Posted by wslh 4 days ago
the people seeking power would sell out their own mothers if that's what it took.
the ideologies here are the ideologies of the HN commenters who try to fit the facts into their predetermined narratives.
and "visible from space" means absolutely nothing meaningful. can we read license plates from space or not yet? I don't know, but in this context, who cares
(way back in the 1980s a china-zealot was telling me that the Great Wall of China was "the only manmade thing visible from space." I had the presence of mind to say back, "isn't it more significant to be able to get to space to see what's visible?")
Qatar is an Arab monarchy and they are backing the SAF.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
Abu Bakr [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr] and even Mohammed himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhamma...].
It has never been a particularly ‘turn the other cheek’ religion.
No, definitely not with the same authority. If you take the Bible as the equivalent of the Quran, and the church fathers as the equivalent of the hadiths, neither has any endorsement of conversion through threats of violence. Jesus was never a political or military leader, nor were the first few generations of Christian leaders.
I cannot give as clear an answer with regard to islam, because I do not know enough in depth, but there are a variety of interpretations. There was persecution of religious minorities in the Muslim empires, but mass slaughter of those who refused to convert would have inspired rebellion. The conversion did happen in places like Egypt and Syria and Persia and there was coercion.
As for Indonesia, the GP did not claim Islam spread only by the sword.
Notably, I never said ‘by the sword’ was the only way. There is definitely a history of a number of religions doing it though!
First, I am under no illusions that what a religions book (or common formal teachings) says necessarily matches what its stated followers actually do.
Judaism essentially forbids ‘recruiting’, and it is quite difficult to convert. Mainly because Judaism is essentially ‘this group of people have a special deal with god/are god’s special people’.
Christianity has very mixed message (especially depending on which version of the Bible!) with some explicit calls to convert others - but without any calls to violence associated with them I can see [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028%3A...]. John the Baptist being a prime ‘doer’. Also, there are explicit calls to ‘turn the other cheek/not retaliate’, such as [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A3...].
Which makes the crusades particularly crazy/insane of course. Jesus was clearly non-violent and didn’t want people going out killing each other over anything he was saying.
At the time, the Church (now Catholic Church) heavily controlled ‘the word’, by insisting everything be done in Latin - which they were then the gatekeepers for. They also meddled (or flat out controlled!) national politics, and this gave them immense power to control the narrative of ‘what god demands’ in ways that now clearly contradict what we can read ourselves.
Islamic teachings can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are at least 2 major schools of thought (Sunni/Shia), and two major regional differences. What is taught//practiced in most of the middle, and what is taught/practiced in Indonesia being clear differentiators, for example.
But the Koran and its Hadiths are generally relatively accessible, if one looks, and it’s not hard to find analysis of different elements of it online. Unlike the Bible, there are explicit calls for the devout to study it directly. Also, unlike the Christian Bible, it also tends to be less - chaotic and internally conflicting. Comparing Matthew and Leviticus would give anyone whiplash, for example.
For instance - Quran 9:5 [https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/71323/what-is-the-...].
As to if it means believers must go to war with specific ‘irritating’ local tribes, or means all unbelievers, depends on who you ask. But most agree it means unbelievers in general. Many of the ‘problem’ groups in recent history with the west have explicitly used it to justify their attacks (among many others).
There are specific carve outs/exceptions for Jews and Christians (though also corresponding ‘give them no quarter unless they convert/behave as Muslims’ sections!), and in general the expectation is that for them to be protected they need to respect Islamic law and behave accordingly. Which isn’t really possible, for the most part, without significant changes in behavior/belief.
So depending on how ‘close to the book’ someone is being, and if sections are being ignored, depends on how much someone is going to believe/follow. Notably, Indonesia is widely seen is ‘Islam light’, but they do follow quite a bit of it (like how marriages work, expectations for women), that the west would struggle with. Middle eastern countries, communities in Pakistan, India, etc. tend to be the hardest core.
And once you understand the nature of the teaching, it is hard to not see the western way of life as being the personification of Iblis (the great satan - the tester of faith). After all, who wouldn’t want to chill out and drink beer, watch TV, and ignore the (often difficult) teachings of God? join us…, it’s fun! And don’t worry, there is no actual god anyway.
And like the old Christian Church during the crusades, government and madrases (religious schools) tend to be intermixed, which of course causes ‘problems’ similar to the crusades.
Thankfully not to the full extent, right now anyway.
To your point, you're right that the Quran and the Hadith make some statements that to an unlearned individual's interpretation, appear to promote total war against the unbelievers. As you also point out, this is not unique to Islam, as demonstrated by the Crusades for example. I don't think the relative accessibility of the Quran today is a valid point, as in the current day and age anyone can pick up the Bible and read something like Matthew 10:34 [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010%3A...] and claim that Jesus ordered Christians to fight.
Continuing to use Christianity as an example, today you don't get that many extremist Christian groups because most places with significant Christian populations are well developed, generally have highly educated populations, robust political processes, and strong rule of law. Back to the map OP posted, if you overlay it with a map of Christian populations, you'll find a strong overlap in central Africa. Central Africa was recently decolonized, has unresolved political issues, and is majority Christian, as a result you get extremist organizations like the LRA forming [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_insur...].
My point is, it's easy to manipulate some holy text or another to claim it orders to fight the disbelievers. I would say the average Joe who does not need to worry about how tomorrow he will feed his family and educate his children will never get up in arms to kill someone just because of a cherry-picked verse from a holy book. If that happens and this Joe gets up to murder his neighbor, either Joe is a psychopath at heart, or the core reason is something else. If that wasn't the case, then Islam has a huge problem with disobedience, because its 2 billion followers aren't slaughtering everyone right now.
Anecdote time. I had the pleasure of acquainting someone who seriously thought about joining ISIS during their heyday. He was in high-school with me, I didn't know him very closely, but enough to paint a picture. He lived in a dysfunctional home with a terrible father who was too harsh and too violent. He lived in the street most of his childhood, basically treating his home as where he goes to sleep. He came from a poor background, was rock bottom academically, all while living in a country where most youth do not have high hopes for the future. He also had a history of drug abuse and generally thuggish behavior. On a spiritual level, the dude did not give a single iota about any teaching of Islam.
It was 2015. In the few months leading up to his arrest, he had a change of mind and heart. His closer friends tell me he started joining some FB groups where ISIS was doing recruitment. Having been exposed to a couple of recruitment videos myself, I imagine it would have been super lucrative for someone like him. They were always boasting about the loot the fighters would get from battle, how in a couple of months of fighting you could have your own house and land, a nice truck, a subservient wife, all while being super badass with guns and fancy combat gear AND God would love you and send you to heaven if you die (but you wouldn't, because look at the map, ISIS is unstoppable). It was almost like a parody version of the American dream. No need for a higher education, job interviews, hard work, or knowing the right people. If you can pick up a gun and don't mind killing these worthless scum who don't know any better, we can take care of the rest!
Somehow he was arrested and was imprisoned before he could join ISIS. He was released from prison a couple of years ago, and from what I hear some special prison treatment took its toll and now he wouldn't hurt a fly. When this guy tried to join ISIS, was his sole motivation the belief that God earnestly ordered Muslims to indiscriminately fight the unbelievers? A better question: would he have joined them without the promise of wealth beyond his wildest dreams and a chance to start anew?
what do you call that? And how exactly does one counter such obvious lies of omission, without using the word "lying"?
"Sorry dear chap, but I believe you are intentionally hiding key facts here,namely the identity of the victims themselves"?
And btw, where was the flamebait? My 2nd paragraph is as close to a precise summary of what's actually happening as you can get, without hiding the identities of anyone involved.
This style of commenting is a pattern extending back at least a year, maybe longer. We've already asked you before to do better.
The comment you replied to was also flagged and killed, and also wasn't what we like to see, but that doesn’t justify or excuse further escalation from you.
If you expect others to conduct themselves to a high standard, you need to show a sincere intent to conduct yourself to a high standard, and it makes it harder for us to take action against an earlier comment when a later comment escalates so egregiously.
None of this is personal or specific to this comment or any issue. The guidelines have been in place since HN began and have changed little. They apply equally to everyone. By participating on HN, you agree to adhere to the guidelines. If you don't like HN's guidelines, you can choose not to participate.
Arab vs non-Arab conflicts are also nothing new. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc.
You're probably right. It's unfortunate that acts of genocide like the one ongoing in Gaza need to go viral on social media for many Westerners to even be aware of them, much less care.
Perhaps more effort should be put towards raising awareness of other genocides like the genocide in Gaza.