Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

Granted he does it in the name of Allah, but terrorism has nothing to do with believing in any god what so ever.

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't.

edit

The suspect is/was a 46y old Tunisian who applied for asylum in 2019, and denied that asylum in 2020, he dissapeared shortly after.
He never stayed in a illegal shelter (not to sure this is the right word) and was given the order the leave the country in 2021.
He also was known with the intelligence services for human trafficking, being a danger to the state, and a radicalised profile, he was said to leave to a country to participate in Jihad.

I'm not sure you can extricate this part from religion, or the influence of a religion.

It is interesting the extent we blame religion for violence. Generally in the UK Islamophobic hate crimes increase after Islamist terrorist attacks, and at the moment we are seeing quite an increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes due to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

If an instance of the latter was perpetrated by a Muslim, would we say that Islam is the cause??

 

[Dennisch]

People need to stop pretending that Islamic terrorism isn't fuelled by Islam. Whenever there's a white guy doing the killing who read a bible people are always quick to point out the Christian fundamentalism.

For these terrorists Islam isn't just a religion anymore, they've apparently are brainwashed enough to think that it's a way of life.

Anyway, Belgium police shot and killed the perp.

 

[TexRex]

People need to stop pretending that Islamic terrorism isn't fuelled by Islam.

People need to stop pretending that Islamic terrorism is fuelled by Islam.

No need to venture any kind of argument, just put it on others for their delusional belief, in this case, that people aren't actually violent unless Islam makes them that way. I mean holy crap that is just effortlessly stupid. Putin? Islam. Hitler? Yep, Islam. Islam is just that pervasive, apparently.

Do you ever consider that acts of violence are more likely to be perpetrated when those in power don't simply condone it, but advocate it and provide motivation? And I mean it's not like there isn't plenty completely unrelated to Islam itself, including but certainly not limited to the politics of occupation, that may be utilized to drive individuals to act against those presented as the enemy.

Whenever there's a white guy doing the killing who read a bible people are always quick to point out the Christian fundamentalism.

And they're wrong. Gosh, that was easy.

When a Christian rapes a child, do they do it because of their Christian faith or is it a heinous act perpetrated by entirely too many people that happens to include Christians? And when it is Christians, isn't the Bible supposed to stand against these sorts of acts against others?

If belief isn't strong enough to compel one to not perpetrate such a heinous act, how is it supposed to be strong enough to cause one to act in such a heinous violation of another?

 

[HenrySwanson]

But if there was no Islam/Christianity/whatever, would every single one of those people who committed acts in the name of a faith have gone on to be violent....

 

[UKMikey]

But if there is Islam/Christianity/whatever, does every single one who adheres to that faith go on to be violent?

 

[TexRex]

But if there was no Islam/Christianity/whatever, would every single one of those people who committed acts in the name of a faith have gone on to be violent....

As surely as Trump walking on water would result only in criticism of his inability to swim.

Predicting the outcome of hypothetical events has no meaningful purpose outside of fiction writing and too often it's just pathetic ideological masturbation.

 

[HenrySwanson]

But if there is Islam/Christianity/whatever, does every single one who adheres to that faith go on to be violent?

Wouldn't have thought so.

The argument I'm seeing (at least I think it is) is that faith isn't really a fuel at all when it comes to actions (or not committing actions).

Is it purely tribal then??

 

[UKMikey]

Wouldn't have thought so.

The argument I'm seeing (at least I think it is) is that faith isn't really a fuel at all when it comes to actions (or not committing actions).

Is it purely tribal then??

If the answer to my question is no, then religion isn't the sole cause. It might not be the cause at all, otherwise everyone who follows that religion would be doing it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If the answer to my question is no, then religion isn't the sole cause. It might not be the cause at all.

But it might be a cause....

 

[p78]

As long as there has been organised religion, there have been murders in the name of that religion.

 

[UKMikey]

But it might be a cause....

So why doesn't it cause everyone who follows it to be violent?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So why doesn't it cause everyone who follows it to be violent?

Interpretation, and the person themselves.

I don't like to absolve faith so easily when it comes to influencing someone to harm.

We don't say that faith has absolutely no influence when it comes to beneficial acts (or do we?). I'm thinking of things like tithing and Zakat

 

[UKMikey]

Interpretation, and the person themselves.

I don't like to absolve faith so easily when it comes to influencing someone to harm.

We don't say that faith has absolutely no influence when it comes to beneficial acts (or do we?). I'm thinking of things like tithing and Zakat

Your second sentence kinda contradicts your first. Should you outlaw the religion, or stop the person who interprets it to mean violence?

If tithing and Zakat are benefits of religion then why prevent them? Not that you need to be religious to be charitable.

I feel we're just regurgitating arguments which have been hashed over again and again upthread.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Shouldn't outlaw it - same as we can't outlaw right wing ideology which is the fastest growing threat in terms of terror we (the UK) currently face.

Recognising there might be a problem with something, and holding it to account is what I'm advocating for.

They are all just factors in human nature.

 

[UKMikey]

Recognising there might be a problem with something, and holding it to account is what I'm advocating for.

Perhaps it'd be more productive to recognise there might be a problem with some people, and holding them to account.

Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum. Its instigators and perpetrators use actual events down here on Earth to justify their actions as much as words written in an ancient book.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Perhaps it'd be more productive to recognise there might be a problem with some people, and holding them to account.

Whynotboth.gif?

 

[TexRex]

But it might be a cause....

Christianity might be a cause of child sexual predation. Christians can certainly be counted among predators. I did point out elsewhere that the faith places a rather creepy emphasis on sexual purity, and children may...[shudder]...be viewed as most pure in this regard by virtue (no pun intended) of their premature physical and social development.

Say, you've indicated that you're a Christian, right?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Christianity might be a cause of child sexual predation. Christians can certainly be counted among predators. I did point out elsewhere that the faith places a rather creepy emphasis on sexual purity, and children may...[shudder]...be viewed as most pure in this regard by virtue (no pun intended) of their premature physical and social development.

Say, you've indicated that you're a Christian, right?

Was a Christian.

And yes I saw that post, which made me think if it could be a factor (I'm undecided).

It would be interesting to psychoanalyse such offenders to see what motivated them to commit their crimes.

 

[UKMikey]

Whynotboth.gif?

Because if it doesn't apply to everyone then it's unhelpful to count it as a factor or you may end up with false positives.

 

[TexRex]

Was a Christian.

And yes I saw that post, which made me think if it could be a factor (I'm undecided).

It would be interesting to psychoanalyse such offenders to see what motivated them to commit their crimes.

I don't actually think it's a factor in predation even if it's possible that pedophilia may be spawned from it.

As ever, pedophilia isn't predation because it's thought alone, and thought alone doesn't cause one to act...which is the entire point here. While one who perpetrates an act against another may have a belief, belief itself doesn't actually drive action. If it did, humans would be a whole lot worse than they already are.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because if it doesn't apply to everyone then it's unhelpful to count it as a factor or you may end up with false positives.

So the threshold is literally all or nothing?

You could have 95% of a group committing violence but because of the 5% you wouldn't count it as a factor? (This is rhetorical - I'm not suggesting 95% of any faith are committing violence.)

 

[TexRex]

You could have 95% of a group committing violence but because of the 5% you wouldn't count it as a factor? (This is rhetorical - I'm not suggesting 95% of any faith are committing violence.)

Ahem.

Predicting the outcome of hypothetical events has no meaningful purpose outside of fiction writing and too often it's just pathetic ideological masturbation.

Is it a pathological aversion to good faith engagement?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ahem.

Is it a pathological aversion to good faith engagement?

Not really.

I want to understand when you'd consider it a factor - i.e. is there a tipping point.

So far this month there have been deadly Islamist attacks in Belgium, France, Afghanistan, Niger, Israel, Egypt, Uganda, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria and maybe others where the common thread has been Islamism.

I don't know if we just hold our hands up and say "it's nothing to do with Islamism" while the violence continues.

 

[UKMikey]

Are you sure the common thread isn't links to violent regimes? How much you want to factor their religion into it depends on what percentage you think Islam is responsible. Cigarettes and alcohol are controlled because research tells us how much of a factor they are in causing health problems. Without similar figures for the influence of Islam on terrorist attacks, how can we make blanket assumptions that Islam is the underlying cause?

Could there be another more significant factor causing certain individuals to commit horrific violent acts such as links to extremism and wahhabism? I don't have those figures and I'm not quick to condemn the entirety of a religion's followers as being disposed towards violent acts without them.

How do otherwise nonviolent individuals become radicalised by Islam if the religion is indeed a significant cause by itself? Which factors are the most significant in causing this?

That's why we're isolating whether Islam itself is a significant factor because if it is then every Muslim should be under suspicion, and I'm not prepared to make that blanket assumption.

I would say perhaps look at the history of the regions involved and try and determine whether that's a more significant factor, and by how much, in their becoming radicalised and influencing people to do harm, than which direction they face when praying.

 

[TexRex]

Not really.

I mean you've demonstrated such a propensity for bad faith argumentation in your years of participation on this forum, a propensity that clearly hasn't subsided even as you purport to have changed your views on certain matters, and I guess I'm trying to understand why.

I want to understand when you'd consider it a factor - i.e. is there a tipping point.

What? The Islamic faith? I'm not likely to at all because the assertion that faith itself so drives action is just aggressively stupid. Instead I'm inclined to look at power structures within and geopolitical matters involving regions and nations that breed terrorism that's purported to be in the name of Islam.

I don't know if we just hold our hands up and say "it's nothing to do with Islamism" while the violence continues.

False dilemma. There are more options than blaming the Islamic faith and accepting the violence has no cause at all. This has been pointed out, including directly to you, repeatedly.

If it's not pathological, what is it? Would you even be able to say it's not in the event that it is? Bad faith argumentation just continues to be so prominent in your engagement.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's why we're isolating whether Islam itself is a significant factor because if it is then every Muslim should be under suspicion, and I'm not prepared to make that blanket assumption.

I think you're misunderstanding my position - it's not about putting targets on backs.

I'm saying the approach should be mitigating the problem of fundamentalists in religions, and actively encouraging reformation of the religions that need it somehow.

I can only really speak for Christianity since that's my background but we should be amplifying the voices of guys such as this https://twitter.com/johnpavlovitz and equally be pushing for a more tolerant version of Islam. Perhaps by actively promoting people like https://twitter.com/RealSarahIdan we could see a more liberal Islam??

It's the same as fighting against the far-right (or the far-left for that matter), or even the right wing as it exists in the UK and US currently.

I've seen, and been a part of the brainwashing having grown up in the area of London where I did. I don't know if you're familiar with Greenford/Southall but growing up in high school and seeing your classmates and friends celebrate 9/11 and the ghetto cleansing scene from Schindler's List can have a profound effect on you. And while I was very pro-Palestinian because of those friends and experiences, it's only recently I've reflected on how tribal religion can make you.

 

[TexRex]

I'm saying the approach should be mitigating the problem of fundamentalists in religions

Why is religious fundamentalism a problem? I tend to note it and refer to "fundies" in a pejorative sense because it's delusion to a degree much greater than mere belief, but fundamentalism is just strict adherence to orthodoxy.
The actual problem is harms that individuals perpetrate. Those individuals may be religious fundamentalists or not. They may not be religious at all.

Fundamentalism may result in rights violations, and I think of those who are coerced through force or the threat of force to wear certain attire, but too often efforts to preserve rights result in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater and those who choose to express their faith by wearing such attire rather than acquiescing to coercion are prohibited from doing so, and their right to exercise their religious faith is violated.

and actively encouraging reformation of the religions that need it somehow.

Why would religion require reformation? Reformation occurs naturally as individuals pick and choose religious dictate that fits their desires and lifestyles, and that this reformation simply occurs is why fundamentalism exists as a distinction.

Also don't think I haven't noticed that you've slithered out of my previous questioning.

 

[Sprite]

Religion doesn’t make you violent, it just gives those who are inherently violent a cover story and or scapegoat to act that way.

I spent a whole working day on Monday discussing Israel, religion, Hajj, Arabs, and Afghanistan Tribal differences all the while being sat between two Muslims. One whose family hails from the Pakistan Afghan Boarder (Pakistan side) and one whose family hail from Gujarat India. Not only do they see each other as equals and brothers despite the India & Pakistan rivalry (politest way I can describe it, they do joke about Greens and Blues ) but shock horror I survived with my head intact and I wasn’t once asked to convert (not sure if to be happy or offended )

I along with all my other colleagues were gifted with some lovely food from their wives but I was also given a box of Gulab too.

So you can imagine my views on Islam and Muslims, they’re my friends and family.

 

[TexRex]

Religion doesn’t make you violent, it just gives those who are inherently violent a cover story and or scapegoat to act that way.

I'm in emphatic agreement with you but I'm compelled to add that it can also be used as a collectivist, in-group pressure point and a basis for othering. It's frequently religion's nature to do this anyway (behave a certain way or you won't get into the special place) and that's toxic enough, but it's also done to a greater degree by bad actors, where the othering is the stick instead of the carrot. You're either with us or you're with the enemy, and to be considered with us you have to be with us completely.

But religion isn't necessary here. It's also common in nationalism, where the in-group are patriots while out-groups are traitors. It was prevalent in the US following 9/11 and going into the GWOT.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why is religious fundamentalism a problem? I tend to note it and refer to "fundies" in a pejorative sense because it's delusion to a degree much greater than mere belief, but fundamentalism is just strict adherence to orthodoxy.
The actual problem is harms that individuals perpetrate. Those individuals may be religious fundamentalists or not. They may not be religious at all.

Because there are problems with the texts of most, if not all religions.

The most obvious example being how LGBT+ people are regarded.

Would you say religion can influence how bigoted a person can be against LGBT+ people? Is it a factor in that case?

Why would religion require reformation? Reformation occurs naturally as individuals pick and choose religious dictate that fits their desires and lifestyles, and that this reformation simply occurs is why fundamentalism exists as a distinction.

To make it compatible with the modern world. It's really that simple. In the US it seems Christianity is rapidly heading for a schism and we need to support the more tolerant form.

Also don't think I haven't noticed that you've slithered out of my previous questioning.

Which one?

False dilemma. There are more options than blaming the Islamic faith and accepting the violence has no cause at all. This has been pointed out, including directly to you, repeatedly.

But is it an option as well? I'm not arguing that it's the only option, and it will magically end violence committed by adherents, just that it be considered when examining the genesis of a violent action.

If it's not pathological, what is it? Would you even be able to say it's not in the event that it is? Bad faith argumentation just continues to be so prominent in your engagement.

Because I don't see it as bad faith engagement, just a difference in the presentation of an argument.

I'm in emphatic agreement with you but I'm compelled to add that it can also be used as a collectivist, in-group pressure point and a basis for othering. It's frequently religion's nature to do this anyway (behave a certain way or you won't get into the special place) and that's toxic enough, but it's also done to a greater degree by bad actors, where the othering is the stick instead of the carrot. You're either with us or you're with the enemy, and to be considered with us you have to be with us completely.

But religion isn't necessary here. It's also common in nationalism, where the in-group are patriots while out-groups are traitors. It was prevalent in the US following 9/11 and going into the GWOT.

And do some faiths do this more than others?