Nairobi attacks - you'll have seen this, no doubt.

[classical_hero]

Too easy to defeat.

#1

5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

Jihadists can just claim that they target those who wreak corruption in the land. And if they count non-Muslims as less than human (which is all too easy to do), then attacking non-Muslims can easily be seen as saving lives (of Muslims).

(I can't be bothered with the rest.)

This is what 5:53 says. And those who believe will say, "Are these the ones who swore by Allah their strongest oaths that indeed they were with you?" Their deeds have become worthless, and they have become losers. The fact that they can't even get such a simple thing right and easily researched on the internet is troubling about that article.

You must be thinking of 5:32, but lets get some context so I will also quote verse 33 and the beginning of verse 32, which everyone seems to miss out on quoting.
Quran 5:32-33 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors..
33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
So clearly verse 32 is specifically addressing the Jews, so it is not applicable to Muslims. So what is the penalty for those who rage war against Islam? I think you an read it clearly from their "scriptures". It is obvious that they were simply doing the will of Allah. There is nothing killing infidels according to the holy quran. Do you realise what "cause corruption is referring to?

@Form, that group nearly did, just that the cops got to them before they could carry out what they wanted to do. They are clearly a threat and are on the radar of the police around Australia. The fact that they were caught is a good thing, but the fact they even planned for doing something here is a terrifying situation.

@Peter. This is what Churchill said a Muslims and I think it is accurate in this situation. He had first hand knowledge of what happens in Islamic lands. “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on it’s votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of their religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and 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."

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=840:churchill-on-..#sthash.8JBUrMqS.dpuf

 

[Formaldehyde]

Interesting use of bold. So you would agree that Islam teaches that Israelis should only kill for righteous reasons, just like everybody else? That Muslims can wage war on those who wage holy war on Islam? Do you have a problem with those positions?

Sorry, I don't believe in the silly notion of pre-crime. Be sure to let us know when the Al Shabaab actually do stage any sort of terrorist act in your country. But in the meantime, perhaps you should avoid malls or going outside at all.

 

[Borachio]

Interesting use of Churchill. Someone with a severely tarnished reputation as far as upholding human rights was concerned.

He was quite handy at furthering his own career at times, though.

 

[classical_hero]

Interesting use of bold. So you would agree that Islam teaches that Israelis should only kill for righteous reasons, just like everybody else? That Muslims can wage war on those who wage holy war on Islam? Do you have a problem with those positions?

Well that is what Islam decrees for the Children of Israel. Everyone quotes that verse (32) to say that the Quran is not violent, and yet they don't quote the whole thing or even the very next verse, which show just how violent Islam really is.

Sorry, I don't believe in the silly notion of pre-crime. Be sure to let us know when the Al Shabaab actually do stage any sort of terrorist act in your country. But in the meantime, perhaps you should avoid malls or going outside at all.

[wiki]Holsworthy Barracks terror plot[/wiki] Tells of the foiled terror attack that could have happened on Australian soil by people associated with that terror organisation. You are the sort of person that Churchill described as an appeaser.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well that is what Islam decrees for the Children of Israel. Everyone quotes that verse (32) to say that the Quran is not violent, and yet they don't quote the whole thing or even the very next verse, which show just how violent Islam really is.

They were "violent" in the past to those who were "violent" towards them by engaging in a "holy war" against them and their religion. Again, do you have a problem with that? Don't you think they should be able to defend themselves under such circumstances?

What proof do you have that Islam in inherently violent given that there are more than 1 billion peaceful adherents and perhaps a few thousand Muslim terrorists? That other passages which you apparently refuse to acknowledge specifically prohibit acts of terrorism?

[wiki]Holsworthy Barracks terror plot[/wiki] Tells of the foiled terror attack that could have happened on Australian soil by people associated with that terror organisation. You are the sort of person that Churchill described as an appeaser.

According to you own article, it was an "alleged" "terrorist plot" which was supposedly perpetrated by those "allegedly connected with" al-Shabaab in some manner. All the individuals involved were apparently residents of Australia instead of Somalians who came to Australia to engage in acts of terrorism against your shopping malls.

But perhaps it would be best if you didn't venture outdoors. Some people are apparently fearful and paranoid that a handful of individuals might decide to target them because they hate their freedom.

 

[classical_hero]

All you have to do is a look back at the history of Islam to know that it was spread by the sword. It always has and it always will be, you are just in denial of that fact. Those "peaceful" Muslims are simply ignoring their holy book. There are far too many commands to kill infidels for it to be a peaceful religion. That is one reason why I quoted Churchill for, because individual Muslims might be decent, but the ideology behind them simply isn't.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean much in the same way that Christianity was "spread by the sword" during the same period?

But that is clearly not what "always will be". Both Christians and Muslims have radically changed since then. There are no more "holy wars" by either side. To claim it is the same as it was in the distant past is just "in denial of that fact".

 

[Traitorfish]

Interesting use of Churchill. Someone with a severely tarnished reputation as far as upholding human rights was concerned.

Also, big fan of fascism. Thought it was the bee's knees.

 

[Borachio]

As did Miss Jean Brodie.

Seriously, a great many people were enamoured of fascism. In the face of the expansionist ambitions of Soviet Russia (unless these are a myth, of course), perhaps it's not incomprehensible.

I don't know. Different times, different perspectives.

 

[Plotinus]

All you have to do is a look back at the history of Islam to know that it was spread by the sword. It always has and it always will be, you are just in denial of that fact. Those "peaceful" Muslims are simply ignoring their holy book. There are far too many commands to kill infidels for it to be a peaceful religion. That is one reason why I quoted Churchill for, because individual Muslims might be decent, but the ideology behind them simply isn't.

Formaldehyde is right to retort that Christianity was also "spread by the sword". Just think of the brutal tortures inflicted by Justinian against those who clung to paganism, or Charlemagne's conversion technique of beheading anyone who refused to convert. And even more so, consider the brutal crackdowns in the later Middle Ages by the church against those it considered heterodox. These included full-scale wars such as the crusade against the Albigensians. And don't forget the witch hunts - which were mainly carried out by Protestants, particularly Calvinists, if anyone's interested - and which represent the most violent assault by one sex upon the other in history.

Christianity has a history that is, on balance, probably not as bloody as that of Islam, but still hardly bloodless. And Christianity has had its terrorists in modern times too, as anyone who knows what acronyms such as IRA, UVF, and UDA stand for. Those groups killed people for following one Christian sect rather than another.

The thing is, arguments like this about whether some given religion is inherently violent or not miss the point. There's no such thing as religion. All there is is religious people. There's no such thing as "Islam" or "Christianity", there's only individual Muslims or individual Christians, and individuals (and groups) can have quite different ideas and attitudes even when falling under the same general heading. Are there violent Muslims? Yes, obviously. Are there peaceful Muslims? Yes, obviously. Are there violent Christians? Yes. Are there peaceful Christians? Yes. And so on for every other religion you can think of. Now you can ask "Is person (or group) X violent/peaceful because of their religion or in spite of it?" but such a question is almost impossible to answer. You can point to violent passages in the Koran and also peaceful ones. Which ones represent the "real" Islam? The answer is neither, because there's no such thing. The same goes for the Bible. You can say that those Christians who've operated on the principle that "God is love" are more authentically Christian than those who've operated on the principle that "You shall not suffer a witch to live", but if you do, that will just reflect your own presuppositions, because both texts are equally present in the Bible.

I've always thought that religion is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but just acts as an intensifier, so it tends to make good people better and bad people worse, because it adds an extra layer of motivation to whatever they would have been doing anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is true of both Christianity and Islam. Islamist terrorists are clearly nutcases, but being Muslim hasn't made them nutcases, it's just given them extra fuel for their nuttiness - just as Islam gives peaceful Muslims extra motivation to be kind and peaceful. And the same is true of Christianity; Torquemada would probably not have been as bad without Christianity, and Francis of Assisi would probably not have been as good.

If that's so then the only real question is why there seem to be more violent Muslims than violent people of other religions. I'd say that, first, this is probably a reporting bias. There's plenty of violence by people of other religions, but it doesn't get reported and interpreted as part of a grand narrative in the way that Islamist violence does (which itself has a number of reasons behind it). Just as an example: there was a programme on the radio just the other day about massacres of Muslims by Hindus which took place in Hyderabad in 1948 and which were covered up by the Indian government which didn't want to encourage further sectarian violence. Second, despite this, I wouldn't be surprised if there are indeed more violent acts from Muslims than from other religions at the moment; but that has to be put into its historical context, one where many Muslims (and, obviously, especially the more radicalised ones) feel under existential threat from powerful forces that they see as hostile. But this is a matter of particular historical context, not a general pattern with the religion. Think again of the atrocities committed by Christians in the past; clearly, Christianity (or at least, certain kinds of Christianity) has had more violent periods than is usually the case today. That was often in times when Christians felt they were threatened by hostile forces, such as Albigensians, pagans, witches, or whatever. Critics of Christianity today like to point to these incidents as proof of the wickedness of Christianity, but that's a mistake, because it assumes that the fact that the perpetrators were Christian is simplistically and straightforwardly the cause of their actions. And that's an assumption that is at best dubious. The same thing applies to atrocities carried out by Muslims today.

Ultimately, whatever religion we're talking about, we're really talking about people, and people can (and will) be good or bad, peaceful or violent, and they will be so no matter what their religion dictates (even assuming that one can find a consistent message in their religion, which is rarely the case).

 

[Borachio]

And Christianity has had its terrorists in modern times too, as anyone who knows what acronyms such as IRA, UVF, and UDA stand for. Those groups killed people for following one Christian sect rather than another.

Oh well, really?

I rather had the impression that the modern conflict in Northern Ireland, though sectarian, has had much more to do with civil rights and the legacy of 400 years of history, than any religious differences.

Religion there is just a marker for the two communities. At least, that is what I've heard.

(Beyond the odd mad Paisley shouting about popery, of course.)

Still, perhaps we don't disagree.

 

[Plotinus]

Oh well, really?

I rather had the impression that the modern conflict in Northern Ireland, though sectarian, has had much more to do with civil rights and the legacy of 400 years of history, than any religious differences.

Religion there is just a marker for the two communities. At least, that is what I've heard.

(Beyond the odd mad Paisley shouting about popery, of course.)

Still, perhaps we don't disagree.

Religion is "a marker for the two communities". That's one of the functions religion always plays. If a Protestant kills someone because they're a Catholic, then that's a murder that's motivated by religion, even if the reason the Protestant hates Catholics is because he thinks they're trying to cause a political schism. Religious violence isn't restricted to arguments about doctrine or liturgy. Certainly the violence in Northern Ireland has always been about politics, but that doesn't mean it's not about religion. For those people, they're the same thing.

This is one of the reasons why asking "Did religion cause this?" is a bad question. There's no such thing as "religion" distinct from the rest of life, at least not for those who are religious.

 

[Camikaze]

Just as an example: there was a programme on the radio just the other day about massacres of Muslims by Hindus which took place in Hyderabad in 1948 and which were covered up by the Indian government which didn't want to encourage further sectarian violence.

I read this the other day, and it's the sort of news that kinda adds content to the 'no-one seems to notice' thing.

 

[Borachio]

Religion is "a marker for the two communities". That's one of the functions religion always plays. If a Protestant kills someone because they're a Catholic, then that's a murder that's motivated by religion, even if the reason the Protestant hates Catholics is because he thinks they're trying to cause a political schism. Religious violence isn't restricted to arguments about doctrine or liturgy. Certainly the violence in Northern Ireland has always been about politics, but that doesn't mean it's not about religion. For those people, they're the same thing.

This is one of the reasons why asking "Did religion cause this?" is a bad question. There's no such thing as "religion" distinct from the rest of life, at least not for those who are religious.

Yes, I don't disagree.

But when you say a murder can be motivated by religion, doesn't that contradict your position that religion doesn't cause things?

I don't get it. It looks to me like you want it both ways.

Protestants don't kill Catholics (and vice versa) because of religion but because they belong to different communities. For me, it's that simple.

 

[Plotinus]

But when you say a murder can be motivated by religion, doesn't that contradict your position that religion doesn't cause things?

I don't get it. It looks to me like you want it both ways.

All right, I phrased it clumsily.

What I meant is that there can be actions, violent or otherwise, that have motivations which are religious in the sense of involving elements that we'd call "religious". E.g. if you kill someone because they attend a particular church, or you help someone because you believe God commands it, these are religious motivations. What I'm saying is that we should stop reifying "religion" as if it's something distinct from the people themselves. There isn't something called "religion" that "causes" these behaviours, positive or negative; people have motivations, some of which we can usefully call "religious", some of which we might not call "religious" at all, and some which are hard to categorise because there isn't really a clear-cut distinction between the "religious" and the "non-religious".

Protestants don't kill Catholics (and vice versa) because of religion but because they belong to different communities. For me, it's that simple.

But there's no difference. To follow a different religion is to belong to a different community. To belong to a different community is to follow a different religion. At least, that's how it is in Belfast. Religions differ, and communities differ, but religion almost always is at least partly defined by community membership.

I'd say that your comment above would be equally true if you replace "Protestants" and "Catholics" with pretty much any pair of names of religions whose members have committed atrocities against each other.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I've always thought that religion is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but just acts as an intensifier, so it tends to make good people better and bad people worse, because it adds an extra layer of motivation to whatever they would have been doing anyway....

Indeed.

I rather had the impression that the modern conflict in Northern Ireland, though sectarian, has had much more to do with civil rights and the legacy of 400 years of history, than any religious differences.

That opinion is highly debatable.

Some scholars, such as Steve Bruce, a sociology professor at the University of Aberdeen, argue that the conflict in Northern Ireland is primarily a religious conflict, its economic and social considerations notwithstanding.[8] Professor Mark Juergensmeyer has also argued that some acts of terrorism were "religious terrorism... – in these cases, Christianity".[9]:19-20 Others, such as John Hickey, take a more guarded view.[10] Writing in The Guardian, Susan McKay discussed religious fundamentalism in connection with the murder of Martin O'Hagan, a former inmate of the Maze prison and a reporter on crime and the paramilitaries. She attributed the murder to a "range of reasons," including "the gangsters didn't like what he wrote". The alleged killers claimed that they killed him for "crimes against the loyalist people".[11]

The Orange Volunteers are a group infamous for carrying out simultaneous terrorist attacks on Catholic churches.[12]

Self-styled pastors[13] Clifford Peeples, previously convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, John Somerville, and their associates, were dubbed by RUC chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan "the demon pastors" – specialising in recounting lurid stories of Catholic savagery towards Protestants, and in finding biblical justifications for Protestant retaliation.[11]

In 1998 and 1999, the Orange Volunteers were led by Clifford Peeples, a Protestant pastor from Belfast. One of the group's first actions was a synchronized attack on 11 Catholic churches. Peeples defended the attack on the grounds that the churches were "bastions of the Antichrist".[6]

On 27 November 1998, eight masked OV members brandishing guns and grenades staged a "show of strength" for a local journalist. The gunmen began the meeting with a Bible reading and ended it with prayers. They produced a "covenant" that said: "We are defenders of the reformed faith. Our members are practising Protestant worshippers".[7] They went on to state: "We are prepared to defend our people and if it comes to the crunch we will assassinate the enemies of Ulster. Ordinary Catholics have nothing to fear from us. But the true enemies will be targeted, and that's a lot wider than just Sinn Féin and the IRA". They vowed to target IRA prisoners released as part of the Belfast Agreement and claimed responsibility for a string of attacks on nationalist-owned businesses a month beforehand.[8]

 

[Borachio]

But there's no difference. To follow a different religion is to belong to a different community. To belong to a different community is to follow a different religion. At least, that's how it is in Belfast. Religions differ, and communities differ, but religion almost always is at least partly defined by community membership.

I'd say that your comment above would be equally true if you replace "Protestants" and "Catholics" with pretty much any pair of names of religions whose members have committed atrocities against each other.

Yes. I mean, no.

There's no reason at all to think of the conflict as a religious one. It makes much more sense to think in terms of Loyalists and Nationalists. People have largely aligned themselves in religious terms just as a marker, as I've already said.

There's really no ethnic differences between the two communities. And no one that I have heard of seriously seems to suggest it's anything to do with religion at all. I'd even go further and suggest that the religious differences are merely nominal.

I honestly don't see much difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. But of course I speak from a viewpoint outside them both.

What am I arguing about again? Maybe this post is better directed to Formaldehyde.

 

[Plotinus]

There's really no ethnic differences between the two communities. And no one that I have heard of seriously seems to suggest it's anything to do with religion at all. I'd even go further and suggest that the religious differences are merely nominal.

Religion isn't about ethnicity. In fact that rather proves the point: if there's no ethnic difference between them, then what difference is there? Religious difference.

And when people are burning down churches specifically because they are churches of one sect rather than another, and distributing pamphlets denouncing that sect as harbouring the antichrist, it's hard to see what more you need to call the dispute religious.

Besides which, the same arguments could be applied to the Nairobi atrocity. Al-Shabaab are, after all, motivated in large part by political and sectarian issues in Somalia, where they resist intervention from other powers; in Somalia, to call someone a "Christian" sometimes means simply that that person is an Ethiopian intelligence agent. Does this mean that al-Shabaab's actions aren't religiously motivated? No, because you can't draw a nice neat line between political and sectarian divides on the one hand and religious ones on the other. Just like in Northern Ireland.

I honestly don't see much difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. But of course I speak from a viewpoint outside them both.

Well, there you go then. Rest assured that there are differences between them and, to their members, these differences are immense. I've known Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christians at all. Remember that in religion, as in politics, people typically reserve their strongest hatred for groups that are very similar to them, not for those who are more distant.

 

[classical_hero]

@Plot. At the earliest stages of Christianity most definitely wasn't a religion spread by the sword. Before the 3rd Century it was persecuted mightily. It was only when some Roman emperors saw some political use out of Christianity that it can be slightly close to how Islam has always operated. Once Christianity became political it was always persecuted and that is how it spread. Following the tenants of Jesus, which is what i Christian should be, then he told his follows to preach the Gospel, not to conqueror. Whereas right from the start Islam, following the example of their prophet, has always been spread by the sword. When you take away the elements of Christianity in the past where it was used for political means and thus spread often through violence, not through the intended message of the Saviour. The big difference is the words of Jesus compared to the words of Mohammed.

BTW, I see that no one knows exactly what causing corruption means in Islam.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed. I find it particularly sad that so many Christians are so hypocritical that they deny that their religion is based on pacifism instead of warmongering.

But by the time that Islam came along, the Muslims had little choice because Christianity had already indeed forsaken its roots. They became the persecuted instead of the predominant Christians, even though they worshiped the very same god in a slightly different manner.

Eventually, many Christians will stop persecuting Muslims just as they finally did with the Jews fairly recently. Baby steps.