Was great informative discussion, Norman, but I'm too busy doing the multi-screen live action right now :)
Brian, we seem to have turned everybody else off with this one! We're on our own!
Exactly, the Surat Al-Kāfirūn, one of the 'gems' I mean that these extremists who invent their own version of their book forget when they are demanding everybody converts to their belief. However, since they clearly do not believe in what their faith actually teaches, they do not represent that faith.
'For you is your religion, and for me is my religion' in my copy. The same but slightly different translation. That last line is where we should be today, in mutual respect.
Brian, you reminded me of my own copy of The Koran, bought when I went to Bahrain, and notably of Sura no CIX (109?) which reads;
UNBELIEVERS
I worship not that which ye worship
And you do not worship that which I worship;
I shall never worship that which ye worship,
Neither will ye worship that which I worship,
To you be your religion; to me my religion.
Apart from the slightly Monty Pythonesque approach and dated language form, it is quite surprising that this never seems to get quoted or used? The last line notably seems to be in disuse.
Absolutely agree with the Catholic Church roles in history and probably today, but all churches of an organised nature a least seem guilty of the same.
There I agree on the last point particularly. Having been among refugees who have been helped to go and settle elsewhere I have seen how many of them try their utmost to integrate, partly out of gratitude but also in order to build a new life, I wonder why others do not do the same.
I am not keen on the teachings of any religion although I have learned a lot from the original messages of those who began Quakerism, George Fox, and Buddhism, Siddhartha Gotama, if we take out the heavy religious diktats. Both actually sought universal peace and decried the existence of priesthoods, which is why both are basically non-hierarchal and without an actual 'leadership' to this day. Forget senior monks like the Dalai Lama, they are not in the original plan of things - as much as I respect him, which is a lot. Without those people wielding power and saying what a god or prophet said, there is the chance that the actual message of a religion will not turn into a power game and be as full of fighting factions as it is at odds with the world.
In general your series of NOTs are quite right. There are two that are seriously nastily used propaganda that media has thrown at us all and those are the benefits one and the advantage/priority over others. Both have been cleverly exploited by media, however when examined closely they pick up the few examples there are and run with them. All that the exception among migrants are accused of are far more likely to be exploited by natives of a country. Even then the numbers tend to be hidden behind the examples used. It is actually quite difficult to do those things, but those media push those things and they become widely accepted as gospel.
Among my bees in my bonnet are the fact that the evangelisation you mention is happening and tolerated. In fact, Roman catholicism is actually growing more and faster than Islam because it is less, albeit it not actually, as factional. In Berlin a few weeks back, Alejandro Cussianovich, who is still officially a Jesuit priest, was one of the speakers. I have not seen him since the late 1980s when terrorism still held Peru to ransom. Whilst chatting at our hotel (my OH knew him a bit later, well before she met me) because we were happy to see each other, although as a rebel priest he still works with working children against the wishes of the church, he is an unreformed rebel. One of the things he spoke out against with us was the aggressive evangelisation of people in the Amazon by Catholic missionaries who promise the people that god will intervene to stop the oil companies and loggers taking and destroying their land. He is appalled that men of god lie and accuses his parent church of exploiting their mission work as a means of making more money for the Vatican's already excessive wealth. Looking at Islam, the al Saud royal family were minor tribal rulers in central Arabia. After the mid-18th century,they snatched power step by step from smaller sheikdoms, implanted the religious zeal of their Wahabbi Islamic movement, then became even more aggressively expansionist as oil was discovered. the fact that the other states remain on the Arabian peninsular is only because they took their eyes off the ball in favour of oil. However, they radicalised Islam and hold Mecca so the other states more or less followed suit. Thank their greed for wealth, in contradiction to the Q'ran, the al Sauds are to thank for most of the trouble that has grown. They encourage, in my view but agreeing with you, racism, sexism, homophobia to the extent that a homosexual can be executed without trial (having a boy as a 'sex slave' does not count!), inhumanity retain slavery and do so many things that are not part of today's world the list is almost endless. Hypocritically, they sign and ratify nearly all human rights treaties then never implement them, but woe betide the UN committee that gives an honest report about how they are - and they regularly do of course.
Yet there they are, buying up large parts of western cities for the kind of investment the Q'ran says is wrong, have large collections of art including images of human beings that Sharia law says are forbidden in the Islamic world, own vineyards although alcohol is forbidden to which you can add they are also among the highest nett importers of fine cognacs and malt whiskies! Yes, I will speak out against what that family has brought on the world over around 200 years, as too the hypocrisy of Rome and its church. If terrorists did for those people I would not approve but I would not particularly, if at all, grieve for them.
I think you are not racist but have your own values which you value and defend, thus do not always like the morés in other societies. That is more to do with preferences than rejecting people because they are foreign or another colour, which you have been yourself after all. I am not entirely without those prejudices and doubt anybody is, I simply do not enunciate them. I have nothing against Islam, only how it is not what it was meant to be yet these people say the prophet said... They use their religion to achieve what are not actually spiritual ends at all but usually come out to be economic ones in the wash. I sometimes think that the biggest major world religion is who can get the control of the most resources and subsequently fill their bank with blood stained gold, which ironically the original message of all major religions condemns. Indeed was Mohammed himself not a merchant who threw it in to devote himself to his beliefs, followed in line of Ibrahim/Abraham, Musa/Moses and Isa/Jesus as a prophet and leader who referred to the story of the moneylenders in the temple too?
Q'ran or bible, they are no better than Mein Kampf or its ilk in my mind. The difference is where the latter is blatantly out to get what its author did not like, the other two may well have some fairly horrible stuff in them but they also have some great wisdoms that appear to be much preached but rarely practised. I should never deny others their right to those holy books, but I would happily take part in a mass burning of them. What they showed down on human beings is inhuman, I do not like them. Incidentally, I have copies of those books to remind me of what it is that I dislike in them. Their messages have never converted me and I a afraid I do not, cannot believe those who tell of their conversion by reading them. There are too many contradictions in each to convince anybody of sound mind.
Addendum to the above. I am sure that reading this others will conclude that I am totally anti-Arab, which is not the case.
FYI (hopefully) a bit of evidence to the contrary.
In conjunction with American Express I even made a very small contribution to the culture/history of Bahrain
see below;
Hi Brian, yes a vigorous joust is in no way condemnatory, and I didn't deliberately go out of my way to insult you, although re-reading my text I can see how that would appear, so my apologies for that.
One thing I am not actually terribly sure about is that I have become more tolerant because of my travels. I suspect that in reality many of my prior prejudices have been reinforced, however this area is not one of them, as I knew zero about Islam until I went to live in the Moslem countries, so my opinions and yes, prejudice was formed in situ, and has not left me. What I see now is the exportation of the principles of Islam that I simply don't like, and do not want to see imposed on any culture of which I am part.
I d NOT like the whole basis of Shariah Law
I do NOT like Halal butchery
I do NOT like the oppression of women
I do NOT like the radicalisation of young children and teenagers
I do NOT like cruelty to animals
I do NOT like the (to me) misapropriation of Social Security Financial Benefits being handed out to those who have not qualified in some way for it, and least of all when this involves blatant fraud.
I do NOT like people taking the advantages of my culture and then trashing it or worse.
I do NOT like hearing (as in Holland) girls being shouted at and called "whores' by migrants because they choose to dress in their own way - and provocatively to these foreigners to the country.
I do NOT like foreigners being given undue advantage or priority over the Nationals - as in housing, as in taking up the resources away from people like pensioners.
I do NOT like the overt and preferential building of huge Mosques with eternal sound systems, that are not allowed to any other religion - even bells being rung in Christian churches in many places is not allowed.
I do NOT like children being taught religion in schools full stop - and I don't care which religion it is.
I do NOT like rampant homophobia, and accept that again this is not exclusively Islamic.
I do NOT like preferences real and perceived being given to those who are not part of,nor have any desire to be part of my culture.
Above all, in some respects I do NOT like religious hypocrisy and evangelism, although again these are not the total purview of Islam.
I do NOT like the excuses thrown around that people of second generation are 'not treated with respect' find it 'difficult to get jobs' etc. Respect I believe is earned not a 'right', and there are many hundreds of thousands now of young people of second generation families of different ethnic origins and local ones also having problems finding jobs, but as far as I know they don't go off getting radicalised and desiring to kill their own people.
I have not the slightest objection to Muslims having the majority of these things, with the obvious exceptions, in their own countries. When I lived there I abided with the rules, all I ask is that people who choose my culture do the same. Surely that is not too much to ask?
Note and unlke the fool said on FR24 last night I couldn't give a toss about the colour of a person's skin, the standard epithet thrown around. Yes, to a large extent I do believe it is incumbent on us to live within the social morés of the country in which we live.
Of course not every Moslem is a fanatic, but any reading of the Koran tends to make one wonder if that is possible. There will be those who will say well the Bible has horrific parts to it, and that is also true, but few people are expected to read and pray five times a day over its content, and use it as a total 'Life Guide'.
Finally I wonder why it always WE in the host country are expected to make the effort to absorb new migrants, surely the effort would best come from those purportedly trying to improve themselves in the new country? I had to when I went to Australia, I never asked or got a Government handout, or help with getting a job or place to live. Where did all this come from in today's world?
I did not decry your knowledge, I simply disagreed. History, Norman, I used to show how close we are to when these things happened on our own doorsteps. Have you ever been to a place during war? I have, not to the front line of course, but it is frightening. My kinesitherapist's husband calls himself a journalist. He is a retired war photographer. He certainly did see front lines, quite a few of them. What he and I agree is that open war for all the horror is less frightening than this type of covert action. He too refers to history as the reference for humanity never learning from its gruesome past. Deny the past and idealise the contemporary and we lose sight of where humanity has not moved on.
As for political positions. Norman, you are putting words in my mouth, so as to say. There are people here on SFN who have been officials of the Conservative party, themselves quite right wing. Each of them knows about my very open socialist, libertarian ideology. I have worked in the field of the human rights of children, thus also broader human rights domain, for a very long time. Whereas I have no real idea how the world works in your professional area, I would not expect you to necessarily have deep insights into mine. Thus said, a couple of those people and I have PM exchanges about matters more than I have with most, probably all other members. We do NOT thrust our politics down anybody's throats. We do not use our politics as sticks to beat each other. We agree to disagree pleasantly, coexist and respect each other. I do not have the biases you allege so I take that as an immature and insulting comment Norman, very atypical of you. I also did not and would not claim people like you are the cause of the problem. Yes, there are some but those are people on any part of the wide spectrum of political and religious ideologies who, unlike you, tend to do and say pretty nasty things without engaging their brains.
If you believe in freedom of speech, expression, opinion and all else as I do then it is hard to draw lines. We retain the right to disagree, argue energetically even, and even thrust opinions of what people say as you are doing here on them. That is all in the greater plan of things.
I watched the live Guardian discussion last night. One speaker made a point that radicalisation is not just defending the prophet, Q'ran and whatever but it is also a rejection of what is happening in the societies they live in. Fellow Moslems are merging into those countries normal, secular way of life but the prejudices do not go away, even after generations they are still the 'other'. Some are disillusioned by being unemployed, socially marginalised and even rejected, they seek alternatives. Some of those are radicalised, they react to being 'outsiders' as much as adopt radical religion. They then 'explode' and these events happen. He is a Moslem but also one living a secular life who does not deny his origins. These young men, if they are the perpetrators, are NOT from the Middle East, they are French who are one the one hand mixed race but the non-French part is Algerian. That is north African, not middle east anything. It is further complicated by that Managerial part carrying the history of 60 years ago when the French were massacring the Algerians who still won and kicked them unceremoniously out. Neither side appears to wish to acknowledge either did horrendous things and that recent history is just slowly being accounted for, but it all carries resentments that are still across two nations. To be of mixed race must be a tough number. So, categorising Islamic extremism so narrowly is thin ice for us. I am simply repeating what was discussed, I have no actual insights.
Are you racist? I think not, you have a particular world view that discriminates between 'things' but I think not people for their origins. You are too much travelled to have not become far more tolerant of difference than most, so if you are then you hide it well. I would not go down that road at all. As far as I am concerned you are not, perhaps others might say otherwise. Their opinion, but not shared by me.
Finally, Marine le Pen. FN are not going to be included, the decision was made over night. That is a hard number to call in a so-called democratic society. Yes, they are racist, homophobic, often even sexist, bigots. That said, they are also members of French society and if there is to be a day of national unity, such a meeting as planned for the same reason, then to exclude any group is to create a new confrontation. I am not sure whether it is brave, foolish or whatever. It's their call, not mine, so they know what we do not know and take their chances. If they have got it wrong then we shall see and hope that we in the non-political classes do not have to pay the price.
Brian,
sometimes you really puzzle me. You retreat into history (often ancient) to try to validate situations of today -and I refer to say the last twenty years or so in that sense. You quote the guillotine in the same breath as beheading and stoning to death, whereas if you really read and understood the facts the guillotine was and is still regarded as probably the most effective and painless way of executing someone. This does not mean I am in favour of the death penalty, as there have been too many mistakes made in law for this.
Last night on FR24 I saw evidence of your and other people"s convoluted logic, where those (of us) who sound a warning are now being placed in the position of 'CAUSING' the problem, and of course the same rubbish about being racist on the basis of the colour of someone's skin, or their culture, or even their presence. If that were true, which it isn't, why am I not against any Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Pole, Russian, Mexican as a race? Or anybody else for that matter.
You say you lived in Islamic countries as did I. Yes, they are all different and yes I too spent time in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, but none of these countries are exporting Islam into Europe, none of these countries are trying to replace my culture with their own. None of these countries are evangelical Jihadists. The problem countries ARE the Middle Eastern based ones.
You appear to equate the middle ages behaviour of religious bodies in Europe as a reason to excuse the barbarism of today. I find that quite simply far dafter than anything I have said. You are an academic and despite your protestations I don't believe you live in the real world we occupy today.
Yesterday when watching the debate, I felt that I too should delve into history, notably that of Germany, where there were the voices raised against developing Nazism, but they too were howled down as is being the case today. Nothing better than shooting the Messenger when you don't like the message?
Again there is also the implication that free speech is something only for those who agree with you, and that is even more dangerous. Last night they talked about whether Marine Le Pen should be invited to the gathering in Paris. What? Proclaim free speech but then even question whether someone should be invited to participate in the National Mourning because she spoke out against the murderers, and has consistently addressed the developing situation. I find that staggering. Whether you agree with her or not, she is still a legal part of the society, and this should not have even been considered as an issue.
You then decry my knowledge and experience in countries of the Middle East. Well that is your right, but here I can prove my case. I handled the American Express Direct Marketing business there for almost two years - a year in residence in Bahrain (NB a Moderate state). Every day I personally received a swag of death-threats in the mail as being part of the great enemy America. I spent time throughout the Gulf, some in Saudi and a notable three months project in Jordan (which most people don't realise is 80% Palestinian population) This was as far back as the 1980's so this is nothing new. You say the penalties are not imposed today such as beheadings, mutilations, and stoning to death. Oh really? I suggest you keep yourself more aware than you seem to be.
I was successful in my campaigns there once I worked out the thought processes, which as I have said elsewhere ARE different despite what you claim - however I will say again that my experience is Middle East in this sense and not holiday or closeted visits in Asia - at least Muslim SE Asia. I did to work over SE Asia generally, but not Indonesia.
You can and probably do regard me (falsely) as a racist, and I am tired of explainining that Islam is NOT a race, neither are Muslims a race, but that seems beyond acceptability in most liberal minds (odd word for illiberal behavior but still). On that basis I have to therefore accept that you are of the Christian race. However that's also daft - or is it? You tell me.
Again as I have said before, at my age it is not MY world that will change, I will be long dead and gone before I will need to read the Koran 5 times a day and bow my head and body to what remains an alien culture to me. Excessive? well read the Demographics and Fecundity rates (where this is allowed which is odd in itself) and as someone interested in children, see what is the most popular boy's name today in the births around Europe, it will give you a clue. Not my world, possibly not even your world Brian, but the world of your children and your children's children. If it is to your liking or even preference than so be it.
I still retain the (declining?) right to have my own opinion as well, but recognise that like others I will still be regarded as a racist pig. You know something, I think I can survive that knowledge. Although I rather suspect that Free Speech will not apply much longer to those like me with obviously an opposing view - after all and according to those like you of liberal left-wing bias, anyone like me with a right-wing bias is automatically beyond the pale.
What I don't find acceptable is the twist that people like me are the CAUSE of the problem. Now THAT is what I call daft.
Peter, you are right about pushing boundaries ... Imagine this Ahmadinejad or this Saudi-Clowns would finance the production of a musical about the holocaust ... The line, called "respect" has blurred.
Actually, that is a bit daft in parts above Norman. Moslems not thinking like Europeans. Albanians and a few others are Europeans but also Islamic. They are a Balkan ethnic group long ago converted during Arab occupation. Then I would say that my bro-in-law who is Algerian is actually very typically a particular type of European in his ways, except that he does not eat pork. I have worked in Indonesia and Malaysia, predominantly Islamic countries. They are nothing like Arabs who they really do not like, but then they are not fond of Europeans. It all goes round in ever decreasing spirals and makes no sense.
Then the militants are not following Q'ranic law anyway. What many of the things going on at present are is called haram. That is what is called sin in our language. Murder, adultery, theft or even getting a tattoo are haram. Traditionally, deeds that are haram result in punishment, for instance a thief will have his/her right hand cut off, an adulterer buried alive with just their head above the surface and a murderer beheaded. Those are all pretty nasty but whilst a few countries still carry those punishments out, they are mainly only available but seldom practised. Remember, parts of Europe had those things until the late 17, early 18 century and Madame Guillotine is still kept well polished in a handful of European countries. Just in case.
There barbarism, often ours in the not so distant past. Anyway, militants are a small minority of all people. Populations will react to events like the Iranian revolution but not everybody is a raving loony, homicidal maniac with a turban. Most people would be as happy getting rid of the mullahs and getting on with life. All people on this planet have cultural differences that keep us from being one homogenise species. I too have parts of the world I am certainly not keen on but not necessarily because of religion. If there has been barbarism on this planet then let us not forget the religious wars here in Europe in the wake of the Reformation, wholesome slaughter of Moslems in Spain after the Moors left, both thanks to the Roman church's bidding. Of course the obvious one is the Holocaust but let us not only think Jews, but also Jehovah's Witnesses and a few other religious groups who were part of the awful tally. The many forced conversions in colonial countries led to wars and mass killings, as if the clergymen and the troops with them have clean hands...
It is not so clear cut Norman. If it was then it would have been dealt with already, particularly with oil where the present locus of religious conflict emanates from. The stupidity of those who tried divide, the conquer and rule has contributed to bringing us where we are now. We share in that culpability.
OK fair enough, Norman. Jittery business all round.
Ian,
I am not totally versed in the actions you describe, but my tenuous understanding has been these were for leadership, and/or control of their OWN countries were they not? I suggest that Militant Islam is not the same, but at the very least the doctrinal control over the world.
If the Islamists were only concerned with their own countries our 'fears' would probably be only involved in the interruption of oil supplies, not anything religious or let's be frank, humanitarian.
If the Shiia and Sunnis want to kill each other in their own countries, over the interpretation of the word of a prophet, then so be it. I wouldn't weep for them - their country or countries, their problem - just keep us out of it. Patently though that is not the limit is it? Their activities in all these Western countries I believe shows a clear agenda.
The way the West is reacting or not reacting is merely encouraging it. Again in my opinion.
Um, could reply :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Punjab_%28India%29
Or the Rihungwa being massacred in Burma, or anything you like in Northern Ireland, for example, Norman.
I understand what you're trying to say, in the second to last paragraph, and I certainly agree with the first. Seems to be the final basis.
Peter I don't think this is feasible. Either you have free speech with certain caveats -or you have censorship with caveats - but who decides? As it stands it is not the host countries laws, codes, or practises deciding, but those being imposed by those from the outside (one way or the other).
I am constantly reminded of my time in the Middle East, and how we were required to abide by the laws, and even if I didn't agree with them on many levels it was THEIR country (or countries) and so one abided by them. Where is the problem with that? Literally if you couldn't live with it or handle it, you simply left. You wanted to go to a Christian Church for example - well, what were you doing in a Muslim country?
Many Muslims seem to leave Muslim environments and countries because they can't handle it - or why else would they leave? Then they try to import the very life styles they wanted to leave behind.
In my experience we are doing precisely the wrong thing in allowing this to happen, and making judgements on Muslims from a European perspective. Quite simply the Muslim does NOT think like a European. His background, culture, religion and history are all different. IF we want to cope with these factors in our own lives we'd better start understanding what works for them - and realising just how incompatible with OUR values theirs usually are.
Again in my experience of living and working in and with all the different countries from Asia to Russia and points in between Islam is the ONLY cultural,and political movement I found totally incompatible with the values I have.
Show me the Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, Chinese, Catholic, Protestant, or any other denomination that breeds this terrorist mentality, and I will gladly rescind my view.
Our député-maire at the end of the minute of silence said that both sides wish to destroy the lay Republic. Hear hear.
Hard number to call. Where then does freedom of speech and expression and hiding behind the wall of fear meet? I seem to recall that threats and insults hurled at the rest of the world by all manner of extremists do not seem to tread that hypothetical line.
We have to remain rational after such an event tho' the public outcry of horror is undestandable. The one thing i've noticed however is that many of the people of all backgrounds interviewed are not surprised this tragedy has happened. Some give the impression this tragedy was indeed inevitable. This tells me CH and the danish publication & others maybe pushed the boundaries a bit too far. It's a fine line but maybe the line needs to be redefined ?
Salafism goes back a long way, to the high Middle Ages. They take an extremely long and narrow view.
I can't remember who said it recently, but the comment said something about them being on to a losing thing given the number each martyr gets, paradise must be running out of virgins. Beyond that quip, I think I remember the message was that what they are doing is counter logical because they will only hasten their own destruction, become vilified by their own people as well and in their terms becoming the bad guys who are not entitled to go to paradise. Moreover, they will take many of their own faith with them, particularly the innocent, which goes absolutely against the word of their prophet.