The Islamic State

[edededed]

Perhaps the "malware" term is more negative than I intended - I know that religion can have both good and bad effects, as can atheism. Politics, like religion, can be very powerful and can move groups to do very powerful things. It is very strange, in my opinion, that people waged wars on each other in last century, in the name of democracy vs. communism! Sometimes it seems that people just want to be part of a "team" so that they can wage war on the other "team," whether that team is a religious, political, cultural, or racial one.

We can see violence being waged for any and all of the group-related reasons above. Of these, "race" is the most physical, which we cannot really do much about our categorization (for example, pygmies have historically been abused due to their diminutive stature - so there is the idea of waging violence not only because of physical difference, but also because it is easy (bullying the smaller)). Hopefully societies have been able to get past the physicality at least more than culture, politics, or religion, but who knows?

In a lot of ways, religion and politics are seemingly more distant and thus malleable for a person, but - it is nearly impossible to change anyone's opinion on either religion or politics.

Anyway, I was mainly thinking about how these things can cause people to wage violence on the "other" group. Normally, we would hope that people would think, "Hmm - why are we doing this? Is this really right?" but of course they do not. This is why I would say that it is malware - because normal thought processes that should happen are for some reason bypassed, similar to dll redirection or the like, invisible to the outside observer. But you know, even in terrible times, there are sometimes people who are able to have morality despite all around them.

[allen2saint]

Following your example though, and this may be offensive to some here but it is a historical fact: The Bush administration managed to convince a country, with fear, political messaging and sham "intelligence" to attack Iraq, a country that any reasonable person could say posed no military threat. They didn't pose a threat. I watched shows like Charlie Rose parade experts night after night saying the country posed no threat and predicting exactly what we are seeing now.

You cant take people who have lived under a brutal dictator and oppression before that and tell them, "Govern yourselves" and have it be OK. If someone took over my block and then said, "Well....you have to police this block yourselves! We can't do it for you!" I'd be like, "I'm teacher, why the fuck would you expect me to know anything about policing a block?" It would be the same clusterfuck we are seeing there.

Yet, this war was achieved in the US by politics only. Political messaging managed to override the beliefs of many Christians, even today, about thr rights and wrongs of that war. The fact that they fought in such a way that civilians were left unprotected and were vulnerable to both our attacks and then terrorists on their own soil, is so against any Christian idea of war that it is sickening. Even some prominent Catholic figures( Not the Vatican though), who have a pretty robust philosophy about what is just and unjust war were actually behind this thing.

So,we can't really say with clarity that religion is the culprit in war. Religion can be used by politicians, as it always has, to justify anything. Many Christians who resisted Hitler, and there were many, were killed or sent to camps, but there were many also who went along and did nothing.

So, religion?

Thanks again for this reasonable discussion.

[Steve James]

I don't think it's possible to distinguish between religious and atheistic societies. First, I don't think that there hasn't been a large human society that did not have people who practiced some religion. The Babylonians and Egyptians, and all the earliest identified societies had religion. Moreover, it was impossible to separate the religion from government and the governors. Either it was the "divine king" or the divine people. The Roman Empire was contiguous with Roman Catholicism. The U.S. was the first government to even suggest that "church" and "state" were separate --though they did not suggest that people would not be religious. We might argue that they thought religion perfected their government, yet their religion did not prevent Americans from doing things that are considered evil now. Of course, at the time, there were those who argued that America used "religion" simply as an excuse to do evil.

Imo, the USSR and PRC are not good examples of countries/societies that do not have religions. They are examples of places where the government has prohibited or repressed the practice of some religions (and belief systems). However, there are Chinese Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, and others. In the USSR, there were people who practiced their religion. In the Soviet satellite countries, the priests were among the leaders of the protests against Soviet rule. Otoh, priests were also in the forefront in Latin American (and South African) liberation struggles; but, of course, in the US, it is libeled "liberation theology" and condemned as "communist."

Anyway, I think it might work to talk about churches or sects, but these discussions always seem to drift toward entire "religions" or denominations. So, ISIS or Hamas are used to represent Islam --if not "all" Muslims, though the Westboro Baptists would never be considered representative of Christianity. Well, for some, neither Catholics nor Jehovah's Witnesses would be considered to represent Christians. Now, if we want to talk about religious wars, we need only look at Europe. Name a century. Even the Vikings had a religion when they got to Lindisfarne.

[Steve James]

ISIS is also destroying mosques, temples and places holy to Muslims.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/2 ... 20520.html

[leifeng]

ISIS is also destroying mosques, temples and places holy to Muslims.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/2 ... 20520.html

Holy to minority Muslim cults. After all first they need to clean their own home before they start to clean the rest of the world.

[Interloper]

The tombs of Joshua and Daniel, which were just blown up by ISIS, are considered sacred to many Muslims, as these were prophets recognized by the founder of Islam, "from the Book."

[leifeng]

Worshipping tombs is not part of the mainstream sunni tradition which is the majority in the Muslim world. It is part of the Shia tradition.

[Steve James]

Well, all Muslims worship toward a relic. But, afa tombs, I wrote "ISIS is also destroying mosques, temples and places holy to Muslims."
My point was that they weren't just destroying places that were holy to Christians and others.

[leifeng]

For now it's not really about the Christians though they are caught in the crossfire. In the eyes of the extremist Sunnis, Shiites and their holy places are much worse and while under certain conditions there is a small chance the Christians can live in a fanatical Islamic state by paying extra taxes the Shiites certainly can't even exist there.

[Michael]

Thank you, leifeng, for explaining the pattern. I just thought they were a bunch of criminals with guns who like to cut people's heads off and steal their shit. Glad to know they're more legit than I'd at first perceived.

[Doc Stier]

Thank you, leifeng, for explaining the pattern. I just thought they were a bunch of criminals with guns who like to cut people's heads off and steal their shit. Glad to know they're more legit than I'd at first perceived.

Michael, you're so naive! LOL

[Michael]

I know, I know, Doc! I'm always missing the important nuances of the world's great hooligans. Obviously, it's my problem.

[zenshiite]

Worshipping tombs is not part of the mainstream sunni tradition which is the majority in the Muslim world. It is part of the Shia tradition.

Man, shut the fuck up. You obviously believe the lie that Wahhabism represents even the mainline Sunni view. It absolutely does not. There are tombs and shrines for Prophets all over the Muslim world, revered by Sunnis as well as Shia. How the hell do you explain that the tombs of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar are right in the middle of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina? Or that the tomb of Hagar and Ishmael is right next to the Kaaba? The tomb of Shuayb/Jethro is in Jordan. The tomb of Abraham is revered equally by Jews, Christians and the majority Sunni Muslim populace of Israel/Palestine in Hebron. Sunnis visit the shrines of Ali and Husayn in Iraq, as well as Shias.

The fact that you just said this, tells me you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[leifeng]

How the hell do you explain that the tombs of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar are right in the middle of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina?

They were not buried in masjid al nabawi. They were buried in Aysha's house and during the Ummayad dynasty as they wanted to expand the mosque they had no choice but to incorporate those graves into the mosque. Although it can't be completely considred as building a mosque over the graves this incorporation has been been a controversial issue for many Sunni scholars to date because according to "Sahih Muslim" which is the "mainstream" hadith source for the Sunni tradition:



Book 004, Number 1076:
'A'isha reported: Umm Habiba and Umm Salama made a mention before the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) of a church which they had seen in Abyssinia and which had pictures in it. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When a pious person amongst them (among the religious groups) dies they build a place of worship on his grave, and then decorate it with such pictures. They would be the worst of creatures on the Day of judgment in the sight of Allah.

Book 004, Number 1079:
'A'isha reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said during his illness from which he never recovered: Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians that they took the graves of their prophets as mosques. She ('A'isha) reported: Had it not been so, his (Prophet's) grave would have been in an open place, but it could not be due to the fear that it may not be taken as a mosque.
Book 004, Number 1080:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Let Allah destroy the Jews for they have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship.
Book 004, Number 1081:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Let there be curse of Allah upon the Jews and the Christians for they have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship.
Book 004, Number 1082:
'A'isha and Abdullah reported: As the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was about to breathe his last, he drew his sheet upon his face and when he felt uneasy, he uncovered his face and said in that very state: Let there be curse upon the Jews and the Christians that they have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship. He in fact warned (his men) against what they (the Jews and the Christians) did.
Book 004, Number 1083:
Jundub reported: I heard from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) five days before his death and he said: I stand acquitted before Allah that I took any one of you as friend, for Allah has taken me as His friend, as he took Ibrahim as His friend. Had I taken any one of my Ummah as a friend, I would have taken Abu Bakr as a friend. Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.

[zenshiite]

All of which contrdict the Quran itself, in Surah al-Kahf. Moreover, there are tafsir on those ahadith.

The majority Sunni position has never been what the Wahhabists claim today.
http://sunniworld.wordpress.com/2010/05 ... -prophets/

What you are espousing is the Salafi-Wahhabi point of view, and it is by no means the majority, traditional orthodox Sunni point of view. Certainly not that of the Imams of the 4 madhabs. Neither on the building of and visitation of graves and shrines, nor even on asking for intercession/tawassul.