What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.
Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds. It will of course be in the name of secularism. There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt. I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast. “Secularism” was the cry there too.
I tend to agree with you. It is late and I have just “Oh I get it now!” (Short Circuit). It was a bit cryptic.
Peace be upon you too!
I cant’t believe that the hostility levelled against Suhayl on this thread is soley for his use of the term ‘Islamist’ or for expressing preference for secularism or Western culture.
Something else is at play. What is it?
Jemand – Censorship Improves History
Me and SS used to get on quite well before this thread. You can read older threads, and I think he would admit it if you ask him.
Maybe when other issues are discussed we would be on the same side again.
But you are right, it isn’t just about the term “Islam-ist”, which I find dishonest and racist.
It is also to do with the generisations he is using on this thread. I have never seen him do that before.
Drol, thought something in me has changed recently to make me attack him in that way.
I would say, something in him has changed.
The examples he gives are of a Muslim somewhere some how doing something that he says is bad. And then using it to say, all of what he calls Islamists are bad.
Please explain to me how that is different from some racist saying all blacks are bad because obama is black and he has done some bad things.
If his attacks on the brotherhood were actually to do with their own policies. Even if I disagreed with him, I would be ok with him saying that. But most probably I might have agreed with him. Because they do have many policies I disagree with. There is no one, no group that I agree with 100%, whether they are what he calls Islamists or not.
As a Muslim I believe Allah is perfect, the rest of us are not, including Muslims.
What I disagreed with most was his use of organisations that have no connection at all with the brotherhood. People in different countries, with very different idiologies and policies.
And then he goes, they are all Islamist.
On this thread he has been acting like the BNP and the racists in this government who blame Muslims here for the actions of any Muslim anywhere on the planet.
Just like what the tabloids did here. When some Paki cab drivers fiddled with some girls in places up north that I have never heard of.
It was some how stated that Islam was to blame. When they were cab drivers not leaders of mosques like the pedo prists. Their brown skin and strange names meant it was an Islamic crime. While segregation areas of British prisons are packed with whites with white names, whose crimes are their own. Not shared by others of their race who didn’t do it. Not shared by others of their religion who didn’t take part. Their religion was not even mentioned. People didn’t even try to guess their religion by their names and skin colour. Because it had no baring on their crimes.
But, the fact that SS says some Saudi guys, come here and sees call girls means what he calls Islam’ism is to blame.
And this has ramifications on my desire to reverse sykes picot carve up of the middle east, and it means the coup against the Muslim brotherhood win was a good thing.
Has he interviewed any of them to find out if they are in any of what he calls Islamist groups they belong to?
Or does he even know whether they even pray, fast and pay charity?
Does he even know whether or not they are Muslim.
I mean, if a white british person goes to a prostitute, it is never a case of a Christianity and Prostitution. The way SS says Muslims ruling by Islam is done because Muslims want more call girls just cause he says that is what some Saudis do here?
I call him a racist because that is how racists themselves make judgements.
My attack on him has nothing to do with his religious beliefs or his politics. He has always made his religious thoughts and politic beliefs here very clear.
I have always known he was a secularist. He made his views on Islamic rules he idsagreed with very clear. But with differed on them with respect.
And up till this thread, I have always thought we have got along.
My attacks on him was because of his racism.
That is what has changed.
He has never used to racist arguments he is doing now.
This is the verse time I have seen him do that. and this thread is the first time I have attacked him in this way.
Anyway, it is ramadhan. And half of it has ended. I should be using it to worshiping and not posting on threads here. I have said it before. I will be stricter with myself now. Bye. I might be back after eid.
Re racial prejudice, racism, prejudice etc
It is natural and important for animals, including humans, to have an instinctive faculty of inductive reasoning – not formal, but natural. This faculty assists animals to adapt to their changing, complex environment. An animal will sense relationships between observations and subsequent events/outcomes with the beneficial effect of allowing it to avoid threats and pursue opportunities for survival.
It doesn’t matter what that relationship is, complex or simple, causal or associative. It’s fuzzy logic at work.
Now, it is a common, if faulty, response to observing something (someone) different and seeing a particular outcome and then drawing a conclusion that there is a relationship from which one induces a rule that can be applied to other situations sharing similar particulars. This psychological behaviour is observable in people and animals that are prone to superstition (ie faulty inductive reasoning).
And there is a long standing argument against prejudice (esp. racial prejudice) that says you cannot/shouldn’t induce generalised rules about people sharing a common attribute based on single or limited observations. That’s more or less correct when there is no cost involved, but does not serve any benefit when the stakes are high – eg survival.
Therefore, most animals are born with a primary prejudice – if something is unknown, it is dangerous, unless otherwise later observed to be safe or beneficial – or, if it doesn’t smell like food, it probably sees you as food. Cats aren’t very good at observing this rule, hence ‘curiosity killed the cat’.
Animals will instinctively be shy, skittish and difficult to approach because there is no value in staying around to learn if it is going to be eaten or not. The benefit of the doubt, therefore, falls on the side of a negative judgement. Why would it be any different for the human animal?
So conclusions based on very small sets of observations might be risky but not necessarily invalid. Better safe than sorry, eh?
In regard to Islamic influences on human behaviour, the question should be asked – Is there a relationship between the principles of Islam or culture of Muslims and the violence and destruction that we observe in the world today?
Observing one Muslim or Christian commit a crime is not sufficient to draw conclusions about Muslims or Christians. But there are plenty – hundreds – of examples of crimes in which we can identify patterns.
One is the overwhelming fact that most violent crime is committed by males between the ages of late teens and thirties. Do we see many 65yo women throwing Molotov cocktails in violent demonstrations, committing violent sexual assaults or bashing and robbing others? No. Why do you think that is?
We see lots of Chinese running restaurants, little corner stores and mobile phone kiosks but not so many playing cricket, singing heavy metal or going to the pub and getting drunk. Why is that?
Would I be wrong to make the observation that males commit violent crimes and Chinese run small businesses? How many exceptions break the rule? One? Two?
I see a lot of conflict in the Muslim world – between Muslims, between Muslims and non-Muslims. And I see a lot of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in the non-Muslim world.
Is there no relationship between Muslims/Islam and the many incidents of unrest and violence in many parts of the world?
I think there is. I think that unrest is a result of conflict between people who wish to affirm, defend or spread the influence of Islamic principles in rivalry with non-Islamic principles (other religions, secularism, etc).
To observe that as a fact (if, indeed, it is a fact) is not racist, it’s perfectly correct.
well, well, what a thread.
Arsalan, good to see you again. I think maybe neither you or Suhayl changed, just the climate around you.
Suhayl seems to be objecting strongly to murder, torture and repression carried out by people in the name of Islam. I know that this is often sponsored by ‘being bombed back to the Stone Age’ and in dollars, but are you sure you disagree?
(I’m not sure about this word ‘Islamist’ actually, since people can easily conflate it with ‘Muslim’; I tend to use ‘insane extremist’ of which most ideologies possess a few, poor souls).
Otherwise I was interested to read your view on Eqypt: wish I was there to dig some more. I’m pretty sure Morsi crossed several lines, which made the electorate rise up, but will go and look. What you know about Somalia fits with what I know btw.
Agree that it is rotten for Muslim men to be forced not to wear a beard of course: would be interested to know if you think they should be forced *to* wear a beard? Because if so we know we are coming from v different views.
I think it’s understandable to be upset when the failings of insane extremists are pointed out, and only Islamic extremists are mentioned, because it does play straight into the hands of people like Karimov and also statements like this:
“Is there no relationship between Muslims/Islam and the many incidents of unrest and violence in many parts of the world?….I think there is. I think that unrest is a result of conflict between people who wish to affirm, defend or spread the influence of Islamic principles in rivalry with non-Islamic principles (other religions, secularism, etc).”
To which of course there are so many replies that they have occupied whole blog pages, as Jemand well knows (last refutation culminating in the example of Malaysia)
Suhayl was pointing out that nothing flourishes in a climate of fear and oppression. The most repressive version of Islam available is of course analagous to ‘Christians’ who insanely quote the nastier bits of Leviticus. Or Friedmanites, in economic ideology.
Think calling him names v odd, v childish! He is not exactly singing the current state’s praises, is he? I think you have just missed seeing that his points are part of a picture.
The arse about tit “observations” with a preface of bollocksology to make it sound scientifically accepted bollocks!!! Have wasted my time reading the oodles of nonsense and crap.
Should have skipped reading the long diatribe that delivered the same shitty prejudice; I see, and decide!! Fact that seeing itself is based on flawed parameters, not being entertained, but hey when talking bollocks there is no ceiling, and bollocks can stack up to reach the heavens itself.
Throughout this thread the most glaring point that has not bee acknowledged (I have been waiting for the slightest hint of reappraisal of the prejudicial stances) has been the unsubstantiated assertions; I am an “Islam-ist” that has shaped the ebb and flow of the debate.
However upon declaration of my none religiousness, post a vicious attack on me for being an anti-s… and an Armageddon merchant, there has been further posts disregarding the fact that I am not religious (I am religious “fundamentalist Muslim” who lies through his fucking teeth apparently), and carrying on the thrust of their assertions, and denunciations unabated.
These type of transactions are befitting fishwives, and ought not be undertaken by the so called “intellectuals” whom have engaged in asserting their assumptions and following these with their customary denunciations. However, what has sense to do with this debate, or any other debate concerning the inalienable right of people to self-determination?
Fact that anyone mildly intelligent can adduce the bollocks of “animals being skittish” to be unrelated to “human beings”, that qualifies as to sixty year old men not committing sex crimes. Overlooking the fact that, the said sixty year old men, only can use their addendum/used to be penis for urination, and at most reminisce on an erection that befell their limp addendum once back in 1945 August 6 half past eight in the morning!
This is the fucking state of debate, conflating of bollocks and defending the said conflated bollocks with resultant wisdom of bollocks, all the while not aware that; could any of this crapfest have anything to do with their rights that is being defended? Hey if these blind bastards could somehow by some fucking miracle discern that, they would not be in the world of shit that they have found themselves in then.
I know exactly what his points are. Calling him a races was a statement of fact. It wasn’t name calling.
Thanks, Technicolour and Jemand.
“This is the fucking state of debate, conflating of bollocks and defending the said conflated bollocks with resultant wisdom of bollocks, all the while not aware that; could any of this crapfest have anything to do with their rights that is being defended?” Fedup.
Sounds like you’re describing an agricultural show in Hereford! Bucolic, indeed. In the world of cow pats and hurricanes, we are but butterflies.
Take it easy, Arsalan and Fedup.
Listen to the cosmos. Be Middle C. Laugh, smile, pray. Be.
The Muslim population is about 25% of the world. 57 countries are members of the OIC. Other then Muslim majority countries there are large Muslim minorities and many other countries.
Do people like you and him see WW2 as a christian conflict, between Christians and themselves.
How about Conflicts in latin America are they seen as Christians killing each other?
America has had a conlict each and every year since it was created. How many of them are seen as christian conflicts?
So, yes, it is racism.
In the same way crimes are seen as black on black when blacks are involved but never white on white when whites are involved.
Tec
Millitry coup means millitry coup. It doesnt mean the people went against him. It just meant the army that ruled before the coup, rules again now.
But to be honest. I believe the army never left power.
During the few months morsi alegedly rules, all the parts of the state continued taking orders from the army.
He just gave the orders, everyone who worked for the state ignored them and did business as usual. Until the army said, ok, you have had your turn. Now we are taking back the state.
I am not surprised, when western governments support the army after an election.
They did this in Algeria, Palestine, Turkey, Mali, and some other places,
Well any place where people win an election, if it is a Muslim country. They say Islamists, and support a coup.
Just as in the past in latin America after a election they would say communists and support a coup.
In short the will of the people is what ever Israel and America says it is.
technicolour, thanks – good to see you here.
I agree with the sentiment. I’ve been using the word a fair bit in this thread, though I asked several times what word we might use instead, and answer came there none. I acknowledged the term’s capacity for propaganda, and noted that I would be disinclined to use it in the MSM for fear of accidentally contributing to reactionary narratives about Islam.
That said, Arsalan did make the point that you can’t “pick and choose” what Islam is – i.e. it is all or nothing. I should think that view is widely contested, of course, but certainly in this case, the word “Islamism” is redundant, since to at least one person, “Islam” is precisely the same thing. Mandatory beards, veils, religious courts, the abandonment of democratic institutions, and the locking down of a regime that incrementally doesn’t wish to cede power under any circumstances. The irony of using democracy to shut democracy down was mentioned at the start of the discussion.
This is key, I think – Arsalan’s strong view is that the electorate have not risen up against Morsi, or at least not in sufficient numbers to be able to call it a legitimate popular revolution. Morsi was voted in by the people only a year ago, so Arsalan is unconvinced that they might wish to be rid of him a year later.
From the little I understand of Egypt, I think there is broad appetite for a secular government that is Islamic in nature, rather than Islamist (i.e. closing down the nascent democratic apparatus and instituting Sharia courts in its place). I know Juan Cole isn’t to everyone’s tastes here – but I do think his posts might shed some light on that. If anyone is aware of useful articles about the reasons for the second revolution, please post.
Here’s an item from the US press and here’s a selection of views from members of the public. This Wikipedia article is also of interest.
This blog post is skeptical of the claimed attendance to the anti-government rallies, and suggests it was less than 2M people. Quite how many you need in a nation of 84M people to legitimise a peaceful revolution is hugely debatable, of course.
Jon, yes, have just looked at implied claims that this was a military operation designed to flush out the Muslim Brotherhood. Is this a minority forcing havoc onto a peaceful majority (which happens) or is this a humanitarian uprising of people in the middle against the extremism at both ends?
Turkey, from the news on the ground, seemed (seems. does anyone know what’s happening there?) very much the latter. Report after report acclaimed the peaceful solidarity of all the protesters; whether they were kemalist, muslim, atheist, green, hippy, grandmothers, doctors, or what. Egypt seems to be more of a population divided, from what I gather, but I don’t know anyone in Egypt.
Found this report which left me more informed but equally confused:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/77185/Egypt/Politics-/Muslim-Brotherhood,-Police-blamed-for-Egypts-escal.aspx
– and the Christian Science Monitor. The headline says ‘Muslim Brotherhood Scoffs at Reconciliation’ (surely that should be ‘Scoff’) but the reality of the piece itself is this:
“Brotherhood leaders say they will continue to protest until Morsi is reinstated – even if only long enough to call early presidential elections. Until then, they will not recognize or participate in the political process, they insist.
“Our long term strategy is patience. We are not in a hurry,” says Amr Darrag, a senior Brotherhood member and a minister in Morsi’s government. “What else can we do? Do we wait till we are all put in jail and our parties are shut down and we are completely removed from political life?”
csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0723/Egypt-s-Muslim-Brotherhood-scoffs-at-reconciliation
So Arsalan’s analysis is shared by the CSM 🙂
Arsalan,
(From the other thread, it seems more appropriate to reply here)
Isn’t this approach part of the problem? I unreservedly condemn Israel’s cruelty, and its disregard for international law. I am not in favour of Israeli expansionism even slightly. Since Zionism is essentially a biblical justification for that imperialism, it should also help you to know that I am not religious. So, is “Zionist” an appropriate label for me, given that I reject all of the principles and beliefs it is based upon?
I referred to your responses as racist, since you were flinging the n-word around despite not being, I think, a person of colour yourself. That is extremely thin ice here, as you know.
Well, I appreciate that is your view, but it doesn’t correlate at all with what I said.
If I can encourage you to engage more with what people are saying, that would be a great asset to discussions like this. We agree on more than we disagree, I think, about the nature of imperialism and Western hypocrisy. Again, I am not your enemy here, even though you treat me like one. Again, I am just trying to show that not everyone expressing concern about religious governance is a US stooge.
An article from Juan Cole – he posts so prolifically I had to do quite a bit of clicking! I think this is instructive. Oh yes, and the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier says that the new government promises elections.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/fundamentalist-protesters-ultimatum.html
I found this particularly confusing:
I suppose the US could want stability for greater geopolitical reasons (more certainty around the relationship with Israel for example). But I thought Islamic religious governance was a red line for the American deep state, and that Obama’s administration would faithfully reflect that view. Hmmm.
Thinking about it, if the second revolution is backed by the student and left movements, perhaps the US view is that moderate Islamic governance is better than a socialist one? Either way, Cole’s article does make it seem like Morsi has overplayed his hand, especially with the decree stuff.
thanks for the piece, Jon, – don’t think the US mind extremists all that much – they keep funding them everywhere. Liked this from that piece too:
“The youth groups spent the months from February 2011 through August of 2012 demonstrating and demanding that the military go back to the barracks. Their insistence that Morsi call early presidential elections was not intended as an invitation to the army to come back into politics”
Yeay, youth.
well, yes, apart from socialists.
Does anyone know anyone in Egypt?
The US can say what they want about believing in democracy. But what they did do was sent the army f16s in reward for the coup.
What they didn’t do was call what the army did a coup.
Because according to US law they can’t fund governments that took power with a coup.
Solution is simple, just don’t call it a coup. And Obama refused to call it such.
America does the same with torture, they torture, but they just don;t call it that. And that makes it OK.
The leftist are falling over themselves with double speech. They claim to believe in democracy. But they also hate Islam. So they say, The Millitry coup was the will of the people!
LOL
Liars and hypcrits.
And I have as much right to use any words I want as anyone else.
That includes using the word concentration camp to describe Gaza, the word Nigger to discribe how some of you use the word Paki.
To say these words only beling to some people of some races and religions is the racism.
🙂
You’re the only one using unpleasant racial epithets, Arsalan – check the rest of this thread. I don’t know why you persist in using them when you know they discredit your views so greatly.
I’m sure it’s more complicated than “all left-leaning Egyptians hate Islam” – a good many of them are Islamic themselves. But, of the ones that (peacefully) hate Islam/Christianity/Scientology/Pastafarianism, they should be permitted to do so, right?
The Cole article makes it seem that they are not saying that. They may be saying that the downfall of Morsi was the will of the people, but they are also opposed to the army taking power. These things are complicated – can you not shown some nuance?
What did you make of the article that suggested that the figures attending the “second revolution” were overstated? Do you have any views on whether Morsi’s decree was undemocratic? I don’t know a lot about the latter, but it seems to be significant in the reasons for the anti-government protests?
Jemand,
I think it is too complicated to say, in all honesty. If the dominant world power was nominally a Muslim country (in the same way that, despite its fundamentalism, America’s religion is capitalism rather than Christianity) then would secular-Muslim liberals pontificate about the relationship between Christianity and terrorism?
In other words, violence that is committed in the name of Islam may be a coincidence of sorts – it is just that the primary targets of US imperialism (and the location of many energy resources, by coincidence) is the Middle East, where by dint of fate, Islam is widely practiced.
Indeed, where “Islamic terrorism” occurs, how Islamic is it? I held my nose the other day to explore the Twitter feed of one of the EDL branches, and in particular their image gallery. Amongst their racist doodlings was an image of several alleged Islamic terrorists around the world, with the caption “Islamic terrorists available in every colour”. Dreadful sentiment aside, it illustrated an important point, rather lost on the artist: that Islam becomes a target for hatred, and a terrorist event becomes motivated by Islam, by virtue of the extremist involved attaching themselves to Islam.
And here is a major flaw in the treatment of this subject. If an extremist professing Islam wishes to stand in court, after his capture, to denounce Western evils, the MSM would be falling over themselves to condemn “giving him a platform”. In their view, whatever he says will be a lie, especially if he makes (testable) statements about Western imperialism.
But, on his attachment to the Islamic faith, there is no question in the minds of mainstream scribes that he is telling the truth. This is accepted without discussion. Well, nearly without discussion, anyway: when the young soldier was murdered earlier in the year, early stories described an attacker of “Muslim appearance”. The BBC later apologised, acknowledging that the suspects in question would have better been described as of African descent (I am quite prepared to believe this was subconscious theorising rather than malicious interference with reportage, but even that is telling). This did generate some belated conversation in the mainstream about subconscious racist influences.
For reasons I can’t remember, this morning I was wondering about racial profiling. As the system stands, you are right that there are likely to be more disaffected Muslims in Britain than there are Christians. On that basis, would I support targetted racial profiling at British airports as a matter of policy?
I think the answer is that I would not. The first reason is that if outrage held by Muslims results from British/American foreign policy, then their outrage is justified, even though any acts of non-state violence flowing from that are not. The second reason I’ve already outlined – that the outrage is held by Muslims is a result of imperialism’s death toll falling primarily on Muslims – it is just fortunate for the Christians, a stroke of fate, that they are not in the same position.
I wondered as well that, if racial profiling is instituted, does this not set up a racist feedback loop? That is that, as the gentle weight of paternal state repression is increasingly felt by Muslims, the state may become progressively more discriminatory, perhaps at the level of each individual enforcer of that policy. Furthermore, the targets of that repression may respond with anger or resentment, “proving” to the architects of the system that it is increasingly necessary.
Steady on Jon, you are making me hopeful, and less Fedup! Good points raised @ 23:23
Fedup – I should be pleased if you would consider how those views are entirely compatible with my earlier comments! They come from the same moderate socialist-atheist analysis, I think.
I’ll be interested in Jemand’s thoughts too. He and I probably have much agreement about atheism and the malign influence of religion, but I do think it is possible to swing too hard, and to clamp down on specific religions in ways that are discriminatory.
Now that is a “grown up”, “mature” sentiment, too often a theists forget that dogma cannot be fought with dogma! This particular facet blinds most atheists to the simple fact; some people need the certainty that religion can afford them, and without their religion they cannot live a fruitful and contended life.
Too often these religious people are the target of the; a theists whom find the constraints of any religion unacceptable to them. Their solipsist mode of thought however dose not allow these a theists to understand; relegion is a matter of personal choice! The first fucking tenet of respect and understanding is to accept that others have rights too.
Too often the matter of course prejudices and assumptions thereof get in the way of seeing the wood for the trees. I understand where you come from, and I don’t want to condescend upon you by saying you don’t understand where I am coming form! We both wish to bring about a better world, the question is how?
Fedup, you might or might not be religious since we cannot known anything with certainty about you or anyone else on this blog *except* that it is absolutely certain that you’re an obnoxious crackpot who parades his own brand of intellectual pretensions with no sense of irony. If you are not an Islamist, then you are without doubt an apologist of Islamists.
Regarding dogma, is it really dogmatic to reject the existence of the Easter Bunny and its cultural manifestations?
Jon, thanks for your participation on this thread.
What I (probably unsuccessfully) attempted to explain in my long post above, is my thoughts on the natural origins of prejudice, defending valid prejudice and identifying invalid prejudice. The standard criticism of prejudice is that it is willful, always invalid, hostile and morally bad. This appears to be the same ignorant stand that some people have on the emotions of anger and hatred. I don’t think there is any prospect of managing problems arising from prejudice, anger and hatred with such an ignorant approach to animal psychology. (not accusing you of this)
The relationship between Islam and violent incidents is, I agree, very complicated not the least because of the convergence of many issues – religious, political, economic, ethnic, cultural, personal etc. But I also think that amidst the noise, patterns can be identified. For example, when we observe violent incidents, it is overwhelmingly clear that males often instigate and mostly drive these incidents until they are extinguished. Certainly, the issues are complicated but the observable fact that males are at the centre of these incidents 99% of the time demonstrates that some factors, or combination of factors, stand out despite the confluence of aggravating factors.
Consider the perennial issue of gun violence. Do guns kill people or people kill people? I think guns + people kill people. Whenever we witness an American massacre, several factors stand out. Of course, other factors influence what transpires but it’s not hard to see a pattern emerge. Should we not look at the role of civilian access to firearms? The psychological development of teenagers? The psychology of males? American culture? I think these are all relevent and factor into an observable pattern to the extent that we can predict problems when these factors converge.
And it is the same with ideas. Ideas + people lead to [something].
{ INTERMISSION }
So if we deconstruct a so-called ‘terrorist’ incident involving a 20 year old male suicide bomber who is Muslim, a diabetic, from a broken home where the father was abusive, got good marks at school, etc.. When we try to make sense of the incident, looking for factors that have a probabilistic influence on its development, we suspect that some factors are more significant than others. What is the significance of being male versus being a diabetic? What is the significance of intelligence versus being physically abused? Is being a Muslim significant?
From a single or limited set of observations, as I stated above, it is risky to draw conclusions. We can’t exactly experiment, but we can develop hypotheses and continue to make observations to identify significant factors and patterns. Are there sufficient observable incidents to examine the role of Islamic principles as a significant factor in social and political violence?
In identifying a problematic attribute, we need to also identify how intrinsically it is attached to or associated with other attributes. Something that is identified as a problem often needs to be enabled by attachment to something else that is not a problem. It is arguable, therefore, that a ‘problematic attribute’ is actually THE problem if it needs other attributes to be enabled. For example, psychopathology is considered a problem (by definition). But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it exists in an otherwise functional person in whose behaviour it manifests itself. If you add hypersexuality to the mix, you might have a rapist. If you add paranoia, you might get a rapist and murderer. But if he loses his legs in a car accident, he probably won’t be a rapist murderer any more. What do you think are the most significant factors in this man being a rapist murderer? His legs?
I think there is enough material that can be analysed to lead us to make reasonable hypotheses regarding the role that religion, in particular Islam, has in contemporary and historical incidents of violence. Was Islam *not* a factor in the Woolwich murder?
There are many other issues at play. Human rights of freedom of speech, association, pursuit of happiness. And racial or cultural profiling with other security measures can aggravate problems and diminish the intended effectiveness of solutions.
But let’s not conflate or confuse these many factors with each other. Let’s separate and analyse them for their probablistic significance.
Jon,
I posted a question for you on the previous page. It was regarding how to judge religions as violent or not. If you have the time to respond, please do.
In considering your response, please consider the following.
Violence in sports is an ongoing issue – boxing, probably being the most controversial sport in this regard. Soccer and cricket barely ever receive attention with regard to incidents of violence and might be regarded as non-violent sports. Not surprising really since they are mostly non-contact sports.
But Rugby and Australian Rules Football are often cited for regular violent incidents. Despite the fact that the rules clearly do not permit and indeed forbid violent behaviour with players being fined and banned for offences, they contine to produce violent incidents. Fractured jaws and ribs; punching teeth out; king hits resulting in hospitalisation and even death after a full-body pounding, are some of the results of playing these sports. It’s no surprise then that they are considered violent sports.
Interestingly, I think there are more incidents of violence among soccer spectators and tourists than among the players. But that’s a side note.
We see violence also associated with ideas and communities of people who share the same ideas. Some religions emphasise the need to avoid violence and exercise patience, others appear to advocate violence as a solution. What kind of objective criteria can we use to identify the extent to which a religion is violent or predisposed (primed) to violence?
I don’t want to pre-empt your reply, but I’ll throw some terms in to stimulate some ideas.
* Edicts of formal texts of the religion – do they incite or quell violence?
* Competing interpretations of texts – do ideas get intentionally distorted?
* Instructions from religious leaders – do they incite antipathy towards others?
* Behaviour of adherents – to what extent is their behaviour personal, crowd related or instructed?
* Compatibility (tolerance) with other religions – are they too intolerant to avoid violent confrontations? Is it one-sided or mixed? To what extent?
* Is the violence internal, external or both?
* Is violence highly dependent on or sensitive to specific conditions, eg. Pictorial depiction of Prophet Mohammed?
* Is the potential violence latent but prone to amplification or easy excitement?
Jon
What left leaning egyptians?
Are you forgeting more the 80% of egyptians voted for Islamic parties in the upper house election?
So what sort of numbers of egyptians are you talking about remembering about 10% of Egyptians are Christian?
What sort of lefts are they when they are supporting millitry dictatorship? All the opposition being arrested for winning?
Well, by Islamic, if you mean the Islam acceptable to you. The type you describe as non Islamist. Remembering you gave an example of such by linking to a Qadyani website.
A Sect founded by the BRitish in India. An organisation which gave british Imperialism in India there full support. A sect that is not recognised as being Muslim by all sects and schools of thought within Islam. Not just that, but that sect has split in to two and both halves accuse the other of being non-Muslim.
Is that the Islam you say is practiced by the people who support the coup. I think it is an dishonest to call such people leftists?
Well, maybe your right.
“They may be saying that the downfall of Morsi was the will of the people, but they are also opposed to the army taking power. These things are complicated – can you not show some nuance?” Jon.
“What sort of lefts are they when they are supporting millitry dictatorship?” Arsalan.
Nuance? Clearly, the concept of nuance is alien.
Okay, here is a possible view with minimal requirement for nunace:
The people voted the MB in. The MB did not address the key economci problems and were oppressing the people. The people rose up en masse. The army deployed a coup to stop the people from taking power.
Mubarak’s polce state, the army and the MB all have proved that they cannot serve the interests of the Egyptian people and that overall, they have no interest in doing so, and this is because in all cases, their primary goal is enhancing their own power (in the case of the army/police/Mubarak, and/or wealth) and (wrt the MB) that of their ideological control of the state and of civil society to the exclusion of all other nodes of potential power.
And as often is the case, the IMF bears a significant portion of responsibility for the current situation in Egypt. It is a hoodlum organisation and in my opinion, should be dismantled, along with the current configuration of the banking system. Of course, that will not happen. But if ever country subjected to the IMF’s economic warfare simultaneously did an Argentina…