Liberal opinion of Bill Maher's views on Islam...

[Foucaulf]

It's funny how common-sense rules of inductive inference are never followed when people debate about Islam. Here's what I'm thinking reading through this thread.

• Has anyone in this thread, regardless of how critical they are to Islam, cited one Quranic verse? There are multiple online English translations.
• How many people here have Muslim friends, or have any exposure to Muslims apart from "the college lecturer" or "the Sharia guy on cable news?"
• Why do we demand that "Muslims condemn these terrorists' actions?" I'm not going to demand my white, Christian friends to condemn Mormon polygamy, or give them glares until they write a blog post about the Westboro Baptist Church. This is a double standard, and the average Muslim blogger really advocates against this double standard they regularly experience.
• While I would never vote for a political Islamist party, the feasible set of policies they can demand varies from country to country. It would be illiberal to stone gays to death, but what's so illiberal about prohibiting the consumption of alcohol?
• How do we identify the effect of a fundamentalist religious institution on violence, independent of material causes?

While I do want to oppose the anti-Islam side, the discussion for me has turned into a greater question of what is socially acceptable for first-world white guys to say. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and all that. This holds for my fellow critics as well if they lack the necessary evidence.

[Foucaulf]

Who are you asking?  Also, whats more important: the Quranic text, or people's purported social and political views based on their beliefs?  I guess you could argue that some texts are more 'prone' to being interpreted in troubling ways than other texts, but I don't see anyone making a serious argument here that these interpretations are inevitable/inherent.  I've said I don't think that many times.

I mentioned that because of something you said, actually:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A is obviously true. It is likely that C is true. That leaves B, which I think is false. It is false in the sense that it does not mean anything, unless you can find themes among Quranic verses justifying the claim. Lacking such, what we should be referencing are the Islamic sects, or the institutions encouraging Islamist philosophy. (You might, I have zero knowledge on this subject either!)

For me to agree to your claim that "people's purported social and political views based on their beliefs are the most important" would be to fall into circular reasoning. You say that with reference to Islamic extremists you have seen in the media and elsewhere, so...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't feel obligated to respond to arguments that come from false premises. That makes me arrogant, though I don't believe without reason.

If you aren't fed up with me after my response, I'd like to hear your experiences. I, admittedly, have a more one-sided group on this issue; such are the pitfalls of being at a liberal American university. I've seen posts from people I met in Tunisia, however, criticizing the work of Charlie Hebdo and all. I wouldn't mind translating them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you don't agree with the statement I cited, that's fine. What I've noticed are statements of that form in many situations. Here's a Vox article arguing along the same lines, I guess. There was enough controversy over the issue that there's an app for automated condemnations.

To be clear, what I am against are those who sound as if Muslims are obligated to condemn anything as an obligation to liberal society. This sounds weird because it is a perversion of freedom of thought; what happens if we disagree with any of the facts in the case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was with reference to BRTD's post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I kinda unfairly honed in on the alcohol part, admittedly. That's the motivation, though. My argument is based off of the belief that no one necessarily has to establish their identity in the willful consumption of alcohol, unlike people of other races (whose identity is already determined by the majority) or of queer orientations (who, even in the least generous of interpretations, didn't just blink twice and suddenly deviated from straightness). Hence we can conceive of liberal societies where alcohol is not allowed, and ones where they aren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll admit a bias: when I mean "identify," I really mean "look at two societies that are exactly the same, except one has a strong fundamentalist organisational influence and one doesn't." This is an econometric thing. Less arrogantly, I get very skeptical of evidence that doesn't fit that framework. So, when you make claims of Harris's about sociocultural factors in current Muslim-majority societies, I don't really buy it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree! That's why you can count on your hands the number of posts I've made on this subject on Atlas. I wish the same could go for all of us from now on.

I do realize I've radicalized quite a bit on this issue. There's a lot I actually disagree with you in your response. What I would say is something like this: "The more we exclude argumentative people from this conversation, the better the chance we have to look at the evidence without coercion or bias."

Could I make a weaker point instead? Probably. I'm not calm enough to concede that right now.

[Foucaulf]

B is obviously based on Quranic verses, or the interpretations of Quranic verses that are not dependent on highly dynamic social factors (stuff that's remained static throughout Islam's existence).  I'm not educated enough to say whether I agree or disagree, although the consistently extreme attitude toward apostates suggests there may be something to it.

Since neither have us have a substantial knowledge of the Quran, I'd like to drop this point. I hope we both agree that an inability to cite scripture while saying "Islamic scripture condones a bunch of horrible actions" is leaving yourself wide open. (Harris, at least, does this.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I get a bit antsy whenever something like "people's purported social and political views" pops up. When talking about a people with whom we do not have frequent contact, we are vulnerable to become biased observers. So, when you say something like "purported social and political views," my first reaction is to think that's a weasel word.

I jumped the gun in my response there, because I thought, as soon as I admit that purported social and political views are important, you were going to slam me with five hyperbolic articles on the internet about the horrific atrocities Muslims are performing: "honour killings," "lashes" and all of that. Not to say that those articles wouldn't be convincing, but I would have to respond by posting another five hyperbolic articles from Muslims tearing down those stereotypes. Then we don't get anywhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go ahead! I'll say that, on my side, I've seen plenty of "#JeSuisAhmed" stuff from them. The logic of their resistance comes from that double standard imposed onto them, which I mentioned earlier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is where things admittedly get a bit vague. A lot of the arguments from the "SJW side" invoke a chilling effect which would be formed in a world with too many obligations on what one must be vocal about. Though we can't control what someone is thinking at any given time - outside of shooting them halfway through the thought - we can cast doubt within them on the sincerity of their beliefs. This leads to identity crises, resentment and such.

I'd like to clarify what I mean by "obligation" here, for my own sake. We are not talking about something that would be merely morally beneficial but morally obligated - a sort of "get-out-of-our-country-if-you-can't-follow-it" obligation, a fundamental requirement for citizenship. I get that, at this point, I'm describing something more radical than your views. But I really do think that, without clarification on what our terms mean, the radical interpretation will be what holds in the long run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, that was pretty bad. It's a key point too so let me try again:

The question is this: can we reasonably conceive of a liberal society where alcohol is permitted, as well as one where alcohol is banned? If that is true, then we can conclude the purchase of alcohol is not a necessary condition for a liberal society. The same logic would apply for other situations: so, when we say that rights against minority discrimination (against "queer orientations", say) are fundamental to a liberal society, we are saying we cannot imagine a liberal society that do not instate those rights.

Of course this leaves open the question of what a liberal society is. I'm using a standard Rawlsian definition here. Everybody stands behind the veil of ignorance, knowing no specific characteristics of the society, but knowing uncontroversial facts about human behaviour and that other people exist with different comprehensive doctrines on how to live one's life. What they agree on in these conditions constitute a liberal society.

I believe it is feasible to think that, out of this consensus, we could have a society where alcohol is banned and one where it isn't. I do believe that any consensus will impose some rights against discrimination, in that the parties all agree that the majority can disadvantage the minorities.

And to get back to the main point: suppose there was an European country with an Islamist party. By demographics alone, it could not be swept into power on a majority mandate. If said Islamist party gains representation and is involved in talks with government coalition, I believe that said Islamist party would either come to a consensus not to take away rights against discrimination, or cease to be a credible political actor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's basically what I'm saying. More specifically, I'm saying that I am too skeptical of arguments against a very general notion (about "the nature of Islam/Muslims," oooo) to want to consider it seriously. A general notion requires powerful evidence for refutation, and if I don't have access to credible techniques or knowledge I would rather not get involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So from the get-go I realized the phrasing was too strong. I do think argumentative people are biased, and I agree that academics are biased too. Hell, I think most people involved in these debates are biased. By "biased" here, I don't mean intellectually dishonest as just uncommitted to look at the full range of evidence that can be waged for or against your argument. It would be crazy to ask everyone to look at all the evidence, but I think both sides are still not putting enough skin in the game.

Here's my motivation for saying that in the first place: I've become increasingly disillusioned with people arguing back and forth on "understanding and criticizing doctrines" (paraphrasing Sam Harris here). It is impractical knowledge.

Instead of being a lovey-dovey humanities person, let's be impartial observers of social dynamics and see how events turn out. I do not believe "liberal Islam" will necessarily triumph over everything else, and, believing this, we should start thinking about specific policies we can implement to achieve our desired ends.

If we want to talk about policy, then let's talk about policy. If I see a guy talking about how we're not condemning ISIS enough, then I need to tel him: "so do you support troops on the ground?" And I'll get at him, Jeremy Paxman style, until he gives a yes or no answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was drunkposting; apologies.

[Foucaulf]

Alcon, since I want to declutter this page I'll try something different. Let me lay out my argument first (repeating myself with jargon now, what the hell) and then respond to your biggest objections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That last line is what I'm really arguing for. Hope that helps.

Some other claims of mine related to that:

-As a practical matter, people can be confused by what distinguishes an obligation to do something and a desire to do something because it would be beneficial. I am concerned by those who, if they argue that changing attitudes in Islam is beneficial, fails to make clear that they're not arguing we're obliged to change attitudes in Islam. I am guilty of doing this as well.

-I have no problems with people explicitly proposing a hypothesis that people will be better off if certain Islamic doctrines were altered or suppressed. I think we should exercise caution and use rigorous methods to test these hypotheses.

-If there were an Islamist party established in our pluralist society with policies that would threaten pluralism, we can practically respond by saying "we will reject every attempt by your party to impose non-pluralistic policies." I don't think there's a reason to respond to an Islamist party any differently than you will to a Hasidic or Christian fundamentalist party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's admittedly a rough sketch, but Rawls also identifies liberal society as guarantor of the principles of "reciprocity" and "overlapping consensus." A consensus where the principles of liberal society stands apart from major tenets of comprehensive doctrines is infeasible. The conceptions of fairness that emerges from a rational, feasible consensus are also those supported by several comprehensive doctrines that have justifiable value, which are not in contradiction with each other.

Bringing it back to the sentence you were confused about: a consensus ought to include rights against discrimination of minorities, since the reasonableness of that right can be justified by many groups in the way you talked about. A consensus does not have to include rights for the consumption of alcohol or, on the flipside, the right to wear a hijab. But, so long as it is harder to get Muslims to consent to a world without the right to wear a hijab, it is more probable that that right is enshrined while the right to consumption of alcohol isn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While none of them referenced specific policies, they were intended to drive the conversation to focus on specific policies, or just more specific propositions in general. The clincher for me is to hammer in what I think is a fundamental distinction between obligations and hypothetical benefits.

But, before I veer myself further, can I ask you what you're arguing for? If you are arguing this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that is obviously uncontroversial. But we're discussing this in the first place because Harris, Maher et al also believe that these beliefs are not just bad, but are threats. By invoking the idea of a threat, they want to convince people that they are obligated to follow their mission. And that is where I disagree.

[Foucaulf]

This is going to be sort of a drive-by response, sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. A+B was not formed correctly in what I originally said. I should have said something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a bit of a dick move to sneak this argument in without painstaking explanation, since those three lines are mostly what people debate about anyway (like you said).

Here is what I think your biggest objection to that argument (A+B still)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Less academically, you don't get why I'm dismissing sentences you have said which obviously make sense, and obviously have been thought and used by people. And, honestly, I'll have to think about this. But it'll probably revolve around this feeling: the problem I think with using the word "Islam" instead of "Islamic practices" or "Islamic groups" is that, given some time, you could meet someone who has no idea what you mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what I want. I want people to stop, when arguing Islam as a causal factor in unacceptable behaviour, to define "Islam" however they want to suit their argument. If I'm right that Islam is an ambiguous reference, this is a strategy they are always justified in using, even if we don't want them to. For them not to use it is to make them feel bad if they use it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will agree with your first sentence. What I was thinking, though, is more that there are far less "threats to society" in our world than we intuitively think.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't ever try to change attitudes we feel are bad; if you feel like change is needed, you're perfectly free to do it. But, as a society, we should think hard about whether it is best for everyone to wage war in the name of eliminating that threat, or if it's best to subsidize risk-seeking behaviour, or if it's best that people pay Bill Maher a sizable sum and a TV studio.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel uncomfortable observing terrifying actions and having no clear idea why it takes place, much less what we can do to stop it. You do too, I guess. It's tempting to focus on a troubling belief and use it as a framework to offer solutions. But maybe the only thing we can accomplish doing that is to make ourselves feel better, and we should accept this.