ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags anti-Islam rhetoric , anti-islam sentiments , atheism , islam

Reply
Old 27th October 2017, 10:54 AM   #121
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
The concept of race is more nebulous than you assume.
Maybe, but not enough to include south-east asians along with black Africans and Arabs and Persians.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 10:58 AM   #122
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.
Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?

One can discuss whether archological evidence is in contradiction with the story (as the story gives a rather precise idea where and when - for archological standards - and even names of rulers and political entities) and based on that criticize Christianity. And one would criticize the whole thing, if one would try to argue that e.g. some Pontius Pilatus never existed or at least had no sort of ruling or judical power in Judäa around year 30.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 11:08 AM   #123
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?
I think Tubba argued himself into a corner and won't admit it.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:02 PM   #124
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think Tubba argued himself into a corner and won't admit it.
No, I'm simply not willing to expend more than a limited amount of effort on pointless semantics.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Maybe, but not enough to include south-east asians along with black Africans and Arabs and Persians.
You'd be surprised. Exactly how closely related do you think all "black" people are?

Incidentally I think sub-saharan Africans figure less prominently in the racist/orientalist stereotypes surrounding popular conceptions of Islam.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 27th October 2017 at 12:08 PM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:07 PM   #125
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?
Discuss it all you want. Engage in theological debate all you like. You know full well that is not what 'criticize' in this context entails.

Quote:
One can discuss whether archological evidence is in contradiction with the story (as the story gives a rather precise idea where and when - for archological standards - and even names of rulers and political entities) and based on that criticize Christianity. And one would criticize the whole thing, if one would try to argue that e.g. some Pontius Pilatus never existed or at least had no sort of ruling or judical power in Judäa around year 30.
There is nothing wrong with examining scripture's validity as a source of history. That's not what this discussion is about.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:08 PM   #126
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
No, I'm simply not willing to expend more than a limited amount of effort on pointless semantics.
They are entirely different. It's not semantics to point out that something is entirely unrelated to something else. Your problem is that you have decided that when someone speaks out against Islam, they are speaking out in fact against a specific ethnic group. That is YOUR interpretation, which you are unwilling to back away from. That is you, looking for racism to point to, presumably to show the world how non-racist you are. Don't project your failure to distinguish things on others.

Quote:
You'd be surprised. Exactly how closely related do you think all "black" people are?
Speaking of pointless semantics...
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:10 PM   #127
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Your problem is that you have decided that when someone speaks out against Islam, they are speaking out in fact against a specific ethnic group.
I have said no such thing.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:14 PM   #128
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I have said no such thing.
I didn't say you did. I'm concluding from your persistent behaviour in this thread that this is how your mind operates on this topic. You've shown an inability to distinguish the two, or at least an inability to admit that the two are separate. It stands to reason that you think the two are one and the same, especially since you started with this:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe.
In other words, if you critique Islam, you critique a race, and you're racist, and don't try to deny it.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:26 PM   #129
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post

In other words, if you critique Islam, you critique a race, and you're racist, and don't try to deny it.
What is a "race"?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:29 PM   #130
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Discuss it all you want. Engage in theological debate all you like. You know full well that is not what 'criticize' in this context entails.
No, you do not understand.

When someone claims that Jesus never lived, never was crucified, never rose from the dead, that person claims that the entire whol of christianity is a LIE.

That in itself is not yet problematic, but the next question is immediately who lied and why.

Depending on the answers to that necessary question, one at once indirectly accuses all christians of futhering a lie and maybe some problematic habits.



And lets do the same thing about Islam.

Islam claims that a guy called Muhammed received divine revelations (meaning information flow from some being right into Muhammeds mind, which is a scientific claim unfortunately not testable to due lack of both time machines and good bran scanners which would detect if outside information pops up in his head) at some place and time.

Someone argues that no, Muhammed did not receive divine revelations.

Then again, there is a big LIE.

Who lied why?

With Muhammed its - sorry - reasonable to ponder the possibility that the lie originated in himself for personal gain (receiving a revelation when a chick you want to have fun with rejects marriage that you are also allowed to have fun with your slave girls is some sort of questionable coincidence).

But then one can get full throated "islamophobia" accusations, by just presuming that Mohammed did not receive divine revelations and drawing reasonable conclusions.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:39 PM   #131
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Maybe you could try not couching academic arguments in moral terms like "lie" and try and understand the mindset of believers? Along with some respect for the limits of historical inquiry perhaps.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 03:06 PM   #132
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What is a "race"?
And you had the nerve to accuse me of playing semantics.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:31 PM   #133
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And you had the nerve to accuse me of playing semantics.
Yes. You were the one to complain that "Muslims" were not a race. I replied that what is relevant here are the structures involved, the identification of an "other", and so forth, - and that racism has always been closely tied to religion.

"Race" is a pseudoscientific or culture-specific concept. But racism is real. That's why "Islam religion, not race!" is smoke and mirrors. If you engaged in remotely sensible and not utterly tone-deaf, offensive discussion of Islam, you'd never have to invent such an asinine diversion.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:56 PM   #134
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yes. You were the one to complain that "Muslims" were not a race.
They're not!

Quote:
I replied that what is relevant here are the structures involved
Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You are wrong. You've utterly failed to support your claim.

Quote:
the identification of an "other", and so forth, - and that racism has always been closely tied to religion.
You're talking nonsense. You're continuing to prove what I said earlier.

Quote:
"Race" is a pseudoscientific or culture-specific concept. But racism is real.
That makes no sense. It's like saying that sex doesn't exist but sexism is real.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 05:49 PM   #135
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
They're not!



Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You are wrong. You've utterly failed to support your claim.



You're talking nonsense. You're continuing to prove what I said earlier.



That makes no sense. It's like saying that sex doesn't exist but sexism is real.
I am not wiggling, you are unable to think beyond the most banal semantic relationships. I have consistently referred to the shared structures of racism and Islamophobia.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 06:17 PM   #136
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I am not wiggling, you are unable to think beyond the most banal semantic relationships.
Distinguishing between completely different things is not semantics. Stop repeating the same falsehoods.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 09:12 PM   #137
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,428
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Distinguishing between completely different things is not semantics.
If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism? It seems to me that Tubba is suggesting there are often strong links between the two. Perhaps a kind of xenophobic, tribal, religious/cultural prejudice that could probably be described in either way. Makes sense to me.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 11:48 PM   #138
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
But this would mean, exclusive criticism of Quran would have to be skipped until the day when "white supremacists" (or whatever one wants to call them) no longer exploit fear of Islam for their political goals.

I think "white supremacists" will always exploit such fears as long as such fears exist.

I think fears regarding Islam will exist as long as regularly some kind of atrocities are committed by people claiming to act in the name Of Allah.

So the day when one can offer exclusive criticism of Ouran would be in one option the day when no longer some people regularly commit some kind of atrocities supposedly in the name of Allah, cause only then the "white supremacists" can no longer exploit fears.
Or alternatively the day when world has somehow got rid of "white supremacists".
Presuming the latter never happens, one might find oneself in a perfect catch 22:
If one wants to argue, that the Quran has unlike some other holy books a greater potential to "encourage" some people to commit atrocities in the name of Allah, one has to postpone such argument (or at least the "greater" part) till the day when no longer people commit such atrocities in the name of Allah (or not more than in the name of other gods).
Which would just be the day, when such argument could no longer be true/valid.

So you exclude the possibility that someone might sincerely based on reasoning avoiding any bias reach the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

And how would the state allowed to adjust the laws, if hypothetically some particular belief is fostering realy a lor more terrorism than all other beliefs combined and that a plausibel explanation seems to be that this is due to the content of the belief?

To remind, mostly political ideologies are equaly free to be promoted; but history shows that some political ideologies make human rights violations by governments following the respective ideology far more likely; and this is used by some countries as a justification to have special laws regarding such political ideologies.

Hence, when the state finds that some political ideologies are a lot more problematic than others, the state - at least in some countries - is allowed to tailor laws or even only the application of laws and other political measures specifically to weaken that ideology.

An example for this approach is visible even in this thread, in which some posters seem to argue, that "blasphemous" attacks on mosques should be punished especially severe if committed by right-wing extremist/nazis; that is specifically applying harsher punishments to followers of that political ideology probably with the intent to weaken the influence of that ideology with the underlying motivation based in observation that that ideology is a lot more dangerous than other ideologies.

And also, this was not a comparison, but just an example, that with ideologies the extent in which they foster violence and the connection of that with the content of the ideology is to some extent valid reason for the state is justified in treating that ideology different from others.

Which raises from my POV the above question, if and how the state might react to religions differing vastly in respect to fostering violence.
I am afraid that you are misunderstanding my point of view.

First: I think that all the Holy Books that I know are anti-democratic and foster the violence against opponents. Many of them —the Quran included— hold an ambiguous position about the infidels, but not complete tolerance is the dominant line.

Second: Many believers think that their Holy Books are compatible with democracy —the Quran is not an exception. Indonesia is a Muslim country and it is one of the older democracies in Asia. According a recent survey, in my country more of 90% of Muslims are in favour of democracy. This is not a rational position. It is the outcome of political needs and social pressure. This is not rational, but it is welcome. Rejection of terrorism among European Muslims is higher. Therefore the identification Islam=terrorism is a dangerous auto-predictive foresight. WE have to be careful with this.

Third: If anti-terrorism laws define what is terrorism and what is encouraging terrorism I don’t see any need to make particular laws neither against Islam nor Judaism. There is no need to make exceptions with neo-nazis groups neither. Violence, racism, intolerance or terrorism are neutral concepts. That is what we need in laws. Not discrimination.

Fourth: We atheist are against religion. We have diverse reasons. We ought to evaluate the circumstances in any case in order to draw correct strategies. To fight against a powerful religion or a minority one is a very different business. To fight against religion in a democracy is not the same that to fight against a discriminated religion in a Muslim state. Is in evaluating these circumstances that I see that some attacks against Islam are not rational, but masked racism.
I pose an example:
In a demonstration against terrorism I was accompanied by a Muslim that was dirigent of a Muslim women organization. Do you think that this was the moment to discuss with her about the inexistence of Allah or the Quran's verses that provoque intolerance?

And no more.

I am a little surprised that you seem ignore what is “white-supremacism”. Is it a false impression for my part?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 06:09 AM   #139
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism? It seems to me that Tubba is suggesting there are often strong links between the two. Perhaps a kind of xenophobic, tribal, religious/cultural prejudice that could probably be described in either way. Makes sense to me.
That, and I'm also deeply sceptical of the notion of "criticizing religion" as opposed to the particular social structures and movements that cause harm. Nearly always, atheists who "criticize religion" have a deeply flawed understanding of what religion is to people and how they understand it. Aggressively proclaiming that Islam is a lie because you perceive an inconsistently in the Qur'an? What purpose does that serve except to go into high dudgeon and feeling superior?

Try going to a Mosque or a Jesuit monastery and talk to the people there, voice your thoughts and see what they say, if you actually want a deeper understanding of how religious thought works.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 07:37 AM   #140
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism?
I'm not discussing specific examples. Of course you can find criticism of religion based on bigotry. But criticism of religion is not, in and of itself, bigotry, nor is it bigotry most of the time.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 07:38 AM   #141
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That, and I'm also deeply sceptical of the notion of "criticizing religion" as opposed to the particular social structures and movements that cause harm. Nearly always, atheists who "criticize religion" have a deeply flawed understanding of what religion is to people and how they understand it.
No, you can criticise the religion, and I've been criticising Christianity for 25 years, by addressing its beliefs and practices. The same is true for Islam.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 07:58 AM   #142
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, you can criticise the religion, and I've been criticising Christianity for 25 years, by addressing its beliefs and practices. The same is true for Islam.
At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 11:04 PM   #143
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.
This is the point. What we urgently need is to debate with European Muslims on the way they conceive democracy. They are in favour of democracy in many cases but they are also inclined to think that society has to be ruled by religious principles —the relative-soft meaning of “sharia”. Therefore the task to convince them of the principle of secular state has priority over the question of the existence of Allah and the criticism against the Koran has to be oriented to anti-democratic ideology. Curiously, this ideology is the same of many white supremacists who speak of imposing our “Judeo-Christian” principles to the “Muslim” principles. Just like Geert Wilders.

When I speak of democracy I am putting the issue of the place of women in society as a main problem. This is probably the main failure in the Muslim concept of democracy.

Last edited by David Mo; 28th October 2017 at 11:07 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 12:27 PM   #144
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Maybe you could try not couching academic arguments in moral terms like "lie" and try and understand the mindset of believers?
You constantly show that you do not understand the mindset of a relevant number of believers.

For a relevant number of believers, it is at once obvious that there is a difference whether the supreme being literally dictated at some point in time under some circumstances:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

or whether the supreme being supposedly said verbatim in some context:

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."


That you treat these and other content of "holy books" as somehow mostly interchangeable or irrelevant, shows that you are not aware about the mindset of a relevant number of believers.

For a relevant number of believers, the supreme being telling them verbatim to jump would only allow "How high?" as a response; and maybe not even that.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 12:47 PM   #145
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am afraid that you are misunderstanding my point of view.
I was trying to understand, under what circumstances you would find exclusionary criticism of Islam acceptable. It seems never.

And whether you think it might be possible for some religion being more problematic than others. But i think you exclude that possibility.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
First: I think that all the Holy Books that I know are anti-democratic and foster the violence against opponents. Many of them —the Quran included— hold an ambiguous position about the infidels, but not complete tolerance is the dominant line.
I understood that you think that.

But that doesn't answer how someone should act and argue who thinks otherwise.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Third: If anti-terrorism laws define what is terrorism and what is encouraging terrorism I don’t see any need to make particular laws neither against Islam nor Judaism. There is no need to make exceptions with neo-nazis groups neither. Violence, racism, intolerance or terrorism are neutral concepts. That is what we need in laws. Not discrimination.
There are exceptions in some countries about Neo-Nazis.

In some countries just trying to spread the ideas of Nazism is illegal. Because the respective countries presume the ideas themself being dangerous or sometimes even a cause for violence.

And i think that there is some justification; if one claims that the Jews are a "race" of infiltrators trying to poison good and healthy "races" from within, the logical consequence would be some sort of violence to "defend" one's own "race" against the Jews. So limitations upon spreading such ideas might be necessary to prevent violence (of course, that is anathema in US; but not in other countries).

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
To fight against a powerful religion or a minority one is a very different business.
Ans which is Islam?

One point something billion adherents and 57 UN members organized in a group called "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" does not necessarily look like a minority one on a global scale.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I pose an example:
In a demonstration against terrorism I was accompanied by a Muslim that was dirigent of a Muslim women organization. Do you think that this was the moment to discuss with her about the inexistence of Allah or the Quran's verses that provoque intolerance?
No.

Care to provide an example, when exclusive criticism of Islam is fine?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And no more.

I am a little surprised that you seem ignore what is “white-supremacism”. Is it a false impression for my part?
I do not understand, why you think i would ignore it.

But i regurlarly ignore if some people claim someone is a "white-supremacists", since the quota of false accusations is so high. If i want to know, whether the accusation is true, i read myself what the person in questions said or did.

Actual white-supremacist are the people who should pursue other career goals than becoming the ruler of my country.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 12:25 AM   #146
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
I was trying to understand, under what circumstances you would find exclusionary criticism of Islam acceptable. It seems never.

And whether you think it might be possible for some religion being more problematic than others. But i think you exclude that possibility.



I understood that you think that.

But that doesn't answer how someone should act and argue who thinks otherwise.



There are exceptions in some countries about Neo-Nazis.

In some countries just trying to spread the ideas of Nazism is illegal. Because the respective countries presume the ideas themself being dangerous or sometimes even a cause for violence.

And i think that there is some justification; if one claims that the Jews are a "race" of infiltrators trying to poison good and healthy "races" from within, the logical consequence would be some sort of violence to "defend" one's own "race" against the Jews. So limitations upon spreading such ideas might be necessary to prevent violence (of course, that is anathema in US; but not in other countries).



Ans which is Islam?

One point something billion adherents and 57 UN members organized in a group called "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" does not necessarily look like a minority one on a global scale.



No.

Care to provide an example, when exclusive criticism of Islam is fine?

.
I am glad to see that you accept the principle that there are more urgent discussions with “moderate” Muslims than the existence of Allah. I have explained this in my comment #143. For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.

I don’t see any problem in the discussion with Muslims about the sacred and the existence of God in the context of an intellectual debate, scholar or not. But if someone defend the existence of God against the existence of Allah, or vice versa, my position will be belligerent against both.

What I say is that we have to differentiate the political circumstances from the intellectual circumstances. And the debate will be different in any case. This is what the racist doesn’t like. Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.

In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.

Finally, I don’t like particular laws on this or that ideology. This kind of laws have been frequently used as means of discrimination and totalitarianism. If a particular ideology is a case of intolerance, racism and violence —as the case of neo-Nazism— it ought to be prosecuted in the name of general laws against intolerance, racism and violence.

Last edited by David Mo; 30th October 2017 at 12:37 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 12:47 AM   #147
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am glad to see that you accept the principle that there are more urgent discussions with “moderate” Muslims than the existence of Allah. I have explained this in my comment #143. For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.

I don’t see any problem in the discussion with Muslims about the sacred and the existence of God in the context of an intellectual debate, scholar or not. But if someone defend the existence of God against the existence of Allah, or vice versa, my position will be belligerent against both.

What I say is that we have to differentiate the political circumstances from the intellectual circumstances. And the debate will be different in any case. This is what the racist doesn’t like. Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.

In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.

Finally, I don’t like particular laws on this or that ideology. This kind of laws have been frequently used as means of discrimination and totalitarianism. If a particular ideology is a case of intolerance, racism and violence —as the case of neo-Nazism— it ought to be prosecuted in the name of general laws against intolerance, racism and violence.
Largely agreed, especially the closing argument. I would, however, say that particular religions (as canon) can be as deserving of wholesale rejection as can particular political ideologies. For me, the key lies in the degree of absolutism, the degree to which the means for opponents to legitimately disagree is suppressed. For example, claiming communism as scientific and "historically inevitable" makes opponents woo-mongers standing ignorantly in the way of truth and progress. Claiming Allah wrote his laws on every human heart, so that all know them and can only be in sinful rebellion when not accepting the faith, allows for execution on the spot of those refusing to bow: wildly, sickly absolutist.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 04:45 AM   #148
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have explained this in my comment #143.
Is there anyone arguing in public in the way your comment 143 suggested and is not being called islamophobe/right-wing by what is called "mainstream media" or Southern Poverty Law Center or similar organizations?

Cause i think it might be pretty tricky. Effectively the position would be:
- all religions are somehwat democracy-incompatible
- fortunately in some religions this was understood - e.g. Christianity - and somehow religion and democracy can coexist
-unfortunately in some religions such an understanding is yet to weak, hence we have to specifically discuss how those religion's scriptures and teaching is incompatible with democracy; and the religion with which the discussion is most urgent is Islam

Tough job to do that without SPLC calling you a bigoted hater.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.
Same question as above, is there anyone doing this and not getting publically shunned for being an islamophob?
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.
Technically, you claimed superiority of Christianity over Islam, as you indicated that Christians have made the better job at ignoring the problematic passages of their scipture.

That suggest at least a temporary superiority of the religion and/or the adherents over the other.

And therefore i am sceptical how one could argue that way without being trashed as islamophobe.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.
That avoids the question, how should one act who thinks otherwise, so who thinks that some religions are due to the content of their scipture/theology "worse" than other religions.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 04:59 AM   #149
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).
That's nothing but deflection. You said criticism of Islam is racism. Full stop. Now you're twisting and turning to try to backtrack from that claim without doing so.

Quote:
But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding.
What about the actual Muslims making those criticisms? Do they not have an understanding of their own religion and culture? You're talking nonsense.

Quote:
You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies
You know absolutely nothing about me, sir, so don't pretend like you do. Don't project your inadequacies onto me.

Quote:
If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it.
Yes, let's close that circle, right? The accusation, in and of itself, is enough for guilt to be determined. After all, just criticising Islam makes me a racist, so I'm guilty by definition.

What you are proposing is idiotic and insane.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 05:02 AM   #150
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.

Your implicite suggestion that only if one were a non-white from a non-western culture, that then one would not get accused of racism in microseconds after criticizing Islam, does not fit the data:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-critics.html

Black woman, who grew up in an Islamic country, who had to study the quran (apparently she got some beating when here willingness to study faltered), who was indoctrinated to wear hijab, who had some sympathy for muslim brotherhood and death penalty for Rushdie, who was victim of FGM (which she claims has something to do with Islam) and who was to marry some cousin she did not know and was never asked about.

So the prefect opposite of male, white, western and all the other stuff you think is relevant.

And yet, she gets with variations the same treatment as the male, white, western critics of Islam.

What you suggest, does not fit the data.

And its not a rhethorical trick that i ask since several pages for names of public critics of Islam, which are not deemed to be islampohobic and/or racist. Its just that i could not name anybody and all your words about how reasonable critics should act is empty, if no one can meet the standards you set.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 05:55 AM   #151
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
... But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.
True. Cognizant of that, I went out looking for those subscribing to the faith, self-identified as mostly moderates, most working in the West, to get background on the teachings. When I bought the book cited below, I fully expected to have a handle on identifying mainstream, peaceful Islam, as was the claim at the time.

Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict
Quote:
One of the most dynamic aspects of the Islamic revival during the past two centuries has been the rethinking of Islamic political thought. A broad range of actors, ideas, and ideologies characterize the debate on how Islamic ethics and law should be manifested in modern institutions. Yet this aspect of the "return to Islam" has been neglected by policymakers, the media, and even many scholars, who equate "political Islam" with merely one strand, labeled "Islamic fundamentalism." Bringing together ten essays from six volumes of the Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics, this book gives a rounded treatment to the subject of Islamic political ethics.
It was only after carefully reading each author and finishing the book that I realized how utterly shocking and foreign to natural empathy and the golden rule (the default ethical position in most societies, identified as such or not) that Islam is. This is when a reading of the 1990 Cairo Declaration cited earlier in this thread made all the -- horrifying -- sense in the world.

YMMV, of course, and legitimately so. I'd love for someone else to take a look at this fair and representative look at Islam by mostly practicing Muslim authors and provide their own take in contrast with mine.

ETA: But to take up your other point: No individual Muslim can be fairly said to subscribe to any view. Case by case.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 30th October 2017 at 05:59 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 06:04 AM   #152
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,824
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post

I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.

Of course it's possible, and perfectly valid, to criticise both Islam and Christianity.

And as religions with followers who believe, preach, and act upon the words of their holy books, the beliefs are not "too broad" at all.

For a start virtually every significant claim made in the holy books has long since been shown by modern science to be almost certainly completely untrue and very seriously misguided. Which makes their continued preaching and the attempts to indoctrinate young children with their beliefs, highly anti-educational and in particular anti-science. And on top of that, since 9-11 (that's 2001), Islam in particular is currently in the process of demonstrating yet again just how appealingly lethal religious beliefs can become.

Of course you might try to claim that Islamic terrorists are killing people all around the world for reasons other than religious belief (e.g., you might claim economic factors and western interference etc.), but if you lived in the UK and had been following the more than 200 UK court trials of Islamic terrorism cases since 9-11, then you would know that in every single one of those cases, with what is now well over 1000 individuals convicted, all of them, i.e. 100%, were all shown by the trial evidence to be religious fanatics and motivated to an enormous degree by their religious beliefs. And if that does not warrant criticism of their religion then I don't know what ever could.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:24 AM   #153
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Your implicite suggestion that only if one were a non-white from a non-western culture, that then one would not get accused of racism in microseconds after criticizing Islam, does not fit the data:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-critics.html
I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ali, but her marriage to Niall Ferguson speaks for itself. The guy writes like the ghost of an Edwardian baron who used to collect Assegais and dabble in Orientalism and now roams the world, lamenting the demise of the British Empire.


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj...watch-this-man

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
YMMV, of course, and legitimately so. I'd love for someone else to take a look at this fair and representative look at Islam by mostly practicing Muslim authors and provide their own take in contrast with mine.

ETA: But to take up your other point: No individual Muslim can be fairly said to subscribe to any view. Case by case.
I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.

Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.

I don't know what you mean by "foreign to natural empathy and the Golden Rule", honestly. That's certainly not something historically reflected in Muslim society compared to others.

IanS: I suggest you study radicalism a bit closer. Radicals are rarely very knowledgeable about their religion and are often recent converts. They find in terrorism some sort of justified release for their frustration, I think.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 09:11 AM   #154
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ali, but her marriage to Niall Ferguson speaks for itself. The guy writes like the ghost of an Edwardian baron who used to collect Assegais and dabble in Orientalism and now roams the world, lamenting the demise of the British Empire.


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj...watch-this-man
Since she was called islamophobe before her marriage, your guilt by association attempt falls flat.

You cannot deny that data indicates, that skin color, background, wealth, gender, religion or whatever is irrelevant: public exclusive critique of Islam is considered by many people ALWAYS to be racism or bigotery (which is pretty unfortunate especially because thereby actual racists and bigots can easily deflect criticism by claiming that these are the usual false accusations).

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.
Maybe you can correct me, but as far as i know the following is true:

The ONLY FORMAL and OFFICIAL challenge supported by multiple states against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights formally accepted by all UN member states comes from Islamic countries and is based on Islam.


While there are lot of problematic rulers around the world, they at least pay lip service to the declaration of human rights. Only Islamic countries find reason to even skip that lip service.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.
Awesome.

You counter "There are 57 Islamic COUNTRIES trying to undermine the universal declaration of human rights" with "But i know some nice Muslim INDIVIDUALS.".

Is anyone stupid enough to fall for this ridicolous counter argument?
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 09:46 AM   #155
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
... I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.
I fail to see how a document that was created expressly to define the position of Islam with respect to human rights (UDHR) -- rights that are absolutely essential to democracy -- is a "stereotype" and not a valid reference when discussing the canon with respect to its integration in Western societies and intellectual traditions. The Cairo document was intended to be taken seriously by its signatory nations (most if not all Muslim-majority countries, so representing at least the two major sects as well). Cannot for the life of me understand why they'd publish it as a self-parody and misdirect that no one should pay mind to.

Quote:
Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.
I've had Muslim friends since childhood. One who worked for me is like a son to me (non-practicing in his case), and will be coming to stay at home soon. I've had neighbors and customers who, on the other hand, have told me Spain is part of the Caliphate and that "we are coming for you." Which anecdotal evidence shall I take? Obviously, more formal research was and is in order.

Quote:
I don't know what you mean by "foreign to natural empathy and the Golden Rule", honestly. That's certainly not something historically reflected in Muslim society compared to others.
I refer to lopping off the heads of those not agreeing with you, for example, or the disappearance of pluralism in Muslim societies as time passes after an area or country is conquered. See the recent Yazidi genocide, and the practice of using blasphemy to divest minorities of property and life in Pakistan. Real events, and the second is as mainstream Islam as it gets, as was the recent religiously inspired political attack on the non-Muslim mayor of Jakarta.

My turn to characterize: you are refusing to modify your stance by taking in new information, and prefer the comfort of retaining moderate views, always a self-congratulatory good feeling. In examining, say, fascism vs democracy, the actual ideas do make a difference. As they do in, say, the violence of Catholic fascism as opposed to Protestant renegade terrorism.

My recommendation is to try actual research. As a general lament, not a common practice at all on ISF, sadly.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 30th October 2017 at 09:48 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 09:57 AM   #156
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,409
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I fail to see how a document that was created expressly to define the position of Islam with respect to human rights (UDHR) -- rights that are absolutely essential to democracy -- is a "stereotype" and not a valid reference when discussing the canon with respect to its integration in Western societies and intellectual traditions.
When one argues himself into a corner, one has to use increasingly ridiculous arguments to hide that fact.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 10:04 AM   #157
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Largely agreed, especially the closing argument. I would, however, say that particular religions (as canon) can be as deserving of wholesale rejection as can particular political ideologies. For me, the key lies in the degree of absolutism, the degree to which the means for opponents to legitimately disagree is suppressed. For example, claiming communism as scientific and "historically inevitable" makes opponents woo-mongers standing ignorantly in the way of truth and progress. Claiming Allah wrote his laws on every human heart, so that all know them and can only be in sinful rebellion when not accepting the faith, allows for execution on the spot of those refusing to bow: wildly, sickly absolutist.
Yes. The idea of scientific progress has something of totalitarian or selective. Many post-modern philosophers blame rationalism for this. But the belief in scientific progress doesn’t necessarily implies political totalitarianism. Many supporters of Enlightenment rationalism were democrats. The key of totalitarianism is how the rejection of political ideologies is formulated. What we have to ask is the place that this ideology reserves to ideological enemies. That is to say, the unquestionable principle of tolerance or freedom of expression and association —I prefer these last concepts. If a political ideology admits this, it is welcome, be the Enlightenment, Communism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islamism or x-ism. Of course, the way you express Muslim idea is not admissible but I don’t think that every Muslim will agree with you.

My position is: let the believer pray, if he supports true democracy. Let the Muslim criticize us if he admits that we have the inalienable right to criticize him.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 10:11 AM   #158
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,944
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Is there anyone arguing in public in the way your comment 143 suggested and is not being called islamophobe/right-wing by what is called "mainstream media" or Southern Poverty Law Center or similar organizations?

Cause i think it might be pretty tricky. Effectively the position would be:
- all religions are somehwat democracy-incompatible
- fortunately in some religions this was understood - e.g. Christianity - and somehow religion and democracy can coexist
-unfortunately in some religions such an understanding is yet to weak, hence we have to specifically discuss how those religion's scriptures and teaching is incompatible with democracy; and the religion with which the discussion is most urgent is Islam

Tough job to do that without SPLC calling you a bigoted hater.


Same question as above, is there anyone doing this and not getting publically shunned for being an islamophob?


Technically, you claimed superiority of Christianity over Islam, as you indicated that Christians have made the better job at ignoring the problematic passages of their scipture.

That suggest at least a temporary superiority of the religion and/or the adherents over the other.

And therefore i am sceptical how one could argue that way without being trashed as islamophobe.



That avoids the question, how should one act who thinks otherwise, so who thinks that some religions are due to the content of their scipture/theology "worse" than other religions.
I have not time to discuss your comment now. I will answer as soon as posible.

Only a thing or two: I don't believe that the relative coexistence of a religion and democracy be consubstantial. It depends of circumstances and social pressures to control the contradiction between Holy Books and spirit of tolerance. I don't think that a religion is a block without fissures. Different believers can live the same religion in different ways. Don't be totalitarian, please.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 11:20 AM   #159
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I refer to lopping off the heads of those not agreeing with you, for example, or the disappearance of pluralism in Muslim societies as time passes after an area or country is conquered. See the recent Yazidi genocide, and the practice of using blasphemy to divest minorities of property and life in Pakistan. Real events, and the second is as mainstream Islam as it gets, as was the recent religiously inspired political attack on the non-Muslim mayor of Jakarta.
Oh. You are once again referring to the practices of radical institutions in particular societies that are largely a 20th century phenomenon, and to a great extent a consequence of reactions to imperialism and political instability caused by it. That doesn't tell us much about "Islam" in the abstract, only about those movements. If you want to understand Pakistan, turning to "Islam" tells you very little. The history of political conflict in Greater India, on the other hand, where religion certainly was a factor, is very informative.

Quote:
My turn to characterize: you are refusing to modify your stance by taking in new information, and prefer the comfort of retaining moderate views, always a self-congratulatory good feeling.
And you prefer the feling of superiority that comes with the knowledge that you are one of those who understand the true dangers of the eastern barbarians, as opposed to the fuzzy feelings-addicted libs.

Quote:
In examining, say, fascism vs democracy, the actual ideas do make a difference. As they do in, say, the violence of Catholic fascism as opposed to Protestant renegade terrorism.
???? Protestants made up the core of German fascism. Catholic institutions were among the few to resist the all-consuming cult of Hitler. To what degree sects of Christianity had an immediate influence in the development of Nazism, the rabid antisemitism of Luther played a significant role.

Quote:
My recommendation is to try actual research. As a general lament, not a common practice at all on ISF, sadly.
The snideness is entirely undeserved. You made a claim about your conclusions about "Islam" after doing supposedly impartial research. I asked you to provide examples of the mentalities that led you to these conclusions.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 11:24 AM   #160
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,656
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The ONLY FORMAL and OFFICIAL challenge supported by multiple states against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights formally accepted by all UN member states comes from Islamic countries and is based on Islam.
Briefly, the Cairo declaration on Human rights was a direct consequence of the status of the Iranian Revolution as a forceful reaction of the Islamic world against Western imperialism. Its origins are largely found in the tensions between the "West" and the Islamic world that occurred as a result of the constant violent interference of Western countries in the internal politics of the Islamic world, not in any particular qualities inherent to Islam.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.