#OklahomaCity
168 killed
680 injured

#7/7

If you're only able to respond by listing outlying tragedies, we could go back and forth forever. Let me take a whack at it:

#Hiroshima

170,000 dead

#9/11

The hashtags and the accusations that your interlocutors lack empathy fall flat when you give the impression of someone who hates Islam more than he hates violence. Which brings to mind Nigel Farage's recent objection to Trump's response to Assad's chemical attack, which included the line "Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular." Subtext: "But, he's only killing Islamists. Shut up and let him get on with it." How very Christian of you, Nigel.

Edit: (Notice Farage putting himself in moral equivalence with an Islamist who would object to military action against ISIS on the grounds "Whatever ISIS's sins, they are Muslim." But there it is, the Islamists and their counterparts on the other side, the Islamophobes, are selective in their moral outrage because they are more interested in being outraged than being moral.)

Spot on.

The scale of terrorism related deaths are relatively minuscule compared to austerity policies enacted by governments of a certain political leaning in order to bring about privatisation-by-stealth, to give only one example (US gun-related deaths being another). Once you take this into account, you realise that quoting numbers is the very thing that reveals it's not really the numbers people care about. It's who is responsible for them. There's less cognitive dissonance involved for a right-wing mind (there is such a thing) to direct their anger, fear and prejudice towards minorities than towards politicians of the kind they like to vote for.

People were outraged when Lee Rigby was killed, and as tragic as it was, that one single murder was given the weight of an entire chapter in the book of How Muslims Are An Existential Threat To Western Values. Yet when Tory austerity cuts to the NHS result in 30,000 deaths, most people haven't even heard about it.

It's intensely interesting to me to see how people's political persuasions are actually a fairly reliable predictor of where they stand on the 'Muslim Problem', and how much weight they give to it. No one thought our very way of life was under threat when it was the IRA shooting and bombing people for decades. But when ISIS makes a few internet propaganda videos and kills a relatively small number of people, it's 'Islam' that becomes the greatest threat to the west.

I understand that some deaths are more 'visible' than others (100 people being run over by a Muslim in one day is more visible than 30,000 people per year dying due to health care cuts), and that's the point. There is a massive problem with public perception. But 30,000 quiet deaths in hospital due to funding cuts doesn't sell papers (or get clicks) does it? If it bleeds it leads, especially if it's done by one of those people. Because that's the propaganda the readership wants to be sold.

I find the idea of radical terrorism being Islamic rather ironic, as the justification for it was actually a Christina doctrine first.

Augustine's Doctrine of Secular Law as a Danger to Faith

In "City of God" (ca. 400AD), Augustine started the process by denying the idea of a mythical golden age, as originally stated by Hesiod (ca. 700BC), because it was contrary to Biblical Eden. The golden age was the basis of theories of rational law (such as Cicero's in 50BC), which use the goal of a new golden age to justify the righteousness of punishment. Then Augustine substituted a personal divine law of salvation in place of the golden goal. Augustine reasoned that no mortal, secular justice could ever be meaningful, by comparison to the far better achievement of all attaining eternal life. That first part much might have been OK by itself, but Augustine then went further to add a second part. He claimed that secular justice is not the virtue it appears to be, but rather results from the first deadly sin, pride, and thus is not safe, and moreover a danger to faith itself. He even went as far to call secular justice a 'weakness, plague, and disease/'.

The resemblance of at least the first half of Augustine's thought to Islamic doctrine might not be a coincidence. The consequences of the second half of this doctrine, in both religions, has been rather similar. In the West, this specific doctrine was a primary force leading to the Dark Ages, and the supremacy of divine law slowly eradicated all secular practices until the reformation. In the Middle East, there was an attempt by some, such as Averroes, to reconstruct secular law, but sectarianism caused the collapse of the Moor civilization and such notions were abandoned, leading to the current situation.

Did Mohammed directly coopt Augustinian Doctrine into Islam?

If one considers the topic without bias, it is not unreasonable to postulate that Mohammed actually picked up the first part of this doctrine from Augustine's doctrine directly, and acknowledging that would go a long way to resolving problems which the second part is still causing. So before discussing the real issue, the possibility of 'direct transmission' is first explored.

With all the Christians killed for public enjoyment in Roman games, one might be sympathetic with Augustine's condemnation of human law. Augustine was certainly well received at the time. He was incredibly popular, and his message indisputably powerful. His ideas spread like wildfire, as new and ever larger armies of evangelists took his message to all corners of the earth, unafraid of suffering or death, due the far greater joy of bringing others to eternal life. This of course included Syria, where St. Paul famously received his conversion.

At the time of Mohammed's birth, Syria had become a prosperous province of the Byzantine empire. Mohammed was taken to Syria as a child, so he first encountered the glowing promises of eternal life there somewhere around the age of 10 (~580AD). By that time Syria had perhaps a quarter million Christians in about a hundred different ecclesiastical systems, so it's really impossible to know what he specifically encountered there, except for one meeting with a heretical Christian hermit who named him the new living God. Details have been recast by generations of both Christians and Muslims in accordance with their own beliefs, so now there are half a dozen legends that describe the specific facts in rather incompatible manners. What we do know is that Mohammed was not a scholar himself, and was never taught Latin or Greek, or even how to read and write. So he would have learned whatever he did about Christianity from derivative sources in sermons and personal accounts by the Christians of the time.

When Mohammed was about 40 years old, he then wrote the 'pulpit rhetoric' equivalent of Augustine's more academically stated conclusions in "City of God," most prominently in a Surah sometimes labeled as 'the citadel,' or 'the fortress.' Most major cities were already walled by then, so the correlation with Augustine's 'City of God' is so obvious, it is rather puzzling why no one else points it out.

In the Middle East, derivative rhetoric persists to this day, and it is on these specific passages in the Qur'an about divine law of salvation superseding secular law that radical Islamic terrorism draws the most, using exactly the same Augustinian concepts which caused the Roman Empire to collapse.

The Christian Precedence for Justifying Terrorism

Whether such a notion was directly inspired by Augustinian thought or not, from the perspective of ideology, it was rather irrefutably Augustinian first. Augustine is a founding father of the Christian church, and this notion was part of his doctrine first, regardless how right or wrong it was then, or is now. It had the same consequences to Rome as it is having in Islam now. No one has ever challenged the power and influence of Augustine's "City of God" in causing the downfall of Rome. No one can challenge that Augustine's opinion of secular law is repeatedly cited in defense of radical Islamic terrorism. Thus I can stand behind the assertion that Radical Islamic Terrorism is caused by Christian doctrine with fair confidence.

you give the impression of someone who hates Islam — Baden

You raise a question in my mind: May one hate Islam? May one hate Christianity? May one hate atheism? May one hate capitalism or communism? May one hate... any number of things?

Granted, when one hates something one is likely to simply the object, probably distort the picture of what one hates, and overlook positive aspects which one--in a different context--might be tolerant of, or even like. None of that is good practice of course. None the less, most of us have a list of things we love, hate, and have negative and positive feelings for, in varying degrees.

I don't think I hate Islam, but I don't like it. I don't like very conservative Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants either. I approach mild hate towards these groups.

There are practical reasons to avoid hate. Hate may lead one (or many) into ill-considered actions which they will later regret, for good reason. Picking a hate-fight with the wrong people may lead to one getting a proper beating, or worse.

Hate is incompatible with a pluralistic society. But do I have to desire a pluralistic society? Can one reasonably or legitimately prefer less plurality of ethnicity, religion, politics, and so on? There are times I blanch when I hear "diversity". I often feel like there is just a bit too much diversity, and a little more homogenization wouldn't be a bad thing.

Any guidance here?

What am I, a priest? ;) Of course, we all hate all sorts of things. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. I have no problem with that. We just don't get to take the moral high ground over others if our motivations are based more on the fact that we hate the other team rather than that they've committed a foul. I already said earlier I don't like any form of religion, but seeing as this discussion pits two religions I don't like (but don't hate either) against each other, I feel I can blow my whistle without fear of favour.

Can one reasonably or legitimately prefer less plurality of ethnicity, religion, politics, and so on? — Bitter Crank

One can legitimately prefer anything and be legitimately liked or disliked for it. But laws affect everyone, so if you want to enforce preferences on society that affect those you'd rather not have around, be prepared for a fight.

There is actually very little support for human law in Islamic theology. The Maturidi school, the second largest school of Sunni theology, is the only sect of Islam that posits the existence of a form of natural law. Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Uzbekistan, 853–944) stated that the human mind could know of the existence of God and the major forms of 'good' and 'evil' without the help of revelation. Al-Maturidi gives the example of stealing, which is known to be evil by reason alone due to man's working hard for his property. Killing, fornication, and drinking alcohol were all 'evils' the human mind could know of, according to al-Maturidi.

The concept of Istislah in Islamic law superficially appears to be natural law. However, whereas natural law deems good what is self-evidently good, according as it tends towards the fulfilment of the person, istislah calls good whatever is connected to one of five "basic goods". Al-Ghazali (Iraq and Syria, 1058–1111) abstracted these "basic goods" from the legal precepts in the Qur'an and Sunnah as religion, life, reason, lineage and property (some add also honor). Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (Syria, 1292–1350) also posited that humans can discern between 'great sins' and good deeds without divine guidance. Major sins, such as alcohol and murder, can be understood as wrong by process of reason.

However, in Sunni theology, the Maturidi school remains smaller and less powerful than the Ash'aris school. The Ash'aris state that the unaided human mind is unable to determine if something is good or evil, lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral, without the direct aid of divine revelation.

Thus, although there are some who argue for an ability to understand law, rather than simply submit to it, it still remains a minority in Islam altogether.

Intentions matter, so it's not primarily a numbers game. Right now, the threat of theocratic Islam is of far greater concern than so-called "austerity" measures because of the intentions of those involved. The only thing stopping Islamic terrorists from murdering far more people than they have is the means at their disposal to do so. Give a terrorist a knife and he will plan to slit the infidel's throat. Give him a gun and he will plan to go on a shooting rampage. Give him a truck and he will plan to run people over. Give him a plane and he will plan to fly it into important buildings. Give him a nuclear bomb and he will plan to drop it on a city, perhaps your city. The intentions are precisely the same in each scenario, only the outcomes are different. This is why they must be extirpated post haste, and I find it astonishing that it even needs to be said that a government cutting funding for a program is not at all equivalent to Islamic terrorists murdering people.

Remember too that there are no final solutions in life, only trade-offs. Cutting a program may lead to good thing X but exacerbate or cause bad thing Y. Likewise, not cutting a program may lead to good thing A but exacerbate or cause bad thing B. There is no Deus ex machina to make everything right. Elected officials make decisions by weighing costs and benefits, consulting the available evidence, and taking into consideration the views of the electorate. They don't sit around, like Islamic theocrats do, thinking about how they can murder people. Good grief.

Well, As I said above, it is not Islamic. It is Christian doctrine that has distorted Islam.

I'm somewhat fascinated by how religious reform, revisionism, and reinterpretation is informed by individual bits (sometimes single lines/verses) of the hard coded doctrine. I view religious doctrine (a body of) as a kind of genomic database of different "genes" that can each have their own complex and convoluted impact on how a given religion winds up expressing itself in a given human environment. Like genes, the more something specific is repeated within the doctrine, the more strongly it will tend to be pronounced in the beliefs and behavior of it's adherents. Additionally, specific "genes" can exist within a given religious genome but lay dormant, having little or no impact on the resulting form of the overall religious organism. Finally you can have an individual line of code that causes totally different effects at different times and in different environments; their effect is ambiguous or indeterminate.

O you believe, obey God and obey the messenger and also those in charge among you" — Qur'an: 4:59

This verse in particular I have seen used to claim that it is considered sharia to obey the law of the land you are in. I'm not sure if and how much reinterpretation might be required to squeeze that meaning out, but once squeezed and accepted has vast and sweeping implications about many other tenants that some Muslims hold has more important (namely a desire for theocracy itself). It can also be possibly useful as a seed of secularism.

The trends and characteristics of religious behavior are undeniably shaped and possibly somewhat constrained by religious doctrine, but the statistical variance that results from specific doctrines is undeniably vast. To me this paints a picture of a religious world which is highly unconcerned with reason and truth (of and from their own doctrines) which means they must get something else out of religion instead (as a whole, not on an individual level). Individually a religious scholar can be (or seem) entirely concerned with the objective truth of their religious texts, but should they come to an enlightened and rational new interpretation they would still need to convince a crowd of their fellow apes to all think the same way and at the same time for their change to come to fruition. It's much easier to sway a crowd using something which appeals to their existing emotional state than to use cold and rigid logic, which is why what emerges in overall religious trends might be just as much or more of an expression of what the people want than it is an expression of the actual religion.

Bringing this back to the point at hand, as extreme conflicts continue to play out in the middle east, it's likely not being lost on it's people that religion is playing a distinct role (religious differences seem to be how battle lines are most commonly drawn). More and more the idea that a human law designed to protect a religiously plural society will then be justifiable not just in the vacuum of enlightenment, but as a direct emotional appeal to those those who want to see an end to suffering. Early in heated religious conflicts firebrand verses appeal to anger and function as a call to arms, but in the bitter end, when all blood-lust is slaked and the bill is due, messages of forgiveness and peace become the main attractors. The peace of Westphalia brought an end to distinctly religious war in Europe because the thirty years war which preceded it caused human suffering and (state) welfare to become more real and more important than simply upholding the tenants of their conflicting doctrines and squabbling religious leaders. The current period in the history of Islam might have an effect not unlike the thirty years war, which should cause not only a heavy change in what pieces of doctrine are most focused on and valued (peace is at a premium), but also perhaps a general step back from orthodox interpretation of verses which condone violence or otherwise obfuscate peace.

There's more pressure on Islamic reformers than ever before and we get to watch it play out in a digitally recorded and interactive environment. I don't know much about the scope and spread of scholarly Islamic schools of thought, but how accessible to the average Muslim are they? The more accessible, the more I reckon they could be selected by Islamic preachers and patrons at large who look for ideology that suits their desires and the desires of their community.

and a little more homogenization wouldn't be a bad thing.

Any guidance here? — Bitter Crank

When the world was a much bigger place, we were much less homogeneous. The distances that separated us insulated us from the conflicts that naturally developed from collision between culturally disparate groups. The world is now smaller and homogeneity seems to be at a peek, (which logically is what you get from increased mixing). It's a good thing for sure; without it we fight.

Some people take pause though, and look back on lost culture as if it is some unique and impressive animal that is now extinct. "What a tragedy!", they think...

Then they set about categorizing every possible discrete cultural genesis as some sort of holy nature reserve which must be preserved in perpetuity so that our children can admire it.

Diversity can be interesting, and there's some value to stuffing a dodo bird, but it's of historical or aesthetic interest only. When a living group of people change, they should not lament that change unless they regret what they (we) have become. That might be where many people really disagree...

This is why they must be extirpated post haste, — Thorongil

(1) You use the words 'This is why', as if the sentence logically follows from what went before it. But it doesn't. The only conclusions that follow from what you wrote are 'don't give terrorists planes'. It seems to me that the West's governments have been pretty successful on that front over the last ten years or so.

(2) Athough your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, I think most people would agree with it, assuming that the 'they' you refer to is terrorists and by 'extirpated' you mean 'killed or imprisoned'. The question is, how do you plan to do that? I'm sure the West's security organisations would love to hear your ideas.

(3) Your post appeared to be an attempt to say that we should be more concerned about deaths from terrorism than deaths from other sources. But it gave no plausible reasons. Do you have any reasons? Can you make an even halfway plausible case that radical Muslims are likely to overthrow the governments of Western countries - which is what is implied by the hysterical term 'existential threat'? Remember that government overthrow by hostile powers was what we faced in WW2 and in the Cold War.

(1) You use the words 'This is why', as if the sentence logically follows from what went before it. But it doesn't. The only conclusions that follow from what you wrote are 'don't give terrorists planes'. It seems to me that the West's governments have been pretty successful on that front over the last ten years or so. — andrewk

Taking away their ability to use planes and the like just postpones having to actually solve the problem, much like taking away the Ring from Sauron. He's still going to be evil and pursue evil ends whether he has the full means at his disposal to achieve those ends or not. If there's blood flowing downstream in a river, your first reaction should not be to pour some decontaminates in the water. You ought to go to the source of the problem.

The question is, how do you plan to do that? I'm sure the West's security organisations would love to hear your ideas. — andrewk

There are a number of things the West could do. Force or pay the Gulf Arab states to accept refugees, instead of Europe. Shut down mosques that preach hatred and violence. France has recently begun to do this, but this needs to happen across the board. Along with that, cut off foreign funding coming from places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who pay for imams to come and preach in those mosques. Terrorist sympathizers should be tried for treason and booted out of Western countries if found guilty. Finally, you could simply cut off the snake's head by destroying ISIS. No more fake "red lines" and pretending like we're doing something. A relatively small Western force could knock both them and Assad out relatively quickly.

But it gave no plausible reasons — andrewk

Yes, I did. In fact, I italicized the reason.

Can you make an even halfway plausible case that radical Muslims are likely to overthrow the governments of Western countries — andrewk

I don't think this is likely. What's not unlikely, because it's already happened, is that radical Muslims will murder citizens in Western countries en masse.

. A relatively small Western force could knock both them and Assad out relatively quickly. — Thorongil

just like Saddam Hussein,right?


That said, I agree with many of the points you make. Earlier in this thread I was arguing that western governments are blinkered by a kind of false tolerance when it comes to accomodating Islam, and that there needs to be a discussion about reciprocal rights and recognition.

(It's a shame there wasn't a Koranic injunction against using anything other than swords in combat. Maybe that is something to float.)

Yes. The toppling of Saddam's regime was one of the swiftest military operations in history, made all the more remarkable given the tiny number of allied casualties and the fact that Iraq had the fourth most powerful military in the world at the time.

yes. But among the consequences was the rise of ISIS and the dimunition of both the will and the money to intervene in the Syria quagmire where it really might have made a difference. Meaning that, overall, W's invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy cock-up in American history. (And here was I, trying to agree with you.)

The rise of ISIS is a consequence of the US and her allies pulling out of Iraq in 2012. After almost every major war the US has fought, we have left behind a substantial peacekeeping force. Such forces still exist today in Germany, Japan, and Korea, for example. But Obama foolishly decided to completely pull out of Iraq, which left a vacuum for ISIS and others to fill.

I see that as Obama's effort to recover from W's warmongering and foolish adventurism, but let's admit we live on different planets and be done with it.

I had maintained from the get go that the US did not have the capacity to solve the problems of the Middle East. It wasn't that we lacked force; that we had (and still have). It was that we did not have the competence to sort out the internal conflicts and contradictions of Iraq or anybody else. We were not alone in this--I don't know who else had (has) both the competence and the ready force necessary. Certainly not Europe.

A big part of our problem is OIL. We most definitely do not want a collapse of the oil-producing infrastructure in the Middle East--not until the last affordable gallon has been sucked out and shipped to our refineries. Saudi Arabia still has a vital pool of oil under the sand, and we want to make sure it remains available to us. Consequently, the policy choices of those involved were probably blinkered. For instance, Saudi wealth supports the export of the extreme form of Wahhabism, which is a major piece of the radical islamic problem. Were we to plan (or have planned) for the end of oil which isn't in the distant future we could better see how much, or little, we really need the Saudi family.

Syria? Syria has been run by two generations of cannibalistic Assads. Apparently non-Syrians were happier with predictable cannibals than unpredictable non-cannibals. Which seems like a pretty succinct summary of Middle-eastern policy: Let vicious dogs lie, as long as they don't inconvenience us. A million refugees, flooding into Europe -- now that's inconvenience.

I had maintained from the get go that the US did not have the capacity to solve the problems of the Middle East. It wasn't that we lacked force; that we had (and still have). It was that we did not have the competence to sort out the internal conflicts and contradictions of Iraq or anybody else. We were not alone in this--I don't know who else had (has) both the competence and the ready force necessary. Certainly not Europe. — Bitter Crank

I think you hit the nail on the head there )

Personally though I don't think military force can solve the problem. I think it is a problem with education. Most of the recruited terrorists in the Middle East have trouble with reading and writing.

Augustine reasoned that no mortal, secular justice could ever be meaningful, by comparison to the far better achievement of all attaining eternal life. That first part much might have been OK by itself, but Augustine then went further to add a second part. He claimed that secular justice is not the virtue it appears to be, but rather results from the first deadly sin, pride, and thus is not safe, and moreover a danger to faith itself. He even went as far to call secular justice a 'weakness, plague, and disease/'. — ernestm

I presume this is from 'the City of God'?

If one considers the topic without bias, it is not unreasonable to postulate that Mohammed actually picked up the first part of this doctrine from Augustine's doctrine — ernestm

Do you know if Augustine had been translated into Arabic at this time, or if Mohammed read Greek? I think it's unlikely; Augustine died in 430, Mohammed lived from 570-630. I had thought the Greek works hadn't been translated into Arabic until a much later time. I have an open mind, but I think unless it has been established that Mohammed had been influenced by Augustine, it's a pretty big conclusion to jump to. (I would think that this is something that comparative religionists would know about.)

The Ash'aris state that the unaided human mind is unable to determine if something is good or evil, lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral, without the direct aid of divine revelation. — ernestm

That was also the Christian view - prior to the European Enlightenment, anyway. There is an interesting study called The Fall of Man and the Origin of Science (Peter Harrison), which argues that 'the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, Harrison suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by sin.'

A similar idea of the inherent unreliability of unaided reason was behind the controversial Syllabus of Errors published in 1964, which condemned the propostion that 'Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil (among many others).

Nevertheless, I take your general point about the tension between secular and religious law.

I don't think this is likely. What's not unlikely, because it's already happened, is that radical Muslims will murder citizens in Western countries en masse. — Thorongil

The number of casualties from which have been far, far, fewer than from issues like the one WhiskeyWhiskers pointed out, and many other tragedies that Western governments continue to neglect simply because they don't make as exciting news copy as terrorism does.

If that's the worst that's likely to happen, the issue of dealing with terrorism can get in the queue behind those other issues. Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths?

Finally, you could simply cut off the snake's head by destroying ISIS. — Thorongil

You know it's not simple. If it were simple it would have been done.

I presume this is from 'the City of God'? — Wayfarer

Yes

Do you know if Augustine had been translated into Arabic at this time, or if Mohammed read Greek? — Wayfarer

I thought I had answered that when I revised that post from the last set of questions. Please let me know how I was unclear.

You didn't answer any question. You speculated that Islam might have been influenced by Augustine's City of God. Do you have any actual facts to support that? Citations? References? That kind of thing.

Did Mohammed directly coopt Augustinian Doctrine into Islam?

At the time of Mohammed's birth, Syria had become a prosperous province of the Byzantine empire. Mohammed was taken to Syria as a child, so he first encountered the glowing promises of eternal life there somewhere around the age of 10 (~580AD). By that time Syria had perhaps a quarter million Christians in about a hundred different ecclesiastical systems, so it's really impossible to know what he specifically encountered there, except for one meeting with a heretical Christian hermit who named him the new living God. Details have been recast by generations of both Christians and Muslims in accordance with their own beliefs, so now there are half a dozen legends that describe the specific facts in rather incompatible manners. What we do know is that Mohammed was not a scholar himself, and was never taught Latin or Greek, or even how to read and write. So he would have learned whatever he did about Christianity from derivative sources in sermons and personal accounts by the Christians of the time.

Mohammed was taken to Syria as a child — ernestm

What does that have to do with the claim that Mohammed was influenced by Augustine's City of God?