BBC.com: Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[FrFan]

"Funny" thing is that as far as I understand it Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God.

 

Even "funnier" is that a lot of violence through the centuries stems from differences in opinion on HOW this same God should be worshipped and the details of divinity. Seems pretty trivial. 

 

Even "funnier" is that this God is omnipotent yet "you" think he needs the help of mortals to correct injustice. 

 

Jews regard Jesus as an imposter. Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as a deity, divinity or son of God is incompatible with Judaism, as well as his Messiahship or his prophecy.

Catholics see him as an incarnation of God.

Muslims consider him a prophet.

These three visions are fundamentally different and irreconcilable.

Where did I say he needs the help of mortal to correct injustice ? I was quoting the confession of a muslim, pointing out the contradictions in Q'uran and the fact that it encourages the conquest of this world. Therefore it is very easy for the islamists to justify their actions and to proselytise.

[Predicto]

Free speech is free speech.  The last few posts are getting very close to "they got what was coming".

 

As one of the authors of one of the last few posts...  how so?

[grego]

Quick response to this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

 

j, do you believe that support for the death penalty for apostasy could be found in some hadith?

[jpyaks3]

j, do you believe that support for the death penalty for apostasy could be found in some hadith?

I honestly don't know, I am not well versed enough in interpreting the many different hadiths of varying veracity and applying the contextual history and theology of Islam to say for sure, but I am sure you could probably find something that you could use to support the death penalty for apostacy depending on how you interpret it. I also think that there are plenty more verses like this "There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)," and "Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve (18:29)." that would seem to contradict any Hadith that would support the death penalty for apostacy.  But I think that religious justification is almost an afterthought rather than a driving cause in many of these cases.

[Jumbo]

well if we could eliminate assholes and morons we could cure most problems.....deciding who gets to decide who they are gets problematic 

 

You know how committed I am to service work and my fondness for problem resolution. I will run, if nominated.

[PeterMP]

Honestly I would like to see more polling, because one poll really isn't always the end all be all. I haven't been able to find any other reputable polls but I think citing only a single poll that spans such a large population across such a large area and especially some of these areas where there is still limited access and political and religious freedoms makes for some, I would argue, unreliable numbers. I know for example that a lot of the polls in Egypt following the revolution were all over the place because its really difficult to find a good sample in some areas.

At what level does it have to be wrong for the numbers to be okay?

Let's assume that it is systematically unreliable with respect to respondents giving the extremists answer (even though we have absolutely no evidence that's the case) and let's assume that this poll is extremely bad. I looked at some different non-Muslim related polls where multiple organizations poll. I can't find a single case where the Pew results are more than 20% off of the other polls.

But let's assume this one is particularly bad. Let's say it is off by 50% in a systematic manner in every country.

Does that really change anything?

If the percentage of Egyptians that think the death penalty for apostasy is okay is is only the 30s%, do you say that's okay?

Would you then say it isn't an issue?

That sort of belief by that large of a percentage of the population isn't likely to manifest itself in other types of violence?

How systematically wrong does the poll have to be (with 0 evidence that there is a systematic problem and no evidence of a Pew poll ever having been that wrong in the past) for you to say it isn't an issue?

And while I can't find another poll dealing with the same issues in the same countries here some more:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

Hey, 57% of Muslims have an unfavorable view of al Qeada. Sounds good until you realize there is another 43% out there, and they didn't ask that question in some of the more conservative Muslim nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).

Does that seem good to you?

How about over 20% of British Muslims think that apostasy should carry a death penalty?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6309983.stm

Is that acceptable?

Or maybe all of these polls are just badly flawed?

 

But to look at the poll if it is an Islam thing shouldn't the poll show that there is consistent support for something, instead this poll shows drastic swings between populations. So that should show that it isn't just Islam as the only driving force there must be other factors otherwise you would see relatively equal support across the board.

I agree. It isn't JUST Islam (it might not even be at all Islam.  I don't know, but a lot of people want to seem to dismiss Islam being a contributing factor at all pretty quickly based on what appears to me to be pretty weak evidence).

It isn't JUST one thing. People with no history of the Islam/the Arab world convert to Islam and then go travel abroad and become violent.

There are American, European, and Australian Caucasians that are fighting with Islamic extremists so it isn't just the history/traditions of the area.

There are rich Islamic extremists and poor ones so it isn't JUST economics.

There are well educated and poorly educated Islamic extremists and so it isn't JUST education.

It isn't JUST any one thing.

Does that mean we can't discuss any of the possible contributing factors?

If somebody can show some group of people with in a larger group don't fit the profile does that eliminate that trait as a possible contributing factor for any behavior?

 

And I don't think anybody in this thread thinks or has claimed it is ONLY Islam, and I don't think Bill Maher is even trying to make that claim.

 

The Wahabbism was a political movement before all else as were a lot of these more radical strains and interpretations and I think trying to extricate the political, social, and economic factors that contribute to these views from the religious is difficult if not impossible.

I would say I think the same is true from Islam PERIOD. That Islam was a simultaneously a political and religious movement at its origin.

That Muhammad was a both a religious and a political figure in a way not comparable with the early leaders of some of the other major world's religions.

And I think that might affect the possibility to separate the two.

[grego]

But I think that religious justification is almost an afterthought rather than a driving cause in many of these cases.[/size][/font][/color]

You can find plenty of verses or stories about peace in the Quran and hadith. It's the other ones that are a concern. The fact that they exist becomes problematic to people looking for a cause.

There are times when peace was prescribed and other times when killing was deemed appropriate.

Pretending this is not a key factor isn't helping. If Islam was all about peace, we're not having this conversation. Just because one can pluck a nice verse from the Quran doesn't make the violent parts go away. They do, in fact, exist.

[PeterMP]

I honestly don't know, I am not well versed enough in interpreting the many different hadiths of varying veracity and applying the contextual history and theology of Islam to say for sure, but I am sure you could probably find something that you could use to support the death penalty for apostacy depending on how you interpret it. I also think that there are plenty more verses like this "There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)," and "Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve (18:29)." that would seem to contradict any Hadith that would support the death penalty for apostacy.  But I think that religious justification is almost an afterthought rather than a driving cause in many of these cases.[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy

"Some scholars such as S.A. Rahman[66] highlight a phrase from Quran's verse 256 from Al-Bakara, "there is no compulsion in religion,"[67] to conclude that Quran never intended a punishment for apostasy in this life and that Quran suggests tolerance for apostates. Other Islamic scholars disagree for several reasons, disagreements Rahman acknowledges.[68] First, the "no compulsion" phrase should not be used out of context and all exegesis of Quran that is "linear-atomistic" analysis of one small phrase in one verse is flawed.[69] The complete verse and nearby verses[70] should be read to understand the "complex hermeneutic totality" of context for anything in Quran.[71] The context of "no compulsion" phrase is not apostates, but those who refuse to accept the Faith (Islam) and continue to worship the Shaitan (evil, false deity).[72][73] Second, no single phrase or verse in Quran is less or more relevant in Islam than other phrases or verses in Quran; and other verses in Quran such as verse 66[74] of At-Tawba state "if we pardon some of you (for apostasy), we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin"."

Based on what I've read (and I'm not claiming to be an expert), in the vast majority of Islamic cultures there has been a significant penalty for apostasy.

Not always a death penalty, but something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy

"In Islam, apostasy has been traditionally considered both a religious crime and a civil liability; the punishment for former includes death or prison while the latter leads to civil penalties.[3] Therefore, in all madhhabs of Islam, (a) the property of the apostate is seized and distributed to his or her Muslim relatives; ( B ) his or her marriage annulled (faskh); ( c ) any children removed and considered ward of the Islamic state.[3] In case the entire family has left Islam, or there are no surviving Muslim relatives recognized by Sharia, the apostate's property is liquidated by the Islamic state."

And while that is better than death, I still don't think it is good.

Do you?

It is possible that the things I've read are wrong, but if they aren't, I'm not inclined to tell a whole lot of people whose ancestors started the religion and have been practicing the religion from its start that them and their ancestors were wrong about their religion.

[PeterMP]

personally, I am anti death penalty AND pro secularism... so it would be a huge leap to get me to that position.  But i can see where it is a relatively small leap to get you to that point if you believe in both of those.... and yes that alarms me.

And do you think the belief/attitude that a death penalty for apostasy is a good thing contributes to other violence such as what we see from ISIS and in France?

And that view is much more rare in other major world religions?

[visionary]

And round and round it goes.

[PeterMP]

And round and round it goes.

 

I don't think Corcaigh made his point in the best possible way, but realistically, to me it seems that people jumped on him for making a point that nobody here really seems to disagree with.

 

If I cut the Pew numbers in half with respect to apostasy, I don't think anybody here thinks those are "good" numbers.

 

If I add 50% to the unfavorable al Qeada number (so 85.5% of Muslims view al Qeada unfavorably), I don't think anybody here really things that's good or okay.

 

(Note, they are both Pew polls, but done at different times).

 

And I don't think anybody in here really believes the Pew numbers are off by that much.

 

I don't think anybody here thinks that Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists have similar beliefs on the same scale.

 

And I don't think anybody here wants to argue that system(s) that create or contain that many people with those types of beliefs aren't likely going to support/contribute to/carry out other violent acts in the name of religion to a larger degree than system(s) where those types of beliefs are more rare.

 

I think some people have a mental gag reflex with respect to the point Corcaigh was trying to make and because he didn't make it really well they able to put together (somewhat) reasonable arguments.

 

But if you look at the core point, he's trying to make, nobody here really seems to want to argue he's wrong.

[Riggo-toni]

........

[visionary]

I don't think Corcaigh made his point in the best possible way, but realistically, to me it seems that people jumped on him for making a point that nobody here really seems to disagree with.

 

If I cut the Pew numbers in half with respect to apostasy, I don't think anybody here thinks those are "good" numbers.

 

If I add 50% to the unfavorable al Qeada number (so 85.5% of Muslims view al Qeada unfavorably), I don't think anybody here really things that's good or okay.

 

(Note, they are both Pew polls, but done at different times).

 

And I don't think anybody in here really believes the Pew numbers are off by that much.

 

I don't think anybody here thinks that Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists have similar beliefs on the same scale.

 

And I don't think anybody here wants to argue that system(s) that create or contain that many people with those types of beliefs aren't likely going to support/contribute to/carry out other violent acts in the name of religion to a larger degree than system(s) where those types of beliefs are more rare.

 

I think some people have a mental gag reflex with respect to the point Corcaigh was trying to make and because he didn't make it really well they able to put together (somewhat) reasonable arguments.

 

But if you look at the core point, he's trying to make, nobody here really seems to want to argue he's wrong.

Actually, I meant that the conversation turned into another discussion on apostasy, when I was curious what was going on in Belgium and France and with the people and groups involved. (Although I'm not sure the two situations were related or not)  I get that it's useful to talk about what could be causing people to do this, but it feels like we just keep going over/or repeating the same stuff.  

[visionary]

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/163281

Niger Bans Charlie Hebdo over Mohammed Cartoon

 

Niger Thursday banned distribution of Charlie Hebdo in the mainly Muslim country, with the government "vehemently" condemning the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in the latest issue of the French satirical weekly.

 

"The government vehemently denounces and condemns the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, peace and blessings be upon him, contained in the issue of Charlie Hebdo for Wednesday, January 14, 2015, which it considers an insulting provocation and totally unacceptable," it said in a statement read on radio and state television.

 

"Also, on the instructions of the president of the republic, the government has decided to ban the publication and sale of this issue across the country," said the statement read by government spokesman and justice minister Marou Amadou.

 

President Mahamadou Issoufou was one of six African heads of state who took part in the march in Paris following the jihadist attack on the magazine.

 

He was strongly criticized by Muslim associations and local non-governmental organisations for saying on air "We are all Charlie".

 

"His participation" in the Paris march "stems from his commitment against terrorism and for freedom" and "does not imply any support for the abuses that can arise from a certain notion of press freedom", said Amadou.

 

Niamey also justified the president's participation in the march because of France's commitment to fight militants in the Sahel.

 

In Africa, Senegal has also banned distribution of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo.

[88Comrade2000]

Oh look, it's the Prophet Muhammad

 

 

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2015/01/09/0109islamartopener.jpg?itok=r6ZvTHDc

 

http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

[FrFan]

Oh look, it's the Prophet Muhammad

 

""The Shiite clergy tolerates these meditation objects of popular devotion. However forbidden to pray in front of them for the five daily prayers or that of Friday, "said Sabrina Mervin contemporary Shiism specialist at the School for Advanced Studies in Science Social. Thus, on the great website Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shiite authority in Iraq , appears a fatwa (religious decree) saying that the Prophet can be represented, but not insultingly.

The Sunni world, however, appears generally hostile to the figurative representation of the prophet. Thus, the first attempt to represent the cinema, in the 1920s in Egypt , ran into the condemnation of the Al-Azar mosque "It came from the tradition of non-representation of the prophet, and the question.: which could play its role? "Said Silvia Naef. King Fouad ¹ threatened to deprive of its nationality the actor who was to embody Muhammad.

Today, cartoons telling children the beginnings of Islam are produced by Disney, but represent the Prophet and his companions: they use a narrator or symbolic figures." Link (google translated)

[visionary]

Apparently they are unrelated.  Good job by Belgium though, I guess.

 

https://twitter.com/AFP

BREAKING 13 arrested in Belgian anti-terror raids: prosecutors
5:19 AM

 

BREAKING French PM says no 'direct link' between Paris attack, Belgium operation
5:21 AM

 

 

 

[codeorama]

Can we laugh about anything ? That's a long debatable question.

In some countries the medias follow a politicaly correct guideline, in others such as France (secularism), there is no politicaly correct guideline in the medias. No one is right neither wrong, just different cultures. Some people think we can laugh about anything, some don't.

 

Of course we can. The ultimate question is should we.  I would love to make fun of the beliefs of certain religions but don't because I'm a human being and understand the feelings that will be hurt. I'm not saying there should be law to stop satire or anything like that. I love satire. Its awesome. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be all that shocked with the result. I'm not saying the result (terrorist attack) was justified, Let me say that again, I"M NOT saying it was justified, I'm just saying its not that surprising.

 

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from the consequences.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

Hostages taken at a Post Office near Paris...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/post-office-hostages_n_6485680.html

[FrFan]

Hostages taken at a Post Office near Paris...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/post-office-hostages_n_6485680.html

It's over now, no connection to terrorism here. The guy suffers from mental disorder, he was known from the police authorities.

European police arrest 2 dozen in anti-terrorism sweeps, trying to prevent new attacks

[jpyaks3]

At what level does it have to be wrong for the numbers to be okay?

Let's assume that it is systematically unreliable with respect to respondents giving the extremists answer (even though we have absolutely no evidence that's the case) and let's assume that this poll is extremely bad. I looked at some different non-Muslim related polls where multiple organizations poll. I can't find a single case where the Pew results are more than 20% off of the other polls.

But let's assume this one is particularly bad. Let's say it is off by 50% in a systematic manner in every country.

Does that really change anything?

If the percentage of Egyptians that think the death penalty for apostasy is okay is is only the 30s%, do you say that's okay?

Would you then say it isn't an issue?

That sort of belief by that large of a percentage of the population isn't likely to manifest itself in other types of violence?

How systematically wrong does the poll have to be (with 0 evidence that there is a systematic problem and no evidence of a Pew poll ever having been that wrong in the past) for you to say it isn't an issue?

And while I can't find another poll dealing with the same issues in the same countries here some more:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

Hey, 57% of Muslims have an unfavorable view of al Qeada. Sounds good until you realize there is another 43% out there, and they didn't ask that question in some of the more conservative Muslim nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).

Does that seem good to you?

How about over 20% of British Muslims think that apostasy should carry a death penalty?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6309983.stm

Is that acceptable?

Or maybe all of these polls are just badly flawed?

 

My argument isn't that the poll is necessarily flawed numbers wise (although it might be because of the noted polling difficulties from the areas they polled and from the fact that it is a single poll) but rather that it only shows a snapshot without context. That is why I included the Egypt example, because if the polling was done after one of those high profile conflicts between Coptic Christians and Muslims over a conversion (which happened occasionally over there) then the numbers would be hugely inflated. I don't know if that is the case but I do know at one point when I was living there a case dominated the news where a Coptic women wanted to marry a Muslim and converted but the Coptic family claimed she was "kidnapped" and forced to convert so they according to the other family "kidnapped" her back and there was a huge conflict with some sporadic violence. Now an incident like that I think would definitely infliuence public opinion on apostacy (as would say the coup and slaughter of peaceful Islamist protesters). I also think that if countries were actually executing apostates (for example I don't believe there has been an execution in Saudi Arabia since the early 1990's and that one was very politically motivated) you would see a big drop off as something very abstract becomes very real. 

 

That obviously doesn't explain the high numbers in other countries but it shows a lot bigger part of the picture than just a poll number. 

 

For the Al Qaeda numbers first I think its disengenous to lump the don't know/refuse to answer in with the support of Al Qaeda. Actual support is only 13% as is shown in your article. And of that 13 % I would wager a good bit of that is anti-imperialist or anti-west/American based rather than actual support for Al Qaeda (since Al Qaeda presents itself as an anti-imperialist/anti-west/protector of Muslims).

 

What I think is really interesting the movement of support for suicide bombings in countries like Lebanon where it dropped from 74 % support (When the Israeli occupation was still fresh) to 39% in 2005 and has continued to drop after that. That should show that something that many ascribe to Islam is actually a lot more related to conditions and to social and economic structures. This also goes along with Robert Papes excellent study and a half a dozen other ones.

 

Additionally, I am skeptical of anything that comes out of Policy Exchange after their history of forging stuff and having a pretty defined agenda, so if there are other poll numbers out there that would definitely shed some light, unfortunately all I can find are references to that poll and a bunch of right wing websites. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Exchange#The_Hijacking_of_British_Islam

I agree. It isn't JUST Islam (it might not even be at all Islam.  I don't know, but a lot of people want to seem to dismiss Islam being a contributing factor at all pretty quickly based on what appears to me to be pretty weak evidence).

It isn't JUST one thing. People with no history of the Islam/the Arab world convert to Islam and then go travel abroad and become violent.

There are American, European, and Australian Caucasians that are fighting with Islamic extremists so it isn't just the history/traditions of the area.

There are rich Islamic extremists and poor ones so it isn't JUST economics.

There are well educated and poorly educated Islamic extremists and so it isn't JUST education.

It isn't JUST any one thing.

Does that mean we can't discuss any of the possible contributing factors?

If somebody can show some group of people with in a larger group don't fit the profile does that eliminate that trait as a possible contributing factor for any behavior?

 

And I don't think anybody in this thread thinks or has claimed it is ONLY Islam, and I don't think Bill Maher is even trying to make that claim.

 

I think earlier articles show that Westerners who join tend to have other motivations other than religion to join and if there was a visible Christian or Jewish or Hindu group that was involved in conflict you would see people flock to them (as happened in Spain during the civil war) any highly publicized conflict will draw in people.

 

I would say that Islam is a secondary at best contribution, kind of like how Christianity and the bible was used to justify slavery before the civil war. Christianity and the bible had nothing to do with slavery under almost any interpretation but it was used to justify slavery (and later used to discredit it) because it was just another tool to try and hold onto economic, social, and political power all of which played much much larger roles in the continuation of slavery than Christianity ever could. My point isn't to equivocate it is to show that how religion and society interacts is an extremely complex subject that in my opinon is largely dependent on those other issues (social, economic, political) with religion being just one of the tools to maneuver within those realms. I think Islam is being used in the same way. I think if we can work to heal the scars of colonialism and authoritarianism we will see a precipitous drop in extemist Islam as a draw for people or as a power in the Middle East. I think most places where colonialism had a deep hold and colonial powers continue to look to exploit there is major violence, whether that be the CAR, DRC, or the Middle East and North Africa, there is violence because thats where colonialism was the deepest rooted and most destructive. The societies that emerged from the decolonization (which I would argue in many places never actually happened) continue to bear the scars.  

 

I would say I think the same is true from Islam PERIOD. That Islam was a simultaneously a political and religious movement at its origin.

That Muhammad was a both a religious and a political figure in a way not comparable with the early leaders of some of the other major world's religions.

And I think that might affect the possibility to separate the two.

I would argue that Judaism is just as/if not more political as it outlined specific laws and rights of the community and governenece. I think that since Christianity in its formation didn't really have autonomy over its community/social structures those laws and structures that are present in Islam and Judaism aren't really present I think Christianity absolutely emerged as a political movement and continued on in that tradiition it just isn't nearly as codified as Islam or Judaism.

EDIT: But if this is too much of a derail we can take it to PMs

[grego]

 

 kind of like how Christianity and the bible was used to justify slavery before the civil war. Christianity and the bible had nothing to do with slavery under almost any interpretation but it was used to justify slavery (and later used to discredit it)  

 

 

thank you for saying that. 

 

 

My point isn't to equivocate it is to show that how religion and society interacts is an extremely complex subject that in my opinon is largely dependent on those other issues (social, economic, political) with religion being just one of the tools to maneuver within those realms. I think Islam is being used in the same way. 

 

 

i agree that there is some truth to that. my only point is how the religious figures Jesus and Mohammed went about their lives. Mohammed became a sort of political and military leader. his words and actions during this time are, in at least some part, what radical fundamentalists are feeding off of. 

 

there is this sort of argument of equivalence that keeps popping up that is incredibly shallow. 

 

j, i dont think we are that far off in our opinions. thanks for your input. its informative and interesting. 

[codeorama]

thank you for saying that. 

 

 

 

i agree that there is some truth to that. my only point is how the religious figures Jesus and Mohammed went about their lives. Mohammed became a sort of political and military leader. his words and actions during this time are, in at least some part, what radical fundamentalists are feeding off of. 

 

there is this sort of argument of equivalence that keeps popping up that is incredibly shallow. 

 

j, i dont think we are that far off in our opinions. thanks for your input. its informative and interesting. 

 

In a lot of ways, its apples and oranges.  Muhammad was not just a religious leader, he was also the leader of an Empire.  Yes, it was a religious empire, but compared to Jesus, not the same.  I think this is one of the issues that people have (not understanding) when Islamic Civilization is taught in High School. I'm about to start that unit in a week.  People forget that during the middle ages, in western europe we are talking about Christian Empires/Kingdoms.  Jesus just doesn't happen to be around.  Muhammad was the religious and military leader so to speak. The sunni/shia split is basically because the Shia wanted a religious leader and the Sunni wanted a political/military leader.

[Elessar78]

 

Jews regard Jesus as an imposter. Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as a deity, divinity or son of God is incompatible with Judaism, as well as his Messiahship or his prophecy.

Catholics see him as an incarnation of God.

Muslims consider him a prophet.

These three visions are fundamentally different and irreconcilable.

Where did I say he needs the help of mortal to correct injustice ? I was quoting the confession of a muslim, pointing out the contradictions in Q'uran and the fact that it encourages the conquest of this world. Therefore it is very easy for the islamists to justify their actions and to proselytise.

 

Wasn't talking about "you" FrFan, just the general "you" (person who feels the need to act as an agent of God). 

 

Yes, the interpretation of Jesus is a big rift in the three monotheistic religions. When I refer to God, I refer to the God of Abraham. From Abraham's wives Jews descend from one path (Sarah/Isaac) and Muslims another (Hagar/Ishmael). And Christians later emerge from the Judaic line, so essentially all worshipping the same God but debating whose line is the "rightful" heir. 

[PeterMP]

My argument isn't that the poll is necessarily flawed numbers wise (although it might be because of the noted polling difficulties from the areas they polled and from the fact that it is a single poll) but rather that it only shows a snapshot without context.

Right, but you are trying to use that dismiss essentially multiple polls across multiple countries as you indicate below.

 

That obviously doesn't explain the high numbers in other countries but it shows a lot bigger part of the picture than just a poll number.

Even given those sorts of qualification (yes, that particular poll is a snap shot of what was happening in those countries at that point in time), do you think those sorts of numbers are good?

Do you think those sorts of numbers are similar to some of the other world's religions?

And do you think system(s) that have those sorts of beliefs are likely to generate other violent activity with respect to religion?

 

For the Al Qaeda numbers first I think its disengenous to lump the don't know/refuse to answer in with the support of Al Qaeda. Actual support is only 13% as is shown in your article. And of that 13 % I would wager a good bit of that is anti-imperialist or anti-west/American based rather than actual support for Al Qaeda (since Al Qaeda presents itself as an anti-imperialist/anti-west/protector of Muslims).

With respect to Lebanon, you have to remember that it is historically a pretty liberal country for the region. We aren't even seeing the numbers for the more conservative (and more stable) Saudi Arabia, but I'd strongly suspect, despite being more stable, the numbers are higher than the medians given.

The actual support is 13%, and then there is another 23% that don't know.

I'll point out that I've said let's take the unfavorable number to 85.5% (let's essentially dump all of the I don't knows into the unfavorable category).

Does that really change anything?

Do you think those numbers are good?

Do you think those sorts of numbers are similar to some of the other world's religions?

And do you think system(s) that have those sorts of beliefs are likely to generate other violent activity with respect to religion?

 

I think earlier articles show that Westerners who join tend to have other motivations other than religion to join and if there was a visible Christian or Jewish or Hindu group that was involved in conflict you would see people flock to them (as happened in Spain during the civil war) any highly publicized conflict will draw in people.

I had already said earlier in this thread that I think that part of the problem is likely that people that are prone to violence are going to be attracted to leaders that support violence as an acceptable solution to problems.

 

I would say that Islam is a secondary at best contribution, kind of like how Christianity and the bible was used to justify slavery before the civil war. Christianity and the bible had nothing to do with slavery under almost any interpretation but it was used to justify slavery (and later used to discredit it) because it was just another tool to try and hold onto economic, social, and political power all of which played much much larger roles in the continuation of slavery than Christianity ever could.

My point isn't to equivocate it is to show that how religion and society interacts is an extremely complex subject that in my opinon is largely dependent on those other issues (social, economic, political) with religion being just one of the tools to maneuver within those realms. I think Islam is being used in the same way. I think if we can work to heal the scars of colonialism and authoritarianism we will see a precipitous drop in extemist Islam as a draw for people or as a power in the Middle East. I think most places where colonialism had a deep hold and colonial powers continue to look to exploit there is major violence, whether that be the CAR, DRC, or the Middle East and North Africa, there is violence because thats where colonialism was the deepest rooted and most destructive. The societies that emerged from the decolonization (which I would argue in many places never actually happened) continue to bear the scars.

I don't strongly disagree with much of this, and you can read some of my posts in the ISIS thread, but I think dismissing it as secondary might be actually short changing its role.

I believe a good bit of US slavery was actually tied to racism and a desire of people not to be at societies bottom (eg. the belief that Africans were inferior and the fact that many poorer farmers that realistically were economically being hurt by slavery strongly supported slavery because there was a psychological component to not being at the bottom of the societal totem pole were strong reasons why slavery existed in the US) so the concepts and support weren't solely about power and economics, but larger psychological/natural/evolutionary tendancies too.

I also think that explains why racism and things like the KKK continued after the economics of the situation had been significantly altered.

However due to where and when Christianity was born, those concepts of supremacy by Europeans hadn't been integrated into Christianity.

Early Christians weren't going to write things that suggested that Europeans ha some sort of supremacy because they weren't Europeans.

I'm not sure that we aren't going to find there are similar psychological components to the violence with respect to Islamic extremists, but that it is more integrated into the belief system then the relevant concepts in Christianity with respect to slavery.

I'm not sure that's the case, but I wouldn't be shocked.

 

I would argue that Judaism is just as/if not more political as it outlined specific laws and rights of the community and governenece.

I think this is true, and I wonder if that isn't part of the reason that Israel is having some of the problems that it is having with respect to not being able to come to an agreement with the Palestinians.

The idea of Jewish state and having certain God given properties makes compromise that much harder where that is driven by the integration of the religious and political system.

 

At some level (and very generally and not universally, but for their more fundamental members), the Jews and Muslims have the same problems and that's current and historical relationship between the religion and the political system (and so the combination is really really bad).

 

I think that since Christianity in its formation didn't really have autonomy over its community/social structures those laws and structures that are present in Islam and Judaism aren't really present I think Christianity absolutely emerged as a political movement and continued on in that tradiition it just isn't nearly as codified as Islam or Judaism.

Well, we can quibble here. I'm not going to say that there was ZERO political component with respect to the origin of Christianity, but with respect to the level of politics, I think at some level the proof is in the pudding.

(And I think when you look at things like render on to Rome what is the Romes you can see that sort of distinction.)

There was no autonomy over its community/social structures because there was minimal desire to do it.

Even after Jesus, Paul could have started to collect his converts to some area and started to build a system that integrated them, but that's not what he was interested in doing.

And the result was the structure that you got with respect to Christianity.