angrysoba
Philosophile
What does LAFI brigade mean?
Germany - Pegida
- Thread starter The Don
- Start date
What does LAFI brigade mean?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
LAFI = Liberal Apologists For Islam
http://www.viralglobalnews.com/world/liberal-apologists-islam-blood-hands/27720/
angrysoba
Philosophile
I see, so even though you admit they were right, and you were wrong, you still find a way to insult people who correct you, and refer to their corrections as "nitpicking".
Have you ever thought that maybe what you call "nitpicking" may actually be "pointing out the facts"?
By the way, what do you think about those LAFGs or as Robert R Reilly might say, The Liberal Apologists for Gays?
Is Robert R Reilly one of these "certain individuals" that you authoritatively declared "an incisive writer who's probably forgotten more about Islam and its history than the combined intelligentsia on this forum know"?
Are you now conceding that maybe he isn't the bees knees you thought he was? And does that mean you may owe Neville Nobody an apology?
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
The latter. As his statements about homosexuality show, he merely occasionally pays some lip service to Enlightenment values while being vehemently opposed to them. He thinks laws should reflect the will of his God (or, as he puts it as a good Catholic, "Natural Law"). Which puts him on a par with any Sharia proponent. In going on this long rant about John Cage and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (whose name he misspells), despite admitting Cage never so much as once mentioned Rousseau, one also wonders why he doesn't bring up Rousseau's music, or Rousseau's writings about music. One would think that is highly relevant in this context. Would it be because that music is the most anodyne, conventional stuff you could possibly imagine - exactly the kind of music Reilly thinks is what God wants? (And oh yes, one more funny detail: he mentions "Eric Satie (a French composer)". That gives a nice insight into his assessment of the intellectual level of his intended audience.)
The standard of reasoning he displays in that piece generally is clearly exactly the same kind he uses when writing about Islam, or homosexuality. In the very first sentence, he sets up a strawman: "Despite the popular Romantic conception of creative artists as inspired madmen, composers are not idiots savants, distilling their musical inspiration from the ether." Who on earth is supposed to hold that position? Someone whose only exposure to classical music is watching that monstrosity of a movie, Amadeus? He then pretends to demolish this strawman with an unsubstantiated claim of his own invention: "Rather, in their creative work they respond and give voice to certain metaphysical visions. Most composers speak explicitly in philosophical terms about the nature of the reality that they try to reflect." Who are these "most composers"? I have to try very hard to remember a very few names of composers who ever went in for any kind of philosophizing about music, or who waffled about "metaphysical visions". The vast majority of them simply get on with their job, writing music. Certainly until the nineteenth century, composers were seen, and saw themselves, as craftsmen working to order, with the occasional rich dilletante who did it for fun thrown in. If anything, it's the kind of more recent composers he despises, the Schoenbergs and the Cages and the like, who go in for the most abstract theorizing about music.
And then a whole lot of further verbiage follows that all just boils down to one simple point: the kind of music Robert Reilly happens to like is the way God intended music to be, and therefore every other kind of music is morally reprehensible. One could substitute "religion" or "sex" for music in that sentence, and it would be equally correct.
It's hardly surprising that at the end he admiringly quotes the religious obsessive John Tavener, manufacturer of large amounts of some of the most boring music ever written. But it's tonal, so God likes it. One wonders if he'd admire him equally if Tavener had converted to Islam rather than Russian Orthodoxy, and started producing the same boring music but with Islam-inspired lyrics.
ETA: for those interested in what the music of the evil Jean-Jacques sounded like, here's a link (audio) to what is the only work of his that anybody can ever remember, the opera Le Devin du Village. The link to the work of John Cage will become abundantly clear, I trust.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
It depends what you mean with "direct democracy". When I said that direct democracy is not doable in Germany, I thought of an Athenian-style democracy where everyone can go to the People's Assembly and have their say and their vote. That's not doable in Germany, nor in the Netherlands, nor in Switzerland: only two small cantons (Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus), which are smaller than ancient Athens, have this feature (ancient Athens had about 30,000 free male citizens). But that's about the limit.Well, the Swiss do it. You may say Switzerland has only one tenth the population, but why should that make a serious difference? You wouldn't argue that parliamentary democracy can't work in country like India? Can you imagine Swiss-style direct democracy in the Netherlands or Belgium?
Of course the Swiss have a long history with this - it is a distinct part of their culture. Paleo-conservatives should not advocate direct democracy in Germany, it's alien to our culture
When you think of instruments like referenda and initiatives, that's another kettle of fish. Of course, that's doable: when wee have the infrastructure to produce and distribute ballots with hundreds of candidates on them, we can also do that with a simple yes/no question. We've had a couple of tries with consultative referenda in the Netherlands: one on the "European Constitution", which was a success in that there was a large participation of the voters. Another was on municipal level, about the choicee of a new mayor (Dutch mayors are appointed by the Crown, and in practice on proposal by the town council), and that experiment was abolished for lack of participation.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
What's exactly your point? That the scientists from the Islamic Golden Age were not "racially" Arabs? No, duh, in general conquests don't entail massive replacements of populations. The current population of, say, Damascus, descends primarily from people who lived there in 600AD, not from people who lived in Mecca in 600AD.
Or is your point that these scientists were not Muslims, but Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians? Then prove your point and give a list of those.
But the main point is: these scientists lived in an Islamic state, a Caliphate, and they were not prosecuted for it, but instead, their research was promoted by that same state.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Is this a reference to Aisha's utter demolishing the credibility of the endorsements of Reilly's book in this post - save one, which wasn't an endorsement but a quote in the book?
Or what about the overall credibility of Reilly? Or his credentials with respect to Islamic history?
The point of this quote is that it comes from a Christian? From Dr. Cargill's own bio:
(highlighting mine).
Say what?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
- I dismiss their references as just some left wing liberal ideological claptrap,
- They dismiss my references as "conspraloons" or "some right-wing think-tank"
That makes us even in my book
Facts? What facts? There are no "facts" in this debate, there are only opinions! In fact, "facts" are in scarce supply in this thread.
Firstly, I don't actually give a fat rats arse about gays. If two gay men want to stick their genital appendages up each other's stool tubes that is their private business. Its not a lifestyle I would choose, but since gays represent no danger to me, my family, my friends or the citizens of my country, its not a subject I spend any time thinking about. I don't much like gays in the same way that I don't much like soccer players, real estate agents or used car salesmen, nor do I care about any of them.
Secondly, just because an author might hold opinions that I dislike or disagree with doesn't automatically "taint" his other works for me. One of my favorite authors was James Patrick Hogan, a writer of "hard" sci-fi. He was also a Holocaust denier, but I never let that stop me from enjoying his sci-fi books. I also really enjoy listening to the music of Richard Wagner; the fact that he was an anti-Semite, and one of Adolph Hitler's favorite composers, does not spoil his music for me.
I still regard The Closing of the Muslim Mind an excellent read, and while there have been a lot of negative opinions about it, there have also been a lot of positive ones. I find the book convincing and its conclusions compelling; they make a lot of sense to me. Character assassination of the author by the liberal left was not unexpected; its par for the course for them... can't shoot the message? Shoot the messenger!
On the other hand, I found A'isha's supporting posts in the linked thread little more that the usual apologist tripe we see dished up in The Guardian or the NYT on a daily basis. Its all about perception. I owe an apology to no-one.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, the point is that it came from a scholar, and if you read the post properly...
"How can anyone seriously say that an Islamic cleric or scholar would be allowed the latitude and/or freedom of expression to call into question such basic tenets of the Qu'ran?"
...you would have realised that. At no time did I say he was a Christian; that was your spin doctoring effort!
There are many Bible Scholars who are agnostic, just as many Islamic Scholars are. There are also scientists who believe in God.
PS: Perhaps you should try not cherry-picking parts of posts so that you can feign ignorance of what was actually said in order to score brownie points with your fellow liberals.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I highlighted your problem. The adjective "Islamic" in your sentence applied to both the noun "cleric" as the noun "scholar". Otherwise, you would have written: "an Islamic cleric or a scholar", i.e., you would have repeated the article.
You should not lie about your own words.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
ddt
Mafia Penguin
No, you just try to weasel out of it. Your edit of your previous post shows how ludicrous your claim is:
If it's just about finding a Bible scholar who doesn't believe everything in the Bible is true vs. an Islamic scholar who doesn't believe everything in the Quran is true, then what is the point? You can find plenty of both.
No, your point was obviously to show a Christian scholar who says something in the Bible is untrue.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Your choice of words and your choice of comparisons is very interesting. Do you want to confer a certain stereotype on gays? If this were about Jews instead of gays, I would be pretty damn sure the writer were an antisemite.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, I was editing my post while you were posting
My Post#209 Last edited by smartcooky; Today at 12:07 AM.
Your post #210 Today, 12:07 AM
Check the timing (mods will have it down to the second if you want to call me a liar)
And you know this because you have ESP, right? In fact, its just a grammatical error, I make them all the the time, and so do you...
Post #207 "Or what about the overall credibility of Reilly? Or his credentials with respect to Islamic history?" (starting sentences with with a coordinating conjunction)
Post #206 "What's exactly your point?" (incorrect use of a contraction resulting in incorrect positioning of the auxiliary verb. This should read What exactly is your point, or What is your point exactly?
Post #205 It depends what you mean with 'direct democracy' ("with" is not the correct preposition in this context. You should have used "by")
People in glass houses should not throw stones!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I'm not calling you a liar at all. I just noted that you edited your post. And I only saw that when I had posted mine. Which is perfectly consistent with the times noted.
Thanks for pointing out, but none of those change the meaning of the sentence. And pointing out my grammatical errors is no proof whatsoever that you make them "all the time΅.
But really, it is obvious you meant Christian scholars. You reacted to metacristi's comment "centred around the capacity to accept that the holy books are not infallible, and capacity to confront rather than reinterpret at least some passages that are hopeless)" (that's the part of his/her post you bolded). An agnostic Bible scholar does not believe in the Bible as a holy book, so will not hold them infallible either. There's nothing special about an agnost not believing the story of Noah's Ark, or more Jesus' resurrection, etc. Likewise, there's nothing special about an agnostic or a Christian or a Jewish or of-any-other-faith-but-Islam Islamic scholar not believing in, say, the story of Muhammed splitting the moon. But hey, there's this:
That postdates Reilly's alleged "closing of the Muslims mind" by a few centuries, so that should be enough.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Last November, Raymond Ibrahim talked about how "Islam is colonizing the West with the support of Barack Obama" on a "radio show" on which he's actually a frequent guest that is hosted by an evangelical fundamentalist Christian whose "Trunews" organization features a "daily online prophecy newspaper ENDTIMES HEADLINES" (currently prominently displaying a link to a laughably lunatic article titled "The Man Who Murdered Chris Kyle, The American Sniper, Should Be Profiled As A Suspected Muslim Jihadist", written by the same fake "terrorist" who believes that the Greek letters read as "666" in the Book of Revelation are actually a misreading of the Arabic phrase "in the name of Allah", thus proving that the Antichrist of end-times Biblical prophecy will be a Muslim).
Raymond Ibrahim is a crazed loon who hangs out with other crazed loons, all of them repeating the same crazed, loony stuff.
Yes. You didn't cite a "leading analyst of Islam", you merely copied an anonymous blurb from the book jacket attributed simply to "The Hudson Institute". And unless it was the Institute itself that developed a hideous self-awareness and roused itself to horrible, shambling life in order to pen that review all on its lonesome without any intervention or contribution from the puny humans fleeing like ants in terror from its monstrous, cyclopean presence, the actual source of that review and the actual credentials they may or may not have regarding Islam remain entirely unknown.
From you, certainly.
Considering your list of "the planet's leading analysts of Islam", I have no doubt whatsoever that you found the "arguments" in Reilly's book convincing and its conclusions compelling and that they made a lot of sense to you.
I did shoot the message. You pooh-poohed it and responded not with a critique of my own message, but a massive load of appeal to (false) authority with your laughable list of "the planet's leading analysts of Islam" and their "endorsements" of Reilly's book.
Two were, actually...the truncated Rashid Shaz quote was also not an endorsement of Reilly's book, but something else that was written before the book was published by someone who probably hasn't even heard of him that Reilly merely quoted in his book.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well actually I meant Bible scholars (note that the article by Dr Cargill to which I referred was about the Flood, a part of the Old Testament, the Torah (and the Qu'ran as it happens) so he would not necessarily have needed to be a Christian (in your assertion).
Of course, there is no requirement for a Bible scholar to even believe in God (there are many who do not, including Dr Cargill, but being an agnostic (not an atheist) he probably remains open minded about it.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Regardless of what kind of "scholars" you attribute them to be, there's absolutely no reason to accept them as any sort of authority on the subject.
I mean, I know they agree with you, and so you "choose to listen to" them, but that's really not a particularly convincing qualification for those of us who aren't you.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Well, then, if you're looking for Qur'anic scholars who routinely call into question basic tenets of the Qur'an, I'd suggest Nasr Hamid Abu-Zaid, Kecia Ali, Mohammed Arkoun, John Burton, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Fred Donner, Salwa M. S. El-Awa, Asghar Ali Engineer, Wael Hallaq, Omar Hamdan, Khaleel Mohammed, Angelika Neuwirth, Aisha Musa, Andrew Rippin, Abdul-Massih Saadi, Walid Saleh, Samir Khalil Samir, Amina Wadud, and John Wansbrough.
For starters.
For starters.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I thought I was pretty much in agreement with you about the dangers of Islamic Extremism., but this lumping together of all Muslims as either extremists or enablers is pure crap.
I live in a neighborhood in California where there are several Muslim famalies. Don't feel in the least threantened.
And how many Muslims do you know personally?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
That isn't really the point I was making, which was that Clerics and Bible scholars (whether religious or secular) in Western society, are free to criticize and call into question any and all aspects of the holy books, without of being the target of a death sentence. I gave Rev Dr. Francis H. Wade as an example of a Cleric (the religious) and Dr Robert Cargill as an example of a Bible scholar (the secular).
The same cannot be said of any Islamic Cleric or scholar. If they criticize or speak out against the content of the Qu'ran, they are very likely to end up on someone's death list.
The Christian faith has an awful history of violence and religious intolerance. It suppressed science and scientists that didn't agree with scripture, burned heretics and witches at the stake, waged war on non-Christians and committed atrocities that were on a par with the worst atrocities committed anywhere. Then, along came "The Renaissance" that led to a humanist philosophy. People became more and more interested in secular life, which in turn led to beliefs about education and society that came from Rome and Greece. Secular, humanist ideas gradually brought to the fore a growing feeling that the church should not rule matters of government, but should apply only to spiritual matters, which would become personal rather than public. While the church opposed the (later) capitalist ideas of wealth accumulation, supported only limited education for the public, and believed that ethics and morals ought to be dictated by scripture, the humanists believed that their wealth allowed them to do great things and become generous citizens and benefactors. They also believed that everyone was entitled to a full education and that both moral and ethical issues were in the purview of secular society not the spiritual society of the church. The Renaissance effectively removed the power of religious doctrine over the everyday lives of citizens, helped in no small measure by the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in the mid 15th century, which was used to spread information in much the same way that the internet has revolutionized information dissemination in the 20th and 21st centuries.
However, Islam is still in the 14th century (both philosophically and literally). It has yet to undergo its own Renaissance, it still has its own various versions of The Inquisition (a group of Christian institutions that would by today's standards be considered terrorists). Even worse, they have access to modern weapons and destructive power. Can you imagine the havoc that The Inquisition could have wreaked on a secular populace had they had access to modern weapons and explosives.
That is what I believe we have in Islam; a pre-Renesissance culture in a post Renaissance world. I consider that a potentially dangerous combination.
From my post #126
"Of course, it really easy to play the racist card against anyone who has the utter gall to point out that there are certain adherents of certain religions who act in a barbaric fashion. Apparently, we are not allowed to talk about that because it offends the sensibilities of those Muslims who are moderate and genuinely bear no ill will against Christians or Jews or any other religions or even against secular members of society. My Indonesian neighbors are just such Muslims; friendly and easy going. Their daughter is in class with my grand-daughter at Primary School (Grade school for you American readers) and they play together when we babysit her. They also make it plain that they find abhorrent the things radical Muslims have done and claimed it was in the name of Allah. They think THAT is blasphemy!"
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
And your familiarity with Islamic clerical scholarship is...?
(Keep in mind I've already got a pretty good idea of the answer.)
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
And you are incredibly, astonishingly wrong about that.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You don't even have to be a scholar or a cleric to get on a death list of you are a Muslim and speak out against the Qu'ran or its contents. in fact, you don't even have to be a Muslim....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Raheel_Raza (for advocating gender equality, especially for Muslim women)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Mariwan_Halabjaee (for writing a book called Sex, Sharia and Women in the History of Islam)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Ulil_Abshar_Abdalla (for writing an article called Rejuvenating the Islamic Understanding)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Geert_Wilders ( for his criticism of Islam and saying he hated Islam)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy (for writing a work of fiction demed to be heretical)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Jerry_Falwell (for saying that he thought Muhammed was a terrorist, a violent man and a man of war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Taslima_Nasreen (for criticism of the treatment of women under Islam)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Isioma_Daniel (for suggesting that Muhammad may have chosen a wife from the competitors in a Miss World contest)
in fact, you don't even have to say anything about the Qu'ran, you just have to criticise Islamic Terrorism or make fun of Imams
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-03/22/c_132252506.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Farag_Foda (assassinated for for his critical articles and trenchant satires about Islamic fundamentalism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Shahin_Najafi (making allegedly irreverent remarks about the tenth Islamic imam)
These are just a few I was able to find in a couple of minutes of looking. I'm sure there will be a lot more.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
I see that it didn't take you long to move the goalposts from "scholars of the Qur'an" to "anyone I could Google up, including Jerry Falwell and Geert Wilders".
Your original claim, about "How can anyone seriously say that an Islamic cleric or scholar would be allowed the latitude and/or freedom of expression to call into question such basic tenets of the Qu'ran?", remains dead wrong, because it happens all the *********** time without any kind of death threat being leveled at the people involved.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that your list is stupid. It consists of 9 of the 12 people from a Wikipedia article that included, as I said, Jerry Falwell and Geert Wilders, and a Xinhua link about a man who was killed not because he criticised Islam or the Qur'an, but because he opposed violent Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War...the man himself was specifically noted in the linked article as "highly respected by many of the leading scholars in the Muslim world".
Your original claim, about "How can anyone seriously say that an Islamic cleric or scholar would be allowed the latitude and/or freedom of expression to call into question such basic tenets of the Qu'ran?", remains dead wrong, because it happens all the *********** time without any kind of death threat being leveled at the people involved.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that your list is stupid. It consists of 9 of the 12 people from a Wikipedia article that included, as I said, Jerry Falwell and Geert Wilders, and a Xinhua link about a man who was killed not because he criticised Islam or the Qur'an, but because he opposed violent Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War...the man himself was specifically noted in the linked article as "highly respected by many of the leading scholars in the Muslim world".
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
But wait, there's more
Ahmed al-Ghamdi (a Muslime Cleric)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/m...wife-appears-with-him-on-tv-without-face-veil
You want me to keep looking?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
"Muslime"?
Robert Spencer citing the Daily Mail?!
You're funny.
Look all you like, but it still won't change the fact that your claim about "How can anyone seriously say that an Islamic cleric or scholar would be allowed the latitude and/or freedom of expression to call into question such basic tenets of the Qu'ran?"
Unless you'd like me to list some more people who do have that very lattitude and/or freedom of expression, and do do exactly that?
Last edited:
metacristi
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2002
- Messages
- 760
Just take a look at Paul Graham’s Ladder of Disagreement. Great logic nothing to say. Sadly the standard among the (irrational) supporters of islam...By the way Reilly's argument regarding 'the closing of the muslim mind' is sound, anyone who knows well Christianity, islam and some philosophy will easily agree with that. That he can be wrong elsewhere is of no importance.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
What, you're the typo police now?
Will I get a fatwa pronounced upon me for that?
Second source http://www.inquisitr.com/1689669/muslim-scholars-tweets-causes-a-stir-in-saudi-arabia/
Apparently Ahmed Al Ghamdi. tweeted his "blasphemy", more death threats.
Maybe some do have that latitude and freedom, but some clearly do not (as I have clearly shown) so my statement stands. It seems Islam is a bit haphazard about its rules, which ones apply and who they do and don't apply to. This is not surprising when anyone can put on a few robes, wrap a rag around it their head and call themselves an imam.
I'll tell you what though. I'll keep looking if you keep digging.
Childlike Empress
Banned
You'll keep on looking for something that confirms the crap you learned from Geller and the learned elders of SION (inside joke), not unlikely, but at least you now understood how "haphazard" that Sharia thing is. Next you'll look up Fatwa and understand that there is no need to interpret your typos in face of Islamic law, because Islamic law doesn't care about them.
edit: Oh, and according to SPIEGEL, at today's LEGIDA rally 2000 policemen outnumbered 1665 demonstrators.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Yes.
I can't help you with that, I'm afraid. You'd have to consult your local faqih for that.
Inquisitr isn't a news site, it's essentially a paid blog with no journalistic standards for its writers and no editorial oversight.
And this is exactly why your statement doesn't stand.
It's not haphazard so much as entirely decentralized.
I'm so glad to see that this is all about legitimate criticism of certain Islamic beliefs and practices, and isn't at all an excuse for bigotry or anything like that.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Wow! You don't see that everyday in polite company.
One minute Islam is some highly totalitarian religion in which it is death to question it, the next minute it is "haphazard about its rules" and anyone can call themselves an imam, and *ahem* "wrap a rag around it their head".
I'm not sure what is more objectionable; the logic, the 1970s style casual bigotry, or the standard of English?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Generally I agree with his "disagreement hirerachy", and most if not all skeptics would. There's one caveat: credibility of a source does matter. When a source consistently spouts crap in matters A, B and C, then he is not trustworthy in matter D either. There's a sound reason why we don't take seriously everything that is said by Alex Jones or written by WorldNutDaily.
Reilly is not just wrong, he makes stuff up. See, for instance, FBWL's post about his essay on music. No, he's not a credible source.
But aside from that, even if you want to take his book seriously, you overlook Aisha's refutation of Reilly; and that of Prof. Frank Griffe. And those are, according to Graham's scale you cited, at level DH6, i.e., the highest level on his "disagreement hierarchy" scale. So, by only attacking a post you deem to be a lesser disagreement, you're in fact building a strawman.
I look forward to your arguments refuting Aisha and Prof. Griffe.
metacristi
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2002
- Messages
- 760
I don't think anyone denies the existence of honest, relatively moderate, muslims (to some extent indeed, moderates in the western sense of the word are rather rare). This especially in the West where they are protected by the secular laws uphold by the non muslims (but the degree of moderation drops sharply in the majority muslim countries where much more defective parts of islam are preserved by those who we can call 'liberals', this even in the most moderate countries).
Still the islam taught and lived by Muhammad, as depicted by the quran and hadith, is not at all liberal and this is extremely clear in the so called 'classical' islam (where Islamism, not far from that of the radicals of today, was an integrant part). Unfortunately the 'sanitized' versions of islam of today in the West have in fact very few justification in both the theology and history of islam (how can one contextualize or ignore some violent parts when the inerrant quran, still accepted as such even by the more moderate muslims, specifically interdict that, in clear words?, how can one claim Rationality when one support secularism and still claim at the same time that sharia is fully compatible with modernity?).
What they say is basically that by definition islam is peace, sharia is highly compatible with modernity etc, not far from the hypothetical scenario in which someone, entirely honest otherwise, attempt to claim that Nazism is actually benign. Finally basically all ideologies can be made 'white' via such strategies if people really want that (while remaining fully honest, accepting large parts of modern principles and laws) but how tenable are they in the light of Rationality?.
Given the particular nature of this religion (based on the 'perfect revelation' of a single person whose actions should be imitated by all believers at all times, as written in the holy book) when the 'progressives' of today retain an important part of the old 'infrastructure' of islam (the quran inerrant, Muhammad 'perfect', deserving emulation at all times, no open recognition of the huge discrimination of non muslims in the past etc) I'm afraid they are indeed nothing more than mere passive, even unconscious, carriers of the same islam of the past, leaving the doors wide open for the radicals and their interpretations.
What is worse is that even the most liberal muslim countries are far from having the level of secularism necessary to create free societies, being nothing more than half-theological 'hybrids' where quite many of the defective parts of islam are enforced at the practical level (even if sharia only 'influence' the laws and Constitutions).
Muslims never 'bridged the gap' toward a healthy level of secularism in societies where they are in majority and sadly there are very good reasons to think that this will never happen as much as islam will be held in the same high esteem as today (even in Turkey, where secularization was done by brute force by the way and not via Reason, we witness a strong return of the religious worldview in public areas, just another proof that severe returns toward the past are always probable if the external 'pressure', which obliged the muslim world to reform in important ways in the past, is lowered or removed).
I'm afraid the current approach is not the way ahead if one wants a durable solution along modern lines. I have my own counter proposals here, they are mere proposals no doubt, but what is clear to me is that one cannot begin from a delusion to find it (I'd say that exposing muslims to a rational criticism of islam is a much better start; and I don't think that giving to the muslims merely the same secular rights as to all the others and nothing more, resisting the defective parts of sharia, is discrimination).
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
What if tomorrow some radical christian extremist group hailing from, say, Oregon, rears its head and publishes "learned" opinions that certain muslim (Jewish, atheist, scientific) leaders or scholars ought to be murdered by any Christian who feels so obliged.
That would clearly be a fringe Xtian group, opposed by most main stream Xtians.
Would smartcooky then call to stop all immigration of Xtians to - NZ, Germany, wherever?
The claim that "Islam" - talked about as a fuzzy, unilogical pure idea - had no Renaissance, can't be reformed, has no truly moderate following or whatever smartcooky wants to claim, is refuted by the vast majority of muslims at least in the west, perhaps in most of the muslim-majority world, too, that do in fact practice and preach moderate islam, and that have views very much colored by the very same Rennaissance and Enlightment that "we" occidental secularists like to pay lipservice to.
Someone asked "how many muslims do you know?"
A very important question! Studies / polls show that the more people are personally acquainted with muslims, the more they are supportive of their coming to and living in the west.
That would clearly be a fringe Xtian group, opposed by most main stream Xtians.
Would smartcooky then call to stop all immigration of Xtians to - NZ, Germany, wherever?
The claim that "Islam" - talked about as a fuzzy, unilogical pure idea - had no Renaissance, can't be reformed, has no truly moderate following or whatever smartcooky wants to claim, is refuted by the vast majority of muslims at least in the west, perhaps in most of the muslim-majority world, too, that do in fact practice and preach moderate islam, and that have views very much colored by the very same Rennaissance and Enlightment that "we" occidental secularists like to pay lipservice to.
Someone asked "how many muslims do you know?"
A very important question! Studies / polls show that the more people are personally acquainted with muslims, the more they are supportive of their coming to and living in the west.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks to the US Constitution's protection of free speech, incitement to murder is not a crime in any of the 50 states unless it becomes a direct cause of the murder, or attempted murder, in which case it would fall under conspiracy laws, with the same penalty as murder or attempted murder itself. So for the exact example you quote in Oregan, there isn't a lot they could do. However, in most other western countries, incitement to violence and murder is a crime and is not protected by free speech laws. If you publicly call for the killing of any person, group or race, in a country such as England, Canada (under definition of 'Counsel"), Germany, New Zealand and Australia (under Sedition Laws), you can be arrested and indicted for incitement to commit murder.
Strawman! What I have said is that destination countries need to be aware that Muslim immigrants will almost certainly bring fringe elements with them that are likely to be either already radical or easily radicalized. If you don't believe this is true, then you need to explain how people become Islamic radicals in countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada and end up becoming ISIL's foreign fighters. You also have to explain how the radicalization of the Charlie Hebdo murderers took place; they were French citizens born in Paris to Algerian immigrants!!
I have never said that immigration of Muslims should not be allowed?
Another strawman. I never said that Muslim moderates do not exist. I said that the Islamic world, i.e the countries in which is Islam is the dominant religion and holds the greatest political sway, has never undergone a "Renaissance" in the way that the Christian world did in the 15th and 16th centuries. This ended up with Secular society becoming the dominant political force. There is little if any secularism in the Islamic world; perhaps Jordan would be the nearest.
Quite a few. My neighbors for a start (there's seven) and their family who also live here. A few of my customers are as well, and one of them is a New Zealand woman (Dutch born) married to a Jordanian Muslim man. She has lived in a "cave" in Petra, Jordan for many years, and returns to NZ regularly to visit her family. I also know a few Italians (this town has quite a large Italian heritage) but I don't think we are in danger of any Mafia hitmen turning up here. I know a few Chinese too, but I don't think the Triads are rife in this town
I don't feel in the least bit threatened by any of these people.
.
.
angrysoba
Philosophile
In fact, the majority of the radicals who perpetrate these kinds of crimes are not immigrants, but were born in the country where these terrorist attacks occurred. Similarly, most of those who have gone to join ISIS are also second or third generation citizens.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. Descendents of their immigrant parents.
Cheers. Thanks for helping to make my point.
Last edited: