies major violence throughout the world and shows what proportion of it can be laid at the feet of islam. Ad hoc cases don't serve my purpose. It also has to be noted, that just because Islam is involved in a particular case, doesn't demonstrate that Islam is the more culpable party - I presume that the Muslims see the Nigerian struggle as being the fault of the Christian south in exactly the same way as the Christian south sees it as being the fault of the Muslim north. (That example is by way of illustration - I'm not making any particular claims about what's going on in Nigeria, a country I know very little about.)

While on Africa, though, I would like to add (though admittedly this is a bit off-topic) that many ghastly conflicts such as the aforementioned Rwanda and Congo are virtually completely ignored by the United Nations, or else pushed into the periphery, because of that organization's single-minded focus on Israeli and Taiwanese issues (which together take up about 40% of all U.N. time).

Yes. Well. As you say, that's off-topic.

Maybe not, but there seems to be a disproportionate involvement.

'there seems to be' is always a clause that troubles me. Things that 'seem to be' quite often aren't.

Several years ago I heard that circa 90% of world conflicts either involve Muslim/non-Muslim warfare or intranecine Muslim strife. Not sure if I can give a valid current quote for that, but based purely on a numbers game, I would not be surprised if the actual breakdown is close to that figure.

Doesn't seem at all likely to me. I'm afraid that without some serious back up, I'm inclined to assume figures like that are anti-Muslim propaganda.

Governments are also far more educated than the publics they rule. You are right, a lot of stuff is their fault, but they still know more than the masses.

They might well know more, but that doesn't make their moral choices any more reliable, and I would suggest considerably less reliable outside the 'Western World'.

I really doubt that. In fact, it is against Indian law to defame other religions (i.e. Islam),

It happens. Big time. Especially around election time. India is in theory a secular country but its current politics are, sadly, far from secular.

whereas in Pakistan, a person can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to death for "defaming the Prophet" on only one eyewitness.

Perhaps in theory. In practice, what the law says and what actually happens are far from being the same thing in either country. In theory blasphamy against (the Christian) God is illegal in the UK.

I never denied that its government is not "reasonable" overall--all religions are tolerated and the very large Chinese Christian/Confucian minority is completely unmolested, but fiery rhetoric is still used for the purposes of funding insurrections elswehere. Plus, you forgot that it is essentially an autocratic, one-man state--elections are widely believed to be rigged, and Mahatir Mohamed had an interesting habit of locking up all of his rivals for sodomy.

And I never said otherwise. I just said India has been equally bad lately. My implication being that the behaviour of the Pakistani government is reflective of the region at least as much as it is reflective of Islam.

Indonesia doesn't involve itself in foreign wars--primarily just paramilitary occupations/cleansings of isolated Christian or animist-populated islands.

Again, it's not unique in that regard.

In general, nations that are so extremely poor that they are essentially constantly on the brink of mass starvation can devote little attention to organized terror--something I pointed out earlier.

I'm not sure what you are saying - that we should keep all Islamic countries in abject poverty so they can't afford to blow anyone up? Anyway, we were talking about sources of hatred & rhetoric, and poor countries where the population are starving tend to be worst in that regard, to distract attention. If Bangladesh manages to avoid that, shouldn't they be applauded for it?

I never argued that the oil kingdoms directly get their hands dirty and blow things up. What I said is that they serve as significant fundraising bases for conflicts elsewhere.

We were talking about sources of rhetoric, I believe.

Hinduism does not, by its nature, seek an absolutist theocratic state or world.

Neither do most Muslims.

Yes, there are pockets of Hindu extremists, but they do not receive any kind of official encouragement.

If politicians stiring up hatred is official encouragement, yes they do in India.

China and Russia have a love/hate relationship with Muslims. They want to crush the dissidents in their western/southern provinces, but want to help them where they are in a position to harm the West or its regional rivals (i.e. they support the Arabs, Pakistan, etc. and are helping build Iran's reactor).

And this addresses my point (that Islamic states are no worse than their peers) how?