ISIS. Are they the greatest threat to the US ?

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ISIS. Are they the greatest threat to the US ?

 The press seems to think so. I have some co-workers that dismiss it and others that believe it .

www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28891325

slamic State militants are the most dangerous threat America has faced in years, top US officials have warned.

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US strikes had weakened IS in Iraq, but the group could be expected to regroup.

America's top general Martin Dempsey said IS fighters could not be defeated without attacking its base in Syria.

The conflict has fuelled sectarian tensions in Iraq. In the latest attack, dozens of people have been killed in an attack on a Sunni mosque.

Officials say that during Friday prayers a suicide bomber detonated explosives inside the mosque in the eastern province of Diyala, and gunmen fired on fleeing worshippers.

It is not clear which group carried out the attack. The area has seen recent fighting between Iraqi troops backed by Shia militias and IS, a Sunni jihadist group,

'Apocalyptic vision'

Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Mr Hagel described IS as an imminent threat.

"They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we have seen."

Meanwhile, Gen Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IS was "an organisation that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated".

"To your question, can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border."

Neither Mr Hagel nor Gen Dempsey announced a change in the limited military campaign adopted by Barack Obama, and the US president is unlikely to deepen his involvement in Iraq or Syria, the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher in Washington reports.

But US officials did not rule out additional action against IS in Iraq or Syria, our correspondent adds.

Britain said it would not work with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the battle against IS, despite suggestions from a retired top general that it should do so.

Hunt for killer

The warnings come after IS beheaded US journalist James Foley. The US has now begun a criminal investigation into his death, with US Attorney General Eric Holder warning that the country has a "long memory".

It has emerged that a special US military mission tried but failed earlier this summer to rescue Mr Foley and other US hostages held in Syria.

In the UK, police and security services are trying to identify the jihadistwho appeared in footage of Mr Foley's killing.

Unconfirmed reports suggest the man - who had an English accent - is from London or south-east England.

In the video of Mr Foley's murder, IS militants threatened to kill another American if the US did not stop its air strikes against the group in northern Iraq.

US air strikes have continued near Mosul despite the warning.

On Wednesday, President Obama vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

"We will be vigilant and we will be relentless," he said. "When people harm Americans, anywhere, we do what's necessary to see that justice is done."

Air strikes intensify

The US has been conducting air strikes across Iraq since 8 August, as part of a campaign against IS.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Article Continued

 Article Continued : 

US aircraft destroyed or damaged four IS vehicles and several bomb placements in strikes near the strategic Mosul Dam in northern Iraq on Thursday, the military said.

There have been a total of 90 air strikes across Iraq since operations began, the Pentagon said. Of those, 57 have been near the dam.

The US said Iraqi troops and Kurdish fighters had recaptured the dam with American assistance on Monday.

IS has waged a violent campaign in Iraq and Syria, seizing large swathes of both countries.

The violence has displaced an estimated 1.2 million people in Iraq alone.

line

Who are Islamic State (IS)?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Well that bottom portion

 Well that bottom portion sure got all fucked up 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
it depends on what you mean

it depends on what you mean by "threat." if "threat" means the most likely and most capable source of direct, significant physical harm to the US, then no, of course not.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Certainly not today. If ISIS

Certainly not today. If ISIS succeeds in Iraq and Syria, and manages to take out Israel as well as conquering more areas, then they might become a threat in the future. But I think even if they pull all that off, China will have already surpassed the US as the worlds super power by the time it happens. So I can't see them ever becoming the greatest threat to the US.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:it depends on

iwbiek wrote:
it depends on what you mean by "threat." if "threat" means the most likely and most capable source of direct, significant physical harm to the US, then no, of course not.

I am inclined to agree 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Certainly not

Vastet wrote:
Certainly not today. If ISIS succeeds in Iraq and Syria, and manages to take out Israel as well as conquering more areas, then they might become a threat in the future. But I think even if they pull all that off, China will have already surpassed the US as the worlds super power by the time it happens. So I can't see them ever becoming the greatest threat to the US.

That makes logical sense. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 As I said previously, they

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dunno, Dig

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

I have a suspicion that these wingnuts, who are guilty of nothing more than a literal interpretation of the legal-to-publish-and-teach-to-your-kids Koran, are supported by many people in Northern Iraq, the ME and the rest of the world. I read today somewhere on the interweb (I think it was a comment in a Guardian story, so salt grain please), that 90 per cent of a nominal cross section of Saudi's told a survey they thought ISIS reflected the true teachings of the Koran. Even if this was a small cross section, it's a high percentage. 

As for being a threat to the US and the civilised world - well, no, not yet. Not until they have a dirty bomb or something. They can create fear through acts of terror but I think these simply steel the resolve of the unbelievers. I think even the left of politics is beginning to see what Islamic theocracy actually means for our collective future.  But they are still not completely across the threat yet. ISIS poses a much bigger local threat, particularly to the House of Saud - and if they move against it, I think the U.S. is likely to be drawn further in.

My instinct is that we should increase migration intakes to save the religious minorities and leave the warring parties to have it out in isolation. Any dual national who travels to the war zone is fobidden to return. This is a morally inconsistent position but that's what I think. 

Hirsi Ali was correct, in my opinion, when she called for the banning of the teaching of Islam in U.S. schools. The doctrine is unquestionably toxic and the fact some believers don't go on to act out the insanities included in the Islamic text does not mean the Koran is not demonstrably the most immoral moral handbook of all time. 

I think the west generally, should legislate that the legitimate islamic doctrine of our nations is Ahmadi. All other interpretations are heretical and we all know what happens to heretics, don't we? 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Update, seems that the UK

 Update, seems that the UK has identifed that sick fuck who murdered the reporter. Time for a drone or Seal Team eye exam.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: As I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

More like 30-50 thousand.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 No, it's still

 No, it's still Christians! 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I doubt very much that the

I doubt very much that the muslims holy book is more ethically toxic than the bible. The bible is the most evil text I've ever had the displeasure of reading, and I haven't even read half of it.

Legislating against specific forms of islam would be a disaster. Half the reason the world despises America is its hypocrisy, and the other half for heavy handed meddling. There's no good reason to expand on that and extend it to the entire western hemisphere. Half or all the arab nation's already show varied support for ISIS. Giving them all a big reason to support ISIS is a bad idea. It risks converting the majority of muslim faiths from Africa through the Middle East to Asia into a more extremist version.

How quickly would the christians rise up if we legislated against every denomination other than the mormons (a random example)? Every other denomination would join forces in common cause against the heretics who literally just declared war on them.

It would turn a conflict which is mostly rooted in poverty and politics into a full blown religious crusade that could last a hundred years or more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

More like 30-50 thousand.

In IRAQ?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

I have a suspicion that these wingnuts, who are guilty of nothing more than a literal interpretation of the legal-to-publish-and-teach-to-your-kids Koran, are supported by many people in Northern Iraq, the ME and the rest of the world. I read today somewhere on the interweb (I think it was a comment in a Guardian story, so salt grain please), that 90 per cent of a nominal cross section of Saudi's told a survey they thought ISIS reflected the true teachings of the Koran. Even if this was a small cross section, it's a high percentage. 

As for being a threat to the US and the civilised world - well, no, not yet. Not until they have a dirty bomb or something. They can create fear through acts of terror but I think these simply steel the resolve of the unbelievers. I think even the left of politics is beginning to see what Islamic theocracy actually means for our collective future.  But they are still not completely across the threat yet. ISIS poses a much bigger local threat, particularly to the House of Saud - and if they move against it, I think the U.S. is likely to be drawn further in.

My instinct is that we should increase migration intakes to save the religious minorities and leave the warring parties to have it out in isolation. Any dual national who travels to the war zone is fobidden to return. This is a morally inconsistent position but that's what I think. 

Hirsi Ali was correct, in my opinion, when she called for the banning of the teaching of Islam in U.S. schools. The doctrine is unquestionably toxic and the fact some believers don't go on to act out the insanities included in the Islamic text does not mean the Koran is not demonstrably the most immoral moral handbook of all time. 

I think the west generally, should legislate that the legitimate islamic doctrine of our nations is Ahmadi. All other interpretations are heretical and we all know what happens to heretics, don't we? 

I was just thinking the other day that if I could go back in time to when "Mo" was around I'd kill the mother fucker.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

More like 30-50 thousand.

In IRAQ?

In Iraq they have 15-20k. They have been devastating the Iraqi forces of 200k, they aren't doing that with a few thousand. Who knows how many are dedicated to the ideology, they are well funded and have been hiring local mercenaries. From what I understand, their initial invasion force numbered around 3,000. You start throwing money around, plus the promise to protect their families, and it is easy to recruit cannon fodder for your trained troops to hide in. No doubt we could crush them if we put our resources to it, but from what I've been hearing on the military forums, these guys aren't clueless barbarians. They know what the fuck they are doing, and they will take some of our guys with them. So the question is, how many of our guys are we willing to lose over a sand covered shithole?

Is there a risk of them spreading after they secure Iraq? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows. They might take Iraq and fizzle out when the realities of governing a territory hits them, or they might be able to leverage the wealth of the Iraqi oil fields and Iraqi population to build a massive army. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:In Iraq

Beyond Saving wrote:

In Iraq they have 15-20k. They have been devastating the Iraqi forces of 200k, they aren't doing that with a few thousand. Who knows how many are dedicated to the ideology, they are well funded and have been hiring local mercenaries. From what I understand, their initial invasion force numbered around 3,000. You start throwing money around, plus the promise to protect their families, and it is easy to recruit cannon fodder for your trained troops to hide in. No doubt we could crush them if we put our resources to it, but from what I've been hearing on the military forums, these guys aren't clueless barbarians. They know what the fuck they are doing, and they will take some of our guys with them. So the question is, how many of our guys are we willing to lose over a sand covered shithole?

Is there a risk of them spreading after they secure Iraq? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows. They might take Iraq and fizzle out when the realities of governing a territory hits them, or they might be able to leverage the wealth of the Iraqi oil fields and Iraqi population to build a massive army. 

Wow. I need to read more news.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Dig

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 As I said previously, they might have what? two thousand troops? less? against the... world? Nobody fucking wants them, not Syria, not Hammas, not even Iran or Pakistan. They are fucked. It's like being bound and gagged then thrown in to an ocean with a chum-cicle tided to your back. Eventually a great big swarm of sharks are going to come along and rip your ass to shreds.

 

I have a suspicion that these wingnuts, who are guilty of nothing more than a literal interpretation of the legal-to-publish-and-teach-to-your-kids Koran, are supported by many people in Northern Iraq, the ME and the rest of the world. I read today somewhere on the interweb (I think it was a comment in a Guardian story, so salt grain please), that 90 per cent of a nominal cross section of Saudi's told a survey they thought ISIS reflected the true teachings of the Koran. Even if this was a small cross section, it's a high percentage. 

As for being a threat to the US and the civilised world - well, no, not yet. Not until they have a dirty bomb or something. They can create fear through acts of terror but I think these simply steel the resolve of the unbelievers. I think even the left of politics is beginning to see what Islamic theocracy actually means for our collective future.  But they are still not completely across the threat yet. ISIS poses a much bigger local threat, particularly to the House of Saud - and if they move against it, I think the U.S. is likely to be drawn further in.

My instinct is that we should increase migration intakes to save the religious minorities and leave the warring parties to have it out in isolation. Any dual national who travels to the war zone is fobidden to return. This is a morally inconsistent position but that's what I think. 

Hirsi Ali was correct, in my opinion, when she called for the banning of the teaching of Islam in U.S. schools. The doctrine is unquestionably toxic and the fact some believers don't go on to act out the insanities included in the Islamic text does not mean the Koran is not demonstrably the most immoral moral handbook of all time. 

I think the west generally, should legislate that the legitimate islamic doctrine of our nations is Ahmadi. All other interpretations are heretical and we all know what happens to heretics, don't we? 

I was just thinking the other day that if I could go back in time to when "Mo" was around I'd kill the mother fucker.

 

Something else I recently read (I think on the Council of Ex Muslims of Britain site) was that the Koran was not written until after Mo had died, making him, at least partly, a mythical figure. I'm not read much about Mo so am not sure. But I think some of what's in there was put in by faceless priests. 

Hadith, which I've only read shallowly, was apparently a way for warring factions to get their grievances and agendas into an inviolate religious text, with some judgements directly relating to incidents between known parties. 

Given we can't go back and deal with any issues from the past, I still think the best thing is that governments demand all religious texts being taught as more or less truth by churches, fall into line with secular laws relating to making threats of violence, exhortation to violence, vilification of minority groups and arguing that belief predicated on no proof is moral. 

Imagine publishing a pamphlet today that called for muslims to have their stomachs ripped out with iron hooks while boiling water was poured over their heads? Then teaching it to kids? It would be a prison sentence in Australia, no doubt. But this shit can be taught to impressionable muslim kids because it's in some old book. WTF?

I watch our local leaders floundering around desperate to explain why hundreds of Australian muslim kids are heading off to jihad. These are people who have obviously never read the Koran. They simply cannot understand that fundamentalists truly believe the things written in these books. Or they do understand and don't want to say. 

We need a reformation of all religious doctrine. And if not all doctrine, then all doctrine that enjoys the tax free status recognised religions receive in this country. I would argue that any group teaching kids violence or threatening kids with violence can't be considered a charity.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:
I read today somewhere on the interweb (I think it was a comment in a Guardian story, so salt grain please), that 90 per cent of a nominal cross section of Saudi's told a survey they thought ISIS reflected the true teachings of the Koran.



no surprise there. the officially approved islam of saudi arabia is wahhabism, which is kind of like the muslim version of biblical literalist, fundamentalist protestantism. with a shitload of oil money, an absolute monarchy, and lots of guns. they accept nothing but a literal interpretation of the quran. no hadith, nothing. even the ayatollah hated their guts.


as for ahmadi being the officially approved version of islam, you and i both know that's never going to happen. if wahhabis are the muslim fundies, ahmadis are the muslim quakers. iow, they're both minorities of different extremes, and thus will never appeal to a broad cross-section of muslims.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I doubt very

Vastet wrote:
I doubt very much that the muslims holy book is more ethically toxic than the bible. The bible is the most evil text I've ever had the displeasure of reading, and I haven't even read half of it.



the bible is a shitload more ambiguous than the quran, that's for sure. of course, the bible is comprised of disparate texts by disparate authors spread out over several centuries, with several more centuries of conflicts over canonization, which still haven't been completely resolved, whereas the quran is more or less focused, written by people who were probably conferring with each other, and canonized in just a couple centuries, at most. also, this might sound crazy, but i would argue that the quran is not taken as seriously among most muslims as the bible is among most christians. most muslims don't sit and read it at home, nor do they try to interpret it for themselves, and those that do are either clergy, or else they are western-born converts who carry the principles of private biblical interpretation with them into their new religion. the quran is mostly for recitation, and the local mullah or a famous imam or the writings of the great legal scholars carry much more weight among muslims than the quran, when it comes to making doctrinal (which in islam is pretty much synonymous with legal) decisions.


in fact, as a (very insignificant) religion scholar, i've always argued that this is one of the biggest methodological mistakes that westerners make when they try to understand the so-called "world religions": they look for a "holy book" and they read it to find out what that religion "says" about specific categories that westerners care about. that method pretty much only works for christianity and, to a lesser degree, judaism. if you want to understand islam, as it is practiced by the majority of people in the so-called "muslim world," the quran is one of the least helpful places for a westerner to start. like it or not, as europeans (and i include the peoples of the europeanized world in that), when we approach the quran, we look at it through the cultural lens of bible readers (even those of us who were never exposed to the bible growing up cannot escape this), and thus we are already lost. the initial approach to other cultures (of which religion is only a part: isolating "religion" as a phenomenon is also a purely western, and i would argue especially protestant, idea) has to be anthropological, not textual. otherwise, we're putting the cart before the horse.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm

 

iwbiek wrote:
in fact, as a (very insignificant) religion scholar, i've always argued that this is one of the biggest methodological mistakes that westerners make when they try to understand the so-called "world religions": they look for a "holy book" and they read it to find out what that religion "says" about specific categories that westerners care about. that method pretty much only works for christianity and, to a lesser degree, judaism.

if you want to understand islam, as it is practiced by the majority of people in the so-called "muslim world," the quran is one of the least helpful places for a westerner to start. like it or not, as europeans (and i include the peoples of the europeanized world in that), when we approach the quran, we look at it through the cultural lens of bible readers (even those of us who were never exposed to the bible growing up cannot escape this), and thus we are already lost. the initial approach to other cultures (of which religion is only a part: isolating "religion" as a phenomenon is also a purely western, and i would argue especially protestant, idea) has to be anthropological, not textual. otherwise, we're putting the cart before the horse.

 

Interesting points...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck