Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[antaeus]

What interpretation did the attacker claim?

I have no idea. But that's not really the point. The point is that it was they who decided to act, no religion made them choose to act - it was they and their understanding of it, which might be flawed or illegitimate. We judge the individual and their action.

I don't think I have seen anyone here suggest banning it.

I'd hope not.

[Axalon]

A theoretical possibility does not make it a probability, or a certainty.

I agree, but that was hardly the point either. I just wanted to establish if the poster in question could actually be rational, reasonable and honest enough to openly recognize that such theoretical possibilities exists - because they do (and we all know that). He couldn’t do it - despite several chances - not even for such small and nominal, yet obvious things – again that is not rational, reasonable or honest. With that out in the open, I don’t have too pretend anymore and somehow treat his posts as if they were, because they probably won’t be. That exercise demonstrates this circumstance with all desired clarity.

… Try to focus on individuals and actions and their motivations and frame them as such.

No offence, but I think you misunderstand the entire premise of this thread. I’ll explain it for you, one last time… In short, this thread builds on two fundamental and critical questions (due to the awkward format that moderation insists upon)… Everything rides on these…

1). Was this act (attack) a terrorist attack of sorts? As in, did it have and was it triggered by some sort of ideological/political/religious motive, cause and/or ambitions? Y/N? If the answer is a “no”, then this thread is basically irrelevant, and it all ends right there. But, if the answer is a “yes” or “probably” - then it becomes relevant and that leads to the next question…

2). If so, by whom and what then? As in, from what entity/group/party/movement is this attack intended to serve/represent then? And what purpose is it supposed to have?

As it stands, I have already answered the first critical question with a “yes”, and thus I am essentially preoccupied with the second. I simply assume, that question 1 is already dealt with - and that with a “yes” or “probably”. I do that because that is what makes most sense to me – this based upon what I have seen, read and heard about this whole damned thing and lots of additional stuff relating to it somehow. It is as simple as that. I don’t believe this to be random or personal thing, and I have seen little that actually suggest or supports it - thus I have discarded that possibility accordingly. So, once we can accept a “yes” for question 1, the important part becomes question 2: “by whom and what then?”

This is the reason I are talking about Islam here, because I view the this attack as a sort of terrorist attack... Thus it is the movement/group/cause behind it that becomes the interesting part and while the individual that actually did ends up as secondary (besides, we have no individual at this point anyways). As with all terrorist attacks - the really interesting part is for what and why they do it. Take the attack on Charlie Hebdo 2015, for instance. Motive and cause usually ends up being more important then the person(s) that actually did it, in such cases. We typically don’t have a clue or remember who did it - despite they got caught/killed somehow - but we probably do know why or for what they did it. Same thing applies here…

It is OK to say: "Person A committed violence because they believed it to be right based on their understanding of religion B" But it is not smart to say "Person A committed violence because they are a believer in religion B and Religion B is bad"

Do you see the difference now?

Yeah, I see the difference… But all this already assumes that “Religion B” is not objectionable to begin with. But what if it is? What then? Should we just ignore it, be silent or passive about that fact? Does that strike you as reasonable, rational or honest? Is that really a serious way to deal with the problem of something objectionable? I don’t think so, because if we just ignore, be silent and passive about it we will never ever change, fix or abandon it, ever. Nothing is gained by that. I would argue that is better to get it out in the open and deal with it head on - yeah sure, people will scream and fight the process - but in the end it will easily be worth it, for all...

Anyone can interpret any set of religious texts in any way they want.

This ain’t lala-land… Say that you are in Pakistan or Sudan for instance, if so, you could pretty much kiss “any way I want” good bye, and that basically in any public setting or context anywhere. They got blasphemy-laws there, and heretics are not looked upon kindly either. There are death-penalties for that. You would be gambling with both your safety and your life, possibly your family too. This circumstance goes for probably most countries where Islam holds undisputed supremacy. If you fail to respect the established traditions, schools and the various consensus-points and all that junk you’re essentially screwed. You can’t go and make up things as you go with the Koran(s), for instance – not for long anyways… That’s the (supposed) verbatim words of god you are playing with, most Muslims don’t like when people fool around with that. They have killed for less, many times… Sahih al-Bukhari 6922: “…according to the statement of Allah's Messenger 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"”

That’s Mohammed speaking according to tradition - not much room for interpretations there, now is there? If Mohammed says so, then that’s the way it is - no if’s, but’s or maybe’s - that is just the way it is, you accept it or you die essentially… That’s Islamic doctrine for you, there is no “any way I want”… And that is just for Muslims, we kafirs (unbelievers) are even more screwed then they are…

- A

[Axalon]

Are we still blaming Christians for the attack on a woman in the act of criticizing Mohammed?

Touché! I’m repping you for this one…

Funniest part is that if it was same circumstances but she was attacked for criticizing say, I don't know, Churchill, everyone here would be talking about the evils of right-wing nationalism.

So sad, so true…

The Hanafi school is the one that 'deviates', regarding female apostates. Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki all have have the death penalty for female apostates.

Thanks Infidel144 for clearing that up for me… And thanks for sharing those additional texts here. I’ll rep you for it, as soon as I can…

- A

[antaeus]

Yeah, I see the difference… But all this already assumes that “Religion B” is not objectionable to begin with. But what if it is? What then? Should we just ignore it, be silent or passive about that fact? Does that strike you as reasonable, rational or honest? Is that really a serious way to deal with the problem of something objectionable? I don’t think so, because if we just ignore, be silent and passive about it we will never ever change, fix or abandon it, ever. Nothing is gained by that. I would argue that is better to get it out in the open and deal with it head on - yeah sure, people will scream and fight the process - but in the end it will easily be worth it, for all...

- A

What do you define as objectionable material? What are your metrics for this and who gets to decide what is objectionable? What are your solutions to this objectionable material? Are you making a case for censorship of religious writings or outright bans on religion?

[PointOfViewGun]

I agree, but that was hardly the point either. I just wanted to establish if the poster in question could actually be rational, reasonable and honest enough to openly recognize that such theoretical possibilities exists - because they do (and we all know that). He couldn’t do it - despite several chances - not even for such small and nominal, yet obvious things – again that is not rational, reasonable or honest. With that out in the open, I don’t have too pretend anymore and somehow treat his posts as if they were, because they probably won’t be. That exercise demonstrates this circumstance with all desired clarity.

We're really not missing the fact that you claimed you had evidence that the attacker was a Muslim and have been trying to deflect from addressing that apparently false claim.

[Axalon]

What do you define as objectionable material? What are your metrics for this and who gets to decide what is objectionable? What are your solutions to this objectionable material? Are you making a case for censorship of religious writings or outright bans on religion?

Alright, let me put it like this… Do you find Nazism objectionable? If you do - please explain to me why you find it objectionable? …If you don’t, how so?

- A

[antaeus]

Alright, let me put it like this… Do you find Nazism objectionable? If you do - please explain to me why you find it objectionable? …If you don’t, how so?

- A

Don't answer a question with a question.

But to help you along... Mein Kampf is on the shelves of university libraries in my country. You can read all about Nazism, Nazi policy and aims all over the place. The words on the page mean nothing. Debate and discussion of even the most abhorrent subjects is important. It is when individuals seek to interpret them in ways that harm that the problem arises.

So again, Are you making a case for censorship of religious writings or outright bans on religion?

[Axalon]

Don't answer a question with a question. But to help you along... Mein Kampf is on the shelves of university libraries in my country. You can read all about Nazism, Nazi policy and aims all over the place. The words on the page mean nothing. Debate and discussion of even the most abhorrent subjects is important. It is when individuals seek to interpret them in ways that harm that the problem arises.

Why not, if it helps to get the point across? Alright, screw it… I’ll use Islam as an example here as that is far more relevant anyways. Personally, I find Islam objectionable because of passages like… Again, Sahih al-Bukhari 6922: “…according to the statement of Allah's Messenger 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"” Here is why… That passage is an explicit and clear instruction - to all followers of that movement - to simply execute anyone who changes (any doctrines or ideas of Islam, in effect a heretic) or leaves (or wants to leave) Islam (an apostate). I find that unacceptable, inexcusable and outright objectionable, and I would argue that most people on the receiving end of that prospect will wholeheartedly agree with me on this. What it does is to rob the individual of actual choice – this on both ends. At one hand the Muslim is expected to execute the apostate or heretic – on the other the heretic or apostate is expected to die because they are either not Muslim enough, or don’t even want to be a Muslim in the first place!

That is unacceptable, inexcusable and certainly objectionable…

So again, Are you making a case for censorship of religious writings or outright bans on religion?

Neither… Look, I would gladly abolish Islam yesterday and never look back… But the world is not quite ready for that, unfortunately. So, all I can do is to point out that this movement and its many practices are objectionable for whole horde of reasons. One of these is the open sanction, advocacy and instruction to kill apostates and heretics, another is the prescription to actively silence/punish/oppress critics of Islam (by whatever means necessary). Both are objectionable in my view. I don’t want to censure the Korans (for instance), I don't believe in censorship - but I do want to end their status, relevancy and influence in the world. If they have no status, influence and relevancy then people will - finally - stop doing and pushing for all the crazy and vile sh!t that these Korans advocate.

***

I think Hatun Tash was attacked by a Muslim - this due to the numerous crazy ideas and doctrines found within Islam. I think it was this kind of stuff which finally triggered and sanctioned this attack. There are plenty of material that combined support and suggest such a theory if we look at the primary sources of Islam (Hadiths and Korans). There is also additional material in the various Islamic law-schools as well - much of that material is available in this very thread courtesy of Infidel144. But I also think that prior history and events plays a big part here as well, it was probably a build up. There is the significant context with the target and her relation to Islam in particular. She had received multiple death-threats prior to this event, and had clearly a confrontational and vexed relation to the Islamic community in general. Enough to be formally arrested and escorted away by the police, twice ircc (from Speakers Corner). Hatun Tash had also challenged and provoked Islam and its general community for several years - slowly but steadily raising the stakes several times even before to this particular attack. She is everything Islamic tradition can not tolerate - an apostate and a vocal critic – and her bold and relentless activism ultimately generates both as well. She is fearless and a woman that won’t back down - yet more traits that likely frustrate many males within the Islamic community (and the assailant is a male, we know that much).

She is essentially the perfect target for someone within the that community - a person or group - that is both sick and tired of her activities in general and who is also ready able and willing to escalate things further. A person or group who wants to send a forceful message to the world along the lines of “you can neither mock, criticize, challenge or leave our community, and get away with it. If you do, we will act, and we will punish you for it”. And, who also assumes that such an attack/act will somehow “restore/recover” some sense of “pride/prestige/honour” for the Islamic community in general. The fact that it is done at Speakers Corner just adds extra “kaboom” and symbolical impact and dimension. After all, that place is a symbol of the free and secular western world and a virtual temple for free speech in particular (yet more things that Islamic tradition does not tolerate, btw). And the assailant (or people) behind this attack probably knew that and deliberately staged it there for maximum effect.

That’s my theory…

- A

[antaeus]

/filler/

Neither… Look, I would gladly abolish Islam yesterday and never look back… But the world is not quite ready for that, unfortunately. So, all I can do is to point out that this movement and its many practices are objectionable for whole horde of reasons.

/filler/

- A

OK great. Now we're getting somewhere.

My takeaway from this, is that you don't want to ban religion as such, just Islam. And the only thing moderating this desire, is that you don't think it would succeed.

The other takeaway I have from this, is that extrapolating from this desire, you are OK with banning ideas - ones that you don't like. Sure I understand you find some ideas abhorrent and those are the ones you want to ban - because they say subjectively bad things. But ideas none the less.

Does that about sum it up?

I feel like banning ideas is possibly one step further than I could stomach. I mean, how would you go about that without becoming a Nazi yourself? you did suggest up above that you find Nazis abhorrent after all. How does one reconcile that they would gladly abolish a collection of ideas such as Islam while at the same time acknowledging free speech?

Now do you understand the difference between people's actions and ideas?

[Infidel144]

I have no idea. But that's not really the point. The point is that it was they who decided to act, no religion made them choose to act - it was they and their understanding of it, which might be flawed or illegitimate.

If that is not the point, then why did you claim he did have an interpretation that he acted upon ("As did this random activist attacker")?

Who cares?

You should. You are attempting to draw a parallel between 'not blaming Seventh Day Adventists for David Koresh', while asserting that you knew that the Adventists had declared the teachings the Branch Davidians come from heretical, going so far as to say that was exactly your point.

[Heathen Hammer]

Islam is not the problem in itself, politicians that pass laws allowing poorly-vetted immigration from fundamentalist societies, and the financial interests behind them, are the root cause of the problem. If we ban Islam, they'll find another disturbed third-world place to get cheap labor and future voters from. The only way to fix the situation is to alter the political system, to prevent finance class from exerting too much influence in the society.

[Axalon]

OK great. Now we're getting somewhere.

My takeaway from this, is that you don't want to ban religion as such, just Islam. And the only thing moderating this desire, is that you don't think it would succeed.

The other takeaway I have from this, is that extrapolating from this desire, you are OK with banning ideas - ones that you don't like. Sure I understand you find some ideas abhorrent and those are the ones you want to ban - because they say subjectively bad things. But ideas none the less.

Does that about sum it up?

Not really… I do not want to ban ideas like that, only you do it seems, after all it is you who repeatedly insist on banning stuff on my behalf – while I don’t. I just want to kill any social and public acceptance for some of them. In short, cultivate and advocate intolerance for them. Make the idea more socially and publicly bankrupt essentially – take our trusty Nazism, for instance. This movement has almost zero social and public tolerance-levels - almost universally - and deservedly so, Id say. Communism is close but has not truly reached that stage, quite yet – still too many people think that monstrosity is acceptable somehow. Islam is another such candidate who has still way too high acceptance-levels for our own good – due to general ignorance about it – but all the same, we need to get much more intolerant towards it, I think. Why?!? Because it inherently seeks to rob us of our freedoms - ALL our freedoms (and more). Anything that inherently strives to rob us of our freedoms, in any way - does not deserve our acceptance or tolerance - it deserves our intolerance (and contempt).

Karl Popper and the intolerance-paradox… “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” If we make the “idea” socially and publicly bankrupt – it effectively cease to be a problem or threat to us. That way we can quietly read stuff like “Mein Kampf” at the library and it is not a problem that we did. Nazism and its ideas are socially and publicly bankrupt anyhow…

Now do you understand the difference between people's actions and ideas?

I assume that you mean that everyone makes a personal choice no matter how compelling or mandatory the idea supposedly is. Is that it? So if you are smack in the middle of a culture/tradition that more or less forces you to comply and act on the idea - regardless of anything - it is still your personal choice anyways? Is that what you are saying there?

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

Not really… I do not want to ban ideas like that, only you do it seems, after all it is you who repeatedly insist on banning stuff on my behalf – while I don’t. I just want to kill any social and public acceptance for some of them. In short, cultivate and advocate intolerance for them. Make the idea more socially and publicly bankrupt essentially – take our trusty Nazism, for instance. This movement has almost zero social and public tolerance-levels - almost universally - and deservedly so, Id say. Communism is close but has not truly reached that stage, quite yet – still too many people think that monstrosity is acceptable somehow. Islam is another such candidate who has still way too high acceptance-levels for our own good – due to general ignorance about it – but all the same, we need to get much more intolerant towards it, I think. Why?!? Because it inherently seeks to rob us of our freedoms - ALL our freedoms (and more). Anything that inherently strives to rob us of our freedoms, in any way - does not deserve our acceptance or tolerance - it deserves our intolerance (and contempt).

Karl Popper and the intolerance-paradox… “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” If we make the “idea” socially and publicly bankrupt – it effectively cease to be a problem or threat to us. That way we can quietly read stuff like “Main Kampf” at the library and it is not a problem that we did. Nazism and its ideas are socially and publicly bankrupt anyhow…

So, how will you be intolerant of my Islam? And, how does my Islam seeks to rob you of your freedom? Keep in mind much of what you claim of my Islam doesn't relate to my Islam. Please respond accordingly.

[Axalon]

So, how will you be intolerant of my Islam? And, how does my Islam seeks to rob you of your freedom? Keep in mind much of what you claim of my Islam doesn't relate to my Islam. Please respond accordingly.

My understanding is that you are a Koranist (you have previously claimed so), as such you are a heretic in the eyes of Sunni tradition, as you have broken with tradition and doctrine. “Your Islam” is not representative of typical Islam. According to Sunni doctrine you should be executed by faithful Muslims. Fittingly (as you hardly will recognize its validity), I base that conclusion on trusty ‘ol Sahih al-Bukhari 6922: “…according to the statement of Allah's Messenger 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"”

Tradition has it that Mohammed has spoken and that’s that… Whatever I do, will be the least of your troubles I think. I’ll probably do some more trusty criticisms of Sunni Islam somehow. If I feel adventurous, I might do some Shia-stuff and highlight some of the lunacy found in Khomeini’s little green book…

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

My understanding is that you are a Koranist (you have previously claimed so), as such you are a heretic in the eyes of Sunni tradition, as you have broken with tradition and doctrine. “Your Islam” is not representative of typical Islam. According to Sunni doctrine you should be executed by faithful Muslims. Fittingly (as you hardly will recognize its validity), I base that conclusion on trusty ‘ol Sahih al-Bukhari 6922: “…according to the statement of Allah's Messenger 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"”

Tradition has it that Mohammed has spoken and that’s that… Whatever I do, will be the least of your troubles I think. I’ll probably do some more trusty criticisms of Sunni Islam somehow. If I feel adventurous, I might do some Shia-stuff and highlight some of the lunacy found in Khomeini’s little green book…

- A

Citing a Hadith story telling the killing of a person who changes Islam against someone holding the Quran and only Quran as holy is as desperate as it gets... You seem to be banking on No True Scotsman fallacy. In the end you deflect from giving the slightest answer to my two questions. They remain valid.

[alhoon]

Please tone down the personal references per the rules of the mudpit. Try to make your posts impersonal and avoid "you are..." or "you would..." as they move discussion from the opinions to the person.

[Knight of Heaven]

Dissociating the idea with the action is as disingenuous as it gets.

[antaeus]

Dissociating the idea with the action is as disingenuous as it gets.

If we don't seek to contextualise and interpret the intent of their writers thousands of years ago, we're left with literalist interpretations of written behaviours suggested by things like Bibles and Korans and Talmuds and Torahs and Sutras etc all of which tell us to do what we might now subjectively consider to be abhorrent things to each other - leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books (banning the books alone doesn't work)... (or the more high school approach favoured by Axalon - peer pressure them away)

As we have discovered through our Wars on Terror... ideas are very difficult to combat through direct action - particularly when they promise an afterlife. Only actions can be combatted or judged directly. Ideas can only ever be debated with. It doesn't matter if someone thinks the Bible gives them the right to commit murder under certain circumstances - what matters to society is that they committed murder - motive alone doesn't make someone guilty.

[Heathen Hammer]

If we don't seek to contextualise and interpret the intent of their writers thousands of years ago, we're left with literalist interpretations of written behaviours suggested by things like Bibles and Korans and Talmuds and Torahs and Sutras etc all of which tell us to do what we might now subjectively consider to be abhorrent things to each other - leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books (banning the books alone doesn't work)... (or the more high school approach favoured by Axalon - peer pressure them away)

As we have discovered through our Wars on Terror... ideas are very difficult to combat through direct action - particularly when they promise an afterlife. Only actions can be combatted or judged directly. Ideas can only ever be debated with. It doesn't matter if someone thinks the Bible gives them the right to commit murder under certain circumstances - what matters to society is that they committed murder - motive alone doesn't make someone guilty.

Funny how that logic is always applied to Islam and never to nationalism.

[PointOfViewGun]

Funny how that logic is always applied to Islam and never to nationalism.

Yet an other fake premise.