This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My position is basically what Bin Laden et al have said about this claim. Namely, that it is untrue. They see the claim as true, and cite evidence in the quran/hadith, as well as classic and modern scholars. Of course, these are not universal interpretations, but they have been around hundreds of years, and are taught as valid to tens if not hundreds of millions of believers today.
My claim is that there is an unbroken Holy War in the ME, based on sincere beliefs in religious texts /scholars. It is the primary impetus for continued fighting. Geopolitical concerns are grafted on after the fact, and only insofar as they implicate religious concerns. While political concerns can be purely secular on the surface, religious concern precedes them. They have been saying this for decades.
Crucially, I claim that sincere, literalist religious beliefs best explains the actions of the most potent actors in the region (mostly because they keep saying it does). For reference they usually cite Quran 9:28, 5:21, 17:1, and Muhammed saying "Two religions shall not co exist in the Arabian Peninsula". In this light, Bin Ladens letter to America makes sense.
Yes. They are first and foremost devout Muslims (in their interpretation of Islam). However, they repeatedly express specific concern about non believers in "Muslim lands" and/or within the "Dar-Al-Salam" (abode of Islam), and/or being near Mecca and Medina, which "pollutes" the land in a purely spiritual sense.
They are no more or less religious than Israeli settlers, who claim Gods Law above all worldly concerns. Various documentaries allow them to speak in their own words. They believe all of Israel/Palestine belongs to them only because of the Bible/Torah.
Certain Islamists and Islamic scholars say the opposite. While they will always hate non muslims, they constantly reiterate the specific religious problems related to US support of Israel (in religious terms), as well as US bases on "Muslim lands" (also in religious terms). They also explicitly state that even if the West were to depart these lands, they would still be fighting for global Islam because that is the entire purpose for human existence: to convert everyone to the one true religion, by force if necessary. But the presence in the ME and support of Israel are pointed out as aggravating, religious factors.
I think if anyone imagines taking Islamist and settler (post 1947) worldviews as literally, Biblically true, so much of the conflict makes sense. When asked, these two groups will tell you what their worldview is, and that they take it as literally, Biblically true.
More options
Context Copy link