Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[crazy canuck]

Splinter!

[Valmy]

What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things.

I don't think that is true at all.  I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon.  Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war.  How ridiculous is that?

The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.

The fact you would bring this up suggests you completely missed my point. 

[Valmy]

Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.

To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.

Yes quite so.  And Islam is no different.  After a millennium or so any broad-based comprehensive social construct will have gathered enough baggage and commentary that just about any set of ideas can be hung onto it.  And so our present day fundamentalists can take their radically anachronistic hermeneutics and their present-day political hangups and project them back on some imagined view of a timeless Islamic past.

Exactly.  As I have said modern day radicals are about general rage and identity politics.

[Sheilbh]

It is a valid question for an intellectual debate, indeed, but in practical terms, when talking about socio-political impact of either, does the distinction really matter? The fact that you have "normal" Westerners converting to Islam and then travelling to Middle East to kill unbelievers - whereas the same is, generally, not true for converts to Christianity (not to mention, Buddhism) seems to be telling, though.

But again isn't there a question of chicken and egg here.

In two ways, first of all Islam is associated in the West with groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This isn't a totally accurate picture but it does probably mean a certain sort of person might be more attracted to Islam than, say, Methodism. On the other hand it goes both ways Buddhism as practiced in Buddhist countries is pretty strongly misogynist in its belief and often used to justify violence (see the Rohingya in Burma and Sri Lanka) but our image of Buddhism is 'less a religion more a way of life' through which we can attain mystical experiences especially through meditation. Again that attracts a certain sort of person who may not, for example, look at Greek Orthodoxy.

Secondly I think there are lots of steps that make a person go and fight in Syria and I wonder with Western converts how far down the way of radicalisation they already are. My suspicion is they're angry, disenchanted, isolated young men (mostly) looking for an answer. Jihadism is a totalising ideology that provides that answer and says here is the action you can take. I think, in another age, they'd have ended up as street fighting communists or fascists.

For example despite their different groups I wouldn't be surprised if there were a fair few similarities from the reported few hundred Western Europeans fighting with Russians in Eastern Ukraine and those fighting in Syria.

Thats a bullshit position. They were much more mature and responisible in the past.

In fairness so were Christians until they had 200 years of sustained sectarian bloodletting which ended up producing a desire and need for secularism and tolerance. I don't hold the view myself but this is Islam's fifteenth century and Christianity was fraying at this point. Which is why I never get Yi's view of what's needed is a Reformation

The various groups of islamists do hate each other because the revolution eats it's children. But the case you are making here is analogous to saying that communist revolutions weren't about communist ideology because people have always been fighting. I don't accept that. Ideas and values do matter. When your self proclaimed ideology instructs you to fight, kill and oppress other regligious groups and you do just that then Ideology matters.

But isn't that his point. That the previous ideologies that enjoyed popularity in that part of the world also often called for violence: Arab nationalism, revolutionary socialism etc. This one does too. So to what extent can that really be pinned on it alone?

To use your example of a communist revolution it took a lot more than ideology to achieve, and if your analysis stops at the Manifesto then you'll struggle to fight it. There's a really interesting whose name I forget which was an analysis of the Islamic Revolution based on the historiography of Western revolutions (basically because it seemed so anomalous to any Western school of thought) - which isn't terribly relevant but it was really good.

Christianity has one golden rule.  Islam has seven pillars of faith.  Can't get more central than that.

There's Five Pillars of Islam - belief, prayer, charity, fasting and Hajj. There's seven pillars of wisdom or, alternately the Ismailis but I think it's very harsh to blame all this on the Aga Khan.

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

And of course the early Muslims specifically discouraged conversion, forced or otherwise. The conversion of the Middle East took a good few hundred years which hardly indicates that it was forced.

My error about jihad and seven pillars.  However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.

Interesting. Because I would have associated the whole jihadi concept and its baggage far more with Sunni Islam than the Shia, who I'd associate more with martyrdom.

[Valmy]

Secondly I think there are lots of steps that make a person go and fight in Syria and I wonder with Western converts how far down the way of radicalisation they already are. My suspicion is they're angry, disenchanted, isolated young men (mostly) looking for an answer. Jihadism is a totalising ideology that provides that answer and says here is the action you can take. I think, in another age, they'd have ended up as street fighting communists or fascists.

Yep.  Being Muslim to these guys is about being anti-West than really being interested in Muslim Theology (which I am sure has its warts but...come on).

[Malthus]

You are way overstating your case. It is true that the movement split after the Munster rebellion, but it is not true the one had nothing to do with the other, like Egyptians and Druids.

Do you have any evidence for that, other than that wiki quote which doesn't support your assertion (and is wiki)? I don't think it is clear that they ever were part of the same movement. They just happened to share one facet of belief and so were clumped together by outsiders.

How about this?

http://www.webministries.info/papers/menno.htm

The conclusions:

Menno's name became synonymous with the main branch if Dutch and later world anabaptism, but made only a limited contribution to its origins and doctrines and significant growth was after his death.

Menno brought stability to his group after the debacle at Münster but probably only ensured its survival because he and his co-leaders managed to live for so long.

Menno and his group were strong evangelists, but the spread of Dutch anabaptism in the early sixteenth century was the product of much more complex social, political and economic factors.

The notion that Menno and his group was unrelated to other Anabaptists = unfounded. Though of course, he was directly opposed to the Munsterites, he wasn't as different from them as Druids were from Egyptians.

[Sheilbh]

Yep.  Being Muslim to these guys is about being anti-West than really being interested in Muslim Theology (which I am sure has its warts but...come on).

Yeah. As I say I don't think it's a surprise that several have been buying books like Islam for Dummies.

[Barrister]

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

And of course the early Muslims specifically discouraged conversion, forced or otherwise. The conversion of the Middle East took a good few hundred years which hardly indicates that it was forced.

I just wanted to pick up on this point because it I thik goes to my point - that the different religions are, well, different, and it goes right back to the Koran and Bible.

As you pointed out, Muslims are not really big on conversion.  They allow it of course, but it's not required.  You don't really hear about Muslim missionaries trying to spread the Koran, and Christian and minority groups have survived in the Middle East long past the Muslim conquests.  And all because the Koran talks about various rights for dhimmis should have.

Christianity on the other hand is hugely into conversion.  Because, of course, that's what Jesus said - "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

[frunk]

I don't think that is true at all.  I think it is rather disingenuous to cherry pick events from a certain couple centuries in a millennia plus long phenomenon.  Especially claiming that events over 600 years ago is more pertinent to Christianity than what is going on today, when for the most part even at the time the Church was mostly anti-war.  How ridiculous is that?

The contention is that Islam is a uniquely violent religion, primarily because of their religious beliefs.  That doesn't seem to be born out.  Other religions (including Christianity) have been just as or more violent in the past, and Moslem majority/minority regions have been peaceful both in the past and in the present.  It's a lot more likely that there are cultural/sociological/economic reasons behind the current way of violence (as well as the current lack of violence among Christians), and it's the fanatics and their detractors that use the religion to justify/condemn.

[Maximus]

The notion that Menno and his group was unrelated to other Anabaptists = unfounded. Though of course, he was directly opposed to the Munsterites, he wasn't as different from them as Druids were from Egyptians.

I didn't say that he was unrelated to other Annabaptists. Clearly this is false as there were Annabaptists around for him to join.

What I am saying is the claim that the radically pacifistic Annabaptists were connected with the extremely violent Muenster Annabaptists is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure whether the link you gave provides that. I would have to dig into the sources.

I will say that I was raised with a specific version of events based on the writings of Simons and the Philips brothers. I try hard not to present those as fact, but they may well provide me with an extra dose of skepticism for the official versions.

[Razgovory]

In fairness so were Christians until they had 200 years of sustained sectarian bloodletting which ended up producing a desire and need for secularism and tolerance. I don't hold the view myself but this is Islam's fifteenth century and Christianity was fraying at this point. Which is why I never get Yi's view of what's needed is a Reformation

Really peace and tolerance only came to Western civilization very recently.  If one were to go back a mere 100 years the West would not be the shining example of a tolerant, peaceful and prosperous society.

[Josephus]

Code Select Expand

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Every news outlet asking me 4 comment on this Berkeley thing but then i remembered: I&#39;VE got a show!And thats where I&#39;ll address it,Fri nite</p>&mdash; Bill Maher (@billmaher) <a href="https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/527573364932894720">October 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Josephus]

Bah...can't make that work, and now it won't let me modify it.   

Anyways it's a tweet from Bill Maher that says

Every news outlet asking me 4 comment on this Berkeley thing but then i remembered: I'VE got a show!And thats where I'll address it,Fri nite

[Valmy]

Really peace and tolerance only came to Western civilization very recently.  If one were to go back a mere 100 years the West would not be the shining example of a tolerant, peaceful and prosperous society.

If you go back 101 years though!

[Viking]

Yes, and for most the the past 20 years it has been. Aceh, East Timor, Borneo, Irian Jaya etc.

I assume you are joking.  These were regional separatist movements, not Islamic jihadists.

10 years Jemaah Islamiah was not only bombing places where tourists spent their money it was murdering christians by burning their churches with people inside.

That is with the huge and amazing islamic civic organizations it has, unique in the islamic world, which primarily run schools which teach teh three "R"s and run mosques of the least radical type.

Exactly.  JI is a tiny organization with a few thousand adherents in a country of over 200 million people.  It is a drop in an ocean dominated by moderate, mainstream religious foundations.  Pointing to JI as illustrative is like making Fred Phelps or Anders Behring-Breivik exemplars of Christianity or Baruch Goldstein and exemplar of Judaism.

If ABB was a christian then he was one who didn't actually believe in god.

You don't need millions of adherents to create chaos and murder. You just need the hundreds of millions to agree that the tenents are good and the objectives are good.

The peace terms ending the Aceh conflict were that Aceh got to have Shariah law, which the secular government was trying to prevent. In Borneo and Sulawesi you did have religious murder going on. In each case inter-muslim conflicts are about the religiosity of society, in the inter-religious conflicts religion always plays a part in making the conflicts more murderous and more violence. Religions own land, didn't you notice? OR at least ONE religion has a doctrine of land belonging to a religion.

The problem is that Indonesia is the best case scenario. Albania and Bosnia are majority atheist among all "confessions". In this best case scenario you still get the violent mass murder commanded by religion.

Now the apologists for islam being a religion of peace argue either that it is just as bad as any other (patently false in the lifetime of anybody living since the enlightenment) or that most muslims aren't violent. Neither is an argument against it's inherent tendency to violence. Unlike virtually every other religion or religious text Islamic theology codifies the instuction to violence that was merely implied or not-contradicted in other theologies. Even in the mildest interpretations of the scripture you still are instructed to take revenge. There are real world reasons for this, the prophet needing to find justifications for his evil deeds being the most important one.

The problem is that mode of life of desert bandits is normative in the religion. That is the central problem. That is why it is more violent than other religions. When a society is under stress the religion of islam causes it to break with what we today would call human decency and to behave like desert bandits would. The religious impulse is not to forgive your enemy or to break with the human passions and fears driving you, it is to embrace those passions and to revenge yourself.

Even indonesia with its moderating muslim mass movements, with its syncretic and "heretic" islam, with it's long history of interdenominational co-existence, the best case scenario produces evil. Not just one man at one point in time, but many, for decades and decades.