Paris, anyone?

[Richard Barrett]

"a particular interpretation of a religion"

A lot of the arguments about Islam seem to be carried out by people who have very little idea about this religion. The least we can do I think is to try to inform ourselves (here I include myself for sure) about it a little better. This is something I in any case will take away from discussions around the events in Paris.

One of the issues here perhaps, regarding "interpretation", is that Islam doesn't have a centralised doctrinal system like the Christian churches. The Quran, like the Bible, is self-contradictory in various ways. A characteristic example:

(God to Muhammad): "Be patient with what [your opponents] say, and part from them courteously" (73:10)
"... kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." (2:191)

Such things of course arise from the book being compiled from components written ("revealed") at different times, just as in the Bible. But in Islam any imam might select what he wants from the book and use it as a call to action, or to peaceful coexistence, as we see all the time. At least that is my understanding.

[french frank]

I don't find this story anywhere in the western press. Am I missing the point?

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Jan-09/283552-takfiri-groups-offended-prophet-mohammad-more-than-the-cartoons-mocking-him.ashx

[Beef Oven!]

What annoys many Muslims is that when ever something terrible like this happens the media insist on finding characters like Anjam Chowdry to give their opinion. Makes for a good story but doesn't really reflect what people believe.

Can we then expect muslims to take to the streets in protest and demonstrate against these acts of violence and show the world that these murderers are not representative of them? We have seen many times that European and British muslims are able to stage demonstrations on various matters of concern.

Or maybe we can expect that some (or, perhaps the many that you are referring to) muslims might call for reform, in the light of living in Europe in modern times?

[french frank]

Can we then expect muslims to take to the streets in protest and demonstrate against these acts of violence and show the world that these murderers are not representative of them?

I think that's an unrealistic expectation. What is needed first , I think, is for the Muslim leaders to speak out - and for their words to get proper publicity (see my last post).

[Beef Oven!]

I think that's an unrealistic expectation. What is needed first , I think, is for the Muslim leaders to speak out - and for their words to get proper publicity (see my last post).

Unrealistic on both counts?

Reformation does not seem 'round the corner', but muslims have undertaken demonstrations against Israel for example, so why not this?

[french frank]

Unrealistic on both counts?

Reformation does not seem 'round the corner', but muslims have undertaken demonstrations against Israel for example, so why not this?

Only "unrealistic" to expect 'Muslims' = 'people' to organise in an effective way; whereas 'leaders' are precisely those who will 'organise'. Hence I say that first, where the leaders are speaking out, that should be publicised in order to get to 'Muslims' = 'people'. This especially so in a culture where leaders still wield authority.

[Don Petter]

I don't find this story anywhere in the western press. Am I missing the point?

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Leb...cking-him.ashx

It is reported on The Times, BBC and Yahoo news sites.

[french frank]

It is reported on The Times, BBC and Yahoo news sites.

Are they spelling it differently? I can't see it on the Google News tab?

Edit: It's on Yahoo. Can't find any mainstream western news site. Can you give a link?

[Don Petter]

Are they spelling it differently? I can't see it on the Google News tab?

Edit: It's on Yahoo. Can't find any mainstream western news site. Can you give a link?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4319427.ece

http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-chief-extremists-harm-islam-more-cartoons-151828330.html

Sorry - BBC item was Nasrallah blaming 'takfiris' for an earlier incident.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

given the history and our current military adventurism and drone attacks it ill behoves us to tell any group what would be appropriate conduct ... but we could try a big apology and ask if there are ways we can live together in civilised and lawful concord

it also seems to me that the use of the word 'war' is unhelpful; terrorists are perhaps better defined as criminals not warmongers

[ahinton]

given the history and our current military adventurism and drone attacks it ill behoves us to tell any group what would be appropriate conduct ... but we could try a big apology and ask if there are ways we can live together in civilised and lawful concord

I wouldn't hold out much hope that that working but that doesn't make the effort any less worthy or worthwhile.

it also seems to me that the use of the word 'war' is unhelpful; terrorists are perhaps better defined as criminals not warmongers

Other commentators have observed likewise, not least à propos "the troubles" in Ireland and I believe that they are right. Murder is, after all, regarded as a criminal act in its own right in many countries; although war is something in which people get murdered, the two are not of themselves synonymous. OK, I can accept that the actions of certain Western nations in the Middle East and elsewhere might convey the impression that those nations have "declared war" on the victim ones, but that is not technically the case and so Western nationals killing people in Pakistan and elsewhere is little different to and no more acceptable than Middle Eastern terrorists killing people in the West. It's all murder when all's said and done and, as such, criminal and indefensible.

[Serial_Apologist]

One of the issues here perhaps, regarding "interpretation", is that Islam doesn't have a centralised doctrinal system like the Christian churches. The Quran, like the Bible, is self-contradictory in various ways. [...] [I]n Islam any imam might select what he wants from the book and use it as a call to action, or to peaceful coexistence, as we see all the time. At least that is my understanding.

Indeed. One of the defining properties of religions in the Judaeo-Christian lineage, as compared with e.g. Taoism and Buddhism's emphasis on experientiality over interpretation, is the premium on language. My understanding is that it is not just any imam, but any believer, who is entitled to draw whatever interpretation, inference or implication s/he chooses. At least various branches of Christianity have the potential advantages of having accountable structures, and e.g. synods in which doctrinal issues can be thrashed out, thereby laying at least the preconditions for resolving matters of doctrine and practice.

[Beef Oven!]

given the history and our current military adventurism and drone attacks it ill behoves us to tell any group what would be appropriate conduct ... but we could try a big apology and ask if there are ways we can live together in civilised and lawful concord

Yes, we could try apologising. It might work. If we in the west are the cause of this and Islam is a peaceful religion, there is no reason why an explanation and apology wouldn't be accepted, and things could be taken forward from there.

But we don't need to ask if there are ways we can live together. We know that part of the answer is not to commit acts that are blasphemous. Why not just resurrect the blasphemy laws?

[ahinton]

Indeed. One of the defining properties of religions in the Judaeo-Christian lineage, as compared with e.g. Taoism and Buddhism's emphasis on experientiality over interpretation, is the premium on language. My understanding is that it is not just any imam, but any believer, who is entitled to draw whatever interpretation, inference or implication s/he chooses. At least various branches of Christianity have accountable structures, and e.g. synods in which doctrinal issues can be thrashed out, thereby laying at least the preconditions for resolving matters of doctrine and practice.

Yes - and this might seem to parallel in some way the cultural differences to which I referred earlier in which widely divergent approaches to and interpretations of satire and the motives behind it often surface between people of quite differernt backgrounds.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes - and this might seem to parallel in some way the cultural differences to which I referred earlier in which widely divergent approaches to and interpretations of satire and the motives behind it often surface between people of quite differernt backgrounds.

I was thinking more along the lines of the relevatory limitations of language as seen through a prism of certain Eastern spiritual traditions that understand language ("The Word") relativistically, rather than absolutely, thereby making for greater congruence with Western, evidence-based truth, or truths. Thus in Zen Buddhism, especially, for instance, language is alluded to as an aid to proper living - and there, agreements over ethical and moral matters are considered in terms of what has been found to work, as opposed to set down (one might say overloaded) with supernatural authorisation in works of literature. Hence allusions to not confusing menus with actual meals, or the maps with journeys. Hence, too, the idea that one is not one's idea of oneself (one's identity); or, rather, that one's idea of oneself can never accord to one's actuality, which is in itself of greater complexity than language or description can ever encompass; inseparable from what is not itself, (defining and defined by its environment); and is in any case ever-changing, as is its environment, and thus ungraspable. What can't be grasped can only provide a very provisional sort of identity, covering for instance nationality, employment, age and place of residence, and is certainly of no value as a basis for arguing the truths of any proposition as to identity. "How dare you insult my mother by calling me a bastard!"