Reading up on media accounts of ISI(S)(L) and Islam in general, this is a really interesting situation. The debate is so thoroughly polarized, as are manys view of Islam. Either it IS a violent religion and ISIS is an accurate representation thereof or it ISNT an inherently violent religion and ISIS is a tribal/political entity using Islam as a focus point, a tool for its goals. Of course the primary goal ISIS seems to be to set up an Islamic State (actually, a Caliphate, which seems a bit more extreme and ominous). But, some will argue even then, that Islam, since it doesnt always manifest this way (Turkey, Indonesia,) isnt to blame for ISIS. They might point out that Christianity isnt to blame for Fred Phelps picketing of soldiers funerals. That there are plenty of peaceful Christians (the majority, actually, unless you consider U.S. forays into the Middle East in part a manifestation of the wish to push a Western value system there). Of course, there were the Crusades. Seems a good analogue to current Radical Islamist behavior. Yes, long ago, but thats not altogether relevant. Again, Christians launched an assault on lands foreign for the glory of their God. Was Christianity any less to blame for those than Islam is for ISIS? Hamas (less clear.)? Were both of these examples simply cases of aggressive men using the most effective mind control tool in history for their own ends? Would they simply find another tool if this one werent available, or does the tool make the work possible and become itself part of the problem? Is this a God Control debate? (Gods dont kill people. People do.) Is the Christian Right doing the same thing? Using the tool of religion to shore up the conservative (white) vote and maintain some control over the country? Back to Islam. The great, great majority of Muslims arent violent. On the other said, Bill Maher, in a discussion with Charlie Rose, said that even in Egypt, a moderate Muslim country with minimal religious violence, 80 percent of those polled thought that those leaving Islam should be put to death. Cant confirm this, but it raises the question. What if half the proponents of a religion are violent? 20%? 80%? How does this change the approach? Should it? As Im writing this, Ebola comes to mind. Its only affecting a small percentage of the population of Africa right now. Does that mean we dont take it seriously, or that it is not, in and of itself, dangerous? That said, Ebola is inherently destructive. Islam isnt, at least directly, unless you consider that all religion has the seeds of violence in it if its used (in)correctly to divide and inspire. Islam isnt inherently violent. The QurAn is, of course, but so, of course, is the Bible. Old and New Testament, if you look for it. But what if it increases the capacity/tendency for violence? Read this book Zen in the Art of Archery in high school. Dude (not his actual name) described Zen as, roughly (and I mean roughly) the dissolution of the illusion of the binary. Subject and object. Target and Archer are one. Bow and Archer are one. That sorta thing. Thinking out loud here (for this whole screed, too, of course.) Maybe this question of whos to blame is inherently doomed. Guns dont kill people. They make it a whole lot easier, to be sure, but its the marriage of people and guns that kill people. Gods dont kill people, but their marriage with their followers can be explosive. Religion isnt inherently violent or dangerous. But when mixed by evil chemists with with those that would react strongly, it can become a potent weapon. Right now, the Muslim world seems to be more reactive. So? No clue.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:16:52 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015