Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:10:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists  (Read 7297 times)
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2015, 11:45:18 PM »

Muslims decide what is and is not in their religion.

And, you have to understand my point in the context of my argument.  I think we need to create a break between Muslims and Islamism/Wahhabism/Salafism/Any kind Islam that conflicts with basic human rights and Democratic values. 

Crabcake said we should try to accommodate moderate Islamists and Saudi type Islam which has all the evil of ISIS, just without the extreme brutality and outward violence.  I couldn't disagree more.

As far as Islamist vs. Islamic, it's a fair distinction.  Not eating pork is neither here nor there for me, although I find it annoying.  But, Islamist values are also Islamic values.  I sometimes feel like people want to create this separate category for "bad Islam."  Islamist, Wahhabi, extreme, radical, Islamofascist, political Islam, they all just mean "bad Islam."  Well, there's a danger because some "bad Islamists" call themselves moderate and peaceful while they preach hatred and awful nonsense that goes against American values.  We need to be a bit more specific about what we will and will not accept from our religious groups.

Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

Alright, well most of this is good to know, because from reading your posts in this thread and many others both here and on AAD I was getting the impression you thought Islam in and of itself is the problem, which is why I was so concerned with the sentence I asked about before.


However, I would like to point out that those "Western Values" that you listed before are not at all exclusive or original to the West as we understand it today, and that vast amounts of what are considered "Western values" (additionally, what constitutes Western values is a whole debate itself) actually originated in the Islamic world.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying and your views, but you seem to have a very black-and-white view of the Islamic world, particularly how you bring up Sharia law a lot and your laser-like focus on just the Middle East.

The application of Islamic Sharia law to democracy is a huge topic with a very broad range of views in the debate on how it should be applied to governance and law, not unlike how America is a secular democracy yet we still trace our legal foundation to Judeo-Christian values, or how there are Christian Democratic parties across the world that are inspired by Christian values and push those values within a democratic framework with respect to human rights. I strongly suggest you read this first link, especially the "Obstacles" subsection, and while you're doing it, keep in mind the effect that the Middle East will have on Islam in the rest of the world and the counterforces to Islamist forces within Muslims communities around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy


I would also suggest that you read these articles, and maybe do a bit more digging yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#The_current_schools_of_jurisprudence
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2015, 12:09:36 AM »


Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

Yes, I agree with this. I just disagree with the implication that this means we need to go to war against "Islamic values". There are plenty of muslims out there who don't believe in that stuff.

1.5 billion Muslims or something.  Plenty can be totally cool and it doesn't really fix the problem.  There could be 100,000,000 Muslims who are basically liberal, cosmopolitan people, that leaves 1.4 billion who hold problematic views. 

Indonesia or Bangladesh doesn't do most of what you listed.  India has one of the largest populations of muslims and they don't advocate the things you listed, although India does have sharia law for muslims (which I think is a travesty and should be changed but that's a discussion for another thread). It's just not helpful to go on a crusade against "islamic values".

Again, you can't argue in favor Islam by looking at the exceptions or the least Islamic countries. 

There also are extremists in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh.  This guy is a popular Indian Muslim speaker.  He supports the death penalty for apostates, says "Muslims can have sex with female slaves" and said the following

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you would say he's totally fine because he's Indian?  What about the Indonesian Al Qaeda affiliates, or the Bangladeshis who have murdered atheist bloggers?  How about them?

Alright, well most of this is good to know, because from reading your posts in this thread and many others both here and on AAD I was getting the impression you thought Islam in and of itself is the problem, which is why I was so concerned with the sentence I asked about before.


However, I would like to point out that those "Western Values" that you listed before are not at all exclusive or original to the West as we understand it today, and that vast amounts of what are considered "Western values" (additionally, what constitutes Western values is a whole debate itself) actually originated in the Islamic world.

Nope.  No Western values originated in the Islamic world.  The Islamic world preserved many classical texts, but they didn't influence the west with their own views.  The scholars of the enlightenment weren't reading Arabic texts.  But, I agree that Western values are not exclusive to the West.  They're universal.  Every person in the world deserves freedom, religious liberty, democracy, secularism, rule of law, no exceptions.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying and your views, but you seem to have a very black-and-white view of the Islamic world, particularly how you bring up Sharia law a lot and your laser-like focus on just the Middle East.

The application of Islamic Sharia law to democracy is a huge topic with a very broad range of views in the debate on how it should be applied to governance and law, not unlike how America is a secular democracy yet we still trace our legal foundation to Judeo-Christian values, or how there are Christian Democratic parties across the world that are inspired by Christian values and push those values within a democratic framework with respect to human rights. I strongly suggest you read this first link, especially the "Obstacles" subsection, and while you're doing it, keep in mind the effect that the Middle East will have on Islam in the rest of the world and the counterforces to Islamist forces within Muslims communities around the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy


I would also suggest that you read these articles, and maybe do a bit more digging yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh#The_current_schools_of_jurisprudence

The way to deal with religion and government/law has already been discovered.  It is separation of church and state.  If you don't accept separation of church and state, you're a part of the problem.

And, I'm really particularly talking about intellectually battling the people making Islam more radical.  That's where the focus should be.  There shouldn't be mosques in NYC which preach "democracy is evil" and never get any criticism and get labeled as "moderate Muslims."
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2015, 12:39:46 AM »

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2015, 12:47:36 AM »

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...

Correct me where I'm wrong.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2015, 01:20:06 AM »

Is it even worth trying to make the Middle East accommodating to cosmopolitan/liberal values?  I just don't think those areas are suitable for democracy, let alone the "Western values" as bedstuy is describing them. 

1.  People and areas of the world do not belong to a religion.  Muslims do not belong to their religion, they're free people.  They have the right to think for themselves, the most basic right we all share.

2.  There is a gradient even in the Middle East and there all kind of people everywhere.  There are gay  atheists in Saudi Arabia who hate their country and want to move to San Francisco.  There are ex-Muslims, secularists, liberals, feminists, and intellectuals in every single country.  Let's water the seeds so they can sprout in 20, 30, 100 years, as the case may be. 

3.  There are radical Islamists, conservative Muslims and Muslims with problematic beliefs that need to be engaged with in America, the UK, France, Sweden, etc.  This is a global problem.  The intellectual cesspits of the world, ISIS territory and Saudi Arabia, infect our Muslims.  Globalization does not allow us to bury our heads in the sands just because the problems are mostly in other countries. 

4.  The cost of speaking out is low.  The cost of dialog is low.  We don't need to invade their countries and force anything on them.  We need to invade their brains with our ideas.


I sympathize with them; they believe firmly in the Qur'an as the way to salvation and the word of God, just as I view the Bible as God's word; I happen to believe they were deceived and chose the wrong way, but it's not surprising to see how things ended up the way they did.  I just don't see that changing at all anytime soon.

That's the problem with fundamentalism.  This kind of fanatical literalism is what allows ISIS to do incredibly evil things.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2015, 01:49:44 AM »


Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

Yes, I agree with this. I just disagree with the implication that this means we need to go to war against "Islamic values". There are plenty of muslims out there who don't believe in that stuff.

1.5 billion Muslims or something.  Plenty can be totally cool and it doesn't really fix the problem.  There could be 100,000,000 Muslims who are basically liberal, cosmopolitan people, that leaves 1.4 billion who hold problematic views. 

Indonesia or Bangladesh doesn't do most of what you listed.  India has one of the largest populations of muslims and they don't advocate the things you listed, although India does have sharia law for muslims (which I think is a travesty and should be changed but that's a discussion for another thread). It's just not helpful to go on a crusade against "islamic values".

Again, you can't argue in favor Islam by looking at the exceptions or the least Islamic countries. 

There also are extremists in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh.  This guy is a popular Indian Muslim speaker.  He supports the death penalty for apostates, says "Muslims can have sex with female slaves" and said the following

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you would say he's totally fine because he's Indian?  What about the Indonesian Al Qaeda affiliates, or the Bangladeshis who have murdered atheist bloggers?  How about them?

Of course I don't agree with this Zakir Naik fellow. What he says is deplorable. And of course there are extremists in Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. That being said, they aren't causing the sort of global issues we see stemming out of the middle east.

I just think you are going at this the wrong way. You are attacking Islam in general when you need to attack the violent extremism within it. If you think fighting 1.5 billion people is the way to go, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is foolish. Muslims around the world, even in places like Indonesia or Bangladesh may be "backwards" but for the most part they aren't causing any trouble in the west. Why antagonize them when ISIS is the problem? Fundamentalist Islam is just one ingredient in the mix that leads to ISIS/Al qaeda etc. If your goal is to turn the muslim world into a liberal democracy, then that is foolish. You don't need to turn the middle east into the next San Francisco in order to stop violent extremists like ISIS.

Also, this is my opinion as to what to do about radical Islam/Isis/violent extremism in general. If you want my opinion about Islam in India, I think sharia law should be phased out and replaced with a liberal, secular uniform civil code for all Indians regardless of religion. Of course some people might say I am a BJP supporting fanatic Hindu for saying that.......

Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2015, 02:08:18 AM »

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...

Correct me where I'm wrong.
Just about everything. Visit the thread. Read my posts.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2015, 02:11:45 AM »

Of course I don't agree with this Zakir Naik fellow. What he says is deplorable. And of course there are extremists in Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. That being said, they aren't causing the sort of global issues we see stemming out of the middle east.

So, when an Indian Muslim broadcasts to British Muslims, radicalizes them and they join ISIS, that's not an issue?  We live in a globalized world now.  We shouldn't let anyone get off spewing hateful, evil bullsh**t.  Nobody should be able to hide behind religion to say horrible, evil things.

I just think you are going at this the wrong way. You are attacking Islam in general when you need to attack the violent extremism within it.

No, read what I've actually written.  I just don't feel the need to constantly bend myself over backwards to defend Islam.

If you think fighting 1.5 billion people is the way to go, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is foolish. Muslims around the world, even in places like Indonesia or Bangladesh may be "backwards" but for the most part they aren't causing any trouble in the west.

When did I say we should fight every Muslim?  Never said it.  You're blatantly distorting my points.  And, again, globalization and solidarity.  If people accept rule of law, feminism and secularism, the world will be a better place.  They are causing trouble in the west too.  Terrorist attacks, ruining their home countries and causing refugees to flood around the world, destabilizing the world, etc.  And, idea cross borders now.  The internet is a thing. 

Why antagonize them when ISIS is the problem? Fundamentalist Islam is just one ingredient in the mix that leads to ISIS/Al qaeda etc. If your goal is to turn the muslim world into a liberal democracy, then that is foolish. You don't need to turn the middle east into the next San Francisco in order to stop violent extremists like ISIS.

This is just a grab bag of the old muddy the waters trick. 

1.  You have to antagonize people to create social change.  That's the only way you change people's minds. 
2.  How do we keep our values and not antagonize Muslim fundamentalists? 
3.  If someone says, "democracy is evil," how is that not a problem? 
4.  Fundamentalist Islam is obviously the key ingredient in ISIS, give me a break.  And, why not try to stop every ingredient in creating ISIS? 

Also, this is my opinion as to what to do about radical Islam/Isis/violent extremism in general. If you want my opinion about Islam in India, I think sharia law should be phased out and replaced with a liberal, secular uniform civil code for all Indians regardless of religion. Of course some people might say I am a BJP supporting fanatic Hindu for saying that.......

No, that's common sense for India and every country.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2015, 02:15:15 AM »

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

You need to visit my "understanding Islam" thread...

Correct me where I'm wrong.
Just about everything. Visit the thread. Read my posts.

OK, nothing you posted conflicts with what I wrote.  You have to explain where I'm wrong.

And, please read the prior posts here.  I was talking about Islamism vs. liberal western values.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2015, 02:37:18 AM »
« Edited: November 29, 2015, 02:42:09 AM by Sbane »

Of course I don't agree with this Zakir Naik fellow. What he says is deplorable. And of course there are extremists in Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. That being said, they aren't causing the sort of global issues we see stemming out of the middle east.

So, when an Indian Muslim broadcasts to British Muslims, radicalizes them and they join ISIS, that's not an issue?  We live in a globalized world now.  We shouldn't let anyone get off spewing hateful, evil bullsh**t.  Nobody should be able to hide behind religion to say horrible, evil things.

I just think you are going at this the wrong way. You are attacking Islam in general when you need to attack the violent extremism within it.

No, read what I've actually written.  I just don't feel the need to constantly bend myself over backwards to defend Islam.

If you think fighting 1.5 billion people is the way to go, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is foolish. Muslims around the world, even in places like Indonesia or Bangladesh may be "backwards" but for the most part they aren't causing any trouble in the west.

When did I say we should fight every Muslim?  Never said it.  You're blatantly distorting my points.  And, again, globalization and solidarity.  If people accept rule of law, feminism and secularism, the world will be a better place.  They are causing trouble in the west too.  Terrorist attacks, ruining their home countries and causing refugees to flood around the world, destabilizing the world, etc.  And, idea cross borders now.  The internet is a thing. 

Why antagonize them when ISIS is the problem? Fundamentalist Islam is just one ingredient in the mix that leads to ISIS/Al qaeda etc. If your goal is to turn the muslim world into a liberal democracy, then that is foolish. You don't need to turn the middle east into the next San Francisco in order to stop violent extremists like ISIS.

This is just a grab bag of the old muddy the waters trick. 

1.  You have to antagonize people to create social change.  That's the only way you change people's minds. 
2.  How do we keep our values and not antagonize Muslim fundamentalists? 
3.  If someone says, "democracy is evil," how is that not a problem? 
4.  Fundamentalist Islam is obviously the key ingredient in ISIS, give me a break.  And, why not try to stop every ingredient in creating ISIS? 

Also, this is my opinion as to what to do about radical Islam/Isis/violent extremism in general. If you want my opinion about Islam in India, I think sharia law should be phased out and replaced with a liberal, secular uniform civil code for all Indians regardless of religion. Of course some people might say I am a BJP supporting fanatic Hindu for saying that.......

No, that's common sense for India and every country.

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

I might be more of a pessimist than you, but I don't see the muslim world getting anymore "civilized". I just point out that there are countries that are majority muslim who don't cause any problems and some that do. You yourself have pointed out fundamentalist Islam is widespread in both those sorts of places. So why is one violent and the other not?

Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2015, 02:49:43 AM »

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

Please try to read my posts or don't respond to them.  What you keep doing is throwing out red herrings or bringing up unrelated tangents.

Did I say anything about taking away freedom of speech?  No, in fact, I specifically contrasted freedom of speech with Islamism ideas and Islamic culture, positively.  Why are you raising this issue when I obviously never raised it myself?

What you keep doing is trying to find reasons why we can ignore Islamic extremism.  You keep trying to minimize it without citing any facts.  It's extremely frustrating and it's pointless.  You don't seem to care about reality, you just want to find reasons to take the position that makes you feel good.  It's just, "shut up and bury your head in the sand too!"

To answer your stupid question, the response is not to ban speech.  It's to highlight how stupid it is and refute it.  We engage in a dialog with Muslims, we use argument, humor, satire and criticism to get them to abandon extremist positions and harmful ideas.  We don't ignore and respect their beliefs, we actually listen and we communicate why things like cutting people's hands off for stealing are barbaric.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2015, 02:52:19 AM »

I think it should be clear that a distinction ought to be made between combating ISIS or Jahbat Al-Nusra, which aims to spread its ideology through terrorism and coercive/illegitimate state-power, and attempting to deal with Islamism, which is not necessarily violent in its attempted application.

I don't think the latter is a particularly controversial claim; Islamism or more rigid variants of political Islam do not necessarily pose threats to the West, they're toxic because they affect Muslim minorities within Western states and they're toxic because they violate the rights of all who live within regimes controlled by Islamist ideologies, whether those of Iran or those of Saudi Arabia. However, there's no reason why any of this should merit warfare or rights-violations of individual Muslims. In order to grapple with Islamism, whether it is Salafism or some other variant, Europe and the US should employ different strategies, such as cutting off ties with Saudi Arabia and re-aligning with Iran or attempting to fund opposition groups in Iran. There's no particular solution here but it's quite clear that laying blame for terrorist attacks or ISIS at the feet of Islam itself is a stupid, counter-productive strategy.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2015, 02:56:39 AM »

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

To answer your stupid question, the response is not to ban speech.  It's to highlight how stupid it is and refute it.  We engage in a dialog with Muslims, we use argument, humor, satire and criticism to get them to abandon extremist positions and harmful ideas.  We don't ignore and respect their beliefs, we actually listen and we communicate why things like cutting people's hands off for stealing are barbaric.

So who doesn't already condemn the sort of things this preacher says? I don't think even your most wishy washy liberal will try to "understand" why this preacher might feel this way. I just don't think the correct response to people like the preacher is to go on a crusade against "islamic values".
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2015, 02:59:33 AM »

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

Those are not "Islamic" values, those are "Islamist" values. Two letters, big difference.


Genital mutilation isn't inherently Islamic but most of those other things are indeed Islamic values. They come directly from the Koran and the Hadith.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2015, 03:12:52 AM »

Do you not believe in free speech? Do you not think the preacher should be able to say what he wants? You and me can both agree what he says is disgusting, but why should we have the right to stop him from saying it? And if we have the right to stop someone from doing something we find offensive, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to stop an artist from drawing the Prophet Muhammad?

To answer your stupid question, the response is not to ban speech.  It's to highlight how stupid it is and refute it.  We engage in a dialog with Muslims, we use argument, humor, satire and criticism to get them to abandon extremist positions and harmful ideas.  We don't ignore and respect their beliefs, we actually listen and we communicate why things like cutting people's hands off for stealing are barbaric.

So who doesn't already condemn the sort of things this preacher says? I don't think even your most wishy washy liberal will try to "understand" why this preacher might feel this way. I just don't think the correct response to people like the preacher is to go on a crusade against "islamic values".

The silence is deafening.  Or, more often, the apologizing and explaining away Islam's problems is deafening.  You provide cover for guys like him.  You earlier said, "Islam in India is peaceful and liberal."  Now, you're like, "well, not him."  You're basically saying, "Islam is great, except for the bad parts."  That goes for anything, it's weak, cowardly nonsense. 

I think it should be clear that a distinction ought to be made between combating ISIS or Jahbat Al-Nusra, which aims to spread its ideology through terrorism and coercive/illegitimate state-power, and attempting to deal with Islamism, which is not necessarily violent in its attempted application.

I don't think the latter is a particularly controversial claim; Islamism or more rigid variants of political Islam do not necessarily pose threats to the West, they're toxic because they affect Muslim minorities within Western states and they're toxic because they violate the rights of all who live within regimes controlled by Islamist ideologies, whether those of Iran or those of Saudi Arabia. However, there's no reason why any of this should merit warfare or rights-violations of individual Muslims. In order to grapple with Islamism, whether it is Salafism or some other variant, Europe and the US should employ different strategies, such as cutting off ties with Saudi Arabia and re-aligning with Iran or attempting to fund opposition groups in Iran. There's no particular solution here but it's quite clear that laying blame for terrorist attacks or ISIS at the feet of Islam itself is a stupid, counter-productive strategy.

Nobody said that.  And, I would argue if Islamism is toxic to Muslim communities and people in America and around the world, it is a threat.  If Islamism causes people to join ISIS, it's a threat.  If it makes people mistreat women, it's a threat.  You have to use different tactics against terrorist acts, sure.  But, the ideology that says "Islamic theocracy is the best government" is an ideology of ISIS fellow travelers.  It's two sides of the same coin, the ideology and execution.  We should fight both.  Fight the execution with military, intelligence and law enforcement.  Fight the ideology with words. 

Genital mutilation isn't inherently Islamic but most of those other things are indeed Islamic values. They come directly from the Koran and the Hadith.

Inherently, what does that mean in this context? 

Shia Islamic scholars generally says FGM is a good thing, but not mandatory.
Sunni Islam's four main schools of Islamic law vary. Some say FGM is obligatory, others say FGM a good thing, but not required. 

Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2015, 03:13:53 AM »
« Edited: November 29, 2015, 03:18:13 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.

Note: This does not mean that I'm trying to justify anything that I've listed. I'm simply stating that understanding the causes of various atrocities or illiberal/gross mass movements requires a deeper analysis that goes beyond culture; this understanding will produce more effective prescriptions than advocating for a war of words. Because I take Islamism and other authoritarian ideologies seriously, I want to go further than a war of words. Is there any evidence that persuasion has ever worked against ideologies that have a particular promise for those who live in poverty or who feel that they are oppressed? If people feel alienated by Western ideas, how could we possible persuade them to believe in those ideas?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2015, 03:14:41 AM »

A lot of liberals seem to think Islam and Christianity are basically analogous. Like Islam is a Browner, poorer version of Christianity and there are or can be a lot of essentially agnostic MINOs just like most Western Christians are essentially agnostic CINOs.

The religions are not the same though. Both have horrible holy books but there's a difference between The Bible and The Koran. Belief in the literalness of The Bible is not required or all that widespread. Even when it is, Christianity has the benefit of being able to dismiss all the problematic crap hand waving "it doesn't matter, that was the OLD covenant, only what Jesus said matters now." Muslims don't have those escape clauses. Belief in the Koran as inerrant is as central to Islam as the Resurrection is to Christianity so it's much harder to do away with.

There's a chance we might see some liberal movement that rejects Koranic infallibility in favor in favor of Western Christian style "these are just stories but the morals are true" but I think that's unlikely. Again, Koranic infallibility is central to Islam, if you take that away, there's basically nothing left. Wide spread apostasy is probably more likely to catch on. Still, even if a movement that doesn't read the Koran literally COULD catch on, we'll never know because as it stands, trying to start such a movement in most Islamic countries would get you murdered, either by the state or by terrorists.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2015, 03:23:43 AM »

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.


So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2015, 03:30:26 AM »
« Edited: November 29, 2015, 03:36:25 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.


So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?

Did I ever claim that I had an answer? I'm simply claiming that you do not have an answer and that cultural explanations for "Islamism" run against the grain of recent history, in which political action throughout the MENA resided in secular Arab nationalism or Marxian social movements, not in Islam. Going beyond the MENA, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia experienced similar trends.

Again, I condemn Islamism and Salafism and the Gulf States etc. I posted a thread about why the left needs to stand against Islamism. I agree with most of your claims. I simply disagree that this is related to some immutable cultural aspects of Islam; that takes a short-sighted view of history and lacks understanding of social scientific evidence.

It's rather arrogant that you profess to hold the solution to something that's incredibly intractable. Do you think that the hot air that you've blown all over this thread is a policy solution? Frankly, it's an emotional expression that lacks substance or merit. I can't claim to fully understand Islamism and its origins but I understand enough to know that I need to read more about the MENA before I say more than it is complex and that Islamism, which is an abhorrent ideology, needs to be properly understood before it can be combated. To add to this complication, I also believe that it is rather dangerous to impute behavior to culture; a claim that cuts against "Enlightenment values", social science and history. If I abhor aspects of post-modern political philosophy, starting with Foucault, it is due to this tendency to root behavior in culture, which I think is the root of caste-based laws or logic, whether racial or religious or ethnic.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2015, 03:36:25 AM »

Women have been oppressed by Islam since it started. Although it was a slight improvement for some women compared to the oppression they faced before. Still, oppression by any standard. Yes, that's inherent to Islam, because it's justified by the holy book of Islam which says men and women are not equal. This has been a constant for centuries. Even when Marxism and Arab nationalism had their 30 years or so of political relevance, it was still there. It was there before and it's there after and it will probably keep being there, because it's linked to the religion.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 29, 2015, 03:39:28 AM »

Women have been oppressed by Islam since it started. Although it was a slight improvement for some women compared to the oppression they faced before. Still, oppression by any standard. Yes, that's inherent to Islam, because it's justified by the holy book of Islam which says men and women are not equal. This has been a constant for centuries. Even when Marxism and Arab nationalism had their 30 years or so of political relevance, it was still there. It was there before and it's there after and it will probably keep being there, because it's linked to the religion.

"Women have been oppressed by Christianity since it started" - a phrase that was true as recently as the 1950s.

Come on son, the oppression of women and "patriarchy" is a worldwide phenomenon that has its origins in agricultural societies. Women have been oppressed for millenia in Mesoamerica, in Africa (again, female genital mutilation is not related to Islam!), in India etc. What, exactly, is peculiar about the Middle East in this regard?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 29, 2015, 03:43:06 AM »

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.


So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?

Did I ever claim that I had an answer? I'm simply claiming that you do not have an answer and that cultural explanations for "Islamism" run against the grain of recent history, in which political action throughout the MENA resided in secular Arab nationalism or Marxian social movements, not in Islam. Going beyond the MENA, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia experienced similar trends.

Again, I condemn Islamism and Salafism and the Gulf States etc. I posted a thread about why the left needs to stand against Islamism. I agree with most of your claims. I simply disagree that this is related to some immutable cultural aspects of Islam; that takes a short-sighted view of history and lacks understanding of social scientific evidence.

It's rather arrogant that you profess to hold the solution to something that's incredibly intractable. Do you think that the hot air that you've blown all over this thread is a policy solution? Frankly, it's an emotional expression that lacks substance or merit. I can't claim to fully understand Islamism and its origins but I understand enough to know that I need to read more about the MENA before I say more than it is complex and that Islamism, which is an abhorrent ideology, needs to be properly understood before it can be combated. To add to this complication, I also believe that it is rather dangerous to impute behavior to culture; a claim that cuts against "Enlightenment values", social science and history. If I abhor aspects of post-modern political philosophy, starting with Foucault, it is due to this tendency to root behavior in culture, which I think is the root of caste-based laws or logic, whether racial or religious or ethnic.

Could you restate that in a way that makes sense, without jargon?  I don't have a clue what you're saying. 

Why not use my Somalian FGM example so we're not being too abstract.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2015, 04:44:30 PM »

Is it even worth trying to make the Middle East accommodating to cosmopolitan/liberal values?  I just don't think those areas are suitable for democracy, let alone the "Western values" as bedstuy is describing them.  I sympathize with them; they believe firmly in the Qur'an as the way to salvation and the word of God, just as I view the Bible as God's word; I happen to believe they were deceived and chose the wrong way, but it's not surprising to see how things ended up the way they did.  I just don't see that changing at all anytime soon.

Lol ok,....
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2015, 07:15:06 PM »

One aspect we ignore when we talk about Islam and the Middle East and compare their modernisation process with other part of the worlds, is the different history and what modernisation is.

As example what we see as extreme or conservative Islam is not really traditional Islam, traditional Islam while it had it own bad side was much more based on regional culture. What we see is a Saudification of Sunni Islam, which in it own disgusting way is part of modernisation and internationalisation process.

But let's go back to the different modernisation. Modernisation is in many way a westernisation or Europeanisation. In this context Europe and Europeans is not the continent or the people living on it, but the areas populated by European descended people; Europe, the Americas and Australia. European culture is the first culture which conquered the world (yes there is the 6 exception, but even they was Europeanised), which is why we see European values as the values of modernisation. But the meeting between Europeans was different and traumatic in different ways.

For China (and Japan to lesser extent) , the meeting with Europeans, could just as well have been a invasion of space aliens; yes they knew Europe existed, but they knew next to nothing about Europe, even after centuries of trade. As such the meeting was traumatising, to see their armies crush by barbarians who didn't want to be Chinese. They was used to when the barbarians defeated them, they assimilated as a new Chinese upper class, but the Europeans clearly saw China as barbarians, which was traumatising for China. But it allowed China and Japan to look critical on their own values and belief, and begin to modernise their society.

south and south east Asia discovered the Europeans dominance earlier, and while they was unable to modernise fast enough to survive as states, it allowed them to keep the structures and institution the Europeans set up.

For the Africans it was worse, Europe was host of locusts which fell on the continent, but disappeared to fast to set up anymore than the shallowest of structures and institutions. They got the worst of colonisation, a brutal break down of traditional structures and very weak new ones.

But here's the Middle East are unique. The Middle East and Europe was historical one, but as the Arabs and Islam spread, they conquered the best and most rich parts, leaving the fringe to Europeans. So from early on, Europeans was war like barbarians, leaving in the wastelands and practicing the an old obsolete Abrahamic faith. That was the world Islam was born into. This meant they had little interest in Europe and thought nothing of interest could come from it, except slaves and plunder. The problem was already a few centuries later Europe was on the rise, but the Arabs didn't discover this as the "Europe" they was in contact with was in decay. The Crusades was a shock, but their ultimate failure confirmed the view of Europe, and the perceived success of the Ottomans only confirmed it further. Only in Morocco there was a early awareness of the way it was going, but they was a poor state at the end of the Islamic world. But we can already see the weakness under the Ottoman greatness. Their richest provinces was the Balkans, the Balkans which in 1000 had been barbarian wasteland, even after centuries of mismanagement, the Balkans was more important than Syria, which had been among the richest of Roman provinces. The Ottomans could even truly beat Austria, even while Austria suffered under religious wars with their own vassals, fought the mightiest European kingdom (France) which was allied with the Ottomans, they was unable to crush them. So the Ottomans, the mightiest of Muslim states, a state in which half of all Muslims lived in or swore fealty to, was no more than a equal to the individual kingdoms of Europe at its highest.

But this was not obvious, and the political situations in Europe, meant that Austria could not focus on the Ottomans, which meant the weakness was hidden, and they was only slowly beaten back. So the Arabs and Turks had a illusion of superiority, which suddenly disappeared with the French invasion of Egypt, but even there the inability of the European powers to agree how to carve the Ottomans up, gave them after the first illusion had disappeared a illusion of being equals with the Great Powers of Europe, which again ended with WW1. After this the Arabic world has desperate sought a way to rise again to what they was in their own views; superior to the European barbarians, but here marxism, fascism and pan-Arabism have failed them; most obvious shown in their failure to beat Israel.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 29, 2015, 07:57:16 PM »
« Edited: November 29, 2015, 08:01:43 PM by Teach Peace. »

There are huge problems.
 One is confirmation bias. How does one reason with someone who rejects reason? How do you have constructive dialogue with a literalist of any religion? Are literalist Christians going to have constructive interfaith dialogue with literalist Muslims?
 Another is political correctness. PC can be a road to hell with good intentions.
Another is groupthink. This is similar to sectarianism. Even liberal religions are tainted with sectarianism, confirmation bias, and groupthink.
There so many divisions in any religion.
There is no solution to the problem that everyone can agree on.
Reason is possible, but is it possible to extricate emotion from reason?
What is the solution?
To encourage Radical Muslims to give up most of what they believe in and become as liberal or even radical as possible, and remain Muslims? The more you water down a religion by rejecting it's core teachings the more reason to abandon the religion altogether.
Are you going to solve the problem by trying to convert Muslims to another Abrahamic religion?
Would that solve the problem? Good luck trying.
Or why not convince them to give up on religion altogether?
It seems hopeless, but that doesn't necessarily mean that give up trying, only that you don't have unrealistic expectations or get discouraged when you fail.
One response is to argue for ethics and common sense morality.
But how are you going to do that when a literalistic interpretation of the Koran or Bible is such a big part of so many faiths? Obviously the Bible and Koran are not the same and it is difficult to find common ground between the two religions. I think that you would have better luck looking for ways to have interfaith dialogue between Christians and Buddhists. But that is moot, because the problems between Islam and Christianity are a huge problem with no easy answer.
The point that is lost in all of this is not to oversimplify the problem. Calling terrorists radical Islamists tends to confuse the issue. Yes, of course ISIL/DAESH is Islamic, but to say that radical Islam is the enemy confuses the problem. You are not going to solve the problems of literalism any time soon, but that doesn't mean that there are ways to deal with the violent ones. Those who are responsible for working on the problems, leader of all the countries of the world, are ultimately going to be the ones who have to deal with the issue. The big picture problem, namely, the downside of religion, is going to take a lot longer than dealing with the immediate crisis.

Everything that I have said here is probably moot anyway. I don't know if any of it contributes to the dialogue, but it is difficult to summarize the complexity of religions when they are so many of them and they are not merely equal alternative. All this is complicated by the fact that Republicans and Democrats are just as divided as religions are and they have strangely become so unwilling to co-operate, and of course they blame each other for refusing to co-operate which only compounds the problem. They also get distracted on so many other issues. I haven't even scratched the surface of the problem,  have I? edit: the devil is in the details, focusing on the big picture and saying that all we need is peace and love, which is all well and good, but creates a false dichotomy between getting lost in the details without finding any solutions or simply oversimplify the problem, with Why can't we all just get along? Well maybe we could if we were logical beings, but we're not.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 13 queries.