Hypothetical Conversation
December 4th, 2006 | by Craig |I don’t know that this has actually happened, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.
(Heck, it’s easy if you try.)
Dextra: Seems to me that there an awful lot of misogyny and violence in Islam. I’m not entirely convinced it’s a “religion of peace.”
Sinestra: Hey, now! That’s insensitive and unfair, and taken out of context. You need to really sit down and understand Islam.
Dextra:
Sinestra: While we’re on religions, though, isn’t it funny how the Catholic Church is responsible for millions of AIDS deaths because the Pope won’t let anyone wear rubbers. Plus they’re all child molesters.
Dextra:
44 Responses to “Hypothetical Conversation”
By Steve T. on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
Craig, you really need to sit down and understand Islam.
But hey, while we’re on the topic of religion, haven’t people of all stripes been using religion as an excuse to kill people from other religions for thousands of years?
Anyways, I would call you out for setting up a strawman, but I’m pretty sure you were just trying to start a conversation. In that case, well done.
By Craig on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
1.) Sure I do.
2.) Yes, but who’s been the most, well, zealous about it lately?
3.) Please expound for the listening audience.
By Shane C. Mason on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
2.) Yes, but who’s been the most, well, zealous about it lately?
Well, let’s see…
It has been said that George Bush claims to have been appointed by God. Certainly, he has said many times that he act on his faith. There are currently between 50,000 and 500,000 dead Iraqis in his
warcrusade.By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Many things have “been said” about Bush, but:
a.) He’s not a religious leader; and
b.) He’s not encouraging children and grandmothers to strap bombs to their chest and go kill them some filthy Jooz so that they can get their eternal reward.
At least compare apples to apples.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Craig-
I’m sure you wouldn’t be susceptible to the fact that all you see on TV is the violence in the Middle East. You seem to miss the fact that there are 1 billion Muslims out there, and if they were all rioting when the pope made his seemingly harmless remarks, then there wouldn’t be any buildings left in the Middle East.
I mean, I hate to disappoint you here, but there are simply hundreds and hundreds of millions of Muslims who worship Allah and Mohammed in a perfectly peaceful manner, preferring the “greater jihad” (the struggle to achieve perfection and get closer to god) to the “lesser jihad” one (warfare against supposed oppressors.) The literal translation of jihad, by the way, is “to struggle.” That’s it.
The Qu’ran, much like the bible, has passages that have been taken out of context, and passages that could mean exacty what they say. Of course, just like with the bible, there are Islamic scholars on both sides who can take one passage and take it to mean entirely different things.
Is there a lot of extremism in Islam and have a lot of people suffered for it? Absolutely. Sharia law has been used by the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and previously Afghanistan to create oppressive regimes. Osama Bin Laden and others have used the Quran as an excuse to kill thousands of innocent civilians.
But to say that Islam is “inherently violent” is simply wrongheaded. Al Qaeda to Islam is like the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. The vast majority of Islamic clerics condemn Osama Bin Laden and everything he stands for, and they despise him for the mockery that he’s made of their religion. They just don’t show that on TV, because we simply wouldn’t watch it.
Do me a favor. Look up the five pillars of the Islamic faith, and tell me which one involves killing infidels.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
My bad, Craig. You never used the words “inherently violent,” but I put them in quotation marks. You get my drift, though.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Wow, Steve. That’s a lot of assumptions about what I do or do not know and what I do or do not think. Come on. Argue with me, not a caricature.
At any rate, you are correct, most Muslims aren’t violent. But, I assume that you know what Islam’s overreaching goal is, yes?
I’m also assuming that you are familiar with Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
All of which is beside the point, which is this: We, as a society in general, seem to be bending over backwards to avoid any criticism of Islam, while at the same time going out of our way to insult Christianity.
The new thing is Muslims asking for separate prayer rooms at airports. Can you imagine if a Catholic Bishop asked for a chapel to be installed at an airport? The ACLU would be apoplectic.
But, if it’s Muslims, then hey, we’ll try to help out.
There’s a serious double standard at work here.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Craig - You asked me to expound for the listening audience. I’m happy to oblige.
The concepts of Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb were developed during the crusades (a time that probably lent itself to a little extremism), and are not found in the two most important texts of Islam, the Qu’ran and the Hadith. They have been used by extremists ever since to say that the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under its domination (a claim also made implicitly by you).
The whole concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb is so roundly condemned by the vast majority of the world’s Muslims, that it’s unfair for you and others to use them to caricature them. Even Hizbullah’s spiritual leader, Shaykh Fadlallah does not subscribe to this school of thought. (An unfortunately necessary disclaimer: This does not mean that I agree with Hizbullah and their goal of eradicating the nation of Israel.)
The importance of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb is this: There are many, many schools of thought on Islam, and you can find plenty of examples of different passages in the Qu’ran that justify different things. It is flat-out wrong for you to use these as an explanation of the entire faith.
The bible can be a tad ambiguous to, just ask the tens of thousands of religions that are based on it.
As for the double standard you talk about, there are always going to be examples of people taking acceptance of other’s beliefs too far. To use examples of it to show that there’s some kind of terrible trend going on in this country reminds me of the arguments for “The War on Christmas.” The truth is that we’re all free to worship who we please, and no one is ever going to stop you, Craig. The double standard exists, but it doesn’t mean that we’re persecuting Christians…..YET.
By Dani on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Steve, you have given yourself the perfect out; “There are many, many schools of thought on Islam, and you can find plenty of examples of diffferent passages in the Qu’ran.” Therefore, you can always make the claim that Craig can’t apply this or that line of thinking to the entire faith. Other people will point to the fact that there is not one representative of the faith to speak as the go-to guy. Plenty of wiggle room. Sure, the Bible leaves plenty of wiggle room, but Christianity did not leave the fanatics in charge. They are marginalized, not heads of state. Of course, that could be due to culture, rather than religion, but in the Middle East, are they distinct influences? i don’t know.
So, theology aside, name a current armed conflict in the world that does not have Muslims on one side of it. All I can think of are the Tamil Tigers. What about the Islamic states that still discriminate against women in incredible (to us) ways, treat homosexuality and Christianity as crimes punishable by death, or at least imprisonment? Are these entire states run by fringe groups?- actually, that question itself is contradiction in terms. The leaders of these entities always refer to Islam when discussing their abhorrent practices, whether it’s beheading Christian schoolgirls or censoring what the people read, see and hear. Since they constantly refer to Islam, wouldn’t it be reasonable for Craig to refer to it, as well?
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Dani-
Islamic extremism is on the rise, and has resulted in many conflicts. It has also been the excuse of many leaders to oppress people. I have not, and would not deny that. I would point out that there is only one theocratic regime in the Middle East, and that is in Iran. Many governments use parts of Sharia law in their laws (Afghanistan is STILL one), but are not theocratic.
Have you ever heard of the middle ages? I hate to use this argument because it’s so overused that it has become a bit cliche, but the idea is very important. Protestants and Catholics were killing each other by the thousands, and finding excuses in the bible that justified doing so. Today, they live side by side in peace, for the most part. I would not use atrocities committed during that time to paint a picture of Christianity, just as I would never use the atrocities committed during the crusades to caricature them. That was a nasty period of time and there were several factors that lent themselves to violent extremism. The same is true in the Muslim world today.
Your rhetoric is rather toned up though. Beheading Christian schoolgirls? I don’t think that’s anywhere in Sharia law.
Anyways, of course Craig can refer to Islam all he wants, I simply disagree with his perception of it. That’s all. I think his point of view lends itself waaaay too much to the “them vs. us” mentality that will only continue the conflict.
Oh, and I was wrong. There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, not 1 billion. Any day now, they’re going to run out of christian schoolgirls to behead…. I just hope I’m not next.
By colby natale on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Craig makes reference to Americans “going out of our way to insult Christianity” when compared to our behavior towards Islam. I think it is important to note why there is a focus on Christianity in the U.S. that is sometimes perceived as an attack or an insult. Christianity essentially had free reign in America, despite the 1st amendment, and it has only been recently that efforts to bring it back in line and on the level with other faiths has begun to be effective. Since Christianity has enjoyed ’special priveleges’ in American society, any attempt to level it back out with the other faiths Americans have can be perceived as insulting or an attack, but it simply the desire to remove the special treatment that this country has latently conferred upon that one faith. We don’t focus on Islam near as much because that faith, far from being favored in this country, is often ridiculed and mocked, and perhaps gets off easy sometimes because of it.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Also:
“Christianity did not leave the fanatics in charge…”
This is just silly. Which fanatics did Mohammed “leave in charge?” Did he appoint Osama Bin Laden as head of Al Qaeda? Ahmadinejad as President of Iran?
By Jay Stevens on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
False premise.
(A) The root of violence in the Middle East probably has little to do with religion and more to do with economic and social conditions. Extremist Islamic groups give violence an outlet. The same can be said for US violence and Christianity. (Abortion-doctor slayings, white supremacist terrorists, etc.) That American Christians aren’t as extreme as Middle East Muslim extremists, IMHO, has more to do with the relative prosperity enjoyed in the US than it has to do with any inherent superiority of religion.
(B) As a lefty, my concern is that all this “culture war” rhetoric only inflames prejudice and bigotry here in the US against perfectly decent people — Jerry Klein’s recent anti-Muslim hoax shows the logical result of isolating any minority and discussing their inferiorities — like claiming Muslims are inherently prone to violence.
(C) I’m not crazy about misogyny in Islam. But seeing misogyny in Islam but not in Christinity or Judaism is to miss a crucial point: that kind of thinking is more common to fundamentalist and conservative views of religion, not to the Middle East. (In prosperous times, the Middle East was a bastion of liberal social behavior, tolerance, and multiculturalism: Beruit in the 1960s, Muslim Spain in the 10th century, e.g.)
The short answer is, it’s not Islam that’s necessarily the problem, it’s religious fundamentalism that is.
By Dani on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Steve, I told you I didn’t intend to discuss theology. I am not discussing Sharia law. I am merely pointing out the occurrences a person can read about every day in the news. It’s the violent followers of Islam who constantly use Islam as a justification for what they do- including beheading the schoolgirls which was thought to be, in some twisted way, an action of great purity. (Their words, not mine). The press, or the average American citizen, doesn’t pull this connection out of the air- the perpetrators of whatever violence du jour does it for them. You want to lecture The Islamic Brotherhood or Jemmiyah Islamia on the fine points of Sharia Law? Go right ahead. I’ll see you in heaven.
It’s nice how you brought up the crusades and compared them to events of fundamentalist Islamic violence occurring this very century. Maybe even this month. Of course, folks then weren’t literate, had never heard of human rights, didn’t have any means of mass communication, and had no idea of what a liberal democracy even was. So you want us to believe that the systemic violence of the Middle Age Christians and followers of Islam are exactly the same as now? Furthermore, why is it that it’s the Christians who’ve managed to improve their behavior since the Middle Ages, but somehow a significant number of Islamic people have not? Why is that?
Plus, I didn’t say “Christ didn’t leave the fanatics in charge,” did I? I said Christianity didn’t, which implies the organized body of Chrisitian people in the world. The Theocrats running Iran and those propping up the House of Saud have managed to convince large numbers of (relatively wealthy) people that they are correct in their fundamentalist thinking. Why is that?
You can say violence is not true Islam until the cows come home, but there are plenty of Islamic people who think that it is. I personally don’t know what to believe. My Dad always taught me that any religion that teaches good, is a good religion. Based on the tiny number of Muslim people I know, I always believed that. Heck, my parish priest preaches that Islam is a great religion. But, so much is done in the name of Allah, it does make one wonder.
By The Polish Wolf on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think that liberals are nearly as anti-Catholic as you make them out to be. There is more criticism of the Catholic church but that’s becuase we expect more from a religion that is in many ways ahead of any religion comparable in size.
As far as Islam being a religion of peace, it seems like the warlike nature of the middle east has more to do with the imposition of national borders on an area that has never respected territorial borders so much as tribal and familial ones. Islam I would argue provides an outlet for tribal violence and rivalry (much like soccer for Europeans).
~M[unged. –ed]
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
It’s been a while since I’ve read such unmitigated bullshit:
Puh-leez.
I would say that it probably has far, far more to do with kids being indoctrinated that Jews are less than human and that martyring yourself gets you a ticket to 72 virgins. As I’ve long said about alcohol in Montana, “It’s the culture, stupid.”
Well, ‘cuz, yeah, them Christians are slaughtering the infidels by the gross, aren’t they?
Oh, and thanks for proving my point.
By The Polish Wolf on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
And Craig, regarding airports: What makes you think that the ACLU would have a problem as long as it wasn’t publically funded? The only airport I’ve been in where I noticed a prominent area for prayer was in Amsterdam, and not even there did they have a seperate room for Muslims; Muslim are expected to prayer in their own way but with everyone else.
On the other hand, after 9/11, when a Lutheran Minister (not ELCA; I believe Missouri Synod) prayed with other religious leaders in a public ceromony, there was a move to have him punished (B/c praying with such heathens is considered heretical) So it’s obviously not just Muslims who refuse to prayer with other people.
By The Polish Wolf on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
*gasp* I inadvertantly revealed my first name! But what I was going to say is this - Saudi Arabia is incredibly prosperous, but is nonetheless a hotbed of terrorism. It takes more than money to stifle terrorism; it takes an outlet by which one can influence policy. I would argue Christian fundementalists are no violent because they don’t have to be, they have elections to change the country.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Book your ski trip to Hell, PW, because I couldn’t agree more — at least with #19, and half of #16.
By Mark T on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Ah, humor. I see humor here! We do this all the time. The US, if Johns Hopkins is to be believed, has killed somwthing of the order of 655,000 Iraqis now, and another half million kids during the 90’s due to sanctions. But THEY are violent, THEY need to clean up their act.
Seems to me that on the insane violence meter, we’ve set the needle moving, we’re doing our part, and like all insane people, we’re the last to know.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Note to Prof. Mark. The UN imposed sanctions, not the US. And that foreign policy genius Madeline Albright said that the price was “acceptable.”
Then, the UN started the Dollars for Dictators program, which worked out so well for Kojo Annan and Saddam Hussein.
By Mark T on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
I agree there is confusion about the US role in sanctions, Craig. However, the program was administered by the Security Council, and every contract to buy food and ship them anything, including pencil erasers, was approved or rejected by either the US or Britain. Since Britain is our junior partner, I think it fair to say that the sanctions were a US product.
The program was initiated by Bush I, carried out by Clinton and Bush II. It was bipartisan.
I’ve often been mistaken for a professor, but then I say something, and the illusion vanishes.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Fortunately (or un, I guess), I never get mistaken for a professor, even though I do play on on the Intarwebs.
By Dani on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Mark T.
No Johns Hopkins is not to be believed. Even Amnesty International didn’t believe their article in the Lancet. Plus, the Lancet admits the release of the article was timed to affect American elections. So much for the credibility of the authors, and, increasingly, the Lancet.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Craig-
This is wonderful. You don’t want to discuss theology, but you want to discuss the actions of Islamic extremism and blame it on Islam as a religion instead of religion itself. You tell me the overreaching goal of Islam is to take over the world, I prove that to be categorically false, and you essentially tell me that it doesn’t matter anyways.
What matters, like I correctly assumed in my first post, is what you see on TV every day. I never said that people pull this connection out of thin air. It’s a connection that the extremists WANT us to make, because they want a culture war as much as many in our country do.
My point is this, and you can continue to ignore it all you want: All atrocities that have been committed by Muslims are based on teachings that the VAST MAJORITY of Muslims believe to be false. I am not saying that I am some kind of Islamic scholar or that I can tell you what the right interpretation of Islam is. If I were doing that, I would have quoted the Qu’ran a million times by now, and told you what Muhammed REALLY meant to say. But I don’t know, and I’ve taken pains to put my points forward that way. What I can tell you is that the overreaching goal of the great majority of Muslims does not involve taking over the world and killing all infidels.
The last paragraph in your response to me and the fact that you agree with PW’s statement in #19 is a good stopping point for this one. That’s the closest thing to finding common ground that we’re gonna get here.
And to be clear, I would never try to argue that Islam is better or more just as a religion that Christianity or Judaism. I think it’s all bullshit, unavoidable though it may be. I try not to bitch about religion in general too much because quite frankly, I think that if there were no religion we’d still be finding excuses to kill each other.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Erm, you might want to go back and read who said what, Steve. Otherwise, you’re just showing your ass.
I’m not disputing the point that the “vast majority” of Muslims don’t believe in whatever the extremists are peddling.
However, that vast majority is extremely silent. Google around for Jamal Miftah, and see why.
As soon as Islam makes a concerted effort to close up the madrassas and start showing some evidence that they believe in separation of church and state, then I’ll believe in the goodwill of the religion as a whole.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Speaking of showing your ass:
“I’m not disputing the point that the “vast majority†of Muslims don’t believe in whatever the extremists are peddling”
This after you tell me that Islam’s overreaching goal is world domination (hey, if if you were actually saying something else there, feel free to correct me…)
“the goodwill of the religion as a whole.” So in other words, as soon as more good news comes your way, your sweeping generalizations will do a complete 180. Good to know.
Unfortunately, I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better. There’s simply no disputing that Islamic extremism is on the rise, and not showing any signs of slowing, no matter how many bombs we drop. There is no easy fix here, and I do not even know if we’ll see it in my lifetime. But I sincerely believe that this is just a swing in the pendelum for the Islamic world. It may be after my lifetime is over, but they will find peace and moderation, just as many other hopeless conflicts have in the past.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
And it won’t be thanks to our “help”, either.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
What makes you think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive? Isn’t cafeteria-type participation in religion a great American pastime?
I’ll continue to make generalizations as long as they continue to bear themselves out. That’s why we invented them.
And, once again, thank you for continuing to prove my original point that any criticism of Islam is met with great wrath and fury, general or otherwise.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
No, Craig. Your peddling of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb as indicative of the entire faith is deliberately misleading and patently false.
Your generalizations are met with great wrath and fury, just as mine would be if I were to do the same with Catholicism or Judaism. If I were to truly make that statement about the Pope being responsible for the AIDS epidemic, I can only hope that you would react in the same manner.
By Craig on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Deliberately misleading? Mebbe a little.
Patently false? Eh, not so much.
At any rate, if you said anything negative about the Pope or Catholicism, I would be most likely to ignore it, as there are only so many walls I care to beat my head upon.
Besides, you’d have to answer to your uncle, and he’d be far tougher on you than I could possibly be.
By Steve T. on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Whoa, time to clear up a little confusion here… I thought comment #15 was you, Craig, and it was Dani. So, I’ve mixed your two arguments in my rebuttals. What a tangled web we weave, eh? Seeing as how this is comment #33, I don’t really care to unweave it.
My head hurts anyways and this wall is made of iron.
By Colby Natale on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
I an only assume that, as my comments seems to remain untouched by rebuttal, that it is either without fault, or wholly faulty. Being that I wrote it, I prefer to assume the former.
Unless someone wants to pick up on it now…
By Dani on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Polish Wolf- Some the most die-hard liberals I know are nuns. In fact one of them said to me you cannot be Cathloic and vote Rebulican. This is the “liberation theology” I wrote abot a few weeks ago. Also, I like your comment #19. But, I feel democracy can cure almost any culture of imbedded violence, eventually. Pollyanna that I am.
Mark T. I agree with your last paragraph in #28. I also think it depends on how fast these countries can acquire democracy, though it seems foreign to their thinking, it’s not incompatible. If they’re allowed to actually think.
By Craig on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
I’m glad you brought up liberation theology again; I meant to ask you about it earlier.
I had occasion to do some reading on it a while back, and I came away with the understanding that most of it had been discredited by the Vatican.
By Craig on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Colby–
I think your point just got lost in the shouting.
Personally, I don’t know of any special privileges that have been afforded to Christianity. Perhaps you could point some out to me.
Certainly, we’re rather ingrained to be tolerant of most flavors of Christianity, but I don’t think there have been special privileges.
By Jay Stevens on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Uh…that was my point.
And…uh…that’s why US Christian fundamentalists are “slaughtering” infidels. Although as far as I can tell, most recent domestic terror incidents are done by Christian fundies. Have any US Muslims ever committed an actual act of terror?
By Jay Stevens on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Oops, I guess there was the assassination of Malcolm X.
By Jay Stevens on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Oops, and that should be “…that’s why Christian fundamentalists are NOT slaughtering infidels…”
Man. Tough day.
By Dani on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Whereas, Islamic fundamentalists slaughter even the faithful- if they’re not faithful enough that is…
I guess we should add Somalia to the list of Muslim theocracies. I had forgotten about it, it was so recent. So, what kind of law is it that they’re following in this instance?
Jay- The DC snipers were both American- one had served in the Armed forces. It’s unclear whether the kid sniper (Malvo) was an actual citizen at the time. Both were followers of the Nation of Islam. Also, the kid who rammed the SUV into the students at UNC was Iranian-American. He didn’t hurt anybody, but he certainly tried. And he did it to avenge Muslim deaths due to the US Government’s actions in the MIddle East. Finally, there was that group of young Muslim men arrested in the northeast on terrorism charges, though they hadn’t hurt anyone yet. Don’t know what happened there.
By Gman on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Dani, I purport that democracy is not a panacea for a basically autocratic society. Democratic principles are a byproduct of a particular worldview — almost strictly the Western worldview.
Craig, I would argue that the Vatican unequivocally dismissed liberation theology through JPII’s encyclical Centesimus Annus. This encyclical embraced democratic capitalism as the most moral system of social arrangement. The Acton Institute (www.acton.org) has much to say about Catholic thought on the social sciences, in particular economic philosophy.
By Dani on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
You’re right Gman. That was kind of what I meant by, “If they’re actually allowed to think.” But, even then, people might choose what’s familiar, and easy, and wait for that mythical benevolent dictator or philosopher king to show up.
By Gman on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Indeed, Dani, even a democracy can put a dictator into power — France - Robspierre; Germany - Hitler, so on, so forth. Generally, democracy will reflect the culture. If the culture is endemically autocratic, it’ll stay that way whether via democracy or despotism.