How to teach Muslims about dealing with offense

[Jeremy]

Religion had no part to play at all? Really? So why did the gunmen shout "Allahu Akbar" as they were firing their machine guns?

While of course its obviously wrong to extrapolate such acts to the wider Muslim community, neither is it useful to bury your head in the sand. Religion divides people. I struggle to see a place for it in the modern world.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Religion divides people. I struggle to see a place

> for it in the modern world.

So does football. And no doubt people have died fighting over that too. People have died fighting over many, petty allegiances, perceived slights, or difference of view. Clearly religion did have something to do with this, but if it hadn't been religion, I can't help wondering whether the perpetrators would not have been undertaking similar violent acts in the name of some other cause, or none.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > Religion divides people. I struggle to see a

> place

> > for it in the modern world.

>

> So does football. And no doubt people have died

> fighting over that too. People have died fighting

> over many, petty allegiances, perceived slights,

> or difference of view. Clearly religion did have

> something to do with this, but if it hadn't been

> religion, I can't help wondering whether the

> perpetrators would not have been undertaking

> similar violent acts in the name of some other

> cause, or none.

If it wasn't for religion the psychos at the heart of it all would not have a banner to call idiots to.

Most sane Christians would condemn the Westboro Baptist Church as a bunch of nutters, but they are undoubtedly a Christian group. Most decent and sane muslims would want no part of this extreme stuff, but it is a branch of islam.

If there was no religion humans would undoubtedly find something else to kill each other over, but there is no doubt at all that at the moment an extreme interpretation of a religion is the cause.

[legalbeagle]

Davis - and so you kill someone who killed someone (or at least their government did for which you hold them responsible) to prove that killing someone is wrong? Hmmmm..........

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't help wondering whether the

> perpetrators would not have been undertaking

> similar violent acts in the name of some other

> cause, or none.

Maybe you're right, but how could we know?

There are few things in life that could convince someone that killing was not only morally justifiable, but worthy of reward in the afterlife. Religion can have this power, football probably can't.

[maxxi]

Otta Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------->

> If there was no religion humans would undoubtedly

> find something else to kill each other over,...

But without the fantasy of life-after-death/paradise/heaven the gullible might not do so - in this kind of incident at least - with such lack of regard for the consequences.

The problem is that The West relies on, and even cherishes, it's own make-believe and so cannot condemn other religions but rather criticise their interpretation and hope the majority of adherents of said religion agree; and if history teaches us anything it's that the arguments over interpretation of individual religions cause destruction and death as surely as wars between rival philosophies.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Otta I'm not sure - I think that there are countless causes you can rally to, if you're looking for a banner to fight under. Religion is a potent one of course, but there are all sorts of cults, clubs and causes which can be used to rationalise violence, if that's your bag. You could make the same arguments about nation states, or politics (think Lennon did exactly this). Whilst I agree that religion did have something to do with this (as I said above), it's much more complex than just this.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can't help wondering whether the

> > perpetrators would not have been undertaking

> > similar violent acts in the name of some other

> > cause, or none.

>

> Maybe you're right, but how could we know?

>

> There are few things in life that could convince

> someone that killing was not only morally

> justifiable, but worthy of reward in the

> afterlife. Religion can have this power, football

> probably can't.

Politics, the nation state? There are lots of extreme activist groups who would kill and be killed for a cause unrelated to religion. I can't help feeling (I could be wrong), that the cause is almost secondary, a way of rationalising or justifying violent actions which serve an need for power over others and a sense of agency through destruction.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Otta I'm not sure - I think that there are

> countless causes you can rally to, if you're

> looking for a banner to fight under. Religion is a

> potent one of course, but there are all sorts of

> cults, clubs and causes which can be used to

> rationalise violence, if that's your bag. You

> could make the same arguments about nation states,

> or politics (think Lennon did exactly this).

> Whilst I agree that religion did have something to

> do with this (as I said above), it's much more

> complex than just this.

It's a matter of scale though. You're right that there are plenty of loony groups out there that you could get involved with if that was your bag. You're also right that people follow football and this still today includes a level of violence. But nothing anywhere near the scale of Islamic State or Boko Haram. I can't think of any other banner that would a. draw such numbers, and b. draw numbers that will happily embrace death.

[Otta]

And part of me wonders whether we (as in the world) might be better off giving them their Caliphate whilst everyone else gets the hell out of there.

Basically I feel genuinely scared for the future when I see the children carrying guns and think about the chances of them ever rethinking their perspectives.

[Parkdrive]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The very title of this thread is offensive, you

> > assume all muslims take offence easily and need

> to

> > be taught how not to be offended? How very

> fcuking

> > big of you. Unbelievable. I suggest you try

> this

> > with believers of other faiths, I'm sure your

> > wisdom will be most welcome.

>

> Park drive you assume too much. Read my post and

> soak up the available wisdom.

Available wisdom, you really are an arrogant twat aren't you.

[Blah Blah]

Tyranny is tyranny and psychopathy is psychopathy. What label is attached, whilst relevant in a current cultural context, isn't significant in a psychological context. The gestapo were all psychopaths, and Nazi ideology was their cause. There's no difference between that and terrorists hailing Islam as the excuse for their acts.

Davis, two wrongs do not a right make. And yes, whilst post colonial interests were certainly at the heart of Iraq, what drives Boko Harem? What drives Sunnis to despise Shia's. Why do what the Pakistannis call 'The Pushtan' fight each other and have done for centuries? This comes back to my point that the conflict we are talking about here is not just about the West and Islam, it is also an internal conflict within the Islamic world, a conflict that has raged for decades and more, and THAT is what the likes of Bush et al completely failed to understand before marching in there with some fairy tale notion that all it takes to change a culture going back thousands of years, is regime change. It is a world where fighting is the answer to everything in some places. It will take a hundred years (just like it did in the west) to stop people picking up a gun at the drop of a hat. 9/11 was just the excuse America needed and who would you blame for that atrocious act?

Parkdirve, it would be nice if you actually engaged in some intelligent debate. Insulting people just makes you look stupid.

[grabot]

I still maintain that the differentiator between, for example, Nazism and religion, is durability. A secular ideology ultimately has to hold itself up to what most of us perceive as reality. We can say, if we follow this particular set of ideas, where does it lead? And ultimately reject it when we realise that it leads to something bad. Religion cannot be challenged in the same way and as such can continue, unmodified, for an unlimited period of time. Can anyone prove or disprove the existence of heaven? In that respect, there seems to be some scope for hope with secular ideology, that ultimately we will learn from our mistakes and squeeze out that bad ones. Religion on the other hand...

[Blah Blah]

I totally agree with that being the problem with religion grabot. But is there is hope because there are moderate forms of religion. Most people are private about their religious beliefs. Most people regect the outdated asects of religious belief too. And whilst many muslims will have a view on something like the Iraq war for example, most muslims would never see picking up a gun and overthrowing a government, to impose a totalitarian form of their religion, as a good thing either.

We are being influenced by stereotypes here. Stereotypes created in parts of the world that are struggling to develop economies that can engage with the global market, or even create a vibrant internal market in many cases. Places where there is no formal education outside of a local warlord, or tribal orator, or where education is poor, or children have to work instead of going to school etc.

Pakistan for example has a huge problem with street kids. Children who have no parents and are left to fend for themselves. There is no abundant welfare state, social services, etc. In that climate, you are going to struggle to create self assured and secure adults. They are perfect fodder for extremist movements.

I guess my point is that in a stable and developed economy, religion is less of a problem than it is in a destabilised economy. I don't think religion can isolated from other things.

[ernesto]

its all gorn a bit Reichian here innit

[Blah Blah]

lol ernesto. You might be right.

[Parkdrive]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdirve, it would be nice if you actually

> engaged in some intelligent debate. Insulting

> people just makes you look stupid.

Theres nothing intelligent about the title of this thread nor much of the so called debate. As for looking stupid, better that than a narrow minded bigot which is the impression given of the author of this particular thread.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Could be an uphill struggle give the fatwa against snowmen today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11339641/Saudi-Arabia-fatwa-over-building-of-snowmen.html

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The gestapo were all

> psychopaths, and Nazi ideology was their cause.

> There's no difference between that and terrorists

> hailing Islam as the excuse for their acts.

Disagree. The difference (as others have said) is the whole afterlife thing. Makes for a much more willing nutter.

[Jah Lush]

.

[Blah Blah]

I can see that point Otta. But I tend to think it's splitting hairs when it comes to a human willingness to adopt a cause to give validation to their own poor behaviour. That was the point really. I accept that religion is a more powerful cause when it comes to recruiting the world's psychopaths though.

They were talking about the reponse of cartoonists (including that one) on the Andrew Marr show. I think that one is a good way of asking the question, why is it ok to offend some groups, and not others.

Parkdrive. The title IS unfortunate but I can't see anyone in this debate saying anything to the contrary. What has followed is mostly a debate questioning the skewed portrayal of Islamic terrorism and its roots by the media. Issues like war and western imperialism have been touched upon as well. I thinks it's a very intelligent debate in parts and it's a shame you can't get past your anger at the op and his/her title to see that.

[Atticus]

totally agree, RRR

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > Religion divides people. I struggle to see a

> place

> > for it in the modern world.

>

> So does football. And no doubt people have died

> fighting over that too. People have died fighting

> over many, petty allegiances, perceived slights,

> or difference of view. Clearly religion did have

> something to do with this, but if it hadn't been

> religion, I can't help wondering whether the

> perpetrators would not have been undertaking

> similar violent acts in the name of some other

> cause, or none.

[Jah Lush]

http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushhead/10369685_10152971589181885_4102256181754406433_n_zpsa927d56d.jpg

[Alan Medic]

These two martyrs ran away,stole for food and tried to escape. I expect they wanted to live otherwise they could have caused more havoc in Paris until they were shot. Whatever their motives there is no religion which could justify their actions or would want to. I say Jeez Christ regularly but don't consider myself a Christian.

As for Je suis Charlie as a symbol of freedom to write what you want, I find that unfortunate. You don't have the right to insult anyone even with a pencil.

[StraferJack]

"You don't have the right to insult anyone even with a pencil."

You kind of do. Wether you should or not is the "responsibility" bit - but you do have the freedom and the right