I had idly wondered how much the conflict in Mali was effecting music and the answer seems to be, in a devastating way.
-
-
jeez that's dreadful....bong ching -
as is much else in the Quran when interpreted literally - I recall one scholar stating that it is difficult to find many verses dealing with love.Originally posted by eighthobstruction View PostComment
-
look at the crazy things people post in response :
this is what happens when western liberals interfere with and - more importantly - dilute popular musical forms for export to the west
!!!
and what a great response:
I'm sorry but that argument won't hold water. Salafism, the extreme form of Islam, that is the backbone of Al-Quaida and the Taleban, abjures all music, entertainment, and just about anything that can be seen as sensual or distracting one's attention from God. It is equivalent to the British Puritans, who banned public performances, the observance of Christmas, wedding breakfasts, etc in 17th century Britain. In Afghanistan, whose music hasn't exactly been adopted as a trend in Muswell Hill, the Taleban banned music, kites, cassettes, DVDs, videos, radio programmes featuring music, etc. What they're opposed to is sensuality, as well as contact with "impure influences", i.e. the West in this case. With the Puritans, it was Roman Catholicism.
So no I don't think listening to "World Roots" on Radio 3 is the cause of the problems Mali is suffering. These people are crazed on power, control and authoritarianism - banning music, kites, education, vaccinations, whatever - is a side-product. If there weren't music festivals, they would just find something else to hang their hatred on.
Comment
-
Isn't it? There is only one thing to blame, the pernicious, evil influence of religion upon our world. Let us weep.Originally posted by handsomefortune View Post...and what a great response:
... If there weren't music festivals, they would just find something else to hang their hatred on. [/I]
Comment
-
More accurately, the pernicious, evil influence of religions not based on love, or of the perversions of religions based on love, upon our world.Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
If you're going to make sweeping statements, at least give them some rational basis!Comment
-
No. Instead of trying to create artificial divisions ('religions based on love' assumes that there is a general agreement about which religions might qualify - and indeed what 'based on love' means anyway), it would be better to acknowledge the danger of believing in something through 'faith' alone, without any 'rational basis'.Originally posted by Simon View PostComment
-
Thanks for posting the article, zola. Situation sounds very desperate. This benefit album was released recently but some of the bands have already moved across the border and I imagine some are on tour a lot of the time.Originally posted by zola View Post
In that selfish way, given the joy I have had listening to music coming from Mali over the last twenty five years or so, I find myself fearing that like Zimbabwe the music will disappear, will be suppressed, and were that to happen the world would be a very very much more impoverished place.Comment
-
-
-
Yes, a big mistake. Yours. Unsurprisingly.Originally posted by amateur51 View PostReligion?
Rational Basis?
Shurely shum mishtake
Because, if you really think that there is no rationality behind all religions - in particular, as examples, Buddhism and Christianity - then you clearly have little or no true understanding of either.
But then, "Amateur51" and "little or no true understanding" seem somehow to link particularly well, don't they?Comment
-
I'm giving you the credit for having read more deeply around these subjects that some others on here, though I may be wrong.Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
If you have, you will know that some religions - certainly Christianity - are not at all based on "faith alone", though for some people I think that a kind of faith - by which I mean a belief that cannot be proven by our current knowledge of science - does come to play a part.
Your first sentence, analysed, is, I'm afraid, not an argument.
1. Christianity doesn't seek to create any division, artificial or otherwise. It asks its adherents to love one another and everyone else, and therefore cannot be accused of having a pernicious influence. That people have subverted or perverted this is no argument against it: they, ipso facto, are not Christians.
2. It is perfectly logical to assume a general agreement about which religions might qualify. It isn't difficult, either. The ones that argue for unselfish love towards others qualify; any that argue for the murder of people with red hair, for example, or for the sacrifice of every third child, don't. Simples.
3. Similarly with "based on love". I accept it was a woolly term, but the general meaning should be clear enough for the purposes of a general discussion.
S-S!Comment
-
What a friend we have in Simon, How great he art, how great he art....bong chingComment
-
Not sure what you mean. Is this a sensible contribution to the discussion?Originally posted by eighthobstruction View PostComment
-
The best music is the music that persuades us there is no other music in the world-- Alex RossComment
Comment