Syria unrest: Protests in Deraa, Damascus and Hama

[innonimatu]

Where's a pocket al-Shishakli when you need him?

Dunno, but Rifaat al-Assad is still around.

 

[Tee Kay]

If by secularism, you mean a leadership cadre populated near exclusively by a relatively small shia sect that represses all opposition, including religious opposition... then sure, why not.

I still prefer that to, um, Saudi Arabia.

Secularism doesn't preclude political repression or corruption anyhow.

 

[Incodcito]

I still prefer that to, um, Saudi Arabia.

Secularism doesn't preclude political repression or corruption anyhow.

Thanks captain obvious.

Anyway, I don't know enough about internal Syrian/Saudi repression to question which is worse, though I know that they are both repressive.

 

[Tee Kay]

Thanks captain obvious.

Your post seems to insinuate that Syrian secularism is superficial because of political repression of religion-based opposition, but it's real enough, even if it's not the kind of liberal pluralist secular state that Westerners are used to. Thanks to a dictatorial system the Alawites are disproportionately politically influential, but that a particular ethnic or religious group has disproportionate influence a certain area of the public sphere is not out of ordinary, in the Middle East or anywhere else. At least the rights of religious minorities are protected, and the role of religion in government and public life is less pronounced than in some other Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Incodcito]

Your post seems to insinuate that Syrian secularism is superficial because of political repression of religion-based opposition, but it's real enough, even if it's not the kind of liberal pluralist secular state that Westerners are used to. Thanks to a dictatorial system the Alawites are disproportionately politically influential, but that a particular ethnic or religious group has disproportionate influence a certain area of the public sphere is not out of ordinary, in the Middle East or anywhere else. At least the rights of religious minorities are protected, and the role of religion in government and public life is less pronounced than in some other Middle Eastern countries.

Honestly, I don't really see how the rights of religious minorities are protected. An equal amount of repression regardless of religion and respect for the rights of minorities are not the same thing, and should not be conflated.

And finally @ bolded, to be even more honest, repression is repression. Repression based on the "need for order" and Repression based on the dictates of a dead old "prophet" are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Tee Kay]

Honestly, I don't really see how the rights of religious minorities are protected. An equal amount of repression regardless of religion and respect for the rights of minorities are not the same thing, and should not be conflated.

People aren't being repressed for following their religion. Only if they challenge the state.

And finally @ bolded, to be even more honest, repression is repression. Repression based on the "need for order" and Repression based on the dictates of a dead old "prophet" are two sides of the same coin.

Did I say otherwise. No I didn't.

A secular state doesn't have to be a democratic state.

 

[Incodcito]

People aren't being repressed for following their religion. Only if they challenge the state.

I don't think you get my point.That it isn't so much freedom of religion as it is an equal amount of repression for anyone, regardless of religion.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't think you get my point.That it isn't so much freedom of religion as it is an equal amount of repression for anyone, regardless of religion.

I don't think you get the difference between religious persecution and political repression.

 

[Incodcito]

I don't think you get the difference between religious persecution and political repression.

And I don't think you understand what I mean... but I can't make it any clearer for you.

 

[Squonk]

Well to be honest I was talking about the Ummayad Mosque which is really old and has probably gone through worse political crises than this but I suppose you could say the same about the Syrian government but just not as old. Bashir Assad is kind of hot in my opinion.

It's Bash(sh)ar, not Bashir.

These people chant for God and peace? Wonder what the idiots who hold that Islam is inherently evil will say.

Point out stuff like this probably:

http://nation.foxnews.com/christian...hurches-burned-over-alleged-koran-desecration

Is that the fault of the religion, or the people?

The second, obviously. Either that or the Muslims point out the Crusades and we're set at zero.

The second, obviously. Either that or the Muslims point out the Crusades and we're set at zero.

Takhisis: why do you distinguish muslims from islam when they do something bad - even if they do it purely out of religious zeal - and yet you don't distinguish between (people who you assume to be) muslims and islam when they do something (which you find) good? If bad deeds of muslims can't say nothing about islam, then good deeds of muslims can't be attributed to islam also.

Anyway, it all depends on how do you define islam.

///

I really really hope Syria, which I hold dear to my heart, will be spared some big turmoil, civil war etc. But the news that are reaching me are bad
Bashshar is actually one of the better choices one could make if he was to choose a ruler, but still he's not quite a democratic one. So I would welcome democracy in Syria. But I am sceptic if Al-Ba'ath and Alawites would let go peacefully. They have too much to loose. Especially alawites. They went from a disdained minority to the actual rulers of the country. They have all the reasons to fear repressions if Bashshar fell.
So I don't think there would be a good atmosphere for a major change. Especially that Bashshar has some actual popularity. Syria's progressed tremendously since the death of his father. Also when it comes to political system. I've heard some complaining in Syria about Asads being rural people from some distant province, about the gouverment creating obstacles for business, about the cult of Hafiz etc. But I do believe they can see progress, and I hear it's not Bashshar who is blamed for it being too slow.
What remains a mistery for me is who'd be the power to stand against Al-Ba'ath. The opposition, last time I knew, was ridiculously divided and (with few exceptions) gerontocratic.


When it comes to the political crises and Umayyad Mosque, I recall a part of a chronicle by Al-Maqrizi which I've read. There was a time of the turmoil, and various forces - including Fatimid, Qarmat, byzantine, revolted turkish - were subdoing Damascus. But people of Damascus were fighting too. And there was a bit about people of all denominations gathering in the Umayyad Mosque - muslims with Qur'ans, Jews with Torahs, and christians with Evangely against their common foe.

 

[aelf]

Takhisis: why do you distinguish muslims from islam when they do something bad - even if they do it purely out of religious zeal - and yet you don't distinguish between (people who you assume to be) muslims and islam when they do something (which you find) good? If bad deeds of muslims can't say nothing about islam, then good deeds of muslims can't be attributed to islam also.

You can if you apply the same standard to all religions?

We've had this conversation before. Basically, yes, the way religious people tend to treat it, their faith exists independently of its followers. You don't have to accept that this is true yourself, but to be tolerant of people who have religious beliefs, you have to accept it when they say this, as well as accept their claim that their religion is fundamentally good (which is corroborated by the existence of good followers - only the real possibility of their existence needs to be proven). It's for the benefit of peace and harmony. It's really that simple.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Couldn't you say that good Muslims are just going against the grain? If a Muslim leaves the faith, and the other Muslims in the community/family do not stone that person to death, are they good or bad Muslims?

 

[aelf]

I can't say whether they would be good or bad Muslims. But I can say that they would be good persons. Interpretations of a faith or a particularly important religious text that do not make being good believers and good persons mutually exclusive must be accepted and supported. Faulting the faith or its scriptural basis, especially if you are outside of the community of believers, has never helped resolve anything. It's up to the believers to debate about the interpretation of their faith. We just have to accept their reasonable claims.

 

[NovaKart]

When I woke up next to him I thought he pronounced it bashir but my mind was a bit hazy at that point so I must assume you're right, it's bashar.

 

[Squonk]

You can if you apply the same standard to all religions?

Of course it should be applied to all religions if it's applied to all. But one doesn't have to apply that rule. But then, one should not apply it to all. That is: if one applies that rule, it should apply to all. If one does not apply this rule, it shouldn't apply to any. But both have some sense. Judging religion by what its followers do in its name has sense.

We've had this conversation before. Basically, yes, the way religious people tend to treat it, their faith exists independently of its followers. You don't have to accept that this is true yourself, but to be tolerant of people who have religious beliefs, you have to accept it when they say this, as well as accept their claim that their religion is fundamentally good (which is corroborated by the existence of good followers - only the real possibility of their existence needs to be proven). It's for the benefit of peace and harmony. It's really that simple.

I don't have to accept it if they say so, nor do I have to accept that their religion is fundamentally good. Why should I, without a proof? Existance of good followers is not a proof of that a religion is good. It is at best an indication of a possibility that there exists an interpretation of that religion which doesn't stop humans from being good. Assuming that those who we believe to be followers of such religion indeed consider themselves so, and consider their behaviour as in pair with their religion.

Anyway, you claim that one has to accept that faith exists independently of its followers, and a while later you claim that existance of good followers can corroborate the fundamentally good character of a religion. That is contradictory. Either we can judge religion by the behaviour of its followers, or not.

I do understand what you mean by saying the last two sentences. This approach may work. But it doesn't have to, and it may be against the truth. And if it is, it's likely to fail. So I'd rather see that the truth prevailed, not ilusions created in good intentions.

 

[Squonk]

I can't say whether they would be good or bad Muslims. But I can say that they would be good persons. Interpretations of a faith or a particularly important religious text that do not make being good believers and good persons mutually exclusive must be accepted and supported.

Even if it is wrong? As I've thought, that's KarenArmstrongism.

Faulting the faith or its scriptural basis, especially if you are outside of the community of believers, has never helped resolve anything. It's up to the believers to debate about the interpretation of their faith. We just have to accept their reasonable claims.

One could leave interpretation of holy scriptures to members of such and such faith if it was only about spiritual matters: but interpretation of scriptures has many layers. First, there's linguistic, logic level. Secondly, intepretations of such scriptures have often political results etc. It concerns us all, so we all have a say.

If one brings up an interpretation of a scripture that clearly has good intentions, but also clearly is wrong, than it's a sad duty to point it out. Because the more correct interpretations will re-emerge oneday. And if such and such religion in its the most basic interpretations of its scriptures has faults with morality, if its fundaments are flawed, than the surest way of dealing with this problem is to warn the inhabitants, evacuate them and deconstruct such a faulty tower, because its fundaments are unfixable and one can only mask their shortcomings, not correct them. We can stabilise the building overall, however, that is true.

To make my point another way: however I hoped that some interpretations were true, I will not pretend they are so, if I judge them to be not. That's like allowing a virus to spread just fighting the diseases it causes. It indeed may be successful. But the only way to destroy the disease completely is to destroy the virus it is caused by. It's like cutting a weed instead of pulling out its roots. Again, may be successful, but it will not grant a final victory over it.

Many believers' claims are unreasonable, anyway.

Also, another contradiction. First you say that such and such interpretations should be "supported" and after a while you claim that people who do not belong to such and such community should not discuss it, only "accept it"...

 

[aelf]

I don't have to accept it if they say so, nor do I have to accept that their religion is fundamentally good. Why should I, without a proof? Existance of good followers is not a proof of that a religion is good. It is at best an indication of a possibility that there exists an interpretation of that religion which doesn't stop humans from being good. Assuming that those who we believe to be followers of such religion indeed consider themselves so, and consider their behaviour as in pair with their religion.

That is what I'm talking about.

Anyway, you claim that one has to accept that faith exists independently of its followers, and a while later you claim that existance of good followers can corroborate the fundamentally good character of a religion. That is contradictory. Either we can judge religion by the behaviour of its followers, or not.

See above. The existence of 'good' followers doesn't really prove anything about the religion. What it does is give us a compelling reason to believe that believers can validly maintain that their religion is fundamentally good. The subject of faith itself should clue you in to the inadequacy of an empirical approach. We don't look at empirical evidence to state anything definitive about the faith, and in that case we don't look for empirical evidence to prove or contradict the believers' claims about their faith. Empirical evidence only makes us feel more disposed to accept them, which we should do anyway (though it might be difficult or counter-intuitive for minds that are used to thinking in empirical terms).

I do understand what you mean by saying the last two sentences. This approach may work. But it doesn't have to, and it may be against the truth. And if it is, it's likely to fail. So I'd rather see that the truth prevailed, not ilusions created in good intentions.

There are more than just consequentialist reasons for thinking this, such as the importance of empathy. In any case, I'm extremely skeptical of proto-claims about truth like what you seem to be making here. What is 'truth' and how do you differentiate it from 'illusion'? Without a very good explanation of what it is (and that is very difficult if not impossible to give), I'm not inclined to accept that the pursuit of 'truth' is more important than, say, the pursuit of a good life.

 

[aelf]

Even if it is wrong? As I've thought, that's KarenArmstrongism.

One could leave interpretation of holy scriptures to members of such and such faith if it was only about spiritual matters: but interpretation of scriptures has many layers. First, there's linguistic, logic level. Secondly, intepretations of such scriptures have often political results etc. It concerns us all, so we all have a say.

This really doesn't say anything about it being true or untrue (which I presume is what you mean by right and wrong here). A linguistic/logical interpretation of scripture does offer us a way of judging truth (logical) values in a religious text, but as we have no stake in the religion, so to speak, it's not our place to decide. A theological matter in which our interests are not invested does not concern us. A matter of religion that has taken a political dimension might, but that is why I said we should support interpretations that do not make being good believers and good persons mutually exclusive.

If one brings up an interpretation of a scripture that clearly has good intentions, but also clearly is wrong, than it's a sad duty to point it out. Because the more correct interpretations will re-emerge oneday. And if such and such religion in its the most basic interpretations of its scriptures has faults with morality, if its fundaments are flawed, than the surest way of dealing with this problem is to warn the inhabitants, evacuate them and deconstruct such a faulty tower, because its fundaments are unfixable and one can only mask their shortcomings, not correct them. We can stabilise the building overall, however, that is true.

To make my point another way: however I hoped that some interpretations were true, I will not pretend they are so, if I judge them to be not. That's like allowing a virus to spread just fighting the diseases it causes. It indeed may be successful. But the only way to destroy the disease completely is to destroy the virus it is caused by. It's like cutting a weed instead of pulling out its roots. Again, may be successful, but it will not grant a final victory over it.

First you have to tell me what 'truth' is. If you merely mean it in the logical sense, I'm not sure why logic should be prized over, say, empathy. That is because I don't think logic can claim, as it is, to give us access to a transcendental sense of truth that requires perfect ontological verification or something like that (i.e. requires that we know everything there is).

Many believers' claims are unreasonable, anyway.

So?

Also, another contradiction. First you say that such and such interpretations should be "supported" and after a while you claim that people who do not belong to such and such community should not discuss it, only "accept it"...

I don't mean supporting them within the religious community, but outside of it, on the level of the social and political.

 

[Takhisis]

Takhisis: why do you distinguish muslims from islam when they do something bad - even if they do it purely out of religious zeal - and yet you don't distinguish between (people who you assume to be) muslims and islam when they do something (which you find) good? If bad deeds of muslims can't say nothing about islam, then good deeds of muslims can't be attributed to islam also.

read:

These people chant for God and peace? Wonder what the idiots who hold that Islam is inherently evil will say.

I'm not saying Islam is good, I'm just saying that Islam is not inherently evil. That people calling for God can also call for peace. Just the fact tht some people call for both peace and God should deny the fact that Islam is 'eeeevil', right?

Anyway, it all depends on how do you define islam.

To me, Islam is the religion, which is not inherently evil, and Muslims are those who claim to follow it, some of them are evil, some of them are not.

 

[Squonk]

That is what I'm talking about.

it's not quite the same.

See above. The existence of 'good' followers doesn't really prove anything about the religion. What it does is give us a compelling reason to believe that believers can validly maintain that their religion is fundamentally good. The subject of faith itself should clue you in to the inadequacy of an empirical approach. We don't look at empirical evidence to state anything definitive about the faith, and in that case we don't look for empirical evidence to prove or contradict the believers' claims about their faith. Empirical evidence only makes us feel more disposed to accept them, which we should do anyway (though it might be difficult or counter-intuitive for minds that are used to thinking in empirical terms).

I do believe that is contradictory. Either it doesn't prove anything about a religion, or it gives us a compelling reason to believe something about it.
While religion is somewhat liquidy subject, something can be said about it, something can be proved about it, even if one should make some reservations about it.

There are more than just consequentialist reasons for thinking this, such as the importance of empathy. In any case, I'm extremely skeptical of proto-claims about truth like what you seem to be making here. What is 'truth' and how do you differentiate it from 'illusion'? Without a very good explanation of what it is (and that is very difficult if not impossible to give), I'm not inclined to accept that the pursuit of 'truth' is more important than, say, the pursuit of a good life.

I do not think we have to go as far as to define "truth". We all instinctively know what it means. If I had to define it, I'd say truth is a state of fitting the reality and corresponding to it.

Oh, of course, pursuit of truth is not necessarily more important than a pursuit of a good life. But I do not believe that in this case, lack of pursuit of truth will give us good life.

What you are trying to do, what Karen Armstrong is trying to do, is to present islam (and religion overall) such as we'd like to see it. To paint it in such good light - in accordance with current moral values - that it'd be hard for muslims (or adherents of some other religion) to go against such picture, that such picture would be very appealing. But Karen Armstrong's interpretations simply go against historical sources and obvious interpretation of certain suras, hadiths etc.
No, Al-Qur'an and Old Testament, and even some bits of New Testament, are not in pair with modern morality. It indeed would benefit us if everyone believed they were. But they are not in such an obvious manner that the truth will always come out. It is not true, and such interpretations are aprioric. One should ask himself "what's the interpretation of this verse that can get along with modern world", but I believe one should ask "what's the interpretation of this verse" without any preconditions as well.
By spreading ultrapositive image of Muhammad, Karen Armstrong etc may contribute to spreading islam and religion overall. By spreading islam and religion overall, one spreads potential danger of literal interpretation of such and such suras or verses of some other holy book. So her work has both positive aspect and negative, from utilitarian point of view, even if you don't care for truth.

read:
I'm not saying Islam is good, I'm just saying that Islam is not inherently evil. That people calling for God can also call for peace. Just the fact tht some people call for both peace and God should deny the fact that Islam is 'eeeevil', right?

If so, would the fact that some people call for both war and God deny the fact that religion (in this case islam) is "good"?

You're completely missing my point, so I'll reiterate it: if one can not judge religion by evil deeds of its followers, one can not judge religion by good deeds of its followers. Be consistent.