Your thoughts please (and anyone else's fro that matter) on the following Peacedove.....

[moondog]

Iyad Allawi (ex prime minister) was quoted over the weekend as saying that iraq is now in the grip of a 'terrible civil war.'

Now,whilst being firmly in the 'Britain and the USA had no right to interfere' camp, it seems that most of the violence is due to clashes between Sunnis and Shias?
Do you agree and is there any way in which it could have been avoided or was it inevitable?
Will/is it possible for these factions to come to a truce?
Was Saddam Hussein's tyranny the lesser of two evils.

I read in the liberal press that vat swathes of Iraq are actually delighted by the intervention of foreign forces so am feeling a little confused.

Another thing....

In Afghanistan,a male 41 year old medical worker is facing the death penalty after converting to Christianity.
The death penalty for 'apostates' also applies in other places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Do you feel that this in an acceptable line to take?

In your own time.......


Under Sharia law

[geekgrrl]

I feel that this proves yet again that religion is the root of all evil.

[moondog]

Righto

[PeachyClair]

Hmmmm. been reading about the Shi'a / Sunni divide today (essay on Muhammad for tomorrow) and it is my moderately informed view that this was coming for a long, long time. I understand the idea of community (is it Ummah?) in Islam and it's one of the many beautiful things about the faith ( eg Zakat, the importance of education) but I can't see how two such contradictory elements of the same faith have co-existed this far without it breaking down sooner.

'
In Afghanistan,a male 41 year old medical worker is facing the death penalty after converting to Christianity.
The death penalty for 'apostates' also applies in other places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.' Well obviously not, Shari'a law is pretty incredible to non Muslims. Bt if you read the Qur'an you can see where it comes from, the worship of the golden calf was a terrible crime committed by the pre-Muslim era, and for someone to reeive the faith and then reject it is awful.


Shari'a law is a very difficlt part of Islam- so much of the religion is positive and then you get the women / apostasy / shari's law stuff. very difficult.

[PeachyClair]

(by obviously not I mean obviosuly not to agreeing with it)

[HRHQueenOfQuotes]

I feel that this proves yet again that religion is the root of all evil.


No people are the root of the evil - if it really were the root of all evil there's be wars EVERYWHERE. Given the large numbers of people in the world who adhere to one religion or another........

[PeachyClair]

V true, Q of Q. And I'm not religious either.

Buddhism- evil? Taoism- evil? Christianity- evil?

Or just expressions of love and acceptance corrupted by a few very sick people

[geekgrrl]

well, I'm not sure I would class Buddhism as a 'standard' religion per se as it is very agnostic and doesn't believe in the concept of God the same way that the other major religions do. To me it's more like humanism with a bit of meditation thrown in.
Don't know anything about Taoism.
Christianity - yes, evil. The bible is full of evil, nasty stuff to be done in the name of the Christian god. Look at how people, in the name of Christianity have rampaged through the world, killing people en masse left, right an centre for hundreds and hudreds of years.
Seems evil to me.

[PeachyClair]

Ah, in the name of. When i look at Christianity I guess I focus on the God is Love, judge not lest ye be judged things- I think )personally- again, not a Christian- I'm a Humanist) if you applied these factors to all your life nothing evil could over ride them BUT I understand where you're coming from.

Buddhism- get your point, I simply classify as a religion because it's on the syllabus! there are actually some offshoots that have developed an approach that appears to have a God, but in essence I agree with your aummary og it.

Taoism- the main book teaches you just go with the flow. It's like Surf dudes for the BCE times.

[slug]

Of course Buddhism is a religion! The belief in a single god is not the marker of a 'religion'. Buddhism allows for multiple gods. It was originally a sect of Hinduism, much in the same way Christianity was a sect of Judaeism.

[geekgrrl]

slug, I just didn't want to toss it into a pot with the big monotheistic religions. And everything I've read on Buddhism (admittedly not a lot though) is very vague on the idea of god/gods.

[slug]

Don't make the mistake of believing that just because you hear more about religions from the Judaeo/Christian tradition, that they are the big ones. Buddhism has more adherants than Islam.

Not that I'm religious you understand, I think they're all a load of twaddle. It's just that I just have a degree in them and get frustrated at the misconceptions that fly around

[geekgrrl]

oh, I had no idea, slug! (I mean, I know that there are lots of Buddhists out there - didn't realise that there are more Buddhists than muslims). Thanks for the info. :) So, what is the Buddhist opinion on god/gods?

[PeachyClair]

Slug- are you sure? Doing the same degree and was taught Chrsitianity biggest, Islam fastest growing.

Not doubting genuinely interested.

[PeachyClair]

Buddha said there was no God but some schools (eg Gelupka) used Gods as a form of meditation direction. There are also traditions that believe buddha is in fact a God, and tibetan Buddhism has a wide range of Gods such as the enemy God which bizarrely protects the family home (bizarrely because of name).

There's a good book I can recommend, Buddhism beliefs and Practices by Merv fowler (sussex Academic).

[geekgrrl]

thank you for the clarification, peachy. MN is full of experts on the most diverse topics it seems!

[donnie]

saying ' religion is the root of all evil' is like saying 'all men are rapists' - ie, clearly utter rubbish and a very ignorant cliche. As another poster said it is twisted people who are the evil doers. Reminds me of the misquotation 'money is the root of all evil'...wrong: it is actually: ' THE LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil'.


The sunnite/Shiite divide has existed for centuries and is nothing new.

I too would be interested to hear a defence of the death threat over the Afghan convert. What makes it more interesting is he converted over 16 years ago so one wonders what threat he has posed in the last 16 years.He was apparently influenced by a team of Christian aid workers he knew. I wonder if they were 'evil'? ( sarcastic emoticon).

[geekgrrl]

donnie - if you look at the conflicts raging all over the world you will find that most of them are motivated by religion in some way. This has been the case throughout history. I think a world without religion would be a better place.
If people acted out of common human decency rather than following/misinterpreting some scripture that tells them what to do so they end up in paradise/heaven/are reborn rich, there would be less conflict.

[PeachyClair]

The chap awaiting sentencing for Apostasy-

awful. But the Qur'an isn't clear on this : most references I have read suggest punishment is the after life.

There was also areference in The Times to a chap being arrested for owning a Bible. yet Myhammad let 'people of the Books' (jews / Christians) co dwell with his Muslim community.


Another example of twisted Humans taking something and running with it IMO

[donnie]

I'm afraid that simply isn't true - Stalin, Hitler, PolPot - all avowed athiests, mao Zedong etc...the list is endless.It is the person and not the belief system which is flawed. Anyone with half a brain knows that religion does not set out to espose violence and killing. It is deliberately biased and extreme interpretation which does that.Don't tell me you actually think if religion was somehow ' abolished' we'd all be living in peace and Mugabe would give back all the food and money? and there would be no more war? oh please....!

[PeachyClair]

can i just quote this I found which i found yesterday and was extrememly intrigued by, see if anyne else is:

'And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you. But aggress not: God loves not the Aggressors'. (Qur'an)

I thought that was beautiful, such a shame it gets twisted.

[amynnixmum]

I think to blame religion for the evil doing of people is pointless. Whether or not you believe in one or many Gods religions are still the creation of mankind. It seems to be just as much in the nature of mankind to fight and hate each other as to love and cherish. I don't see how abolishing religion would change that. People use religion as an excuse or as a form of control over others but in this sense religion is no different from other ideologies.

[Blu]

Geekgirrl - there may well be relligion somewhere in the mix in a great number of conflicts, but that is in no way the same as saying religion is the cause.

Religion tends to divide along class or tribal or language or national lines. Is religion the CAUSE of the struggle in N Ireland or is it class, wealth, power? Ditto the conflict between Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus in India.

I am an out and out athiest, in case you think I have a torch to carry here!

The conflict between the Sunnis and Shi'ites was entirely predicatable in Iraq, has many causes beyond interpretations of Islam - in particular access to socio-economic and political power. I heard many people in the run up to 'shock and awe' saying with dismay that the U.S and U.K gvts had no understanding at all of what would happen re the civil conflict - and that a likely result would be an uprising by the majority Shi'ites - who are, perhaps, more 'fundemental' in their approach to religion. As I understand it, many Sunnis are also Sufi - decried by Shi'ites as blaspehmous because of the mystical involvement.

Not that the perspective of Muslims isn't of special interest here - but it's not simplistically enough based in religion for you to be 'baiting' Peacedove about it, is it moondog?

[moondog]

Eh?
I'm not baiting Peacedove!
I'm interested in what he (and everyone else) has to say.

My agenda.
End of.

[slug]

Peachy Chair, I guess the confusion comes with the West's tendency to view religions with their own prejudices. Any philosophy with many 'gods' is difficult to concieve of as a religion for those with a monothestic background. The Buddhish pantheon is much like the Hindu one, gods are merely another level of existence. The point of the religion is to escape from the endless circle of birth and rebirth, be that insect, human or deity.

Remember that Buddhism is widely practised in China, despite the Communist government. It's also prevalent in Japan, much of South East Asia, and has pockets of adherants in most Western countries. The only place it's not really present is in the African continent. That makes for an awful lot of adherants. You just don't notice them because they are not exactly militant in their beliefs.

And on another note, I read today that the Afghani man may escape execution as the authorities have decided that he must, by definition, be insane. Nice get out I thought.

[DominiConnor]

Blu has a valid point, the conflict in Iraq may be boiled down to the objective fact that Saddam was nicer to a minority who happens mostly to live in those parts of Iraq that have little oil.
A democratic system of any form is going to take things away from them, and the expectation in any defective culture like the Arab one is that when Gang A takes over, they take everything from Gang B.
Thus some form of arguing is at the very least
inevitable.
However religion can make things worse.

If you have groups arguing over oil wealth, or some other economic issue, you can usually find some sort of deal. If all you care about is money, then it's better to have a bit less of it, than to fight the have-nots. This is not exactly guaranteed, but most Western societies are essentially based upon this and are mostly stable and peaceful.
Money is thus not the root of evil but a motivation for peace, since war is expensive.

But if instead you see the other side as evil, and betraying God, compromise is a lot more difficult to swallow. It's one thing to accept 1/3 less money, and very much another to accept 1/3 more blasphemy and evil.
A person who sees themselves as good, does not negotiate with evil, he fights it.
Someone motivated by money is not going to be a suicide bomber, though it is the case in Palestine that often the families will receive useful cash.

It leads to what I believe is the root problem in Moslem societies. It is not the religion whose historical attitude to violence is no different to Christianity, but their dysfunctional cultural economy.
Huge unemployment is the norm in most Moslem countries. This means that you have men who have no plausible way to improve their lives, and given the demented way that marriages work and women are owned find it hard on several levels.
An absence of social security means that he is pitifully dependant upon charity and patronage.
If my kids couldn't eat properly, or have adequate shelter, a whole range of options would seem quite reasonable to me, that here & now I would not remotely consider.
This means that being part of the right gang, isn't just a social thing down the pub, but personal survival.
In places like Egypt, many of the Moslem groups are in effect charities and very often less corrupt, more democratic and better people than the government.
But they reinforce the notion of sectarianism.
We have relics of this even in civilised societies, where we still have religious schools supported by the state and a good % of hospitals are named after Saints. Good works in the act of helping people, but bad for a society.
A key innovation in Christianity which enabled it to survive even in populations that were increasingly literate, was due in part to Aquinas based upon the Good Samaritan. The idea is simply that you do good works because you are a good person. The recipient
may be "good" but that is simply irrelevant, perhaps even you score more points with God than if you helped a friend. Any fool can tolerate the behaviour of someone they like, or help them out of a tough spot, but a good person helps people they don't like.
Islam evolved in cultures that were often nomadic or small cities. That meant that there was clear "them and us". Charity and what badly translates as "hospitality" are big things in Islam, but it's of the form "don't abuse your power over someone in your tent". That's good, but lacks the notion of seeking people out to help.
That's why Moslem societies basically just don't work, even though Moslems are not particularly evil or stupid. Too much emphasis on personal interaction. It's precepts are great when you have small societies, they just don't scale well.
It's like trying to build a house out of Lego, you can do this, but will leak and altough pretty, quite unpleasant to live in even of built by a skilled Legotian.