It would be better if this author spelled out WHY that conclusion is valid, rather than simply stating it so. That's the kind of insight the world could use right about now.

Sometimes people really aren't Scotsman, even though they claim some link.

I think he does a good job of spelling out why this is the case.

(Qanta Ahmed is a woman)

I've re-read it. I looked for any hidden folds. There's no second page. It just ends with this:

"Recent events have left me able to draw only one conclusion: Islamism – the radical impostor form of my religion – has declared war on Islam."

While doing nothing to support that claim. For instance, there's no material whatever to support the idea that her 'beautiful religion' is actually in keeping with her personal interpretation of it, and not with the 'extremists'. I could cite some evidence, such as the vast bulk of the more than 1bn muslims in the world being happy, normal, non-terrorist/extremists. She didn't even do that much. There's nothing here but a bare assertion.

Islamophobia concerns me as any radical persecution of any group concerns me. The world could use more information on who is who in this fight, and why, and what sources of support each group has for their claims/interpretations of the religion at hand.

(And islam is not alone in this, one could make similar interpretive inquiries into the balance between the vast bulk of Christianity, and the dominionists, who have gotten us into some serious foreign policy pickles over the years.)

I agree with you point about this not being unique to Islam. The same distinction can be made between the extremists of the WBC and the rest of Christianity.

They represent a sect that is, in the end, destructive to and in conflict with the bulk of people living under that tent.

I think there is most likely data that shows that the majority of people who describe themselves a muslim do not embrace the extremists ideology of ISIS. Perhaps she did not feel the need to point that out, assuming that everyone pretty much knows that.

Saudis used to run telethons for him, like the one Jerry Lewis ran for years.

What about Assad and ISIL?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11051566/How-Assad-helped-the-rise-of-his-foe-Isil.html

Go back to the Old Testament. Priests were the PTB, including Moses and Aaron. Go to the New Testament. The puppet rulership of Israel was hand in hand with the clergy in crucifying Jesus, while Pontius Pilate hypocritically washed his hands of Jesus's blood.

The Roman Empire was a struggle between the Roman Emperors as pagan leaders, even pagan gods (the Caesars), then as Christian leaders, then as Christian leaders who ceded power after power to the Pope.

Henry VIII, first getting the Pope to validate the beheadings of his wives, then, when the Pope and Britis clergy finally refused to keep going along, declared himself head of the Church of England.

The PTB have always used religion and sometimes vice versa.


Edited to add this link re funding of Al Q'aeeda by the Saudis. http://fas.org/irp/crs/RL32499.pdf

I don't think the Saudis were the only ones in the Middle East funding them, though. For that matter, we funded them for a time.

political purposes.

The irony of the Church of England, founded by Henry VIII, so he could get rid of his wives almost at will, was that a King who was also head of the Church of England, had to get rid of both his crown and his religious authority, in order to marry a divorced woman. And then there was Princess Margaret, who could not marry the man she loved because he was divorced, even though the likelihood of her ascending to the throne was remote.

And then, there is Prince Charles, divorced and married to a divorced woman, and still first in line to be King of England and Head of the Church of England.

Sigh.

The Henry did this is the quest for a son. The leader that succeeded him was Elizabeth, daughter of the executed Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth proved to be the leader who arguably was responsible for the Zenith of British power, unless you want to argue that another Queen named Victoria deserves that honor.

I don't think Henry did it all in quest for a son, though. I think he "fell in love" often.

One strengthens and fosters the other, and both seem to get more extreme in the process.

at least I hope that is what I am seeing.

While the relationship has been intensely symbiotic for many years, I think there is some movement towards the middle within the Republican party and that means a move away from religious extremism.

It may be the death knell for the party, as it could result is a significant schism.

And there is evidence that evangelical groups are also taking news positions, including environmentalism.

All part of the pendulum swing.

I think our only point of disagreement is whether ISIS represents the PTB. Regardless, I do believe they are exploiting religion.

ISIS are currently the main power in a limited part of Iraq, which is quite bad enough. They would love to have more extensive power.

When I think of PTB, I think of those people that have a control over the power that is relatively legitimate. Extremists don't generally fit that definition, imo.

Of course they would love to have more power, and I do think that their use of religion to promote their cause is at least partially one of convenience as opposed to conviction.

but rather those whose wealth or accumulated underground power allows them either to circumvent legitimate power or to bend it to their own purposes.

For example, those in the deep state, the intelligence community (groups that overlap in many ways) and the MIC are a large component of TPTB. Also, the wealthiest individuals and corporations are part of TPTB because they have a lot of (illegitimate) power that enables them to force their will on the nation, in spite of any resistance from those whose power would be considered legitimate.

who have been elected into positions of power, wouldn't it.

I have not considered underground or subversive groups to be TPTB. Having been involved with those groups earlier in my life, I have always considered them to be the groups that fight TPTB.

supposed to hold that power. Big banking interests are among TPTB in our society, too, which is why nothing happens to them when they nearly tank the entire world's economy. (It's good to be the king.)

The MIC are TPTB because they can drag us into wars that the American people don't want and even most of the politicians who vote for it don't want. Arms manufacturers--as part of the MIC and as the puppetmasters of the NRA--can force the most ridiculous misapplication of the 2nd Amendment, despite the will of huge majorities of the American people. They have more power than we do and more power than the politicians in high office do.

The intelligence community (at least those who run it by way of the deep state) are TPTB because they collect information on everyone and use it as leverage to control those who supposedly wield legitimate power, in ways J. Edgar Hoover could never have imagined. I am quite sure that a lot of that data is used to blackmail politicians and judges into doing whatever the real PTB want done.

Large corporations are TPTB because they can write the laws that supposedly regulate them, so that we cannot control or even limit the growth of their power. They can induce Supreme Court justices to hand them even more power, even though the Supreme Court is supposed to protect us by defending the Constitution--including our rights. And since so much of the media are owned and controlled by huge corporations, they can use their propagandistic messaging power to control the responses of the population, which also enables them to wield control over politicians and policies.

Occupy Wall Street was a protest against one aspect of TPTB. They didn't consider the politicians who serve Wall Street to be TPTB, but merely to be their lackeys, just as the LEOs that brutalized OWS and the Ferguson protesters are merely the servants of TPTB, not the actual PTB.

ISIS is not part of TPTB--but that is what they want to be. I doubt they will pull it off in the long run, though. They are just a particularly showy insurgency.

So back to the initial area of disagreement, I don't think ISIS or other terrorists groups really fit the definition of TPTB. They control in a limited way by using fear. While that is a kind of power, it seems distinctly different to me than the MIC, the intelligence community or banks. As you say, they may want to be and may use anything at their disposal to move towards that position, but they are highly unlikely to succeed, imo.

riot and gettign away with it. They will be swatted, and though they will NOT be "ended," their run of visible battle successes will end, and they will become a less cohesive collection of terrorist groups, mostly scattered around rather than located in the same area.

There is an underlying problem here that is not being addressed, though I make no claim to knowing the solution.

all over the place and, imo, can be fashioned in a way to fit just about any group that wields power.

In terms of the post that initiated this, I think she was referring more to thinks like the saudi monarchy and not to terrorist groups like ISIS.

strictly adhering to the Koran, be as valid a version of Islam as the authors? She is free to follow her version, but with whole nations following a different version, to say that isn't valid seems insupportable.
She is still just having a theological debate within Islam.

I don't think so.

law to be perversions of Islam's true nature, too, so yes, the reference to a whole nation is pertinent to the argument.

She talks about beheadings in Saudi Arabia.
It's not her Islam, but it is a lot of peoples Islam.
So she is wrong to say it doesn't represent Islam, it's just not how she follows it.

I don't think so. I think it's extremists and only compromises a small minority.

I think most Muslims are horrified by these beheadings.

What does "represent" mean? I think she speaks correctly.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, parts of Pakistan, Yemen, etc... follow this?

Is that like the small percentage of Americans who are Bible literalists, which turns out to be about 30%.

It's a minority of Muslims, but not small.

And theologically, why is it less valid?

Yes, I think it is a minority of the population in those countries.

You said "a lot of people's Islam".

Taking the bible literally is not the same as endorsing beheadings and terrorism. Do you think 30% of Muslims endorse what ISIS is doing? Do you have any shred of evidence that would support such a claim?

I'm not making judgements on theological validity here and not sure where you got that idea.

I am, however, making judgements on actions.

I was talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, which was the subject of the article.
A country which also beheads innocent people. And is not only supported by it's citizens, but but us as well.

Forget the Bible/Islam thing, I was making a different point, but it's a tangent that we don't need to dwell on.

This might interest you;

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Shariah

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_countries_use_Sharia_Law

Many other Islamic nations that do not apply Sharia (such as Azerbaijan, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan) have large portions of their population who do want it applied or who actively seek to abide by it extra-legally.

Although she talks of the beheadings done by government early on, what she is really addressing is current events, as she clearly explains in the end.

I'm not going to defend Sharia Law or the countries that have death penalties for blasphemy. While very disturbing, they do not reach the extremes of the groups she describes.

I think she is clearly talking about both national and extra-national terrorism.
I think she is definitely addressing Saudi Arabia as well as ISIS. (Which she doesn't even name, just refers to current event.) And spends more time on the beheadings in Arabia than by ISIS.
So I guess we have a different reading on what she is saying.

There is no census/analysis of the religious makeup of Saudi Arabia, so we can only generally estimate the size of majority sects. Impossible to delve deeper into 'how many hold extremist views', however defined.

View into that data is mostly opaque.

But having traveled pretty extensively, including to Muslim countries, I have come to believe that no matter where you are, the vast majority of people are kind, loving and want peace and a safe place to raise their families.

Extremists are by definition not representative of the majority.

She is falling for "No true Scotsman." She can argue that Islam would never, ever allow this. Indeed, as far as Muhammad goes (peace be up him) I can hardly imagine the guy who said "the ink of the Scholar is worth more than the blood of the martyr" would be in isis. The problem is, isis would behead him, as the Inquisition would burn Jesus, as some hardline Zionists might stone Moses. The problem with ideas is that they are subjective, which means if you get enough people to agree on something, it become the common perception. It does not matter what person A wrote, but how the ones who take control can convince people he wrote.

It does not even have to be religion proper. Marx is noted for saying "I am not a Marxist", not because he disowned his ideas, but because he got sick of seeing his ideas twisted into something he never wanted. Good thing he died before Stalin took over, else he might have ended up like Leonid Trotsky, another person that probably thought he knew what his ideas were, even as he was murdered in the name of those ideas.

Let's be honest, it is easy to get masses around the idea of killing people and oppressing them, it was natural to us long before the God of Abraham was ever born in the meme-making mind of man.

is there anything wrong with pointing out that subgroups are perverting what most people believe about a certain religion or philosophy? Is there anything wrong with the majority loudly raising their voices in protest and trying to eliminate or at least marginalize the radical minority?

Ideas are subjective to a degree, but evil is evil and sometimes that can be determined pretty objectively.

And I will first focus on another group to show this is in no way meant to target Islam alone.

There are Catholics whose charities are the only people willing to feed the homeless in some areas, to protest war, and no many other things that frankly, I would love to see some of the Humanists do. Granted, you can argue that a secular government should indeed make them unnecessary, but the need is still there, and we are not going to yell at a homeless person or orphan and say "How dare you make these people look good!"

And then there are the Catholics that beat Gay people up, that demonize and degrade women and minorities. Who would bring back the days of the coat hanger abortionist, and how sadly infiltrate politics from the pulpit. I still remember posting about the mass grave of infants in Ireland, the handiwork of the "Magdalene" laundries, and getting some responses that frankly, if there is a hell, would have made Lucifer pop open Champagne in joy!

The point is, as much as we would love to separate the Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sides of religion, we cannot, but those in power count on the fact that their flock will NOT depose them, or even oppose them directly. They will use No true Scotsman to say that a criminal that happens to be a reverend/rabbi/mullah needs to be protected, or else the outside world will barge in like some rabid horde! Meanwhile, as much as "Good people" will sincerely try to curtail the thugs in their midst, the head clergy will defend them, for they know that a person who does good deeds will always be outranked in value by the ones willing to do the CRIMES that MAINTAIN POWER.

No, I am not saying we need to do pogroms against all religious people, but we have every right, and indeed, a duty, to remind any group that they are accountable to a force higher than they are. No amount of idealism or good intentions will undo the harm cause when a mob of willing fools connects with corrupt or megalomaniac leaders be they Mullah, priests, Rabbis, New Agers, or even Humanists like Dawkins who spout off hurtful, sexist things that he is smart enough to know can cause harm.

I think it is relatively easy to make the distinctions, just as you have done in your first two paragraphs. Those in power are challenged by their flocks and, as a consequence, may make some much needed changes.

History shows that your argument fails. The RCC has taken a much stronger stand on pedophilia. The LDS church changed it's position on African Americans. Denominations across the country are taking up the cause of GLBT civil rights.

There are some evil "head clergy" that will act as you describe, but there are also very good "head clergy" that will loudly oppose what they see as religion being used to harm others.

I think we agree that we have a responsibility to challenge any group that seeks to infringe on the rights of others, whether they use religion as their platform or not.

The ONLY reason those changes you list were made was because it was made very clear that if the head clergy did NOT make these changes, the Religion AS A WHOLE would be affected. A crucial part of this is the fact that while some stayed in the church to make reform, others were willing to "vote with their feet" and leave the churches if the leadership kept showing they did not care. The Catholics were especially affected, as many ex Catholics went to other churches because Rome showed a stubbornness to avoid listening to people. Yes, now under cute little pope Francis, the Church has taken a "strong stand" against Pedophilia, but it took the outright ouster of Pope Benedict, a person who was literally mired in the scandal, whose actions as a "humble" Bishop literally stained his hands red with blood, and who provoked an outright rage.

Power is what the head clergy care for. Yes, the LDS changed it's stance, but that was because, like the Catholics, they saw Brazil and Africa as the next growth area, and they know they had to abandon their stance if they wanted to grow there.

In the case of Islam, I am fully aware that many Muslims are disgusted, not just by isis, but by the many wolves in sheep's clothing that have power in the faith that were established long before the "Islamic state" was around. However, all the good that those working "on the inside" will do is nothing unless the powers that be realize that if they keep marginalizing and patronizing those "good folks", there are those on the outside that will pull down the church walls. Martin Luther King was one of the closest 20th Century America had to a Saint, but what helped is that those in power knew that if they did not work with MLK, Malcolm X and Huey Newton were going to come to the table, and they would NOT be polite.

organization.

People do leave churches and the history of schisms is extensive. But, imo, that keeps the evolution of the institutions going.

Power drives lots of things, but it is not the only driving factor. "Cute little Pope Francis", as you so dismissively call him, seems to have some very sincere beliefs and, in fact, seems quite similar to his namesake in many ways. St. Francis openly and defiantly challenged the catholic church at a time when there was a high level of corruption.

There are all kinds of people like MLK who have done incredible works and were driven by their religious beliefs. The fact that you recognize the most well known one from the US and don't see to recognize that there are men and women like this around the globe is not surprising, but it is unfortunate.

Religion is here to stay. It is important, imo, that the good about religion be recognized and supported, while the bad is challenged. Those that see it as all good and those that see it as all bad are equally dangerous, imo.

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

It's okay for the majority to silence the minority?
Or are you sure God approves of one and not the other?

a poor way to have a discussion. If you need clarification on what I am saying, just ask me.

I am not saying that it's ok for the majority to silence the minority or anything even close to that.

And I am absolutely not saying anything at all about god approving of one thing and not another.

Now, did you want to ask me a question, or would you prefer to draw assumptions and then pin them on me?

in the form of a question.
So you are saying? I should have proof read it.
What did this mean? " Is there anything wrong with the majority loudly raising their voices in protest and trying to eliminate or at least marginalize the radical minority? "
I do understand the sentiment in this case. But as a general statement it gives me pause.

I think it's important that the majority of Muslims who are peace loving, kind, rational, loving people stand up against the war mongering, hostile, violent, irrational and hateful minority. Is that a problem?

You read this as my saying that majority rules and should silence minorities, but I think you know that that is not what I was saying at all.

an argument that "true religion" is defined by numbers of advocates - an ad populum fallacy. You and the author can't get away from the plain fact that the vile religionists have just as valid a claim to "religious truth" as progressive religionists, as there is no objective means to determine "religious truth". You can claim that the wahabbi sunnis are "perverting islam", but their view is equally valid that the rest of islam is the perversion.

The demographics of religion do not support your claim of a majority position anyway.

because it can be interpreted any which way.

We hashed this all out in the Enlightenment.

We shouldn't give any credence to religious fundies of any stripe.

the murderous ones, but one of the problems that nonviolent Muslims have is that if they speak out against the violent Islamists, and those guys happen to take note of the criticism, there is a real risk that the moderate Muslim will be targeted for killing.

I get annoyed at the many reasonable Christians who do not think they have a responsibility to denounce the fundamentalist extremists who pervert the message of Jesus, their proclaimed god and turn it into screaming hatred and wealth worship. I cut such "moderate" Christians no slack because they could safely point out how far the materialistic and hateful words and actions of such extremists really are from Jesus's real message. But I actually sympathize with Muslims who deplore violence and killing but are afraid to say so out loud for fear of being tortured and/or killed.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about an imam who was killed because he stood in the mosque and denounced terrorists for killing innocents.

While there are moderate and liberal and progressive christians who do denounce the fundamentalists in this country, I would also like to see more.

Your point about the risks is very important. This author takes a chance just by publishing this article. That is not the case with christians in the US.

That's the problem. The Islamic version of the KKK hold power in much of the MidEast and ruthlessly protect that power through strongman intimidation displays like public beheadings.