Support NeoGAF

[heidern]

The real argument you should be trying to make, in my opinion, is that although Islam (again, defined as what Muslims THINK is Islam) has negative effects, it's benefits outweigh its disadvantages.

Your definition is not a good one. All human beings are flawed. Thus, all human beings have thoughts that are flawed. So by definition, some of what any person thinks will have negative effects.

Islam is one thing, Muslims are another. You can't automatically criticise Islam by looking at the actions of a Muslim. If some guy crashes his car, does that mean the car is crap? Maybe it is, maybe the brakes were out. Or maybe the guy was under the influence and it was his fault and had nothing to do with the car.

So if some Muslims throw a riot and you disagree with that, you aren't critiqueing Islam, you are critiqueing these Individuals. To put the blame on Islam, you need to show and justify your interpretation of Islam on the matter, and show how it caused the wrongful actions. So if you take these terrorists that blew up the trains in Madrid or London, you'd probably say that because puposefully killing innocent people is wrong, what these terrorists did was wrong.

But then to relate Islam to this matter you need to decide what you think Islam says on it. You might be of the opinion that Islam sanctions these actions and thus in your opinion Islam is a bad thing. Alternatively you might know that Islam specifically forbids the killing of innocent civilians even within war. Logically, you'd then form the opinion that the problem was that these guys didn't follow Islam. So the problem wasn't the existence of Islam, but the absence of it.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it in this case. You are hiding behind what extremists do. If you want to critique Islam itself, you should do so by standing by your own opinions of it. If you(the royal you) don't have enough knowledge of Islam, then you shouldn't step into the world of ignorant preaching and keep your uninformed theories to yourself. If you do know what you are talking about, then at least you can have an informed debate.

Trying to infer that the existance of Islam causes more problems than otherwise is also a flawed methodology. If history was changed and Adolph Hitler was a proper practising Muslim, the holocaust wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, if Islam didn't exist, among the billions of Muslims that have lived, maybe without the guidance of Islam among them would be people to rival Hitler on the evil scale. Either of those would dwarf any problems that any group of Muslims today cause. To blindly claim that Islam causes more problems than otherwise is a worthless claim.

Maintaining the uniformed approach that you currently are is just utterly pointless. In fact I would say that haphazardly guessing what you don't like about the way of life of over a billion people is in and of itself a bad thing. To argue with any merit that Islam is a negative you will need to use real logic, and proper reasoning and show the direct link between Islam itself and the negatives.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

2. Without Islam or another faith-based philosophy (especially any ideology that claims it is true to the exclusion of all else), it is possible they may not have done X.

This is faulty. It's like arguing fron non-evidence and hypotheticals. I can think of 50 examples that fall within this type of logic, but are ultimately faulty statements that do not accurately represeent a situation as a whole.

"Without A, B would have never occurred." First of all, a dependency between and A and B must be proven, and second of all, even if this were proven, you'd have to systematically show that the hypothetical is true, which is.... literally impossible.

Second of all, I've said this to you numerous times, correlation is not causation. The success or death of a philosophy is based on results, that is, something has to be determined that it is a absolute failure by its eradication (e.g. some secular philosophies such as communism or fascism).

The reason I say correlation is not causation, especially when it comes to human sociology and stuff is because you have no idea what's going on through people's heads, or the way people think.

If A correlates with B, A does not necessarily cause B. Unknown factor C could be a confounding variable, affecting A and B, or it could be affecting B, the resultant alone.

Now you may say "I'm acting on probablistic evidence". What probablistic evidence? You're occurrences? Were you personally wronged by a self-proclaimed Muslim? I disagree that the definition of a Muslim is one who declares himself one, because that is in and of itself a subjective criteria that establishes nothing. When arguing something, it should be argued from an objective criteria when revolving your argument around a definition, that is, a definition that everybody (or at least, both parties) can agree on.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

During the same time when these Christian nations were turning into democracies, Muslim nations were being colonized. They had no freedom to turn their government into a democracy or an Islamic state. When these occupying forces left, they didn't leave a democracy, they left monarchies to rule.

Hah, that's a good one. Muslim populations weren't allowed to establish democracies? Neither were the French, but that sure as hell didn't stop them.
And what about now? Muslims don't even have to come up with the concepts associated with democracy, they'd only have to copy them. And yet how many Muslims living in predominantly Muslim nations would be for a secular government, or universal rights and education?

Not that it matters in the slightest how you got where you are. The point is that, right now, most Muslims are firmly stuck in medieval times, and don't want to get out. Politics may have been responsible for a big part of how you got there, but Islam is most definitely the main reason you want to remain where you are. After all, you've seen where progress leads, haven't you? Women dressing like 'whores', religion losing all of its political power, children shaking off Islam's mental grasp and gravitating towards atheism... Better to stay exactly as you are, right? :lol

With a bit of learning you'll see that it has nothing to do with religion, but rather the politics of that time. Despite being Muslim, Arab nations were split up to many tiny countries. Again, this has NOTHING to do with religion, but rather politics.

Because of this post-colonization era in most Muslim countries, you see a regression compared to their 12th century counterparts, where the 12th century counterparts at least had a more religious state that guarenteed more human rights and higher standards of education. But again, this has nothing to do with religion...it is not the result of religious teachings that you have all of these monarchies, lack of human rights, etc.

First, seeing that your own "learning" is clearly colored by your belief that Islam can be responsible for no evil, which is laughable, you'll forgive if I don't take your word for all this.

Second, whatever an ideology prescribes, if it's believed by a great part of a population it will necessarily affect the society this population is a part of. Religion is a part of culture, and culture is at least as big a factor as economic and political circumstances in determining what a society does. It's self-evident. A population of secular humanists won't react the same way as Muslims will to a foreign invasion, or great poverty, or whatever calamity you can think of.

Because it's based on a premise of hate, designed to propagate hate, and *gasp* it turns out that everyone who likes these cartoons hate Muslims to begin with. That's why.

Sometimes hate is warranted. Some ideologies are worse than others. Some ideologies are just plain evil. Islam as an ideology clearly opposes intellectual, moral, and spiritual freedom. It promotes barbarism such as corporal punishment, slavery, and conjugal violence. You yourself apparently see no problem with an Islamic theocracy, which is exactly the kind of medieval thinking I was talking about. And, by the way, the obvious attempts of some of your fellow believers to recreate an islamic theocracy within our secular countries is the source of quite a big part of the 'hate' you speak of.

 

[Boogie]

During the same time when these Christian nations were turning into democracies, Muslim nations were being colonized. They had no freedom to turn their government into a democracy or an Islamic state. When these occupying forces left, they didn't leave a democracy, they left monarchies to rule.

Christian nations were undergoing liberalization at a time when much of the Muslim world was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Just so, y'know, you're not going to pin their lack of democracy entirely on European Imperialism

 

[FightyF]

Christian nations were undergoing liberalization at a time when much of the Muslim world was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Just so, y'know, you're not going to pin their lack of democracy entirely on European Imperialism

Oh no, I agree, there are many factors. What PM argued was that religion was the only factor.

I think it's clear that Muslim nations have regressed quite a bit. I'm not so concerned with having a "democracy" in the modern sense as I am with maintaining human rights, keeping up and contributing to scientific advancement, and the economic well being of people. All of these have taken a hit, and that hit wasn't caused by religion, which is what PM claims.

All he needs to do is read up on the history of the Middle East more. It wasn't Islam that gave power to the Saud family, for example. It wasn't Islam that armed them with weapons and such. So to blame Islam for the existance of a monarchy (something clearly against Islamic ideals) just goes to show that he lacks the basic and rudimentary knowledge required to even discuss this subject.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

the muslim world will just hear this as "America is purposely defiling muhammad."

sad but it's true.

 

[Instigator]

When Chairman Yang and Fight for Freedom enter threads, they really make them look all the same.

 

[callous]

But for the Danes to start this shit again despite the consequences which they are aware of, they really are asking for it and that it is probably not something good.

"The Danes" are not starting anything again. A handful of drunk students at some kind of summer camp meeting for a right wing party's youth organization let things get out of hand. You can rest assured this isn't something "The Danes" are happy about.

 

[Inumaru]

Somehow I think that in our world of near-instant and near-global communications, a whole lot of once-relatively-isolated radical Muslims are going to have to learn to deal with these kinds of irritations/attacks on their beliefs without blowing someone up. Which, given the proclivities of violent True Believers seems unlikely. Alternatively, the rest of the world will be forced to take action against an element that is apparently unwilling to bend in the slightest to fit into a modern world. It won't work both ways.

People in the free world don't cope well with being told what NOT to draw, write, say, etc. It's inherently anti-intellectual.

This whole dogmatic conflict is self-exacerbating and self-perpetuating, especially right now, and especially without centrist Muslim leaders speaking out against extremist Muslim reactions... I can't imagine that this issue isn't going to resolve itself relatively quickly (as in perhaps 5-20 years, not 6-12 months), with very ugly results.

 

[APF]

Wrong, on all accounts.

Actually my post was literally accurate on every account. Which is why you had nothing of substance to add.

 

[bionic77]

When Chairman Yang and Fight for Freedom enter threads, they really make them look all the same.

:lol

Sad but true.

 

[DCharlie]

Nothing in Islamic teachings state that non-Muslims cannot draw the Prophet Muhammed.

okay - so we have the islamic fundamentalists screaming for peoples heads because of this.

Okay - so it's this sub 1% nutjob crew, but if the moderates stay silent when the nutters are misrepresenting islam, then this does give the false impression that everyone is in agreement.

Seriously - your argument against this is "who would speak up?" it's like a class full of geeks afraid of the bully: If the percentages are true, you'd more than outnumber them! SPEAK UP for ISLAM!

 

[The Stealth Fox]

"The Danes" are not starting anything again. A handful of drunk students at some kind of summer camp meeting for a right wing party's youth organization let things get out of hand. You can rest assured this isn't something "The Danes" are happy about.

That's good to hear. Are you Danish? Can someone explain the right-wing situation in Denmark? This is the first I've heard of it.

 

[callous]

I can't imagine that this issue isn't going to resolve itself relatively quickly (as in perhaps 5-20 years, not 6-12 months), with very ugly results.

Exactly. I doubt it will be 20 years, though, if the current levels of agitation are kept up.

That's good to hear. Are you Danish? Can someone explain the right-wing situation in Denmark? This is the first I've heard of it.

Yes, I am. The right wing party, DF, had a very good election in 2001, preying heavily on the immigration/integration problems seen in most Western European countries. No one from the center and leftwards wants anything to do with them, but the two major conservative parties are accepting them as a support party to be able to form a government. DF isn't actually in government, but the government has to listen to them or face having the rug pulled out underneath them. Now, DPF isn't a Neo Nazi party or anything like that. They are, however, quite right wing and quite some way off center. It was their youth organization, DFU, that during a drunken party had this little drawing competition. I'm sure mostly to let off steam because they, like most other Danes, got quite a scare during the things that happened in Spring and needed to get it out of their system. Unfortunately for the rest of Denmark, there was an undercover journalist present at this gathering and the Muslim world is, as was the case last time, unlikely to distinguish between the acts of a handful of people and the Danish population as a whole. This, in my view, is perhaps even more retarded than a bunch of teenagers' drunken game.

Anyway, this particular bunch of young adults, drunken or not, aren't all that popular in Denmark right now, trust me. Even the leader of DF herself isn't amused. Probably mostly because it might cost her votes, but still

 

[ronito]

I too would be offended that the violent reactionary tendencies of my culture were apparently accurately conveyed in political cartoons drafted as a protest against acts of self-censorship in the face of potential threats of physical harm, and then manipulated by members of my own religious leadership in order to greater stoke violent reactionary tendencies my own religious leadership apparently believed were a tendency of my culture, in order to extort political concessions against a foreign or host government and attack an ideal held sacred to Western democracies as a whole.

This is one of APF's best posts evar.

 

[callous]

This is one of APF's best posts evar.

I thought it was rather good, too

 

[APF]

Your checks are in the mail.

 

[Kapsama]

Europeans can draw cartoons all they want, their countries are in the process of being overrun by Mooooslims and Africans. Pretty soon they will experience just how it is to be ruled by foreign entities in your own country. Karma is a bytch, so You mad?

 

[MrPing1000]

 

[FightyF]

Instigator: I'd have to agree. The reason is because it always turns out to be the same argument. Evil Islam is teaching people to do bad things.

It's extremely clear, to anyone with a brain, that it's stupid to label the religion of 1.5 billion over the actions of a few hundred (don't tell me that it took a thousand to burn an embassy).

Maybe I shouldn't even bother responding to his posts...as they clearly go off the deep end with such an extreme generalization. Would you agree, Instigator?

Hello Mr. APF! When I said wrong on all accounts, I meant it.

I too would be offended that the violent reactionary tendencies of my culture

What culture would this be? Oh, Islam? Islam is a religion that encompasses many cultures. And so I'd change the wording a bit. I mean, a lot.

Secondly, you generalize that Muslims have violent reactionary tendancies. You label over 1.5 billion people, with the actions of a few. I mean, how many people do you think it took to burn an embassy? 10 max? And so you use the actions of a few dozen people (I'm being generous here), to label 1,500,000,000 people.

Seriously...do you think this is reasonable?

were apparently accurately conveyed in political cartoons

In what way were they accurately conveyed? A cartoon showing the Prophet with a bomb on his head...that was an accurate portrayal of this "culture"? And so you completely ignore his teachings, the teachings of a religion, and use the actions of a few taken in by a mob mentality to paint the religion?

Answer this question though...I really am interested in what you found in these cartoons that was so insightful.

drafted as a protest against acts of self-censorship in the face of potential threats of physical harm

Do you actually think that this reasoning is sound? The article that accompanied the cartoons said that Muslims should be prepared to be insulted, and ridiculed as part of living in a democracy, and then proceed with Islamophobic, hate-riddled, stereotypical, prejudiced cartoons. So you have a national paper promoting, propagating insults towards people of a particular faith. It's not attempted to be even handed about this...not attempted to point out some facts that everyone should consider about this issue (that non-Muslims can draw Muhammed)...they don't seem interested in addressing the idea of self-censorship...that peice was completely devoted to "insult"ing and "mock"ing the faith.

Is that a reasonable "protest"? I wouldn't label it a "protest". The issue in and of itself is extremely important and requires discussion with the country, a discussion that should include Muslims and the media. But there was no discussion following it.

If the Jyllands Posten was actually serious about the issue, they would not have been found shying away from debate. They would have printed articles on the issue from a Muslim perspective as well as an anti-Muslim perspective. They were completely one sided, and not with just an opinion, but a stated goal to insult.

and then manipulated by members of my own religious leadership in order to greater stoke violent reactionary tendencies my own religious leadership apparently believed were a tendency of my culture

Again, this is incorrect. When the Danish Muslim leaders went to the Middle East, they were there to speak about Islamophobia in Europe. cybamerc falsely claimed that they added fake cartoons (or something to that effect) when they created an entire document that included many examples from many countries. The focus though, were the Jyllands Posten cartoons.

Secondly, it was done to get Muslim leaders from the Middle East to protest the Jyllands Posten cartoons to the Danish government. Danish Muslims felt like their voice was being ignored, and I fully support this action.

What I don't support is the Middle Eastern media using it as a sensationalistic headline to sell papers. Everyone agrees that the manner the media in countries like Pakistan blew it out of proportion. THAT is where most of the problems regarding rioting started. You incorrectly blame the Danish leaders of inciting it, when all the wanted was a response from religious leaders and political leaders targetted towards the Danish government to promote interfaith dialogue and to attack Islamophobia.

in order to extort political concessions against a foreign or host government and attack an ideal held sacred to Western democracies as a whole.

They were clearly attacking Islamophobia, that was the entire purpose of the document.

Do you really consider these prejudiced and hateful cartoons to represent an "ideal sacred to Western Democracies"? Personally, I see them as an ABUSE of ideals sacred to Western Democracies.

I see a double standard on your part. If someone claimed (via cartoons or whatever) that Judaism is a "culture of violent aggression that kills innocent people because they believe that some land belongs to them", you'd be the first to agree that you can't have this in our Western society. Heck, people critical of Israel are barred from speaking at public events in the States...why aren't you crying about the right of free speech being eroded? But when it comes to Muslims, you conveniently turn a blind eye...don't you?

okay - so we have the islamic fundamentalists screaming for peoples heads because of this.

Okay - so it's this sub 1% nutjob crew, but if the moderates stay silent when the nutters are misrepresenting islam, then this does give the false impression that everyone is in agreement.

Seriously - your argument against this is "who would speak up?" it's like a class full of geeks afraid of the bully: If the percentages are true, you'd more than outnumber them! SPEAK UP for ISLAM!

Heh...we've already spoken up. More than spoken up, during this issue moderate Muslims thought that numbers would help. But it clearly didn't make a difference. That's the issue here. No one (as in the media) has a vested interest in what moderate Muslims have to say. I've already went over the hurdle that is sensationalistic media...and how terrorists have used the media (both here and in the Middle East) to their advantage. We've already discussed this in another topic.

 

[calder]

I didn't - and won't - read this thread but can someone edit the title? The off-putting grammar is like fingernails on a chalkboard everytime I scroll past it.

 

[Instigator]

Elegant, it may not be, but the grammar in the title is flawless.

 

[APF]

What culture would this be? Oh, Islam? Islam is a religion that encompasses many cultures.

Religions are within cultures, and they also have their own cultures; this is self-evident by the fact that they have shared rituals and symbols.

Secondly, you generalize that Muslims have violent reactionary tendancies.

Actually, I said they apparently do. And apparently, they do. Because cartoons suggesting they may, were answered by violent riots. And apparently the religious leadership believes they do, because they used the cartoons (and even worse ones they apparently created themselves) in order to provoke this sort of reaction, as I say below.

In what way were they accurately conveyed? A cartoon showing the Prophet with a bomb on his head...that was an accurate portrayal of this "culture"?

Apparently they were accurate, since the cartoons were met with violence. Drawings met with violence. Drawings. Cartoons. Equals violence. Equals violent riots. People across the globe. And apparently the religious leadership believes they're accurate, since the cartoons (and even worse ones they apparently created themselves) were used by them in order to provoke this sort of reaction.

And so you completely ignore his teachings, the teachings of a religion, and use the actions of a few taken in by a mob mentality to paint the religion?

I actually have no problem ignoring the false teachings of a false "God," just like these religious leaders had no problem using these cartoons (and even worse ones they apparently created themselves) to provoke violent riots.

Answer this question though...I really am interested in what you found in these cartoons that was so insightful.

The cartoons were obviously insightful, since they were created as a protest against self-censorship in the face of a perceived threats of violence, and were met by violent protests and a religious leadership who manipulated the whole thing to provoke violent reactions from their coreligionists in an order to extort political consessions from foreign and host governments, and attack a sacred belief shared by Western democracies as a whole.

Do you actually think that this reasoning is sound? The article that accompanied the cartoons said that Muslims should be prepared to be insulted, and ridiculed as part of living in a democracy

Of course they should be prepared, since they believe in false teachings of a false "God," and any person from any religion should be prepared for people to confront them with that truth (for example).

Do you really consider these prejudiced and hateful cartoons to represent an "ideal sacred to Western Democracies"?

Actually, this is literally exactly what freedom of speech is about--not having to fear violent reprisal for self-expression.

I see a double standard on your part. If someone claimed (via cartoons or whatever) that
Judaism is a "culture of violent aggression that kills innocent people because they believe that some land belongs to them", you'd be the first to agree that you can't have this in our Western society.

I'd *what?* Go ahead and say Hitler was right, or that Jews invented the Holocaust:

I

DON'T

GIVE

A

****

WHAT

YOU

SAY

BITCH

!

Speech should be protected, and IS protected in any rational democracy.

 

[APF]

What an awful time for GAF's censorship to rear its head.

 

[Chairman Yang]

When Chairman Yang and Fight for Freedom enter threads, they really make them look all the same.

Very true. I literally repeat the same points I've made from my first of this sort of thread, Fight For Freeform throws in a lot of mumbo-jumbo and rhetoric that has nothing to do with my points (and repeats other fallacious arguments), and I go back to repeating my same arguments, in the hope that he'll finally comprehend them.

Luckily, I actually learn something from other posters on GAF (Muslims and non-Muslims alike), so at least I benefit.

 

[Chairman Yang]

This is faulty. It's like arguing fron non-evidence and hypotheticals. I can think of 50 examples that fall within this type of logic, but are ultimately faulty statements that do not accurately represeent a situation as a whole.

"Without A, B would have never occurred." First of all, a dependency between and A and B must be proven, and second of all, even if this were proven, you'd have to systematically show that the hypothetical is true, which is.... literally impossible.

Second of all, I've said this to you numerous times, correlation is not causation. The success or death of a philosophy is based on results, that is, something has to be determined that it is a absolute failure by its eradication (e.g. some secular philosophies such as communism or fascism).

The reason I say correlation is not causation, especially when it comes to human sociology and stuff is because you have no idea what's going on through people's heads, or the way people think.

If A correlates with B, A does not necessarily cause B. Unknown factor C could be a confounding variable, affecting A and B, or it could be affecting B, the resultant alone.

Agreed. I was under the impression that we discussed this in a previous thread, though?

Now you may say "I'm acting on probablistic evidence". What probablistic evidence? You're occurrences? Were you personally wronged by a self-proclaimed Muslim? I disagree that the definition of a Muslim is one who declares himself one, because that is in and of itself a subjective criteria that establishes nothing. When arguing something, it should be argued from an objective criteria when revolving your argument around a definition, that is, a definition that everybody (or at least, both parties) can agree on.

There is literally NO strict definition of "Islam" that everyone will agree on. That's why it's absolutely pointless to try and pin down one. The only rational thing, in my opinion, is to use my loose categorization. And I don't see how that categorization is "subjective"--you can't get any more objective! By contrast, if you try to define Islam strictly, you're using your own subjectivity to decide that.

So yes, I'm using probabilistic evidence to indict the Islamic world. For example, the generally poor state of devout Muslim countries. You would say that there are other factors that account for all of the problems in these countries, and that the Islamic ideology isn't to blame for any of them? In that case, the burden of proof should shift to you, if you want to absolve Islam of all responsibility.

So what are these factors that account for ALL problems in Muslim countries? Colonialism is a popular choice, but makes little sense considering the many colonial countries who have started lifting themselves out of their circumstances. What else?

 

[Instigator]

I promise not to post anything remotely related to Islam for a week. You'll have to find someone else's topic to duel with FFF, Chairman Yang.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

There is literally NO strict definition of "Islam" that everyone will agree on. That's why it's absolutely pointless to try and pin down one. The only rational thing, in my opinion, is to use my loose categorization. And I don't see how that categorization is "subjective"--you can't get any more objective! By contrast, if you try to define Islam strictly, you're using your own subjectivity to decide that.

Then any discussion of this topic is useless. If you don't narrow down a definition for the purposes of argument, then I have NO reason whatsoever to even listen to anything you have to say. Because I don't know what you mean. Because everything isn't monolithic.

So yes, I'm using probabilistic evidence to indict the Islamic world. For example, the generally poor state of devout Muslim countries. You would say that there are other factors that account for all of the problems in these countries, and that the Islamic ideology isn't to blame for any of them? In that case, the burden of proof should shift to you, if you want to absolve Islam of all responsibility.

"He who asserts must prove". If YOU assert that Islam is the result of the poverty in Muslim nations (which isn't even probablistic evidence, there's not even a source for substantiation, just bland historical conclusions), you have to defend that claim and show that it is an adequate claim whatsoever. If YOU intend to convince anyone of your point, you have to show with a high level of confidence that it is Islam that results in this. I'm not the one with the original claim. I don't have to absolve anything, I just need to only cast reasonable doubt on your claim. That's it. You made the claim, I didn't.

The evidence you presented isn't even probablistic (not even statistical in nature), and even if you present probablistic evidence, it must NOT be looked at in a vacuum. Now, there are studies from the UN you can look up on poverty, it's causes and effects, and you could find something that could lead to a completely opposite conclusion. If you need an actual citation, I'm going to have to take some time out and look that up, because it's been awhile since I've done this.

I know historians such as Brenard Lewis often propagate these conclusions because they went to Turkey and left with a feeling of admiration ("Oh, they're becoming like us!"), but that just simply is not enough.

So what are these factors that account for ALL problems in Muslim countries? Colonialism is a popular choice, but makes little sense considering the many colonial countries who have started lifting themselves out of their circumstances. What else?

So now you're creating dichotomies in the studies of human societies? If it's not Colonialism, then by default, it's Islam? When it comes to human societies, I never assume that I know everything. I haven't visited the Middle East myself. I know people who have.

Why even assert something in this area? It's impossible to show anything unless you yourself have evidence that Islam transforms and warps peoples minds so that htey magically become poor.

The ONLY reason I could see anyone asserting something in this area is if they want to make a broad "claim to truth" and make this claim as true as possible through selective use of facts. The only reason you're making this claim is that you want to indict each of every religion, because your philosophy demands that you do so (as it is your choice to try and indict everyone).

 

[Chairman Yang]

Your definition is not a good one. All human beings are flawed. Thus, all human beings have thoughts that are flawed. So by definition, some of what any person thinks will have negative effects.

Islam is one thing, Muslims are another. You can't automatically criticise Islam by looking at the actions of a Muslim. If some guy crashes his car, does that mean the car is crap? Maybe it is, maybe the brakes were out. Or maybe the guy was under the influence and it was his fault and had nothing to do with the car.

Correct. But there are some people in this thread (most notably, Fight For Freeform) that seem to be saying that Islam is automatically FREE of any responsibility. In your analogy, it's taken for granted that the car is definitely perfect, and that anything that happens is competely the fault of something else.

So if some Muslims throw a riot and you disagree with that, you aren't critiqueing Islam, you are critiqueing these Individuals. To put the blame on Islam, you need to show and justify your interpretation of Islam on the matter, and show how it caused the wrongful actions. So if you take these terrorists that blew up the trains in Madrid or London, you'd probably say that because puposefully killing innocent people is wrong, what these terrorists did was wrong.

What does my interpretation of Islam have to do with anything? What does any particular interpretation have to do with anything? Nothing. What matters is the interpretation of people who actually commit the bad acts. And that's something that's impossible to completely determine (although we can get clues from what they say).

But then to relate Islam to this matter you need to decide what you think Islam says on it. You might be of the opinion that Islam sanctions these actions and thus in your opinion Islam is a bad thing. Alternatively you might know that Islam specifically forbids the killing of innocent civilians even within war. Logically, you'd then form the opinion that the problem was that these guys didn't follow Islam. So the problem wasn't the existence of Islam, but the absence of it.

I hate harping on this point over and over, but no, I don't need to decide what Islam says on a particular matter. Why would I do such a thing? I may have one interpretation, and others will have different ones.

Look at your seemingly innocuous prohibition on the killing of innocent civilians. You think that's a cut and dry law of Islam? There have been Muslims who interpret that in such a way that there's no problem. For example, people who use their tax dollars are working for the military of that country, and are therefore enemy combatants, and therefore can be killed. You see the problem here? What's to say that a "nice" interpretation of the rule is the right one, and the "evil" interpretation is the wrong one?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it in this case. You are hiding behind what extremists do. If you want to critique Islam itself, you should do so by standing by your own opinions of it. If you(the royal you) don't have enough knowledge of Islam, then you shouldn't step into the world of ignorant preaching and keep your uninformed theories to yourself. If you do know what you are talking about, then at least you can have an informed debate.

I've had many, many debates in threads like this on the actual text of Islam. Things like the condoning of wife-beating in certain circumstances, the treatment of apostates, and so on. Dig through my post history if you want to read up on that. Suffice to say, I'm not interested in rehashing those arguments. First, because I've already debated them, and second, because I don't think they're all that relevant to this particular discussion.

For purposes of my points in this thread, I don't care how Islam causes people to do things. I simply care about the possibility that it may cause people to do things.

Trying to infer that the existance of Islam causes more problems than otherwise is also a flawed methodology. If history was changed and Adolph Hitler was a proper practising Muslim, the holocaust wouldn't have happened. On the other hand, if Islam didn't exist, among the billions of Muslims that have lived, maybe without the guidance of Islam among them would be people to rival Hitler on the evil scale. Either of those would dwarf any problems that any group of Muslims today cause. To blindly claim that Islam causes more problems than otherwise is a worthless claim.

I'm not "blindly" claiming anything. I'm using the (admittedly flawed and incomplete) evidence available to me. I see a rough correlation between the devoutness of Islam and the lack of success of a country. I see a higher incidence of terrorism by Muslims than any other group. I see worse treatment of women among Muslim societies than the average society. And so on.

Now, if you want to argue that these things are only caused by other factors besides Islam, please do. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS ENTIRE FREAKIN' THREAD. But people seem reluctant to do so. Because of laziness, because of misinterpreting my arguments, because they don't have arguments they want to stand beside, because I haven't been clear enough--I have no idea.

Maintaining the uniformed approach that you currently are is just utterly pointless. In fact I would say that haphazardly guessing what you don't like about the way of life of over a billion people is in and of itself a bad thing. To argue with any merit that Islam is a negative you will need to use real logic, and proper reasoning and show the direct link between Islam itself and the negatives.

I've posted many examples of general evidence in this thread (and a hell of a lot more in older threads, that I don't feel like reposting again and again). If you (or anyone) in this thread has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. That's really why I bother posting in these threads--I want to improve my data.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Then any discussion of this topic is useless. If you don't narrow down a definition for the purposes of argument, then I have NO reason whatsoever to even listen to anything you have to say. Because I don't know what you mean. Because everything isn't monolithic.

I've given you my (loose) definition! Over and over! I define a Muslim as someone who considers themself a Muslim. It's exactly because Muslims are not a monolithic group that I use this.

How about you give me YOUR definition, so I can illustrate why it won't work?

"He who asserts must prove". If YOU assert that Islam is the result of the poverty in Muslim nations (which isn't even probablistic evidence, there's not even a source for substantiation, just bland historical conclusions), you have to defend that claim and show that it is an adequate claim whatsoever. If YOU intend to convince anyone of your point, you have to show with a high level of confidence that it is Islam that results in this. I'm not the one with the original claim. I don't have to absolve anything, I just need to only cast reasonable doubt on your claim. That's it. You made the claim, I didn't.

Nonsense. I make the claim that ideology can cause people to do things (I think even you would agree with this). The fact that Islam can cause people to act follows from that. And, the fact that some of those acts can be bad follows from that.

If you want to make the claim that it's impossible for Islam to cause people to act badly, the burden of proof is on you, period.

The evidence you haven't even presented is probablistic (not even statistical in nature), and even if you present probablistic evidence, it must NOT be looked at in a vacuum. Now, there are studies from the UN you can look up on poverty, it's causes and effects, and you could find something that could lead to a completely opposite conclusion. If you need an actual citation, I'm going to have to take some time out and look that up, because it's been awhile since I've done this.

So you're saying poverty is a factor in the poor state of Muslim countries? Great, I agree. I just don't think it's the ONLY factor.

I know historians such as Brenard Lewis often propagate these conclusions because they went to Turkey and left with a feeling of admiration ("Oh, they're becoming like us!"), but that just simply is not enough.

Okay.

So now you're creating dichotomies in the studies of human societies? If it's not Colonialism, then by default, it's Islam? When it comes to human societies, I never assume that I know everything. I haven't visited the Middle East myself. I know people who have.

Wha? I just used colonialism as an example. Of course it's not a dichotomy between colonialism and Islam. I've been asking, over and over, for people to convince me that other factors are at play, that completely account for everything bad, and therefore let Islam off the hook.

Why even assert something in this area? It's impossible to show anything unless you yourself have evidence that Islam transforms and warps peoples minds so that htey magically become poor.

Back to the black box thing. I don't care about the specific mechanisms by which Islam causes people to do things (and I don't think we have the technology to determine such a thing anyways). I care only that Islam, like any ideology, has the capability to do these things.

Again, if you claim that Islam is a special ideology that doesn't affect people's behaviour you're going to have to actually argue for that.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Look at your seemingly innocuous prohibition on the killing of innocent civilians. You think that's a cut and dry law of Islam? There have been Muslims who interpret that in such a way that there's no problem. For example, people who use their tax dollars are working for the military of that country, and are therefore enemy combatants, and therefore can be killed. You see the problem here? What's to say that a "nice" interpretation of the rule is the right one, and the "evil" interpretation is the wrong one?

I don't know about the other three madhabs, but the Hanafi definition of combatant is one who fights. I think that's pretty explicit.

I've had many, many debates in threads like this on the actual text of Islam. Things like the condoning of wife-beating in certain circumstances, the treatment of apostates, and so on. Dig through my post history if you want to read up on that. Suffice to say, I'm not interested in rehashing those arguments. First, because I've already debated them, and second, because I don't think they're all that relevant to this particular discussion.

Well, idribuhunna has been discussed to death by Sunni Islamic scholars. You can interpret what you want of the verse, your interpretation has no effectual basis in Islam.

I see a rough correlation between the devoutness of Islam and the lack of success of a country. I see a higher incidence of terrorism by Muslims than any other group. I see worse treatment of women among Muslim societies than the average society. And so on.

Any explicit data here? Sample data, etc. Not just news. Illicit acts manifest themselves differently in different societies.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I promise not to post anything remotely related to Islam for a week. You'll have to find someone else's topic to duel with FFF, Chairman Yang.

Haha...I think I'm going to stay out of Islam/Christianity threads for a while (after this one), so go ahead and post whatever. I'm wasting too much time posting in them, and too little time getting stuff done.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I've given you my (loose) definition! Over and over! I define a Muslim as someone who considers themself a Muslim. It's exactly because Muslims are not a monolithic group that I use this.

How about you give me YOUR definition, so I can illustrate why it won't work?

So, I am going to go tell my friend to claim that he's a Muslim right before he commits a crime. Perfect definition, am I right?

Your definition is imperfect for uses of debate, and it's practically useless and actually inhibits any sort of constructive form of argumentation.

Nonsense. I make the claim that ideology can cause people to do things (I think even you would agree with this). The fact that Islam can cause people to act follows from that. And, the fact that some of those acts can be bad follows from that.

If you want to make the claim that it's impossible for Islam to cause people to act badly, the burden of proof is on you, period.

I have every post right in front of me. I never asserted anything. YOU DID. The burden of proof is on you. I never said that "Islam has never done everything bad". That's not my claim.

I stand by "he who asserts must prove". You asserted. YOU PROVE. If your evidence sucks, then that's your problem.

Again, if you claim that Islam is a special ideology that doesn't affect people's behaviour you're going to have to actually argue for that.

Again, check my posts. I made no such claim. I've been attacking your claim all along.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I don't know about the other three madhabs, but the Hanafi definition of combatant is one who fights. I think that's pretty explicit.

It really isn't, actually. Who is someone who fights? Is an engineer who builds a bridge to let enemy troops kill Muslims a fighter? What about a scout who provides warning and lets enemy soldiers kill? What about someone who cuts off a water supply? Someone who operates a catapult to knock down walls? Someone who lays down suppressive fire, but doesn't actually kill anyone? Someone who shoots and misses?

The line between combatant and non-combatant is nowhere near as simple as you think it is.

Well, idribuhunna has been discussed to death by Sunni Islamic scholars. You can interpret what you want of the verse, your interpretation has no effectual basis in Islam.

Okay, enlighten me: in your version of Islam, what is the legality of conversion from Islam?

Any explicit data here? Sample data, etc. Not just news. Illicit acts manifest themselves differently in different societies.

I posted the link between religiosity and societal success in an earlier thread (if you can't find it, ask me and I'll dig it up again). You dismissed it by saying "correlation != causation", which I agree with, but correlation CAN be evidence.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

It really isn't, actually. Who is someone who fights? Is an engineer who builds a bridge to let enemy troops kill Muslims a fighter? What about a scout who provides warning and lets enemy soldiers kill? What about someone who cuts off a water supply? Someone who operates a catapult to knock down walls? Someone who lays down suppressive fire, but doesn't actually kill anyone? Someone who shoots and misses?

Someone who actively takes up arms against other Muslims. It's explicit. There's a paper in Arabic all about why it's incorrect to kill people who are paying with tax dollars (a Ph.D. dissertation), etc. It's the strictest definition you'll ever find. Can you read Arabic? I'll dig it up for you.

I posted the link between religiosity and societal success in an earlier thread (if you can't find it, ask me and I'll dig it up again). You dismissed it by saying "correlation != causation", which I agree with, but correlation CAN be evidence.

Post it, in my quest for something explicit.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Okay, enlighten me: in your version of Islam, what is the legality of conversion from Islam?

I think you know the answer to that. But that was not the original post. You mentioned treatment of women. The apostasy law is definitely only in an Islamic state, but also, some of the Maliki schools consider exile an option. But that's not really what I intended to quote.

Edit: OOPS, I quoted the wrong portion. I meant to do the treatment of women.

 

[Chairman Yang]

So, I am going to go tell my friend to claim that he's a Muslim right before he commits a crime. Perfect definition, am I right?

Sure. If your friend actually considered himself a Muslim, he'd fall within the definition. If he just said he was a Muslim for no apparent reason except your bidding, I'm not sure that would apply.

I have trouble seeing why your very contrived scenario impugns my definition at all.

Your definition is imperfect for uses of debate, and it's practically useless and actually inhibits any sort of constructive form of argumentation.

I don't agree, obviously. But again, if you have a better definition I'd love to hear it.

I have every post right in front of me. I never asserted anything. YOU DID. The burden of proof is on you. I never said that "Islam has never done everything bad". That's not my claim.

Ok, so do you believe that Islam has never caused anything bad? Because if that's not your claim, then I probably have no argument with you.

I stand by "he who asserts must prove". You asserted. YOU PROVE. If your evidence sucks, then that's your problem.

I already said what I asserted: that ideologies cause actions. Everything else I've said follows from that.

Do you want me to prove that an ideology can cause an action? Because I don't think you disagree with me there.

Again, check my posts. I made no such claim. I've been attacking your claim all along.

I stated by claim above. You've been attacking that? I doubt it.

 

[East Clintwood]

It's okay for these Muslims to be angry. They just should start accepting Jesus as their personal savior and things will be fine. Maybe they don't have enough Bibles down there. We should drop some for them. And make it a duty for every Soldier in Iraq to hand out Bibles to the population, maybe in crowded places like mosques and the like. Just hand them out like flyers. They'll appreciate it.

These sons of bitches! :lol

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Sure. If your friend actually considered himself a Muslim, he'd fall within the definition. If he just said he was a Muslim for no apparent reason except your bidding, I'm not sure that would apply.

I have trouble seeing why your very contrived scenario impugns my definition at all.

What if I don't believe he was acting Islamically? Then the debate would derail to what is Islamic and what is not. I have my own arguments for what is Islamic and what is not.

Ok, so do you believe that Islam has never caused anything bad? Because if that's not your claim, then I probably have no argument with you.

Look, to say that "Islam causes something bad" is a vacuous statement. What do you mean by "cause"? What do you mean by "bad"? Has the existence of Islam caused negative things to arise? Maybe. But cars cause car accidents also. So it's a vacuous statement that doesn't mean anything.

I already said what I asserted: that ideologies cause actions. Everything else I've said follows from that.

Well, beliefs can cause actions. Not every action is caused by a belief. Some people do things for no apparent reason, and sometimes you can't figure out why they did it.

Second of all, this stems to Islam as an ideology. Which goes back to the definition of Islam, if we have to go anywhere.

If any action a "Muslim" does is "Islamic", the definition would create contradictions in terms, because "Muslims" do plenty of "Un-islamic" things. Jeez, soon we'll be claiming that Muslims drinking alcohol is an Islamic action.

Edit: Just because because I don't claim something does not mean I do or do not believe in something. I'm restricting the focus to your claim, that's it.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Someone who actively takes up arms against other Muslims. It's explicit. There's a paper in Arabic all about why it's incorrect to kill people who are paying with tax dollars (a Ph.D. dissertation), etc. It's the strictest definition you'll ever find. Can you read Arabic? I'll dig it up for you.

So if the definition is so clear, which of the people in the situations I posted are combatants?

I can't read Arabic, but even if I could, I'm not sure the paper you have would help. It represents one interpretation and opinion, not the consensus of everyone. Are you saying that there's not one person, who considers himself a Muslim, who would have a different interpretation? What makes this dissertation the "right" interpretation and some other guy's interpretation "wrong"?

Post it, in my quest for something explicit.

Here's the one I believe I posted before: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

Here's a different one: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html although it's not quite as useful because it only talks about "prosperous democracies".

Again, I stress, as you have, that correlation does not equal causation. But it is evidence.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

So if the definition is so clear, which of the people in the situations I posted are combatants?

I can't read Arabic, but even if I could, I'm not sure the paper you have would help. It represents one interpretation and opinion, not the consensus of everyone. Are you saying that there's not one person, who considers himself a Muslim, who would have a different interpretation? What makes this dissertation the "right" interpretation and some other guy's interpretation "wrong"?

Well, uh, that's what a dissertation intends to argue. It argues for a case based on support and evidence, and gives logical reasons to rule out other arguments. DUH! That's why you would have to read it to pass a judgement.

Here's the one I believe I posted before: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

Here's a different one: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html although it's not quite as useful because it only talks about "prosperous democracies".

Again, I stress, as you have, that correlation does not equal causation. But it is evidence.

Hopefully, later this week I'll give you a point by point breakdown of both of those articles. I've already looked at the first one, and I may not present necessarily a form of "refutation", but I'll take time to see what I can find.

 

[East Clintwood]

Bonus question: Why do Muslims always have to mention that they are like 1.5 billion? I mean look at what these 1.5 billion Muslims are contributing to the world and then for an example compare it to what the 14 million Jews are contributing to the world. See? Always about quality.

 

[Chairman Yang]

What if I don't believe he was acting Islamically? Then the debate would derail to what is Islamic and what is not. I have my own arguments for what is Islamic and what is not.

Cool. But again, why is this important? You can say something is "Islamic" or it isn't. But ultimately an ideology is what people BELIEVE that ideology to be, not what one person thinks that ideology is.

Look, to say that "Islam causes something bad" is a vacuous statement. What do you mean by "cause"? What do you mean by "bad"? Has the existence of Islam caused negative things to arise? Maybe. But cars cause car accidents also. So it's a vacuous statement that doesn't mean anything.

I'm not going to define "cause" or "bad" for you, because I think you know what I mean in this context.

So. We can agree that the existence of Islam has caused negative things to arise? That's all I needed to know. Now we can proceed from there.

I agree that cars cause car accidents. I also believe, however, that the car's benefits outweigh its negatives.

Now, to apply this to Islam. I believe that Islam's benefits have not outweighed its negatives. Do you believe otherwise? Well, that's what I was trying to get people to debate (look at some of my earlier posts in this thread). I'd love to hear your arguments on the issue.

Well, beliefs can cause actions. Not every action is caused by a belief. Some people do things for no apparent reason, and sometimes you can't figure out why they did it.

I completely agree.

Second of all, this stems to Islam as an ideology. Which goes back to the definition of Islam, if we have to go anywhere.

I think this is a very fundamental point of disagreement with me. I think you can discuss the effects of an ideology without discussing the ideology itself (although it would certainly help). Just like you can discuss the costs and benefits of a car without knowing the inner workings of a car.

If any action a "Muslim" does is "Islamic", the definition would create contradictions in terms, because "Muslims" do plenty of "Un-islamic" things. Jeez, soon we'll be claiming that Muslims drinking alcohol is an Islamic action.

It's irrelevant whether the actions a Muslim takes are Islamic or not, for purposes of my main point.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Cool. But again, why is this important? You can say something is "Islamic" or it isn't. But ultimately an ideology is what people BELIEVE that ideology to be, not what one person thinks that ideology is.



I'm not going to define "cause" or "bad" for you, because I think you know what I mean in this context.

So. We can agree that the existence of Islam has caused negative things to arise? That's all I needed to know. Now we can proceed from there.

I agree that cars cause car accidents. I also believe, however, that the car's benefits outweigh its negatives.

Now, to apply this to Islam. I believe that Islam's benefits have not outweighed its negatives. Do you believe otherwise? Well, that's what I was trying to get people to debate (look at some of my earlier posts in this thread). I'd love to hear your arguments on the issue.



I completely agree.



I think this is a very fundamental point of disagreement with me. I think you can discuss the effects of an ideology without discussing the ideology itself (although it would certainly help). Just like you can discuss the costs and benefits of a car without knowing the inner workings of a car.



It's irrelevant whether the actions a Muslim takes are Islamic or not, for purposes of my main point.

If you want to show that Islam is a destructive ideology (that is, it's bad outweighs its good), you have to show that the actions of Muslims are Islamic, because you're using them as a form of evidence. If you just define whoever as a Muslim, it doesn't accomplish anything to establish a point that Islam is destructive. You have to bridge the Muslims with Islam in order to follow through with your conclusion without a non-sequitur.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Well, uh, that's what a dissertation intends to argue. It argues for a case based on support and evidence, and gives logical reasons to rule out other arguments. DUH! That's why you would have to read it to pass a judgement.

The dissertation could be the best thing ever, and make the most convincing case, but it wouldn't make a difference. Someone is going to believe that the dissertation is wrong (even if the face of overwhelming evidence) regardless. Are they wrong? For something as subjective and faith-based as religion, I can't say they are.

That's why I'm saying it's not important for purposes of this discussion. People are going to follow Islam the way they see fit, regardless of anything else. That's why I think it's silly to pick out one definition of Islam as the "right" one, when tons of people won't follow it and would consider their definition of Islam the right one.

Hopefully, later this week I'll give you a point by point breakdown of both of those articles. I've already looked at the first one, and I may not present necessarily a form of "refutation", but I'll take time to see what I can find.

Thanks, I'd appreciate that. I'll have to leave this thread now, and get ready for class.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Edited: I have to revise some stuff.

 

[callous]

You're wrong on so many accounts, but I'll pick this one since it is, to me, the most grating of your misconceptions:

I see a double standard on your part. If someone claimed (via cartoons or whatever) that Judaism is a "culture of violent aggression that kills innocent people because they believe that some land belongs to them", you'd be the first to agree that you can't have this in our Western society. Heck, people critical of Israel are barred from speaking at public events in the States...why aren't you crying about the right of free speech being eroded? But when it comes to Muslims, you conveniently turn a blind eye...don't you?

In Denmark, you can rest 100% assured that you can say whatever the f*ck you want about whatever the hell religion it pleases you to mock and you will come away physically 100% intact.

Well, except maybe if you choose Islam.

Now why is that?

 

[APF]

There's no connection between people who would violently attack you for saying negative things about Islam and actual Muslims, except in your fevered racist mind, you racist who is bigoted against the Muslim race of Muslims.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

CY,FFF, and TSF broke my ability to concentrate.


The comic was in bad taste and the reactions were in bad taste. / Thread

 

[callous]

There's no connection between people who would violently attack you for saying negative things about Islam and actual Muslims, except in your fevered racist mind, you racist who is bigoted against the Muslim race of Muslims.

At least there's some kind of explanation, then.