Manchester Arena incident - many reported dead

[hash tag]

Things like this don't help (an eye for an eye blinds everyone)

 

[bimble]

J Ed. Would you say that a salafist and a sufi were alike?

What is this question, what does it mean?

 

[mojo pixy]

That would imply that the decision not to believe in a God is also a political decision.

Not believing in god(s) and not practising a religion aren't the same choice, they're separate things really.

 

[mikey mikey]

What is this question, what does it mean?

Use google translate

Not believing in god(s) and not practising a religion aren't the same choice, they're separate things really.

True, but espousing strong antitheism is a political act.

 

[teqniq]

What is this question, what does it mean?

If I was to hazard a guess I would say it means complete ignorance. Imo they are at opposite ends of the spectrum as interpretations of Islam, though I would be happy for someone to come along who is more of an expert to explain why I am wrong.

 

[mojo pixy]

espousing strong antitheism is a political act.

Again though, atheism and antitheism are definitely not the same either. And atheism isn't an implicitly political position IMO

 

[bimble]

Religion is mostly about doing things with others isn't it, its about social practices not 'beliefs', so for most people living in non-secular societies a refusal to take part in any of that because you decide you 'don't believe in god' would probably mean exile from all social ties (no wife, no job, probably nowhere to live even), call that a political act if you want.

 

[butchersapron]

People on the left have spent the last 150 years trying to get people to see social issues as political issues, to destroy the imposition of the separation of the economic and the political...and now it turns out they're really separate after all. For some anyway.

 

[J Ed]

Again though, atheism and antitheism are definitely not the same either. And atheism isn't an implicitly political position IMO

Or necessarily an entirely non-religous position. Buddhists are arguably atheists, for example.

 

[maomao]

Or necessarily an entirely non-religous position. Buddhists are arguably atheists, for example.

Maybe some chan/zen Buddhists but mainstream Buddhism is full of gods, heavens, hells and hungry ghosts.

 

[mikey mikey]

Again though, atheism and antitheism are definitely not the same either.

Granted.

And atheism isn't an implicitly political position IMO

So you can see no political aspect to atheism at all?

IME it can certainly be used as a weapon politically. I have seen it enable all kinds of intolerance if the atheist in question chose to use it so.

 

[J Ed]

Maybe some chan/zen Buddhists but mainstream Buddhism is full of gods, heavens, hells and hungry ghosts.

Yes, I should have written some Buddhists

 

[Pickman's model]

Or necessarily an entirely non-religous position. Buddhists are arguably atheists, for example.

Have you argued this with buddhists?

 

[mojo pixy]

dp

 

[mojo pixy]

So you can see no political aspect to atheism at all?

IME it can certainly be used as a weapon politically. I have seen it enable all kinds of intolerance if the atheist in question chose to use it so.

Yes it can but my view is that it's not an implicitly political position. Being a superior dick about what we do or don't believe is also not implicitly political but it can become political, depending on who is doing it and why.

 

[J Ed]

Have you argued this with buddhists?

Yea

 

[Red Cat]

Religion provides a pretext (as for so many horrible human activities), the actual motivation is yes social/political.

There seems to be a desire to isolate and give weight to one explanation over another. What about psychological states of mind and relationships? Just because there's a mainstream media tendency to talk about evil or mad bombers as though that's any kind of explanation shouldn't mean that we ignore those aspects of someone's motivation that are harder to understand.

I know he's often mentioned, not sure how often he's read as a consequence, but Kenan Malik is very good on this complexity.

 

[danny la rouge]

I know he's often mentioned, not sure how often he's read as a consequence, but Kenan Malik is very good on this complexity.

Indeed.

 

[mojo pixy]

To be clear, religion IMO is not an explanation but a pretext for this stuff.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yea

I was desolate and bowed my head: I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion

 

[ViolentPanda]

Building on the article in the MiddleEastEye, the FT has an article further fleshing out on the role of the British state, British Libyan Islamists and Gaddaffi from 2011 onwards. Well worth reading.



Particularly damning..



In 2011 the British state was promoting Islamist fighters over secular democrats. Not the 1980s or 1990s or 2001 prior to September 11th. 2011.

Or rather, "as well as in the '80s, '90s and '00s".

 

[danny la rouge]

To be clear, religion IMO is not an explanation but a pretext for this stuff.

I'd partly agree. (Let me here once more endorse Red Cat's call to embrace a more complex picture).

Theological arguments are a justification-after-the-fact that jihadis use, but it's often not how they become jihadis.

What we have is disengaged people looking for identity and "authenticity" (it's worth discussing each of those steps: why they're disengaged, why they seek identity, and why "authenticity" is valued. But I'll miss that out for now), and turn to what they see as "authentic" expressions of their identity.

And that's why ignoring religion as a factor will mean you miss fully understanding what is happening and why. It's because of a desire by certain people to express cultural belonging. But to do so in a "pure" manner that cannot be questioned. They intensely belong, is the point they're making.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Best post so far. Sums up the issue in one question.

Nope, it really doesn't.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And what if someone takes a political interpretation of Islam?

Then - as you'd know if you'd read the Koran - they'd be defying their own prophet, who declared that the words of Allah to his prophet must not be interpreted, and only had the meaning that Allah (through his prophet) assigned to them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But religion is political isn't it? I mean what does a non-political Islam (or Christianity if you prefer) look like?

I think that "political" is too narrow a word, and that "ideological" fits better, as it implies that faith/belief (whether secular or religious) is in play.

 

[JimW]

From what I understand though that political aspect has always been there, like when the Safavids adopt a Shia interpretation that serves to build a Persian identity in opposition to the Sunni Ottoman in a similar way to how Protestantism helped forge English identity a little later. On the one hand there's definite religious motivations and differences on the other there's something clearly political going on and it doesn't seem sensible to make a hard and fast distinction.

 

[danny la rouge]

There seems to be a desire to isolate and give weight to one explanation over another. What about psychological states of mind and relationships? Just because there's a mainstream media tendency to talk about evil or mad bombers as though that's any kind of explanation shouldn't mean that we ignore those aspects of someone's motivation that are harder to understand.

I know he's often mentioned, not sure how often he's read as a consequence, but Kenan Malik is very good on this complexity.

Here's his latest: FROM LEFT RADICALISM TO RADICAL ISLAMISM

"I grew up in south Manchester, just as Salman Abedi did. But my Manchester was very different from Abedi’s. Racism in the 1970s was woven into the fabric of British society in a way unimaginable now. ‘Paki bashing’ was a national sport. Stabbings were common, firebombings of Asian houses almost weekly events, murders not uncommon."

[...]

"My fury towards Britain was not expressed through the prism of being ‘Muslim’. Partly this was because I was not religious. But partly also because few, even believers, adopted ‘Muslim’ as a public identity. We thought of ourselves as ‘Asian’, or ‘black’, but these were political, not ethnic or cultural, labels."

 

[bimble]

Trying to learn a bit about everyday gang culture where I live (big problem here) has reinforced my sense that there are strong similarities in many ways, in what draws young men to find meaning and a sense of belonging and community and purpose within such identity-defining groups. They also have a sort of ideology/ mythology which is hard to understand from the outside (years of war against the next postcode etc) and members ready to commit acts of violence which seem senseless, also recently a high and rising death toll which gets very little coverage in the media.

 

[mojo pixy]

Theological arguments are a justification-after-the-fact that jihadis use, but it's often not how they become jihadis.

What we have is disengaged people looking for identity and "authenticity" (it's worth discussing each of those steps: why they're disengaged, why they seek identity, and why "authenticity" is valued. But I'll miss that out for now), and turn to what they see as "authentic" expressions of their identity.

And that's why ignoring religion as a factor will mean you miss fully understanding what is happening and why. It's because of a desire by certain people to express cultural belonging. But to do so in a "pure" manner that cannot be questioned. They intensely belong, is the point they're making.

No I totally agree that the actual explanations for why people get radicalized are complex and nuanced, I read a lot on this subject and in many ways i even agree with Kenan Malik. However I don't accept that religion itself has anything to do with it, above being a conveniently infallible pretext - and of course all religions feature the kind of fanatics who do this.

Just as communism and marxism can't in themselves be blamed for the actions of brutal-minded communists in certain places at times. People like to feel they're doing the right thing, and a big book endorsed by scholars is the perfect backup.

 

[mojo pixy]

Then - as you'd know if you'd read the Koran - they'd be defying their own prophet, who declared that the words of Allah to his prophet must not be interpreted, and only had the meaning that Allah (through his prophet) assigned to them.

But the Hadiths are full of commentary, so it's OK to comment and interpret as long as you have a scholastic tradition and the power of a caliph behind you. It's just that you and I aren't allowed to do it.