Qur'an verses? You mean...this jihad warrior read the Qur'an? But, but...didn't he learn to live a life of peace and tolerance? What's that? He learned from the Qur'an that he should wage war against the unbelievers? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
From the New York Times:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 4 - In a small house outside the city of Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan, a 25-year-old man from the suburbs of London chronicled his personal holy war in the pages of a diary.March 10, 2005. "All alone in a strange land," he writes. "I can trust no-one except Allah."
March 26. Questions how fellow Muslims can live peacefully in London when the "kufr," or unbelievers, have turned every corner of the globe into "a battlefield for the Muslims." Calls London the "vital organ of the minions of the devil."...
What specific operation the man, Zeeshan Siddique, was preparing for is unclear. One month later, Pakistan security forces arrested him at the house after receiving reports that he was acting suspiciously. Inside, according to a Pakistani security official, investigators found an electrical circuit that could be used as a bomb detonator; a desktop computer that contained aeronautical mapping; and the cryptic 35-page diary, typed in English, with nearly daily entries from March 2 to April 6, 2005.
The Pakistani official said he believed that Mr. Siddique was waiting to be dispatched as a suicide bomber. Phone numbers found with Mr. Siddique have been traced to known members of Al Qaeda, as well as British extremists involved in a failed plot to detonate bombs in London in 2004, the investigator said.
The British police are also investigating whether Mr. Siddique, who was reared in Britain, had ties to the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, officials said. In particular, they are trying to determine whether a diary entry on March 13, in which Mr. Siddique says he has learned that "wagon is now called off," refers to the July 7 bombing plot.
Mr. Siddique denies having played any role in the failed 2004 plot or the recent London attacks, according to the Pakistani security official. Still, his diary offers a chilling, if fragmented, self-portrait of a young Muslim man not only disaffected with Western society, but with other Muslims unwilling to join in jihad....
Across the top of its first page is a quote from the Koran: "The greatest tests are truly to be soon alleviated."...
Mr. Siddique has told investigators that he is from the London suburb of Hounslow and is a Muslim of Indian descent. Efforts to locate his family in Hounslow were unsuccessful. The only traces of his former life are school records and a single clipping from a Hounslow area newspaper.
The article, from November 1997, quotes the police as saying that the then 17-year-old Mr. Siddique "ran off to join the mujahedeen" in Lebanon. He returned to his "frantic parents" one month later, the article says. It says Mr. Sidddique suffered from "a depressive illness."...
He also said he had spent two and a half months in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore with Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American computer programmer from Queens, according to the Pakistani security official. Mr. Babar pleaded guilty last year to charges of supplying military equipment to a Qaeda training camp in Pakistan and working to aid the failed 2004 London plot.
While denying involvement in the two plots, Mr. Siddique has told interrogators that he spent the last two years fighting in Afghanistan and Kashmir. His diary offers little sense of what initially drove him to extremism, but abounds with examples of how he views the world through a radical lens. He rails about Pakistanis who "claim 2 b Muslim" but "don't get it thru there thik heads" that it is their "fard," or religious duty, to help him wage his holy war.
This is my first comment for JihadWatch, which only relates generally to this particular article. I am suprised that no one has brought up this issue previously.
I believe that all forms of religious mysticism (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc) create an "us vs. them" or a "me, not me" mentality.
The only conversation possible between a "fundamental" Christian and a "fundamental" Muslim is: "My God is bigger than your God...No he isn't....Yes he is......No he isn't." (etc).
As an Objectivist and an Atheist, I abhor the ability of mystic faiths to twist the minds of what might have otherwise developed into rational people. It is only the language of reason that understands compromise.
The MAIN PURPOSE of this post is to ask my fellow commenters: has your devoted reading of this informative and insightful blog caused you to question not only the motives of Islam, but of religion in general? That the difference between Christianity and Islam is merely one of degree? Does the emotional impact of reading the Islamic insanities fortify your faith or cause you to cast a troubled eye at "faith" in general?
I love this quote from Winston Churchill which I have seen numerous times on this website. Here is part of it:
"....were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
I agree that the only reason Christianity has not become the horror that Islam has become is because of 3 eras (in order):
- The Renaissance (16th century)
- The Enlightenment (18th century)
- The Industrial Revolution (19th century)
Without these occurences, all of us Americans would be wondering how we can escape the yoke of the Church. As it is today, Pope Benedict cannot issue a "fatwa" and hope that more than a handful will take heed (thank GOD!!).
The main difference between Islam and Christianity/Judaism is that C/J were "underdog" religions, and therefore developed as systems of personal ethics, not systems of government. I thank Fate that C/J have little in the way of "sharia" type rules, or we may have been in the same boat as the Islamists, locked forever in an "us vs. them" struggle.
Unfortunately, Reason does not provoke the level of passion in most people that religion does (Objectivists are an exception to this). One of the reasons is that the philosophical and artistic language of reason is still incomplete. As an example, I consider myself to be a "spiritual" person, meaning, I believe life matters, and that it has Meaning. We have not yet developed the words to describe this with a non-mystic term. The closest thing we have to a heartstring tugging example of reason is the written works of the Founding Fathers.
Any responses to my questions and points above would be appreciated.
P.S. - I really hope the comment section remains. The vast majority of commenters play by the rules (as far as I see), and I gain much from reading the comments.
Commentary on Islam is fruitless without reading the foundational texts, the Qur'an, at least some hadiths, and the sira. Below I present an old post in response to a comment by Hugh Fitzgerald about Islam's ability to 'slip knots' that are meant to constrain it, like Kemalism.
Rather than look for odd, false comparisons and analogies between Islam and other religions, a classic tu quoque fallacy employed by Muslim apologists, students of Islam should simply read the Qur'an. Then, with regards to impressions from folks like the lost soul in the above article, ask the question: how could one not experience absolute alienation from everything and everyone 'un-Islamic' if one read the Qur'an and took it seriously? Read the demonizing commentary on non-believers. One can't miss it: on every page, read the incessant waves of damnations, demeaning characterizations, and curses of the non-believers. Read Sura 9. Read the hadiths on jihad. Read Mohammad's examples in the Sira. How would one answer the question" how should I, a Muslim, treat a non-believer who questions or opposes Islam? There is nothing like these texts in any other major religious tradition: the abyss between belief and non-belief is unbridgeable and non-belief must be constrained or stamped out. Its that simple. Here is the former post:
Just as Islam can keep 'slipping the knots that constrain it' through the power of meaning in foundational texts, so too in Christianity social and political knots have been 'slipped' by the power of the meaning in texts like the Gospels. But the meanings are very differet. There is a tendency in Islam to ressurrect practices in Sharia and those endorsed by 'the perfect man Muhammad' that are antithetical to contemporary Western conceptions of human rights: inequality for women, oppression of non-believers, slavery or quasi-slavery, in addition to things like jizya and the archaic interest free banking, which now has even taken a foothold in the United States. But consider the Gospels. What meanings have carried special historical power? Do texts like the Sermon On the Mount have anything to do with the evolution of European moral and political categories, even if some of these categories are developed and promoted by groups that considered themselves 'anti-religion'? Despite religious institutions, like the Catholic Church, that has suppressed in a variety of ways the principle of political equality, the principle emerges in European history with irresistable power (but we should not demonize the Church. Look at the influence of the foundational principles and texts on this institution. Could one ever imagine the Pope commanding armies again? The Church is utterly in the embrace of a pacifism that is richly expressed in the stories about Jesus. And there are many other stories to tell as well.). There are complex causes, of course, but surely the idea that all persons are equal before God, that the meek are blessed, that riches and social status are irrelevant moral status (and in fact perhaps a detriment), that all human beings, even non-believers, are deserving of not only respect but sacrifice and care, don't these notions, which define the ethos of the Gospels play crucial roles in the evolution of social and political forces that purged injustices such as slavery, political and social inequality for women, unjust taxation, from European history?
What is said in these foundational religious texts is important. The meanings of these words, the tone and texture of the stories, the examples set by the main actors in the stories, all these and more have influenced the evolution of our social and political institutions, as well as the ways we view ourselves within those societies. And the stark constrast between those cultures under the influence of the Qur'an and those under the influence of other forces, like the Gospels and the Hebrew bible, cannot be overemphasized.
JTF:
Thanks for your response to VoiceOfReason above; I think nothing more need be said.
Jazak Allah Khair, JTF!
I would like to respond to JTF:
"Commentary on Islam is fruitless without reading the foundational texts, the Qur'an, at least some hadiths, and the sira...Then, with regards to impressions from folks like the lost soul in the above article, ask the question: how could one not experience absolute alienation from everything and everyone 'un-Islamic' if one read the Qur'an and took it seriously? Read the demonizing commentary on non-believers."
I am neither a Christian-hater nor an Islam apologist. I am a rational American. I would answer that EVERY religious text suggests violence towards non-believers, if you look for it. There is danger in everything we buy into because of the justification that "God said it" - this is the real point I am making, not a line by line comparison of Christianity and Islam. The fundamental texts give the mullahs/rabbis/ministers a free pass on having to justify their edicts, other than to quote semi-supporting doctrine (interpreted by their far wiser heads). True, Christianity has not abused its power since The Inquisition, but is this because Christianity changed, or because the light of Reason pushed back the dark cloud of ignorance?
As far as the foundational Christian text causing far less mayhem than the Islamic text, we are in complete agreement!
And also, the good ideas in Christianity (of which there are many) can stand up to scrutiny outside of a religious context.
I would imagine that other than our disagreement about the value of religion, our secular principles would be quite similar. : )
Oh, JTF, let me compliment you in one other area...
I agree that it is far more difficult to "hijack" Christianity for obviously nefarious purposes, because the Bible does not constantly exhort one to "kill the infidel", as you pointed out so well. This is a future as a present type of insurance.
This is a future, as well as a present type of insurance. (grrrr, check grammar next time)
Voice of Reason:
Most of us here are united not by any particular faith, but by studying and understanding why of all faiths, Islam, particularly, is capable of wreaking so much havoc.
I have no problem with people who claim they are "culturally" of one faith or another. I am certainly a Christian, in the cultural sense. I am also an agnostic, whose connection with Christianity is purely emblematic, symbolic, and otherwise. I do not believe that Jesus, even if he existed, was the son of God. I do not believe any mortal individual understands Providence.
Nonetheless, we are facing a very different construct these days, when it comes to the world at large. Islam is extraordinarily dangerous, and I don't believe, at least in my lifetime, that there is any chance of a "reformation" along the lines of what happened to to the Christian faith in the middle ages.
I think, from much reading of posts on this site, that most of us that come here are probably well-educated people of all faiths or no faith, but certainly not Muslim, who understand that our world today needs straight talk about what motivates violence. Islam has never been "reformed," because to do so would essentially emasculate the religion. In fact, Islam is the biggest cult ever devised. And I say that knowing that I count a lot of so-called Muslims as my friends.
Robert Spencer, among others, may not be truly apreciated now, but he will be in the future. It's only a matter of time. The free world will eventually decide to educate itself.
I think this site is the best thing I have ever seen in response to the grave dangers facing us, and I hope it never goes away. In the meantime, I will give money anyway, even if I think that this site might disappear.
What poison Islam is; and Britain has drunk deeply of it. Anybody who says that such people are a small minority that don't understand Islam, should also ask themselves why we don't see a similar Sikh and Hindu "British" minority.
Britain is becoming an aggregate of mutually alienated communities, and the most self-alienate and hostile community (by far) are the Pakistani Muslims. I used to live near Hounslow, the Pakistani community live in its own world there. 95% of them don't even have non-Muslim friends. Some have lived for over 20 years in the UK and they speak about 50 words in English. I once did some work at a Pakistani wedding near there - 500 guests, not one non-Muslim! 99.9% of Pakistani fathers would rather kill their daughters than see them marry an Englishman -- and they call the Anglo Saxons racist!
As a well-meaning kindly Socialist, the dream of multiculturalism was something I actually believed in back in the 1980's and even into the 90's. Now I see that this dream has become a nighmare. Social cohesion is breaking down and even the most die-hard bleeding-heart leftie (as I was) can't ignore mangled bodies in the tube stations, the army in the streets, and Muslim riots. This is the thanks we get for getting them out of the Third World!
The one good thing about this story is that the Pakistani police will torture this little creep and put him in a stinking cell. Perhaps British policemen in the Houslow area should do community awareness courses in Karachi, and pick up some of the local policing methods.
"His diary offers little sense of what initially drove him to extremism..."
-- from the New Duranty Times article above
What is the matter with this and all the other Muslim Mary Janes throwing fits, though there is lovely Infidel-supplied rice pudding for supper again? Oh, what is the matter with Mary Jane?
This is the new, updated version of Grossmith's "Diary of a Nobody." However, if the nobody is a Muslim nobody he has someone to blame -- the Infidel. And there are so very many Muslim nobodies, resentful for their state, and for the slights that Muslims suffer whenever Islam is not given its due, as it never can be given its due in the Infidel lands, for why would Infidels willingly allow Islam "to dominate and not to be dominated"? For many Muslims, too impatient to bide their time and wait, like other Muslims, for the inevitable islamization that will follow the demographic changes, they must engage in Jihad now.
Really, they need only sit back, and procreate, and wait.
VoiceofReason,
Sorry to say but you have come up with the same tired ol' regurgitated pathetic story/comment/argument that either apologetics, supposed 'rationalists', 'atheists' n other types try to bring to the table. So let me clear it up for u.
Firstly, if you are really a 'rationalist' if you claim, JTFs argument seals ur defeat as u have not the tiniest hint of an idea of what non-monotheistic religions are about. Yogic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism do not even have the categories of believer or unbeliever. There is only the human family to consider. Salvation can be achieved by all concerned without a pre-affirmation of a belief in some deity. So please take your ignorance elsewhere, my rationalist friend.
FYI, I am also an atheist and a 'rationalist'. As a rationalist, evidence and reason alongwith a healthy logical faculty are the sole arbitrators of my value judgements unlike your sweep-under-the-rug approach.
Though Im not particularly fond of Christianity, but for the spirit of fairness, although it had its fair share of brutality and bigotry, it has been reformed because it could be reformed. The imperial grip on it was more institutional (church) than theological unlike in Islam where every surah of the quran reaffirms and hammers the hatred of the 'infidel' in muslim minds. There is no "love thy enemy" in Islam.
Also, Mr. 'Rationalist', it would behoove you to study briefly, histories of all these religious communities by competent historians. You might be surprised to know that there was persecution of scientists, philosophers etc in non monotheistic religious communities. They even promoted such activities.
You might also get to know from your impartial study (hopefully) that India has taken in its bossom refugees like Jews when their temple was destroyed, Persians when their land was raped by Islamic armies, and Syrian Christians when the Catholic church was after them. Never were they subjected to any humiliation and these communities flourished till today.
So please stop your sickening bullshit in the garb of 'rationalism'.
TYPO: THERE WAS NOOO PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS ET ALL IN HINDU, JAIN
To creat art requires a creative mind. To have a creative mind, a free mind is needed. A mind that is not free can not think nor create.
The Renaissance is often mentioned by critics of Christianity as a defining event that broke Europe free from the grip of the Catholic Church. The opposite is true. The Catholic Church was the greatest sponsor of the arts that gave rise to the great names of the Renaissance. Michelangelo and Rafaello come readily to mind. The creations of these men did not exist "but for" the Church, but because of the Church.
Judaism also does not constrain the mind. Indeed, Judaism has also produced many of the great creative artist of humanity.
There is no art in Islam, critical, creative thinking is un-Islamic. In Isalm, all one needs to know is contained in the Koran. Islam caused the destruction of the greatest centers of learning of antiquities, for example, the great collection of the library of Alexendria. Even today, Islam seeks to destroy artistic creation within Islam and in the "Infidel" world.
For the non-entity, borrowing a pre-digested 'identity', a pre-formulated 'meaning' and an undoubtable 'truth' is such an existential relief that it is no surprise that the self-dramatizing adolescent mentality is drawn to it like moths to a bug zapper.
The world becomes a video game to these puerile annihilationists.
Allah vs Everything
And you become the 'hero'.
Instead of having to evolve into a decent human being by working toward enlightment, demonstrating decency and cultivating compassion, you get the short-circuit short-cut to 'absolute value': the "kill and you are thereby worthy" delusion.
Naive, idealistic idiots have been falling for this trick since the first 'empty vessel' was suckered by the first full-blown cynic into dying for the latter's benefit (AKA wallet).
Islam's leaders are never themselves strapping on suicide vests or personally flying jetliners into buildings or blowing themselves up in old Toyotas on Babylonian back-alleys.
Hell, no.
They just point the way for the gullible dupes.
That way to Paradise... (in 300 pieces).
And the imamns, mullahs and ayatollahs then rake in the blood-money, the 'religious' homage, and giggle with diseased ego-maniacal delight at their 'holy' carnage.
The whole cult reads like an H.P. Lovecraft story.
"The Lurker Out of the Broken Meteor" or something close.
Give me:
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"
over:
"Paradise is in the shadow of swords" any damned day.
"...Mr. Sidddique suffered from "a depressive illness."... DUH! It called Islam.
Timbo,
I also think it's a shame multiculturalism didn't work out as planned. I think humans have an innate desire to interact and learn from other cultures and certainly America has been very fortunate to have had a successful melting pot experience. Overall, I'd give the multicultural experiment a B-. It would have been higher if we had managed to keep Islamic countries out of the pot. But how were we to know that you can take muslims out of the third world, but you can't take the third world out of muslims. Live and learn I guess. Learn being the key word here.
Let me respond to Tushar Saxena:
"Firstly, if you are really a 'rationalist' if you claim, JTFs argument seals ur defeat as u have not the tiniest hint of an idea of what non-monotheistic religions are about. Yogic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism do not even have the categories of believer or unbeliever. There is only the human family to consider. Salvation can be achieved by all concerned without a pre-affirmation of a belief in some deity. So please take your ignorance elsewhere, my rationalist friend...You might be surprised to know that there was persecution of scientists, philosophers etc in non monotheistic religious communities. They even promoted such activities."
Certainly, some religions make more powerful distinctions between believers and non-believers than others. What in the world does this have to do with what I was saying? Why are you constructing straw men? Mysticism is mysticism, I don't care if it is mono or polytheistic, it can still be a recipe for disaster, as you support in the second part of your quote above.
To put it simply, the ethical correctness of any particular aspect of a religion cannot be based on a mystic argument. This is the only point I am making - to say something is correct purely because a particular religion says so, is not valid, and Islam shows what can happen when you take mystic arguments to an extreme.
Why have 2 commenters now thought I was an Islamic apologist? Because I don't accept Christianity either? If you are asking whether I think one is superior to the other, I would certainly vote for modern Christianity, because it has more rational aspects than Islam, by far.
Its not worth arguing at length, because you are disagreeing with something I did not say. Maybe its just tough to have this kind of complex conversation in writing rather than dialoguing.
I will make more narrow arguments in the future, or at least present just 1 or two ideas in a post, because otherwise misinterpretations are likely. I tried to fit too much in in my first post, because I had not posted before.
But I suppose the answer to my original question is "no"...that Islamist extremism has not called in to question the entire idea of religion for anyone, since no commenter has mentioned it.
"...you can take muslims out of the third world, but you can't take the third world out of muslims."
Thanks Wil, i'll use that one!
I will also borrow Tushar's: "There is no "love thy enemy" in Islam."
Gems of wisdom from the very pissed off!
When talking to others, such clever phrases elucidate the Islamic problem very well.
Well VoiceofReason
I thought Id get an interesting reply but alas you are the one constructing straw men. Your reply really is no dialogue because you have seemingly not seen my argument as lucid as I thought it was. So please refer to my TYPO CORRECTION right in the following post (its just one line).
And again let me reiterate not at any one given point have hindus or buddhists or jains ever revelled in destruction of any 'other' simply because they were that. This point needs to be understand and applauded emphatically because you misunderstand the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. As ive already explained how flawed your "sweep-under-the-rug" approach really is because it does not fit the model of a realistic world. Your argument solely is that religion should be questioned and banished as allllll "mysticisms" can be taken to such extremes but the difficulty in doing so varies with each "mysticism". So my friend in that case ANY ideology can be taken to such extremes...such as secularism in Societ Union or China. This is not a hallowed equivalence. If you think deeply about what u said u will realise that this GENERAL extreme can be achieved for any/all ideology. And yet we have to see a form of Hinduism/Buddhist/Jainism/Taoism/Shintoism/Confucianism that has EVER, I repeat EVER persecuted those who, you say, they labeled 'THE OTHER'.
I stress again, there is NO OTHER in these belief systems except in wholly modern-like ethical/moral way (eg. He is a killer, I hate him) An individual is completely responsible for his own spiritual enlightenment. The state or any other organ of human organisation has to give you absolute freedom of conscience.
The very first sentence of the Rig Veda establishes the pluralistic tolerance of India from the ancient age : 'Let Noble thoughts come to us from everywhere'
So please think bout my argument in a little depth before you jump to your generalised conclusions again.
To hammer the point in, consider all the cults that had psychotic 'prophets' commanding their small group of followers to kill themselves or others (Japan subway blasts etc). This is simply some psycho creatin some 'mysticism' if u will and brainwashin a few. Indeed that 'mysticism' needs to be criticised and rooted out.
So its simply ridiculous to say that since ALL mysticisms can be taken to 'this extreme', religion itself shud be called into question.
No, sir, why should Hinduism or Buddhism or Confucianism be called into question?? They have done no harm. You might say that they might in the future but that is no argument since there is no theological basis in those belief systems to warrant such acts...not even remotely. And as per intellectual discussion is concerned, you might wanna read up on some philosophers of ancient and medieval India (Hindu, buddhist, jain). The Indian spiritual tradition has been subjected to debates, thesis discussions from time immemorial when the Western world was still forests with people wearing animal skins roaming the jungles. There is absolutely no conflict of intellectuality in these belief systems. Hinduism embraces the crudest idol worshipper to the most sophisticated philosophical, intellectual individual. Indeed if you need criticism of Indian spiritual traditions, you need look no further than india herself! These are done by the same rishis and seers that have written spiritual treatises.
Hence, sir, the argument about GENERAL extreme is applicable to any idea and hence it calling those religions into question is absurd at best, and ludicrous at worst. But point accepted from urs is that ideologies which cannot stand the test of logic, reason etc and cause harm and facilitate evil must be rooted out.
PS -please READ THE SHORT TYPO CORRECTION AFTER MY LAST POST as u apparently missed it. Therefore it does NOT 'confirm your point' as you have duly noted. "THERE WAS NO PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS, ET ALL...." Error is regretted.
Well VoiceofReason
I thought Id get an interesting reply but alas you are the one constructing straw men. Your reply really is no dialogue because you have seemingly not seen my argument as lucid as I thought it was. So please refer to my TYPO CORRECTION right in the following post (its just one line).
And again let me reiterate not at any one given point have hindus or buddhists or jains ever revelled in destruction of any 'other' simply because they were that. This point needs to be understand and applauded emphatically because you misunderstand the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. As ive already explained how flawed your "sweep-under-the-rug" approach really is because it does not fit the model of a realistic world. Your argument solely is that religion should be questioned and banished as allllll "mysticisms" can be taken to such extremes but the difficulty in doing so varies with each "mysticism". So my friend in that case ANY ideology can be taken to such extremes...such as secularism in Societ Union or China. This is not a hallowed equivalence. If you think deeply about what u said u will realise that this GENERAL extreme can be achieved for any/all ideology. And yet we have to see a form of Hinduism/Buddhist/Jainism/Taoism/Shintoism/Confucianism that has EVER, I repeat EVER persecuted those who, you say, they labeled 'THE OTHER'.
I stress again, there is NO OTHER in these belief systems except in wholly modern-like ethical/moral way (eg. He is a killer, I hate him) An individual is completely responsible for his own spiritual enlightenment. The state or any other organ of human organisation has to give you absolute freedom of conscience.
The very first sentence of the Rig Veda establishes the pluralistic tolerance of India from the ancient age : 'Let Noble thoughts come to us from everywhere'
So please think bout my argument in a little depth before you jump to your generalised conclusions again.
To hammer the point in, consider all the cults that had psychotic 'prophets' commanding their small group of followers to kill themselves or others (Japan subway blasts etc). This is simply some psycho creatin some 'mysticism' if u will and brainwashin a few. Indeed that 'mysticism' needs to be criticised and rooted out.
So its simply ridiculous to say that since ALL mysticisms can be taken to 'this extreme', religion itself shud be called into question.
No, sir, why should Hinduism or Buddhism or Confucianism be called into question?? They have done no harm. You might say that they might in the future but that is no argument since there is no theological basis in those belief systems to warrant such acts...not even remotely. And as per intellectual discussion is concerned, you might wanna read up on some philosophers of ancient and medieval India (Hindu, buddhist, jain). The Indian spiritual tradition has been subjected to debates, thesis discussions from time immemorial when the Western world was still forests with people wearing animal skins roaming the jungles. There is absolutely no conflict of intellectuality in these belief systems. Hinduism embraces the crudest idol worshipper to the most sophisticated philosophical, intellectual individual. Indeed if you need criticism of Indian spiritual traditions, you need look no further than india herself! These are done by the same rishis and seers that have written spiritual treatises.
Hence, sir, the argument about GENERAL extreme is applicable to any idea and hence it calling those religions into question is absurd at best, and ludicrous at worst. But point accepted from urs is that ideologies which cannot stand the test of logic, reason etc and cause harm and facilitate evil must be rooted out.
PS -please READ THE SHORT TYPO CORRECTION AFTER MY LAST POST as u apparently missed it. Therefore it does NOT 'confirm your point' as you have duly noted. "THERE WAS NO PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS, ET ALL...." Error is regretted.
Just in case my post seems incoherent, I would like to clarify that the basis of my post is your assumed, unproven point that
"Certainly, some religions make more powerful distinctions between believers and non-believers than others. What in the world does this have to do with what I was saying? Why are you constructing straw men? Mysticism is mysticism, I don't care if it is mono or polytheistic, it can still be a recipe for disaster"
To reiterate, there is NO BELIEF-RIDDEN OTHER to speak of in those traditions. Hence saying that some belief systems make more powerful distinctions than others does not apply to this case. As there is NO distinction on the basis of belief. Get it?? Or should I repeat?
Secondly "Mysticism is mysticism. I dont care if its mono or poly, it still can be a recipe for disaster" Ive already shown you how this certain point which you pose as axiomatic and binding is fundamentally flawed as any idea can be a recipe for disaster, IF we are to accept your line of reasoning.
Thirdly, as a reaffirmation of the second point, yogic belief systems have never led to such disaster nor will they in their own capacity because they sanction no such acts. If one were to act in its name, he would simply be giving his own psychotic criminal nature the name of this belief system which would stand completely separate from the crime. This can be contrasted with Islam where the Qur'an itself testifies to the fact that the "worst of them [sic]" were the first converts...meaning murderers, rapists etc. Here they received sanction for their reprehensible nature from the belief system's fundamental scripture.
Tushar:
All I can say is - well said.
Good points, Tushar. Here are my 2 cents on this topic. It seems to me that all the so-called monotheistic religions are inherently cause for conflict. As long as there is this concept of my God versus your God, or my holy book versus your holy book or my favorite prophet versus yours there will always be conflict. I purposely used the term "so-called" in describing the Judeo-Christian-Islamic set of religions and the reason I did so was because there is actually an inherent duality in these religions in that the Creator (or God) is considered separate from the created world. This God is considered all-good, all-loving etc, which also necessitates the creation of a Devil as well to explain all the seemingly unsavory things that such a good, loving God could not have allowed. Indeed, the concept of a Devil has been a major cause for conflict, becauseits easy to decry anything outside one's faith as being the work of the Devil. And, indeed, over the centuries people across the World have been massacred in the millions all to bring the good word of the Lord to the 'savage' polytheistic people.
It is, indeed, important to contrast this view of religion to that of the Easterners (i.e Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Confusians, Taoists etc.) where religion is truly personal and individualistic and each person is allowed to freely develop his/her potentiality toward enlightenment/nirvana etc. It is precisely because of these freedoms that science and technology have NEVER been in conflict with Eastern religions. Nor have Eastern religions tried to subjugate the World to spread their own narrow views on everyone else.
Having said all this, it seems clear to me that of the three major "monotheistic" religions it is Islam which is by far the most openly aggressive in its teachings. Also, whereas Judaism and Christianity have evolved considerably, thanks to the period of scientific enquiry and cultural renaissance, Islam has remained deeply rooted in its 12th century mentality.
I think I agree with Tushar...however my limited intellect has a hard time following the bouncing ball of some chains of thinking expressed here.
Bigsleep:Instead of having to evolve into a decent human being by working toward enlightment, demonstrating decency and cultivating compassion, you get the short-circuit short-cut to 'absolute value': the "kill and you are thereby worthy" delusion.
The first part of that is what all religions, mystically oriented or not, should be fostering.
It is what all humans 'should be' striving for.
You dont necessarilly have to be 'religious' to get that. The opposite is selfishness and gross materialism...Thats Islam...Believing that God (Allah) will reward you 'lavishly' for killing people, is the apex of selfishness.
Nearly every comment made in the articles posted by JW/DW, where jihadists express their opinions, reinforces that.
This should not be a site to argue the comparative value, or no value, of religious thought, unless it is to expose the false underbelly of Islam...Sometimes I think that 'some' posters here are educated beyond their intelligence, and are incapable of plain talk.
Thats important because understanding the nature of the enemy should be available to all concerned (ordinary people who come here to learn something), not just to pointy headed intellectuals who want to prove how smart they are...keep up this, more or less off topic intellectual masturbation, and RS will probably get disgusted and pull the plug...if this does not apply to you...ignore it...
Tushar;
yes, well said. where violent acts committed in the name of most Judeo-Christian religions are rare, widely seen as aberant by their adherents, and fundamentally contrary to the contemporary understanding of these constantly evolving and reforming religions, evolving due to the ability of their followers to question, interpret, and challenge, violence in the name of islam is a codified and essential element of the very fabric and backbone of the ideology.
jihadis like OBL are not "bad" muslims, on the contrary, they can point to the core teachings in defence of their actions and they can rightly look down at "moderate muslims" as weak and borderline apostates. their claim of adherence to islamic commands is pure truth.
Razdan & duh_swami;
i spent a while stuying Buddhism, as a subject, not as a convert, and was very impressed by the fundamentals. i remember telling someone that certain books would be very useful in any secular setting as a set of moral guidelines. concepts like the "Eightfold Path" are examples of Buddhism's emphasis on personal growth, improvement, and enlightenment, to the absolute exclusion of the possibility of doing harm to others and the total concentration of preventing it. the only time i can remember reading about the killing of others was in the context of a classic buddhist debate on the subject regarding the possibility of it's ever being permissable. the debate referenced a "bodhisatva"(anyone who chooses to put off achieving enlightenment until all sentient beings can be freed of suffering) who killed the leader of an attacking army to prevent the slaughter to come, thereby selflessly taking on "bad" karma in order that many thousands of lives would be saved by the death of one. i am pretty sure this is the only time i can recall a buddhist discussion of allowing murder. granted, i studied informally and only on a part-time basis over about 2 years. i'm no professor of Buddhism
duh_swami;
"selfishness and gross materialism...thats islam"
right on the mark. kind of calls into question the motivations of jihadis. it's always "boys night out" in paradise, you get to loot the infidels after you kill them and "get a little bit" from their wives and daughters, you like his house?, kill him and it's yours.
and thanks for the remark about making this a discussion site and not a contest.
Tushar Saxena:
Striking the difference between the first sentence of the Rig Veda and that of the qur'an.
Pretty much says it all.
VoiceOfReason: I have never seen, even among atheists, less self-knowledge than in your case. Your web name is nothing less than a joke. You are the most prejudiced person I ever met on this site.
Tushar Saxena and Razdan: don't do us any favours. Your patronizing and contemptous "defence" of Christianity leads to persecution just as certainly as does VoiceOfREason's unreason.
Everyone else: does it not occur to anyone (except poor old Lisa, the one person to talk a little sense in this whole gas-ridden thread) that it might be somewhat less than a chance that all those wonderful achievements you fill your mouths with - Western Science - the Enlightenment - Separation of Church and State - Democracy - the Renaissance - all happened in the space defined by the evil, tyrannical, imperialistic Western Christian (Catholic) Church? Kind of a paradox, hey? Think about it.
Paolo, if I came across as being patronizing my sincere apologies. By the same token, I believe that your characterization of VoiceofReason was, shall we say, very un-Christian like. To my mind, VoiceofReason came across as being very sincere in his questions. While Tushar and I may have engaged in discussing our views with him, certainly I do think what he writes is important. The key point I got from VoiceofReason is that any religion, no matter how exalted it may seem to the believer, once it claims exclusivity, has the blueprint of intolerance built into it. And I fully agree with him about that. Yes, this has been a bit of digression from the general discussion on Islam but hopefully not too far off. If anything, this just goes to show the wide mix of people who are taking part in the Jihad Watch discussions. While we may have differences of opinion on many other topics, I think it is safe to say that we all agree that Islamism presents by far the single-most danger to ALL of us.
Razdan, thanks for trying to teach me how a Christian ought to behave. You do not seem to know much about Catholic doctrine, but you have a good strong loud idea of how we should act in public, anyway. Meek. Silent. Submissive. In your view, I should stand around listening to someone with the unimaginably vainglorious nic of VoiceOfReason - dear God, how deluded do you have to be before you even think of taking that name for yourself? - telling me that I and my likes are that we are naturally tyrannical and brutal; and accept that without telling to his face that he is talking through his hat. We ought to take our insults and be grateful. Does that remind you of anyone? Anything? I did not join this site to play the dhimmi to anyone. Jesus (who had remarkably few scruples about telling anyone what He thought) may have said to turn the other cheek, but he never told us to shut up: on the contrary, we are supposed to point out where things are badly done, badly said or badly thought.
And I do not think you have paid a great deal of attention to what I actually said. Tell me, where do you get the idea that toleration as such is a virtue? Where did this idea blossom? Well, it is one of a number of things you brag about which arose in that evil, imperialistic, tyrannical Western culture, the culture that arises in the Western patriarchate of the Christian Church - the Catholic world...
You know gang?
I thought my original post was just to call into idea that any conclusion reached through PURELY religious means "My God is bigger than yours", or "Don't eat meat on Fridays" is problematic. And that, if reason is completely crushed, you wind up with something like Islam, which does not even pay lip service anymore to ideas like freedom, cause and effect, rational self interest, individualism, etc.
Islam has the greatest number of these "little rules" mentioned above, to show piety and mental and physical submission to Allah. The 5x a day praying, burkas, long sleeves and beards for men, the religious language of the politicians, the Haj, and many others.
I am suprised at the level of negative comments regarding my post. Certainly some posters prefer me not to question religion in general, but I did it to be intellectually provocative, not to harm anyone.
Also, I suppose that VoiceOfReason as a nick DOES come across as a little "smarter than thou" so I will change it to something less audacious, for those offended, perhaps "skippy".
Peace, gentlement. :D