Posts Tagged ‘Islam’
May there never be compulsion in religion
Religious freedom is truly one of the great ideas to be expressed by the enlightenment. Though we can trace those ideas to other thinkers before, it was this movement which went beyond speaking and acting as freethinkers to actually challenge orthodox organised religion’s monopoly on thought and explanation. Humanism, emboldened by empirical observation and reasoning beyond scriptures, came out of the shadows of being an act of religious reflection. Humanist thought became a way of understanding the world, morality, ourselves and the cosmos without strict adherence to the confines of the divine or preceding tradition. Natural philosophy, and the scientific method ushered in a new era.
Whilst this age of reason is one to celebrate, one of the challenges to the notion of religious freedom is the consequence of leaving a faith – being an apostate. Here I am trying to lay out the battle for the idea of where it comes from and means now in Islam. The reason this matters is quite simply the death penalty that exists, or the process of being excluded by family and other believers, if someone renounces the faith they grew up in. Let alone principles of free speech and freedom of expression which together with freedom of religion are classed as universal rights.
Apostasy matters now
As my good friends at the Council of Ex Muslims Britain Forum (CEMB) observe:
Countless individuals accused of apostasy and blasphemy face threats, imprisonment, and execution. Blasphemy laws in over 30 countries and apostasy laws in over 20 aim primarily to restrict thought, expression and the rights of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims alike. [CEMB]
In my critique of Islam I mentioned concern that by cherry picking the Koran and Hadith it gave cover for Islamists to kill apostates. For example:
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim. [Ibid]
When discussing this with Sam Harris he made these observations:
A modern retelling
In Abdul-Azim Ahmed’s article for the Rationalist Association, he explains why as a Muslim he fully supported the Apostasy project using Koranic quotes to justify:
“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who desires believe and let him who desires disbelieve.” – 18:29
“If they accept Islam, then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, your duty is only to deliver the message.” –3:20
“And if your Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will you then force people till they are believers?” – 10:99 [Rationalist Association]
It would be amiss of me not to point out that Ahmed stresses European Colonialism as having a theological impact on punishment for apostasy in response to machine guns and missionaries. Regrettably, death for apostasy existed way before the British Empire ever attempted to prevent the sun setting on it.
Yet sociological and political factors are playing a part. Acceptance of principles like pluralism and secularism mean challenging concepts such as apostasy. In the battle of ideas some modern theological thinkers are pointing out the subjective spin put on death for apostasy in the past, though often stating such a view is controversial to the point of putting a bullseye on your thinking cap even now.
As Usama Hassan mentions in a concept paper:
There is no explicit sanction in the Qur’an and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) for the criminalisation and punishment of blasphemy: in fact, the opposite is the case; the few scriptural texts that are misquoted in this regard all refer to wartime situations, and the harsh, mediaeval Islamic jurisprudence on blasphemy was developed centuries after the Prophet himself.[Quilliam Foundation]
The War of Apostasy, also known as Ridda Wars shortly after the death of Mohammed suggests that violence was sadly a means of preventing dissent which was considered a threat to cohesion let alone future territorial ambitions on Persia and beyond. Conquest existed way before modern European colonisation.
The title for this post will be familiar to those aware of The Koranic verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). A critique of the context of that verse can be found on the CEMB forum site. That rather than a call for tolerance it is the manifest destiny that Islam is the faith for us to follow when quoted in full:
“There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
Still that is a hallmark of a particular religion that it is the right way. The narrative given in the Quilliam Foundation concept paper: NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: AN ISLAMIC CASE AGAINST BLASPHEMY LAWS is certainly an answer to Sam Harris’ earlier remarks.
It is the practise of political Islam by Islamists which concern all of the people mentioned above. Where we differ in belief we would uphold the values of pluralism, free speech and free expression. An inherent inalienable right we would agree is religious freedom. I am delighted to see that the Quilliam Foundation takes the radicalisation of people by some within Islam very seriously and looks to challenge that.
Maybe not in the next world
As mentioned in the past I wish we did not have to argue over interpretations of sacred texts but could move beyond them. That is not the world we live in. As such we will continue to debate and argue with each other over such things.
The bare minimum is that none should be put to death for the argument, and dissent from others beliefs should not just be tolerated but considered a cause for celebration in a pluralistic and free society.
Those who believe, those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things. – Koran 22:17
I hope mothers and fathers can embrace their children no less just because they no longer follow their religion. It really is a matter of free thought and not a reflection on them. However, the fear of the next life is one that still grips people. Apostasy will still concern people even in a free society.
Perhaps until we are free of the fear of death freedom of religion will not be absolute in this life when people consider the stakes are eternity and the blessings of the Almighty are available even now if all follow His will.
My thanks to Sam Harris, CEMB, Maajid Nawaz, Usama Hasan, and the Rationalist Association UK (and Abdul-Azim Ahmed) for known or unknown assistance in writing the above article (which is written by me and not necessarily endorsed by the above) and to @yakuza72 for passing on the cartoon.
Please support the Apostasy Project
Update 18/6/2013: Tribune article on blasphemy in Pakistan
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Great Arab Freethinkers: Al-Ma'arri
Such was the nature of the power of Christianity, its dogma, its insecurity, during the Middle Ages, that a great writer, humanist, and long time friend of the King could be put to death for nothing more than refusing to swear that King Henry VIII was the Supreme Head of the Church in England. Thomas More was lucky in one sense.
Mo Ansar, the extremists, and moral relativism
Mo Ansar stands for the rights of persecuted Muslims.
Part of the way he has stood up for those rights has been to belittle and humiliate Lejla Kurić on twitter. She is a Muslim, and survived the Bosnian genocide. She lives here in the UK and has taken exception to how he expresses the faith.
His response has been she does not know what she is talking about, and she should leave these shores which are her home.
Here is Mo on gender segregation:
The insults Mo gives critics and detractors are distasteful (as I discovered personally yesterday) but he crossed a line with Lejla.
Her response was to actually show his tweets for how they are regarding Bangladesh and the protest “massacre”.
Read her post – Hang Atheist Bloggers And Be Polite.
The tweet by Mo that is getting the attention:
This is far removed from reported figures of 27 (BBC News) and no link to news source was given by Ansar. The figures lack credibility; as Leila explains extreme Islamic websites are quoting those fatality figures. No harm in an inquiry ensuring force was proportionate by the police and if not justice be done.
Thankfully her article is getting the attention it deserves and I recommend you click/tap the link:
The problem Mo is moral relativism – calling for atheist bloggers to be killed and law abiding protestors being killed are both wrong.
An accusation of poor form … sounds familiar.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Buffet Style Religion – cherry picking
Literalist interpretations of sacred texts are a rarity in serious discourse in the United Kingdom. Bible bashing would be a sign of no serious argument as much as resorting to ad hominem ignoring what the discussion is about.
Video above from “The West Wing” a great bible rant about the need to cherry pick for a humanist religion
President Josiah Bartlett may have been in the back of the mind as Neal Donald Walsch’s article Buffet-Style Bible Believers about reactions to Boy Scouts of America decision on allowing membership to openly gay youths. He uses different bible quotes regarding killing rebellious offspring, killing brides that have no virginity, women avoiding the groin in a fight, the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.
So with respect, I ask you to excuse me, Pastor Reed, if I am not totally convinced that humanity’s infallible answers will be found in the Bible. You may not agree with all of the above verses, either. But if we are going to be Buffet Bible Believers, rather than a Literal Word of God Believer, than might you please tell us which verses of the Bible we are advised to ignore, and which we should apply to the letter?
Thank you, sir. That would be very helpful. We would not want to be called hypocrites for citing some verses of God’s Word when they support our personal prejudices, and ignoring others when they do not, now would we?
In my post about Islam I mentioned concern with cherry picking verses in Koran and Hadiths – not because I and others may be misrepresenting the true nature of Islam as believers live their faith – but because extreme radical Islamic political ideologues use those same verses to legitimise their wanton acts of coercion either through the state or by means of terror.
That is a different thing to respond to. Spin those verses were for a particular context that do not exist today, that they were one off commandments not applicable now, other verses make clear not right thing to act on in the way they do.
Tied down by parchment, the need for revisionism and winning with your interpretation becomes the battleground of ideas. Over a millennium later it really is a matter of life and death how Iron Age texts are read. That private belief can be enforced on the populace to deny their own pursuit to happiness while living a good life.
Whether you believe in God or not, this is a rather sorry state of affairs for humanity to still find itself in.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Turkey on my mind
Turkey has been on my mind for awhile. The use of terror to indoctrinate severe learning disabled children into believing in Allah last April. Last December I highlighted the tension between Islamism and the republican secular ideals that modern Turkey was founded on.
I did not imagine that the protest regarding the redevelopment of Taksim Gezi Park would lead to this:
Or this:
The creeping slide from secular republic towards an autocratic Islamist state was one that flew low under the radar for most western media outlets before the six nights of protests. What is happening is not an Arab spring – and we are not just talking about geography. Turkish leader Erdogan has won three elections.
Yet the idea of elected dictatorship is well understood. It is when a government makes use of legislative dominance and control over law and order to push through reforms which go against universal rights and norms of citizens. Such as kissing at train stations, national airline stewardesses wearing lipstick, the selling of alcohol and the use of twitter – by no means an extensive list but a flavour of what Islamists worry about. The issues are well summarised on the following placard:
If you cannot tell when an elected government is using clerical fascism for inspiration, then you have not been looking hard enough. It is there for us to see, and the Turkish people have by the overt force on peaceful environment protestors taken to the streets to express their overall grievances.
At it’s height so far about two to three thousand people in over 90 cities were arrested. The police response has been heavily criticised as the two photos above serve to demonstrate.
In an excellent post which I encourage you all to read, Rob Marchant sums up my feelings on what the protestors are doing:
In short: although they should take great care to stop their protests degenerating into violence, looting or even revolution, the Turkish demonstrators should not stop.
And that is because they are saying something important about democracy: it needs protecting and it has, even in the quite imperfect form it exists in in Turkey, served them pretty well. Their continued presence is an overdue slap-down for Erdogan; a message to both him and future leaders that in a democracy the people, and not the politicians, are the masters. Above all, that religion needs to be free and tolerant, not a behavioural tyrant imposing itself on the masses.
The young Turks seem to have suddenly realised that they largely already have what their counterparts in North Africa were protesting for. The last thing they need is for it to gradually slip away without a fight.
Secular solidarity for my fellow comrades of free thought in Turkey.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Will Mo Ansar keep his word?
“O you who believe! Fulfill (your) obligations.” (Quran 5:1)
Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) ‘Ali (RA), in his letter to Malik al-Ashtar, wrote:
“If you conclude an agreement between yourself and your enemy or enter into a pledge with him, then fulfil your agreement and discharge your pledge faithfully. Place yourself as a shield against whatever you have pledged, because among the obligations of Allah there is nothing on which people are more firmly united despite the difference of their ideas and variation of their views than respect for fulfilling pledges.” [Source]
One of the most read blog posts last March was covering the conversation on twitter between Mo Ansar and Tom Holland regarding Islam and Slavery. Today that post was linked to in an article on Exposing the Pseudo Moderation of Mo Ansar. This article I had nothing to do with in writing and was only made aware of by people coming to my site via it.
My original post stemmed from Mo’s tweet:
Mo Ansar seemed reluctant to provide the context himself for the tweet – I hoped my blog post would encourage him to see where the criticism was coming from.
At the time of writing my article I offered Ansar the right of reply, not least because via twitter he had told me to look for the context of his slavery tweet. I reprinted the context and looked at the article he linked to on slavery when writing my blog post. His reply in March:
Dialogue is important and I was encouraged by his initial response. The new link to that post nearly three months later served as a reminder I had not received his reply, so tweeted once more today. The reception I received was a lot less cordial accusing me of bad form:
I hope if Ansar does read this, he will reconsider. The subject of slavery and Islam matters to a lot of people, and I hope he can clarify his thinking on the subject. I hope he does so by showing good form through keeping to his word.
UPDATE: 22:20 having sent this post as a reminder of the cordial offer of dialogue, which he embraced in March, his final word is clear enough:
Update 6/5/2013: Mo has – three months after I asked – given a tweet pic of his full conversation with Tom Holland. You can find that here.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tony Blair Islamophobic?
Tony Blair had a number of things to say about Islam in The Mail On Sunday. Having said there was no problem with Islam as a religion of peace:
But there is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology that is a strain within Islam. And we have to put it on the table and be honest about it.
Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.
At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the world view goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So by and large we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those with that view think we are weak and that gives them strength.
Second, those within Islam – and the good news is there are many – who actually know this problem exists and want to do something about it, lose heart. All over the Middle East and beyond there is a struggle being played out.
On the one side, there are Islamists who have this exclusivist and reactionary world view. They are a significant minority, loud and well organised. On the other are the modern-minded, those who hated the old oppression by corrupt dictators and who hate the new oppression by religious fanatics. They are potentially the majority, but unfortunately they are badly organised.
The seeds of future fanaticism and terror, possibly even major conflict, are being sown. We have to help sow seeds of reconciliation and peace. But clearing the ground for peace is not always peaceful.
There is an enemy within that Islam needs to deal with – an ideology that cherry picks the Koran for a jihad against the west for being a pluralistic, liberal open minded society. For some though that goes against the grain of blaming western interference in the Arab region as the number one cause for Islamic extremism.
Blair’s critics would rather paint Islamic radicals as victims reacting against imperialist aggression, put on a war footing caused in no small part by the “war criminal” Tony Blair himself. That however does not work when we see in public policy how Islamist governments behave, and the political goal of Al Qaeda as a single Islamic nation for the Arab world and as a social movement for theocratic absolutism.
Update 3/6: More on that can be read on this post by Edisa of the Humane Intervention Centre.
Mo Ansar has taken exception to what Tony Blair wrote:
The cricket did not seem to help much:
I have asked Ansar to give a detailed critique rather than mud slinging. Blair went out of his way to praise Islam as a religion of peace and call the problem an ideology. The only modern way he suggests this can be beaten is:
The better idea is a modern view of religion and its place in society and politics. There has to be respect and equality between people of different faiths. Religion must have a voice in the political system but not govern it.
We have to start with how to educate children about faith, here and abroad. That is why I started a foundation whose specific purpose is to educate children of different faiths across the world to learn about each other and live with each other.
If that makes Tony Blair an islamophobic the word has been debased as an attempt to silence critics rather than deal with hate and violent crimes committed against Muslim people.
Ansar, we need to talk about the ideology that exists within Islam and how it is going to be challenged externally and internally. In the meantime we will do our best to maintain a secular liberal pluralistic society as our contribution. We need you to tackle the ideology of the extremists. You are ideally placed to complete this mission, knowing Islam as you do. Maybe the way you reacted, throwing your toys out of the pram, was just a cover for the real task that lies ahead. That in reality you will seek and counter hatred that is perpetuated in the name of your faith. Maybe it is so covert we just cannot see this in action through the mud racking.
Time for some intrafaith dialogue even if behind the scenes.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
In the perverse sense of the word
Mehdi Hasan has got back to me on using the word “Perversely”. To recap the issue in a previous blog post regarding how Ingrid Loyau-Kennett acted at Woolwich:
“Perversely, it was the non-Muslim cub scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Qur’anic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam, like every other faith, doesn’t permit the killing of innocents.”
I have asked him via twitter what could possibly be perverse about a non Muslim going to help someone she thought was injured in the road, and verbally challenging the attackers? He may be wanting to contrast her actions with the killers. That is not what perversely means. Rather it sounds like a Freudian slip that Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed heroism and compassion without needing to be a Muslim – how out of character for a non-believer, how perverse.
In case you think I am being too hard read what Hasan had to say in 2009:
“We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”
Here is his reply:
Words matter, as anyone that has debated the meaning of religious texts may confirm. As Hasan likes to tell us we do not understand the meaning of the Koran or Hadith as he does maybe we can agree words do mean what the English dictionary says.
Synonyms for perversely: unusually, abnormally, peculiarly, strangely, uncommonly
None of these words help out Hasan.
Either he is using bad english, and the editors of “The Huffington Post” and “The Daily Telegraph” are also using bad english, or he really means that perversely, a non Muslim club scout leader was acting in accordance with Koranic principles. That somehow the Koran has moral principles that it is perverse for non Muslims to follow and Muslims not to follow. This was not challenged by anyone before it was printed.
It needs calling on if he means what he says. People outside of a particular faith act with moral courage because morality is not the exclusive monopoly of one particular holy text.
That matters because the godly are forever telling us without their God to watch over you, and hold you to account in an after life, you cannot ever be as moral as they may be.
Most atheist bloggers will tell you when it comes to a discussion of morality this comes up. It really does need challenging when ever that claim is asserted. Otherwise you are classed as less moral as a non Muslim, an animal as Hasan points out bending rules for desire.
I had already conceded, as you can see in the above extract, to say Hasan probably meant look at the contrast between the behaviour of the killers and the scout leader. The killers were not acting in accordance with Islam. He should have quoted McCain:
“Our enemies have as their cause the spread of a political-religious empire based on a perverted interpretation of Islam that substitutes a lust for violence for a love of peace.” (John McCain)
There is a man that knows about perversity.
Still, you may say this is all pedantic. In which case there is no answer, except that we are perverse, using the word with no comprehension of the principle.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The dehumanising done by Islam
I have written that we should not dehumanise Muslims. However, we can be critical of religion and certainly those that try to be the apologists of it. Mehdi Hasan in writing “Woolwich Attack: Demonising Muslims Won’t Help” does not help by trying to rewrite the history of Islam. It feels like he is trying to take advantage of the solidarity we show Muslims by trying to get us to swallow that Islam has been misunderstood.
Perversely, it was the non-Muslim cub scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Qur’anic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam, like every other faith, doesn’t permit the killing of innocents.
I have asked him via twitter what could possibly be perverse about a non Muslim going to help someone she thought was injured in the road, and verbally challenging the attackers? He may be wanting to contrast her actions with the killers. That is not what perversely means. Rather it sounds like a Freudian slip that Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed heroism and compassion without needing to be a Muslim – how out of character for a non-believer, how perverse.
In case you think I am being too hard read what Hasan had to say in 2009:
“We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”
The problem Hasan has is the belief the Koran must be right as the Word of God. As such, if we find anything there which is an anathema to us we must be mistaken in our interpretation. That does not work. The translation is very clear, and how the Koran and Hadith are applied in the world a testament that followers of Islam can think that too.
If Islam does not want us ever to harm the innocent, it becomes most important to know who qualifies. Clearly the following people are not as innocent as we would like them to be.
-
Apostates
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Hasan suggests apostasy is only a sin awaiting punishment in next life
Speaking of dehumanising:
Our rights in Egypt, as Christians or converts, are less than the rights of animals,” El-Gohary said. “We are deprived of social and civil rights, deprived of our inheritance and left to the fundamentalists to be killed. Nobody bothers to investigate or care about us.” El-Gohary, 56, has been attacked in the street, spat at and knocked down in his effort to win the right to officially convert. He said he and his 14-year-old daughter continue to receive death threats by text message and phone call. (Source)
-
Homosexuals
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – Muhammad said “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”
Speaking of dehumanising:
Citing the Qur’an, Javadi-Amoli said politicians who pass laws in favour of homosexuals are lower than animals. “Even animals … dogs and pigs don’t engage in this disgusting act [homosexuality] but yet they [western politicians] pass laws in favour of them in their parliaments.” (Source)
-
Unbelievers
Sura 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Speaking of dehumanising:
The restrictions placed on non-Islamic faiths, and enshrined in law in some countries different legal status of non believers.
-
Women
Quran 4:34
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.”
Sura 2:223 – Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like.
Speaking of dehumanising:
“The passage of a law in Afghanistan asking Muslim women to unconditionally submit to the sexual whims of their husbands once in four days is a shocking piece of legislation that seeks to dehumanise women reducing them to mere chattels devoid of human rights.” (Source)
My secularism means no Muslim should be threatened or denied their rights and must be treated equally as a citizen. An issue that I want Hasan to go further on is promoting acceptance and equal rights for gay Muslims. I know humanist Muslims that condemn the verses above. But the rights we give apostates, unbelievers, homosexuals and women are not because of Islam.
It is in spite of Islam.
UPDATE 1pm: The article above is concerned with how cherry picking is used, indeed by all faiths, or a different interpretation given to fit in with enlightenment values. All can quote mine, but my point above is not just that detractors of Islam quote mine – extreme Islamists do too to legitimise their actions, by law or by terror.
The key difference being I want Muslims to live in peace and harmony. Jihadists want us all, believer or not, to accept their version of faith and will do this by all means they can.
Because of how they view a book written over a millennia ago.
Is it too much to ask we move beyond one ancient book to work out how we should treat one another?
Follow up blogs: Hasan replies – perverse meaning of words
Buffet Style religion – the cherry pickers
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Woolwich: do not be terrorised by those that use fear
Sadly, not all of humanities problems will be resolved by a sit down to resolve our differences. For those of us that have been paying attention, in a world where a schoolgirl blogger is a target for a bullet between the eyes in Afghanistan, Baghdad markets are places to detonate bombs, and a Syrian rebel eats the heart of a government soldier, what happened in Woolwich is a rare moment of brutality in our land compared to the darkness of terror that happens around the world.
That was the purpose of the attack – the stated aims of the bloody handed man to camera was a reminder that beheadings happen in other lands, in front of people. The target a soldier that had served in Afghanistan. Their aim to provoke a violent backlash to engulf London into fire. The suspects waited for the police to arrive so they could have a final confrontation. One Both of the suspects are in custody in stable condition after being shot the other shot dead at the scene. Hopefully investigators can piece together what happened to lead to such savagery on our streets. [Update: at time of writing reported one had been shot dead]
The mind of the murderers is one to examine, before deciding to blame a catch all bogey man like foreign policy, religious freedom or Islam – as sadly those who dislike complex nuance in favour of one problem one easy solution may. The latest reports suggests one of the suspects was an Islamic convert during or just after college; radicalisation to jihad may be a factor. The blame game will go on of course. The fault however lies squarely with those that would commit such an atrocity in the light of day wanting to cast in shadow how we go about our daily lives. In the fight against global jihadism it is preciously how we live which upsets them – it makes us all targets.
So yes it would be wrong to completely dismiss world events, and global Jihadism from what happened. It would also be wrong to hold UK Muslims to account for the actions of two people. Muslims are the main victims of jihadism.
In the wake of this tragic event, we need to stand in solidarity with our servicemen and women, the people of Woolwich and Muslims. Revenge and hate crimes are never legitimised by dehumanising people. I cannot criticise religion for that without stressing it is a very human trait that we all must avoid when provoked.
Murderers took away a life most savagely. I am resolved they will not take my humanity. I will not live in fear, or be terrorised into thinking differently by those that use violence or intimidation.
Follow up blogs:
A Response to terror
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
