Jason, on page three, i will attempt to give you your first real answer, in two alternative explanations:
1. it is a legitimate distinction (surely the distinction itself is legitimate, but the reasons for the propagation of this distinction may be illigitmate, as the second explanation shows) that is somewhat akin to what happens in the Western church when the legitimacy of a Pope is in question, or when there are two camps that support two opposing popes, except in the case of the Muslim world, this division between camps draws its succession back to Mohammed himself, and the camps have been divided since day one over who the rightful successor was. Here is your establishment explanation vis a vis The Economist (an "official" Rothschild publication, ) Economist Explains Sunni vs Shiite
2. explanation two, coming from your most certainly non-western-establishment source, Al Jazeera, is that the entire division is a false one intended to fragment and pit the Arab world against itself. The myth of the 1,400 year Sunni-Shia war
Arab politics is way above my head, so I'll leave that decision to you.
I will say that I wouldn't put it past Anglophile interests to use "false" clasifications of a population in order to subjugate them (or to unite them, or to unite them in order to more singly rule them) ... just look at the "history" of "hinduism" (fairly well summed here) -- it was an utterly "false" classification of an entire peoples as one homogeneous group even if in reality it wasn't. (why? what political motivation? probably to unite the continent under one religious system, make them easier to rule, and to assimilate with eachother, and eventually to assimilate more broadly, ie in to the british community proper, and eventually the global community. can't do that if they have a fragmented country in hundreds of religious "sects").
ahh. i dunno. i got a parking ticket today. :(
ps - it is kind've silly though.
would be sort of akin to the Western tradition in a situation where one group believed Paul (or James, maybe) was the rightful successor while the majority believed it was Peter, and killing eachother over it. Mean while Jesus is sitting back going, "WTF guys"? (ps. and i'm well aware that the West has plenty of real, and sometimes violent, schisms within it's own church)
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I will say that I wouldn't put it past Anglophile interests to use "false" clasifications of a population in order to subjugate them (or to unite them, or to unite them in order to more singly rule them) ... just look at the "history" of "hinduism" (fairly well summed here) -- it was an utterly "false" classification of an entire peoples as one homogeneous group even if in reality it wasn't. (why? what political motivation? probably to unite the continent under one religious system, make them easier to rule, and to assimilate with eachother, and eventually to assimilate more broadly, ie in to the british community proper, and eventually the global community. can't do that if they have a fragmented country in hundreds of religious "sects").
ahh. i dunno. i got a parking ticket today. :(
Yes, consider also for example the capitulations that took place during the 19th and 20th centuries, whereby colonial powers (France, Britain, etc) would force the Ottoman Empire into renouncing their right to rule over 'foreigners' in their borders. This was then followed by the European powers granting citizenship to various religious and ethnic groups, even those who were before considered Ottoman, while denying others. For instance, in French Algeria, the Cremieux Decree allowed Jews to become citizens of France, which created animosity between them and the other colonized Algerians who were denied this position of privilege. Colonialism definitely had a lot to do with this 'divide and conquer' model that has since been the deciding factor for identity politics in the Middle East (a classic example being Lebanon, of course).
There should be... but, there aren't.
That's what religion does to some people... it make them absolutely, positively, 100% sure that they KNOW what God has in store for us. If you get it pounded into you head by your parents who got it pounded into their heads from people who've had it pounded into their heads for hundreds of of years... it becomes truth.
Religion is not truth and never has been. It is all man made, not by God. That is the only truth about religion... made by Man.
What are you talking about? Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages. Where do you get off saying something like "there aren't leaders uniting and asking 'what are we doing?'" Sectarianism is and has been one of the most hotly debated topics in Islamic scholarship and societies FOR CENTURIES. It seems like you just needed a jumping off point to get to an anti-religion rant, no matter how inaccurate it was. Sorry if I'm being condescending or rude, but let's be honest, you were just condescending and rude to billions of people who do happen to believe in religion, and denied a straight fact--that religious figures have been condemning the atrocities committed in their areas. CNN might not cover it, but let's try and use more critical thinking skills, shall we?
...
sorry if you took this personally... which you clearly did... but, i hope you understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world. My point was that religion, by its very nature, is drilled into people telling them their way is the righteous path, therefore nullifying any other path... i.e path being a different belief system.
And I am ready and willing to listen to your proof that religion was not created by Man.
I'm listening.
Also.. if, as you claim, that figures are stopping this violence... why hasn't it stopped?
I'll give you a clue: It starts with an 'R' and ends with 'eligion'.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
There should be... but, there aren't.
That's what religion does to some people... it make them absolutely, positively, 100% sure that they KNOW what God has in store for us. If you get it pounded into you head by your parents who got it pounded into their heads from people who've had it pounded into their heads for hundreds of of years... it becomes truth.
Religion is not truth and never has been. It is all man made, not by God. That is the only truth about religion... made by Man.
What are you talking about? Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages. Where do you get off saying something like "there aren't leaders uniting and asking 'what are we doing?'" Sectarianism is and has been one of the most hotly debated topics in Islamic scholarship and societies FOR CENTURIES. It seems like you just needed a jumping off point to get to an anti-religion rant, no matter how inaccurate it was. Sorry if I'm being condescending or rude, but let's be honest, you were just condescending and rude to billions of people who do happen to believe in religion, and denied a straight fact--that religious figures have been condemning the atrocities committed in their areas. CNN might not cover it, but let's try and use more critical thinking skills, shall we?
...
sorry if you took this personally... which you clearly did... but, i hope you understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world. My point was that religion, by its very nature, is drilled into people telling them their way is the righteous path, therefore nullifying any other path... i.e path being a different belief system.
And I am ready and willing to listen to your proof that religion was not created by Man.
I'm listening.
Also.. if, as you claim, that figures are stopping this violence... why hasn't it stopped?
I'll give you a clue: It starts with an 'R' and ends with 'eligion'.
And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world? I understood your point very well - I've no desire to debate with you on whether religion was created by Man; it's off topic, and frankly, I don't really care if you believe that. You can have whatever beliefs you want. I was merely pointing out that you made up a fact for the sole purpose of jumping into an anti-religion rant--it was that you made something up that actually bothered me, not your rant (though you did write the rant very condescendingly, to which I acknowledged that I was also guilty of that). I do think you should own up to the fact that you made something up, though.
You're also changing words here. No one said that the religious figures are obligated to "stop" this violence. The question was whether they were standing up and questioning "what we are doing." You said those people don't exist. You're wrong.
Finally, as for why this violence hasn't stopped, I suggest you check out Drifting's post above. To merely attribute it to "religion" ignores history; it's far more political.
Here's another example of the so-called Sunni/Shiite religious divide, the way it is playing out today, actually being political:
It is obvious that Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Syrian rebels (many of whom are Sunni, of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and some who are very extremist and supposedly have links to Al-Qaeda type groups) against Bashar al-Assad's regime. Meanwhile, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is supporting the army's secular authoritarianism against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Why is this? Well, this is all geo-politics: Saudi Arabia wants to see Iran fail, and Syria is obviously a huge ally of Iran (not to mention Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Saudi Arabia also supports Sunni factions against Hezbollah). If someone just sees Saudi Arabia's involvement in Syria, they'd assume it is ideological. But when you look at Egypt, it is the exact opposite: this is because Saudi Arabia does not actually care about seeing "Sunni" "Islamic" groups succeed; if anything, it wants them to fail. The Muslim Brotherhood succeeding in Egypt through democratic methods would present a direct challenge to Saudi Arabia's monopoly on being the "true" representation of political Islam, so they played a very active role in making that project, that is, Islamism and democracy, fail.
And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world?
Here: Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.
Just because I mention religion as a general entity, you cover it all as an attack on Islam... as if there are no other religions. You premise your wrath on the position that I know little or nothing about the Middle East, therefore I cannot comment on the socio-political/religious base feud that has been going on for decades. And yes, i understand that there are socio-political factors involved with Middle Eastern affairs, but a lot of the driving force is primarily founded on religion... because religion can have a profound driving affect on Man, in general. Religion is used to justify a means, regardless of how unholy those means are. That is what i'm talking about... deeply seated religious belief that will see another as an adversary that is unfit for life. That is how an otherwise sane man can blow up someone else's church without a second thought. Religion can be a powerful tool of manipulation. History and current events provide proof of its power over common man.
...
And it IS a fact that Religion is made by Man... the same way Man created politics and borderlines. Those are facts that you cannot dispute.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world?
Here: Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.
Just because I mention religion as a general entity, you cover it all as an attack on Islam... as if there are no other religions. You premise your wrath on the position that I know little or nothing about the Middle East, therefore I cannot comment on the socio-political/religious base feud that has been going on for decades. And yes, i understand that there are socio-political factors involved with Middle Eastern affairs, but a lot of the driving force is primarily founded on religion... because religion can have a profound driving affect on Man, in general. Religion is used to justify a means, regardless of how unholy those means are. That is what i'm talking about... deeply seated religious belief that will see another as an adversary that is unfit for life. That is how an otherwise sane man can blow up someone else's church without a second thought. Religion can be a powerful tool of manipulation. History and current events provide proof of its power over common man.
...
And it IS a fact that Religion is made by Man... the same way Man created politics and borderlines. Those are facts that you cannot dispute.
What on earth are you talking about? I asked those questions because you said no Muslim leader has come out and condemned these attacks, so I was asking if you know enough to truly make a statement like that:
There should be leaders uniting and shouting to the heavens, "what the hell are we doing?!"
...
There should be... but, there aren't.
That was a statement specific to Islam, not all religions. The fact that you made a statement like that indeed shows that you know little about the topic.
Sunni Muslims believe after Mohammed's death Abu bakr became the "leader". Shias reject this and believe Ali was put in charge. Within in both sects there are further different denominations with extreme observers rejecting each others claims to be Muslims hence the sectarian violence.
And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world?
Here: Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.
What on earth are you talking about? I asked those questions because you said no Muslim leader has come out and condemned these attacks, so I was asking if you know enough to truly make a statement like that:
That was a statement specific to Islam, not all religions. The fact that you made a statement like that indeed shows that you know little about the topic.
It feels like you guys are having a three way argument between two people. Looking back at the original quote from fuck's earlier response, it seems like he/she is combining Jason P's and Cosmo's opinion into one? e.g., it was Jason that said "what are religious/islamic leaders asking, 'what the fuck is going on with these bombings?' " (horrible paraphrase, but you get the picture)
It feels like you guys are having a three way argument between two people. Looking back at the original quote from fuck's earlier response, it seems like he/she is combining Jason P's and Cosmo's opinion into one? e.g., it was Jason that said "what are religious/islamic leaders asking, 'what the fuck is going on with these bombings?' " (horrible paraphrase, but you get the picture)
I don't think the third party is involved for this reason: Jason P wrote that there should be islamic/religious leaders asking that question. I think that's a fairly reasonable statement, or at least one not deserving ridicule, since it's written as a suggestion and because it is understandable that people in the U.S. would not really be aware of the conversations going on in the Islamic world. I think Cosmo's response that "there should be, but there aren't any" is far more problematic, because it assumes the more active position that there actually isn't anyone standing up and asking this question; in other words, it's a sentence written as if it is from a position of knowledge, where the writer can truly make that claim. I argued that Cosmo shouldn't make a reckless statement like that, given that it's simply not true, and I then made the claim that he probably just made that statement to give him a jumping off point to get into an anti-religion rant. He assumed I wanted to actually debate the content of his rant, and kept trying to goad me into it, but I had no desire to and simply wanted him to retract his earlier claim (so far, he's not even acknowledged it).
It feels like you guys are having a three way argument between two people. Looking back at the original quote from fuck's earlier response, it seems like he/she is combining Jason P's and Cosmo's opinion into one? e.g., it was Jason that said "what are religious/islamic leaders asking, 'what the fuck is going on with these bombings?' " (horrible paraphrase, but you get the picture)
I don't think the third party is involved for this reason: Jason P wrote that there should be islamic/religious leaders asking that question. I think that's a fairly reasonable statement, or at least one not deserving ridicule, since it's written as a suggestion and because it is understandable that people in the U.S. would not really be aware of the conversations going on in the Islamic world. I think Cosmo's response that "there should be, but there aren't any" is far more problematic, because it assumes the more active position that there actually isn't anyone standing up and asking this question; in other words, it's a sentence written as if it is from a position of knowledge, where the writer can truly make that claim. I argued that Cosmo shouldn't make a reckless statement like that, given that it's simply not true, and I then made the claim that he probably just made that statement to give him a jumping off point to get into an anti-religion rant. He assumed I wanted to actually debate the content of his rant, and kept trying to goad me into it, but I had no desire to and simply wanted him to retract his earlier claim (so far, he's not even acknowledged it).
Ah, yes, I missed Cosmo's affirmation of the implications in Jason's question. Then when cosmo never addressed your inquiries into his statement, I assumed cosmo didn't actually hold the opinion. Anyhow, carry on.
I think Cosmo's response that "there should be, but there aren't any" is far more problematic, because it assumes the more active position that there actually isn't anyone standing up and asking this question; in other words, it's a sentence written as if it is from a position of knowledge, where the writer can truly make that claim. I argued that Cosmo shouldn't make a reckless statement like that, given that it's simply not true, and I then made the claim that he probably just made that statement to give him a jumping off point to get into an anti-religion rant. He assumed I wanted to actually debate the content of his rant, and kept trying to goad me into it, but I had no desire to and simply wanted him to retract his earlier claim (so far, he's not even acknowledged it).
...
All right already... Jesus Christ.
If they are 'leaders' speaking out to end the sectarian violence over there, they aren't being very effective because these fucking bombs keep blowing up shit.
If there are people... who are they and what is their standing in the community... or, specifically... where the fuck are they?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
1. it is a legitimate distinction (surely the distinction itself is legitimate, but the reasons for the propagation of this distinction may be illigitmate, as the second explanation shows) that is somewhat akin to what happens in the Western church when the legitimacy of a Pope is in question, or when there are two camps that support two opposing popes, except in the case of the Muslim world, this division between camps draws its succession back to Mohammed himself, and the camps have been divided since day one over who the rightful successor was. Here is your establishment explanation vis a vis The Economist (an "official" Rothschild publication,
2. explanation two, coming from your most certainly non-western-establishment source, Al Jazeera, is that the entire division is a false one intended to fragment and pit the Arab world against itself. The myth of the 1,400 year Sunni-Shia war
Arab politics is way above my head, so I'll leave that decision to you.
I will say that I wouldn't put it past Anglophile interests to use "false" clasifications of a population in order to subjugate them (or to unite them, or to unite them in order to more singly rule them) ... just look at the "history" of "hinduism" (fairly well summed here) -- it was an utterly "false" classification of an entire peoples as one homogeneous group even if in reality it wasn't. (why? what political motivation? probably to unite the continent under one religious system, make them easier to rule, and to assimilate with eachother, and eventually to assimilate more broadly, ie in to the british community proper, and eventually the global community. can't do that if they have a fragmented country in hundreds of religious "sects").
ahh. i dunno. i got a parking ticket today. :(
ps - it is kind've silly though.
would be sort of akin to the Western tradition in a situation where one group believed Paul (or James, maybe) was the rightful successor while the majority believed it was Peter, and killing eachother over it. Mean while Jesus is sitting back going, "WTF guys"? (ps. and i'm well aware that the West has plenty of real, and sometimes violent, schisms within it's own church)
If I opened it now would you not understand?
sorry if you took this personally... which you clearly did... but, i hope you understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world. My point was that religion, by its very nature, is drilled into people telling them their way is the righteous path, therefore nullifying any other path... i.e path being a different belief system.
And I am ready and willing to listen to your proof that religion was not created by Man.
I'm listening.
Also.. if, as you claim, that figures are stopping this violence... why hasn't it stopped?
I'll give you a clue: It starts with an 'R' and ends with 'eligion'.
Hail, Hail!!!
And where did I imply that Islam was the only religion in the world? I understood your point very well - I've no desire to debate with you on whether religion was created by Man; it's off topic, and frankly, I don't really care if you believe that. You can have whatever beliefs you want. I was merely pointing out that you made up a fact for the sole purpose of jumping into an anti-religion rant--it was that you made something up that actually bothered me, not your rant (though you did write the rant very condescendingly, to which I acknowledged that I was also guilty of that). I do think you should own up to the fact that you made something up, though.
You're also changing words here. No one said that the religious figures are obligated to "stop" this violence. The question was whether they were standing up and questioning "what we are doing." You said those people don't exist. You're wrong.
Finally, as for why this violence hasn't stopped, I suggest you check out Drifting's post above. To merely attribute it to "religion" ignores history; it's far more political.
It is obvious that Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Syrian rebels (many of whom are Sunni, of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and some who are very extremist and supposedly have links to Al-Qaeda type groups) against Bashar al-Assad's regime. Meanwhile, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is supporting the army's secular authoritarianism against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Why is this? Well, this is all geo-politics: Saudi Arabia wants to see Iran fail, and Syria is obviously a huge ally of Iran (not to mention Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Saudi Arabia also supports Sunni factions against Hezbollah). If someone just sees Saudi Arabia's involvement in Syria, they'd assume it is ideological. But when you look at Egypt, it is the exact opposite: this is because Saudi Arabia does not actually care about seeing "Sunni" "Islamic" groups succeed; if anything, it wants them to fail. The Muslim Brotherhood succeeding in Egypt through democratic methods would present a direct challenge to Saudi Arabia's monopoly on being the "true" representation of political Islam, so they played a very active role in making that project, that is, Islamism and democracy, fail.
Do you truly follow Islamic scholarship that closely to know that figures aren't speaking out about this? How long have you spent studying and conducting research on the Middle East? Do you know Arabic, and do you read the publications and media outlets from the Arab world that write in Arabic? Let alone the rest of the Muslim world which has dozens of other languages.
Just because I mention religion as a general entity, you cover it all as an attack on Islam... as if there are no other religions. You premise your wrath on the position that I know little or nothing about the Middle East, therefore I cannot comment on the socio-political/religious base feud that has been going on for decades. And yes, i understand that there are socio-political factors involved with Middle Eastern affairs, but a lot of the driving force is primarily founded on religion... because religion can have a profound driving affect on Man, in general. Religion is used to justify a means, regardless of how unholy those means are. That is what i'm talking about... deeply seated religious belief that will see another as an adversary that is unfit for life. That is how an otherwise sane man can blow up someone else's church without a second thought. Religion can be a powerful tool of manipulation. History and current events provide proof of its power over common man.
...
And it IS a fact that Religion is made by Man... the same way Man created politics and borderlines. Those are facts that you cannot dispute.
Hail, Hail!!!
That was a statement specific to Islam, not all religions. The fact that you made a statement like that indeed shows that you know little about the topic.
All right already... Jesus Christ.
If they are 'leaders' speaking out to end the sectarian violence over there, they aren't being very effective because these fucking bombs keep blowing up shit.
If there are people... who are they and what is their standing in the community... or, specifically... where the fuck are they?
Hail, Hail!!!