Sudan woman faces death for apostasy / Appeal court overturns

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Good googling, but had you actually read that Wikipedia article, you'd see why it's out of context. The very next verse (4:90) puts a slightly different spin on it:

The "out of context" dodge is the same thing Christian apologists say when they are pointed out that their Bible supports slavery. In both cases, true skeptics see it for the BS that it is.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tony

The "out of context" dodge is the same thing Christian apologists say when they are pointed out that their Bible supports slavery. In both cases, true skeptics see it for the BS that it is.

You´re employing the same kind of quote-mining that creationists use to support their argument.

Learning from the enemy is learning how to win, eh?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Chaos

You´re employing the same kind of quote-mining that creationists use to support their argument.

Except I'm not. I quoted Cleon in his entirety.

Quote:

Learning from the enemy is learning how to win, eh?

Do you find that you have a lot of enemies?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Chaos

You´re employing the same kind of quote-mining that creationists use to support their argument.

This is how it works. If the "interpretation" of Islam leads to beliefs and behaviors that are inconvenient for the Islamophobes, then the Muslims are "interpreting" the text wrong. However, if the "interpretation" lets Islamophobes claim that Islam is indeed the Worst Religion Ever(TM), then the "interpretation" is right.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

This is how it works. If the "interpretation" of Islam leads to beliefs and behaviors that are inconvenient for the Islamophobes, then the Muslims are "interpreting" the text wrong. However, if the "interpretation" lets Islamophobes claim that Islam is indeed the Worst Religion Ever(TM), then the "interpretation" is right.

The only people telling Muslims they are wrong to interpret their scriptures the way they do are the apologists. So, not only was this observation unoriginal, it wasn't even accurate.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

The only people telling Muslims they are wrong to interpret their scriptures the way they do are the apologists. So, not only was this observation unoriginal, it wasn't even accurate.

Did you miss all of Mark342's posts in this thread? Or Humes fork's in this thread?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

Did you miss all of Mark342's posts in this thread? Or Humes fork's in this thread?

Yes. Where did they say Muslims were wrong in their interpretation?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tony

Except I'm not. I quoted Cleon in his entirety.

You ignored half the quote of the Quran, in order to come to the desired conclusion.

Quote:

Do you find that you have a lot of enemies?

You claim to oppose religious fanatics, but you copy their tacticsw.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

Yes. Where did they say Muslims were wrong in their interpretation?

Seriously?

Originally Posted by Humes fork

They can't possibly justify such activism within the context of their religion. What would the prophet say?

Originally Posted by Humes fork

But to prohibit what the prophet permitted or to permit what the prophet prohibited is a grave sin in Islam!

Originally Posted by Humes fork

But Muhammad married a girl young enough to be his granddaughter, so it can't be haram.

All in response to Humes fork being shown Muslims, ranging from the scholars at Al-Azhar down to a Malaysian Muslim Feminist organization, who oppose child marriage.

Originally Posted by Mark342

It should be obvious that "weak hadith" are the go-to excuses for Muslims wanting to reject anything embarrassing that they dont want to see as being part of Islam.

Originally Posted by Mark342

You are a Muslim so you're going to say that. The links given by people here prove that FGM is a PART of Islam.

[...]

EVERY hadith for that matter can be classified as Daif/weak if an analysis was done. Muslims like you only care about doing the analysis for Hadiths which they are embarrassed about.

Originally Posted by Mark342

Who cares what Muslims say about FGM?

The issue is what ISLAM teaches about the topic:

Originally Posted by Mark342

Al-Azhar cannot negate what is mentioned in Abu Dawud. These are all excuses mentioned by Muslims.

In response to Mark342 being shown Muslims, ranging from (again) scholars at Al-Azhar to Senegalese Imams working with Western NGOs, who reject that FGM/C is a religious requirement in Islam and who are working to eradicate the practice.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Chaos

You ignored half the quote of the Quran, in order to come to the desired conclusion.

No I didn't.

Quote:

You claim to oppose religious fanatics, but you copy their tacticsw.

If I do, then so do you.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I don't make a daily effort to follow these posts.

Quote:

All in response to Humes fork being shown Muslims, ranging from the scholars at Al-Azhar down to a Malaysian Muslim Feminist organization, who oppose child marriage.

He never said they were wrong, he was only pointing out their inconsistencies. That is what skeptics are supposed to do.

Quote:

In response to Mark342 being shown Muslims, ranging from (again) scholars at Al-Azhar to Senegalese Imams working with Western NGOs, who reject that FGM/C is a religious requirement in Islam and who are working to eradicate the practice.

Never saw where he said they were wrong. Again, another person pointing out inconsistencies. If that automatically means he says they are wrong, then you're guilty of the same thing when you claim FGM isn't a a part of Islam when there are some Muslims who say it is.

For example:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ma...egyptian-women

Quote:

The Brotherhood’s strategy to undermine the national campaign to end FGM is three-pronged. Firstly, they contest the notion that the practice is not religiously prescribed. Many of the Brothers (and Salafis) argue that while it is not mandatory, it is nevertheless mukarama (preferable, pleasing in the eyes of God). They also quote hadith (saying attributed to the Prophet) which stipulates that FGM should involve “cutting, but only lightly”.

Is the Muslim Brotherhood wrong?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

He never said they were wrong, he was only pointing out their inconsistencies. That is what skeptics are supposed to do.

Describing all those Muslims who don't interpret their religion the way Humes fork thinks they should interpret it as committing a "grave sin in Islam" is "pointing out inconsistencies"?

Uh huh.

Quote:

Never saw where he said they were wrong.

Other than where he said they weren't allowed to argue that FGM/C is not Islamic.

Quote:

Again, another person pointing out inconsistencies. If that automatically means he says they are wrong, then you're guilty of the same thing when you claim FGM isn't a a part of Islam when there are some Muslims who say it is.

I'm not arguing that those Muslims are wrong (there is no "right" or "wrong" here, there's just different interpretations held by different groups of Muslims, some of which I'd much rather see become widespread than others). I'm saying that those Muslims who are arguing that FGM/C isn't a part of Islam should be encouraged and applauded by anyone who has any interest whatsoever in seeing the practice ended, rather than railed against by haters whose only interest in FGM/C and Islam is in ensuring they can keep using it as a method by which to attack Muslims and Islam.

Quote:

Is the Muslims Brotherhood wrong?

Do you want them to be right, and for their strategy to undermine the Egyptian national campaign against FGM/C to succeed? Because I sure don't, and I'm wondering why all these "critics of Islam" seem to always take the side of people like the Muslim Brotherhood in these kind of debates.

[FFed]

More proof that Islam is nothing but a cancer on humanity.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

Describing all those Muslims who don't interpret their religion the way Humes fork thinks they should interpret it as committing a "grave sin in Islam" is "pointing out inconsistencies"?

Uh huh.

Yep.

Quote:

I'm not arguing that those Muslims are wrong (there is no "right" or "wrong" here, there's just different interpretations held by different groups of Muslims, some of which I'd much rather see become widespread than others).

So then it isn't wrong to say that FGM is a part of Islam.

Quote:

Do you want them to be right, and for their strategy to undermine the Egyptian national campaign against FGM/C to succeed?

Of course not.

Quote:

Because I sure don't, and I'm wondering why all these "critics of Islam" seem to always take the side of people like the Muslim Brotherhood in these kind of debates.

Who is taking their side? All the critics are doing is pointing out that these people exist and that they are a problem. It is the apologists who are claiming that these people and their idea aren't "really" a part of Islam.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

So then it isn't wrong to say that FGM is a part of Islam.

Just as it isn't wrong to day that FGM/C isn't a part of Islam. There are two groups of Muslims, one which says that FGM/C is part of Islam and makes religiously-based arguments to that effect, and one which says that FGM/C is not part of Islam and makes religiously-based arguments to that effect.

Quote:

Who is taking their side? All the critics are doing is pointing out that these people exist and that they are a problem.

No, that's not what the "critics" are doing at all. They are being shown Muslims who are actively fighting against those people and the problem those people represent, and using the exact same arguments that those problematic people employ against their opponents, right down to quoting scripture and accusing them of being sinners in their own religion.

The "critics of Islam" in that FGM/C thread and that child marriage thread, weren't just "pointing out that these people exist and that they are a problem", because their immediate and only reaction to being shown how other Muslims were attempting to address those problems and fight against those people was not to say "good for them", or even "that's a good start, but more needs to be done". Instead, it was to literally say that those Muslims are not allowed to combat the problems caused by these people, because the problematic people are the only ones interpreting Islam correctly, and any Muslim who attempts to say otherwise isn't a real Muslim. If a Muslim is against child marriage, she "can't possibly justify such activism within the context of their religion" and is committing "a grave sin in Islam"; if a Muslim is against FGM/C, he "cannot negate what is mentioned in Abu Dawud" because it's been "prove[n] that FGM is a PART of Islam".

And it's just as ******** and insulting and, frankly, evil in my view, as arguing against pro-LGBT Christians by declaring that they're all sinners and unChristian for ignoring Leviticus and that jerks like Bryan Fischer and Fred Phelps are the only ones who are interpreting the Bible correctly and truly acting the way Christians should act.

If your reaction when confronted by people working to actually end such horrible practices as FGM/C and child marriage is to start making argiuments that are functionally indistinguishable from the arguments that the very fundamentalist asshats who promote and perpetrate those practices are making, I submit that perhaps you might want to take a step bank and rethink just what the hell it is you think you're doing and why.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by FFed

More proof that Islam is nothing but a cancer on humanity.

Could you try to explain how you understand skepticism and critical thinking? Further could you give objective evidence for your claim?

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by A'isha

<snip>

Keep fighting the good fight

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

Just as it isn't wrong to day that FGM/C isn't a part of Islam. There are two groups of Muslims, one which says that FGM/C is part of Islam and makes religiously-based arguments to that effect, and one which says that FGM/C is not part of Islam and makes religiously-based arguments to that effect.

So then I take it that you will stop calling people names who rightly point out that FGM is part of Islam?

Quote:

No, that's not what the "critics" are doing at all.

On this website, it generally is.

Quote:

They are being shown Muslims who are actively fighting against those people and the problem those people represent, and using the exact same arguments that those problematic people employ against their opponents, right down to quoting scripture and accusing them of being sinners in their own religion.

Right. Pointing out inconsistencies. You only like it when people scrutinize Islam YOUR WAY on YOUR TERMS.

Quote:

The "critics of Islam" in that FGM/C thread and that child marriage thread, weren't just "pointing out that these people exist and that they are a problem", because their immediate and only reaction to being shown how other Muslims were attempting to address those problems and fight against those people was not to say "good for them", or even "that's a good start, but more needs to be done". Instead, it was to literally say that those Muslims are not allowed to combat the problems caused by these people, because the problematic people are the only ones interpreting Islam correctly, and any Muslim who attempts to say otherwise isn't a real Muslim. If a Muslim is against child marriage, she "can't possibly justify such activism within the context of their religion" and is committing "a grave sin in Islam"; if a Muslim is against FGM/C, he "cannot negate what is mentioned in Abu Dawud" because it's been "prove[n] that FGM is a PART of Islam".

I doubt it. You have a habit of seeing demons where none exist (IE always assuming that anytime someone says "muslims" that they mean ALL muslims).

Quote:

If your reaction when confronted by people working to actually end such horrible practices as FGM/C and child marriage is to start making argiuments that are functionally indistinguishable from the arguments that the very fundamentalist asshats who promote and perpetrate those practices are making, I submit that perhaps you might want to take a step bank and rethink just what the hell it is you think you're doing and why.

You only need to look at yourself for this. Anytime someone criticizes Islam, you pull out the "bigot" and "Islamophobia" cards. Just like the fundamentalists.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Tony

So then I take it that you will stop calling people names who rightly point out that FGM is part of Islam?

FGM is not a part of Islam. What is it, that you don't understand about FGM; namely that is a cultural practice, which predates Islam and is not universal to or a part of Islam. Not anymore than some Christians practice FGM, but that doesn't make FGM a part of Christianty.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

So then I take it that you will stop calling people names who rightly point out that FGM is part of Islam?

I'm certainly not going to stop correctly labeling people who insist that FGM/C is and has to be part of Islam and that any Muslim who dares suggest otherwise is Doing Islam Wrong.

Quote:

On this website, it generally is.

Not from the self-proclaimed "critics of Islam", it's not.

Quote:

Right. Pointing out inconsistencies. You only like it when people scrutinize Islam YOUR WAY on YOUR TERMS.

No, I don't like it when people make up **** about an entire religion, declare it to be the Worst Thing EVAR, then do their damndest to fight tooth and nail even the very idea that Islam is not teh debbils and that all Muslims don't have to believe the most twisted and barbaric interpretation possible or they're "committing a grave sin" or some ******** like that.

Quote:

I doubt it. You have a habit of seeing demons where none exist (IE always assuming that anytime someone says "muslims" that they mean ALL muslims).

I'm just going to point to where I directly quoted the exact words of the "critics of Islam" when shown where and how Muslims themselves were working to end the practices of FGM/C and child marriage, and leave it at that.

Quote:

You only need to look at yourself for this. Anytime someone criticizes Islam, you pull out the "bigot" and "Islamophobia" cards. Just like the fundamentalists.

And here I'm just going to point again to organizations like Women Living Under Muslim Laws who are not just plenty critical of Islam (actual criticism, not hatred and Islamophobia pretending to be "criticism"), but are actually doing something about it.

Unlike all the inane dumbassery spouted by the likes of Harris and Dawkins, or the posts of the "critics" of Islam here at JREF.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

FGM is not a part of Islam.

Yes it is. We've already established that it is. Who are you to tell Muslims they are wrong?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

I'm certainly not going to stop correctly labeling people who insist that FGM/C is and has to be part of Islam and that any Muslim who dares suggest otherwise is Doing Islam Wrong.

You never started correctly labeling people. You yourself just admitted FGM was part of Islam.

Quote:

Not from the self-proclaimed "critics of Islam", it's not.

It is from what I have seen.

Quote:

No, I don't like it when people make up **** about an entire religion, declare it to be the Worst Thing EVAR, then do their damndest to fight tooth and nail even the very idea that Islam is not teh debbils and that all Muslims don't have to believe the most twisted and barbaric interpretation possible or they're "committing a grave sin" or some ******** like that.

Except for the "committing a grave sin" comment, no one did any of this.

Quote:

I'm just going to point to where I directly quoted the exact words of the "critics of Islam" when shown where and how Muslims themselves were working to end the practices of FGM/C and child marriage, and leave it at that.

You mean where you mis-characterized their arguments?

Quote:

And here I'm just going to point again to organizations like Women Living Under Muslim Laws who are not just plenty critical of Islam (actual criticism, not hatred and Islamophobia pretending to be "criticism"), but are actually doing something about it.

Thank you. I don't see how this counters anything anyone has said. Have people claimed such groups didn't exist?

Quote:

Unlike all the inane dumbassery spouted by the likes of Harris and Dawkins, or the posts of the "critics" of Islam here at JREF.

More name calling.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

Yes it is. We've already established that it is. Who are you to tell Muslims they are wrong?

We've established that some Muslims say it is, and some don't.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by A'isha

We've established that some Muslims say it is, and some don't.

Are you saying those Muslims who do are interpreting their religion wrong?

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Tony

Yes it is. We've already established that it is. Who are you to tell Muslims they are wrong?

Who is that we? I am not a part of it, so is that we?
How do you know that I believe in being wrong? How do you know that someone can be wrong? Can you explain that?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Tony

Are you saying those Muslims who do are interpreting their religion wrong?

Are you saying that you are incapable of understanding that the existence of multiple interpretations with different intellectual histories makes your insistence that there is an "Islam" that must be followed in order to be a Twoo Mooswim™ seem like a reactionary lie rather than a valid critcism?

[Dinwar]

So after following this thread, I'm left with a question for Dawkinsian critics of Islam: how exactly do we know which Islamic preachers to listen to? This whole debate boils down to the fact that HF, Tony, and their ilk select certain preachers to listen to when they choose to study Islam (or, more accurately, Dawkins and Hitchens and the like choose for them), while A'isha clearly takes a much broader approach. How should we choose?

If Tony response, I would appreciate someone quoting him. I find his debate style to be obnoxious enough that I have him on "Ignore".

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

You never started correctly labeling people. You yourself just admitted FGM was part of Islam.

No, I said that there are Muslims who make the argument that FGM/C is part of Islam, and Muslims who make the argument that FGM/C isn't part of Islam, and there is no authority who can make a final objective decision on which side is right and which side is wrong.

Quote:

No one did any of this.

I can't help you if you can't see what I mean.

Quote:

You mean where you mis-characterized their arguments?

Okay, then.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Originally Posted by A'isha

Sorry, we would, but we're just currently too busy working to eliminate the problem of child marriage.

Can we get back to you on this when we're done? Thanks.

They can't possibly justify such activism within the context of their religion. What would the prophet say?

What is the argument that Humes fork is making there, in response to my post that he quoted in his reply? Particularly considering that, of the three links in my post that he quoted and is replying to, one is to WLUML, and two are to specifically Muslim organizations.

Quote:

Thank you. I don't see how this counters anything anyone has said. Have people claimed such groups didn't exist?

I've never said that people have claimed such groups didn't exist. I stated that people are claiming that such groups "can't possibly justify such activism within the context of their religion" despite the fact that, y'know, that's exactly what they are doing.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27424064



They have put a 2 year stay on the execution so she can give birth and bring up the baby before they kill her.

The judge also sentenced the woman to 100 lashes after convicting her of adultery - because her marriage to a Christian man was not valid under Islamic law.

Barbaric. Yet the 'wisdom of the age' teach us that such a practice is a 'misrepresentation' of islam*. Is it really so? The problem here is that the fundamentalist Sudan has implemented the sharia law as understood during almost all the Islamic history and indeed with strong roots in the basics of islam, if one of the parents is muslim then the child must be raised as a muslim, from a legal point of view the child is considered muslim. And of course the apostates who refuse to recant must be killed. Sadly these fundamentalists do not misinterpret anything, what we have here is one of the many 'anomalies' challenging the 'wisdom of the age'. And there are many more.

Looking at a much broader scale the core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status). Thus the strategy to cherry pick, attempt to contextualize or interpret symbolically the violent passages of islam is inherently much less efficient than what can be done in the other Abrahamic religions (little reason for doing this in the basics of islam).

In other words the basics of islam are not infinitely elastic in interpretation (thus the postmodernist stance that many alternative rational interpretations are possible or that there is no 'true' islam falls apart, I'm afraid we can come close enough to understanding rationally what Muhammad had in mind and unfortunately the 'progressive' interpretations are eons apart from that). What islam really needs is CONFRONTING the violent passages (admitting mistakes) but this cannot be done if one still follow the old path of trying to save with all costs the tenet that the quran is 'perfect' (and Muhammad is the 'perfect' being) instead of recognizing frankly that the holy book is fallible and that at least sometimes the conclusions of the unaided Human Mind are more important than what is written in the quran.

The mental gymnastics used today to 'solve' the problem of violence in islam cannot stop people very committed to the basics of islam to come, via plain rational reasoning, to the same old conclusion that islam must wage war against the infidels, impose islamic law on them and the plethora of other 'dark' parts of islam. Keeping the proportions let's imagine that there exist a movement of 'Nazis' who claim that 'Mein Kampf' is 'perfect', Hitler is the 'perfect' being, but who nonetheless act as Jains do (via very very tortuous mental gymnastics leading to that). Of course at any time one of those very commited to the movement Nazis (who want to be rational) could wake up the next day (or the next generation) with the realization that Hitler and Mein Kampf actually teach the opposite, adjust his actions accordingly, and recruit other 'Nazis' to the 'right path'. After all all one has to do is to say 'Don't just believe me, read Mein Kampf rationally once you accept the essential basics'.

As a conclusion poverty, imperialism and other factors can only 'modulate' the theological factor which unfortunately is extremely important in the case of islam. The most efficient cure is a nontrivial change in the educational, organizational and theological aspects of islam (of course action at the level of the other factors is needed as well).


* in the meantime the liberal muslims themselves (sadly a minority at the moment) draw attention to the same obvious fact that Muslims must be honest about Qur’an (by the way we have here one of the many examples of why some very commited muslims will continue to accept the view of those in Boko Haram, I'm afraid attempts at contextualization won't suffice and cherry picking is a perfect non solution for rational enough persons who take very seriously the view that what is written in the quran is perfect and the deeds of muhammad deserve to be emulated at all times). The solution is elementary still some prefer to continue ad infinitum with the same red herring 'others do the same' (when in fact the difference is abysmal) seconded inevitably by attempts to block all rational criticism of islam via fraudulent use of words such as 'islamophobia'. Not my fault that the basics of islam are more radical than those of other religions (leaving also way less 'holes' for important change via unaided Human Reason) and thus, inevitably, it is much more difficult to reform it to become fully compatible with Modernity. There is as much 'islamophobia' here as unicorns on Earth.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Barbaric. Yet the 'wisdom of the age' teach us that such a practice is a 'misrepresentation' of islam. Is it really so? The problem here is that the fundamentalist Sudan has implemented the sharia law as understood during almost all the Islamic history and indeed with strong roots in the basics of islam, if one of the parents is muslim then the child must be raised as a muslim, from a legal point of view the child is considered muslim. And of course the apostates who refuse to recant must be killed. Sadly these fundamentalists do not misinterpret anything, we have here is one of the many 'anomalies' with the 'wisdom of the age'. And there are many more.

Looking at a much broader scale the core of the problem comes from the basics of islam itself, especially due to the fact that there is very little internal logic in the basic tenets of this religion leading to symbolic interpretations of the holy texts, limiting its 'dark' parts to remote historical contexts and admitting openly that the holy book is far from being 'perfect' (definitely much less than in Christianity or Judaism where unaided Human Reason has also a much more important status). Thus the strategy to cherry pick, attempt to contextualize or interpret symbolically the violent passages of islam is inherently much less efficient than what can be done in the other Abrahamic religions (little reason for doing this in the basics of islam).

In other words the basics of islam are not infinitely elastic in interpretation (thus the postmodernist stance that many alternative rational interpretations are possible or that there is no 'true' islam falls apart, I'm afraid we can come close enough to understanding rationally what Muhammad had in mind and unfortunately the 'progressive' interpretations are eons apart from that). What islam really needs is CONFRONTING the violent passages (admitting mistakes) but this cannot be done if one still follow the old path of trying to save with all costs the tenet that the quran is 'perfect' (and Muhammad is the 'perfect' being) instead of recognizing frankly that the holy book is fallible and that at least sometimes the conclusions of the unaided Human Mind are more important than what is written in the quran.

The mental gymnastics used today to 'solve' the problem of violence in islam cannot stop people very committed to the basics of islam to come, via plain rational reasoning, to the same old conclusion that islam must wage war against the infidels, impose islamic law on them and the plethora of other 'dark' parts of islam. Keeping the proportions let's imagine that there exist a movement of 'Nazis' who claim that 'Mein Kampf' is 'perfect', Hitler is the 'perfect' being, but who nonetheless act as Jains do (via very very tortuous mental gymnastics leading to that). Of course at any time one of those very commited to the movement Nazis (who want to be rational) could wake up the next day (or the next generation) with the realization that Hitler and Mein Kampf actually teach the opposite, adjust his actions accordingly, and recruit other 'Nazis' to the 'right path'. After all all one has to do is to say 'Don't just believe me, read Mein Kampf rationally once you accept the essential basics'.

As a conclusion poverty, imperialism and other factors can only 'modulate' the theological factor which unfortunately is extremely important in the case of islam. The most efficient cure is a nontrivial change in the educational, organizational and theological aspects of islam (of course action at the level of the other factors is needed as well).

Isn't it much more expedient to just say, "Hurr durr, Islam iz TEH EBBILS!!!!!!1!11!!!!!!111!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!!".

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tony

Yes it is. We've already established that it is. Who are you to tell Muslims they are wrong?

FGM is a part of a part of Islam. THAT is what we established.

More specifically, it is a part of a culture that overlaps, to a degree, with Islam.

Why can you not accept that fact?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Tony

So then I take it that you will stop calling people names who rightly point out that FGM is part of Islam?

So I take it we're going round in circles?

Let me make a few analogies. They're not perfect, of course.
Exorcism is part of Christianity.
Witch hunting is part of Christianity (or its present-day version, SRA panic)
Snake handling is part of Christianity.
Killing abortion doctors is part of Christianity.

Right?

[Dinwar]

Here's my question, metacristi: How do you reconcile your statements with A'isha's well-documented demonstrations that many parts of Islam are pushing for changes in what is percieved as part of the religion?

In other words: How can you know more about Islam than the practitioners of Islam? Because essentially, that's what Tony's and Humes fork's arguments boil down to.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Tony

Are you saying those Muslims who do are interpreting their religion wrong?

All right, let me try putting this another way.

There are some literary scholars who think that F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is the greatest and most significant American novel ever written, while other literary scholars consider that to have been John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.

Are the scholars who think The Grapes of Wrath is the greatest and most significant American novel ever written wrong? Not just have a different interpretation as to which novel is the greatest and most significant American novel ever written, but objectively wrong?

Yes or no?

[Corsair 115]

Look, everyone knows that the Muslim faith is one vast monolithic entity that has no internal divisions or differences in interpretation. That supposed schism between Sunni and Shia, the one where they sometimes kill each other over their difference of interpretation, is clearly all made up! (It's made up like the idea that Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other regularly in Europe.)

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Look, everyone knows that the Muslim faith is one vast monolithic entity that has no internal divisions or differences in interpretation. That supposed schism between Sunni and Shia, the one where they sometimes kill each other over their difference of interpretation, is clearly all made up! (It's made up like the idea that Catholics and Protestants used to kill each other regularly in Europe.)

One can talk safely about the existence of a 'defective' core Islamic worldview characteristic to many muslims worldwide (of course liberal muslims, in the western meaning of the word, do exist but they are definitely a minority at the moment).

That's why muslims worldwide are so 'concerned' about Palestine (it has to be restored to islam), are so 'sensible' to mundane acts (like innocently portraying Muhammad or applying textual criticism to the quran) and indeed why shia and sunni (whose differences are much more political in nature) are still hating and killing each other in an never ending bloodbath.

One can continue with the same 'arguments' which severely minimalize the impact of islamic religious tenets, education and institutions in the hope that somehow the violence and discrimination coming from the Islamic world will disappear but the problem is that highly erroneous assessment of the causes can never lead to lasting solutions (even if there may be some short term 'success').

[Frozenwolf150]

Originally Posted by metacristi

* in the meantime the liberal muslims themselves (sadly a minority at the moment) draw attention to the same obvious fact that Muslims must be honest about Qur’an (by the way we have here one of the many examples of why some very commited muslims will continue to accept the view of those in Boko Haram, I'm afraid attempts at contextualization won't suffice and cherry picking is a perfect non solution for rational enough persons who take very seriously the view that what is written in the quran is perfect and the deeds of muhammad deserve to be emulated at all times). The solution is elementary still some prefer to continue ad infinitum with the same red herring 'others do the same' (when in fact the difference is abysmal) seconded inevitably by attempts to block all rational criticism of islam via fraudulent use of words such as 'islamophobia'. Not my fault that the basics of islam are more radical than those of other religions (leaving also way less 'holes' for important change via unaided Human Reason) and thus, inevitably, it is much more difficult to reform it to become fully compatible with Modernity. There is as much 'islamophobia' here as unicorns on Earth.

There has been a lengthy discussion in the other thread on the difference between legitimate rational criticism of Islam, and Islamophobia. Failure to separate the politics, culture, and individual people from the religion as a whole, not to mention treating Islam as monolithic, tends to fall into the latter category.

[Frozenwolf150]

Originally Posted by Tony

Are you saying those Muslims who do are interpreting their religion wrong?

I, as a person living in modern civilized society, as many Muslims do, would say that they are really BAD Muslims. By the same reasoning, I would say that the Muslims working to end the practice are GOOD Muslims. There are good and bad people. There are good and bad followers of any faith.

[NearlySane]

Originally Posted by Frozenwolf150

I, as a person living in modern civilized society, as many Muslims do, would say that they are really BAD Muslims. By the same reasoning, I would say that the Muslims working to end the practice are GOOD Muslims. There are good and bad people. There are good and bad followers of any faith.

Indeed I struggle with this idea that there is a thing called Islam that is bad. Religions and ideologies do not exist outside of the individuals who practice them and we can see that the beliefs of those involved in religion change over time.

[Filippo Lippi]

It it "bad," because it is so ambiguous. If it were "good" it would prescribe exactly what should happen to apostates and it would be nothing worse than a "thank you for considering islam*."


*or christianity or whatever "divinely inspired" set of rules