Support NeoGAF

[Hyperactivity]

The foundational idea of liberalism is really the rights of the individual (and there is a whole bunch of stuff we could talk about about the creation of the liberal individual) while democracy is, at its core, about the rights of the majority upon the individual. Using the term 'rights' loosely here.

So there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of any liberal democracy, a clash between a person imagined as separate from society, and a person who is part of and owes everything to, society.

Part of the issue is a disconnect between the theoretical foundations of liberalism and its form as a political movement. You find that people often will discuss 'rights' in a vacuum, as though there is no philosophical foundation to the idea. Indeed the fact that 'rights' have a particular intellectual origin, and justification seems lost on many. The concept of rights stems from justification of their utility, and beyond 'natural law' arguments (essentially the idea that 'rights' are apparent in creation and therefore a sign of natural law, and therefore an extension of God's will/law) aren't really stand alone things.

You could argue that conservatism can provide a foundation for the validity of 'rights' as a concept but really we start moving away from liberalism when we do so.

Isn't the point that people find, or try to find, a balance here?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Is this your own supposition?

No

I have never heard of a liberal who renounces one completely for the other, so the art has always been in the balance.

'Balance' evokes two opposite sides of a see saw... except those who evoke liberalism in favor of this or that thing will just as unthinkingly evoke 'democracy' in their next conversation. Liberty, like democracy, are most often used as a rhetorical bludgeon. The force behind the rhetoric of both is less 'look at the coherent logic of this political ideal' but rather an appeal to the wealth of countries where both have influence.

The many can vote for the liberty of the individual. & how do you get equality in your definition of liberalism if not accounting for the many?

Liberalism isn't about equality, really. A vote can be cast 'for the liberty of an individual' but it can also be cast against. That's the point. Robespierre's 'despotism of liberty against tyranny' and Voltaire's 'enlightened absolutism' are in many respects a logical extension of liberal thought. Liberalism requires the disciplining of illiberal subjects... a 'despotism'. The maintenance of the liberal individual requires the state to the same extent which it disdains it.

 

[Ashes]

I think we have to agree to disagree on the equality front. Social Liberalism - or parts there of - doesn't make sense to me otherwise. In fact so very many things that fall within the umbrella of Liberal thought are drawn from a desire to invoke equality, or to reach a state where that is made manifest.

I don't dispute that this isn't absolute. Liberate the individual, sure, but don't let him steal from his neighbour, or murder his brother.

And to my mind a democracy, where as many people as possible have somewhat equal rights and say on the matter, to decide on how we live door to door, is how you come to balance the two.

It's not perfect, and it's not static either, we push back on fourth, but overall it appears to me a better idea and better course than most. As a digression, I'd be interested to hear your views on how society and its construct has changed from Muhammed's era.

In trying to readdress the debate with Islam and focus on secular liberalism, what are your fears concerning Islamic thought and practise changing in a secular liberal democratic society?
And again, here I still struggle to follow your definitions of a Muslim's Islam.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I think we have to agree to disagree on the equality front. Social Liberalism - or parts there of - doesn't make sense to me otherwise. In fact so very many things that fall within the umbrella of Liberal thought are drawn from a desire to invoke equality, or to reach a state where that is made manifest.

The desire to evoke equality comes from outside liberal thought, a necessary product of classical liberalism's anti social tendencys and general denial about reality.

And to my mind a democracy, where as many people as possible have somewhat equal rights and say on the matter, to decide on how we live door to door, is how you come to balance the two.

The reality of modern neo-liberal states is that they have globalised the same dynamics that underpinned early liberalism, rights for some.

It's not perfect, and it's not static either, we push back on fourth, but overall it appears to me a better idea and better course than most. As a digression, I'd be interested to hear your views on how society and its construct has changed from Muhammed's era.

Scale is to my mind the primary difference.

In trying to readdress the debate with Islam and focus on secular liberalism, what are your fears concerning Islamic thought and practise changing in a secular liberal democratic society?

People confuse the dominance of the Empire with the soundness of the lies it tells itself. Then they believe those lies wholeheartedly, and in turn endorse the Empire itself.

And again, here I still struggle to follow your definitions of a Muslim's Islam.

I'm not sure what the confusion is.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Ottoman, can I ask you something?

Do you game? I assume you do, since you're in NeoGAF after all. What games are you playing/what your favorite games to play?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Ottoman, can I ask you something?

Do you game? I assume you do, since you're in NeoGAF after all. What games are you playing/what your favorite games to play?

Certainly, though not as much as I used to. Have a long running Civ 5 game at the moment, play by email, 24 hour turns.


Why do you ask?

 

[Ashes]

People confuse the dominance of the Empire with the soundness of the lies it tells itself. Then they believe those lies wholeheartedly, and in turn endorse the Empire itself.

Which empire? Or do you mean the west as an entity?
I think I can see where we part.
Apart from disliking when people talk of Islam or the West as monolithic states, I see and trust in the agency of individuals in a free society. Sometimes you need greater state involvement to level the playing field I suppose e.g. welfare checks

What kind of framework do you see Islam flourishing best in?

 

[Laughing Banana]

Certainly, though not as much as I used to. Have a long running Civ 5 game at the moment, play by email, 24 hour turns.


Why do you ask?

No special reason, just curious hahaha.

 

[Oogedei]

Since debating isn't welcome in the Ramadan thread, here's my reply to Ottoman Scribe:

So replace all the important words then?

It's not about the words, they're exchangeble. It's about the mechanism of this use of language. "Our values are in danger", "Our religion (also values just religious values) are in danger". It's the same thing because its goal is to create an imaginary "us" with an agenda behind it. That's exactly what the Republicans in the US for example do (Islam is a threat for our values) and also what you do (Liberalism is a threat for our true Islam). It's the creation of an ideology.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I think that there is overwhelmingly a concern for orthodoxy and legitimacy in practice amongst Muslims, but even those concerned with orthodoxy find their expression of that same ideal stymied by a mess of liberal language. Ironically language concerned with expression 'on individual terms' is ultimately pushed by external forces, making that expression on individual terms ultimately futile.

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. You don't understand the matter here. It's not about what you think is right for the people or in which way they should follow their religion/ lack of religion.

Who is talking about force?

So how are you going to change the people without force? I'm not even talking about physical force.

I don't believe this to be the case, I think that the number of Muslims who are actively engaged with their religion is on the rise, it is the type of engagement that we have with the religion that is changing.

You teach history so you're able to tell us what happened with the other older religions. Islam is 600 years younger, so yes it's not on the decline yet. A lot of my family in Turkey is becoming atheists though, the younger generation too. They're not openly admitting it because they're under pressure since the majority of the religious people there don't tolerate atheists. It's the same in countries like Iran. Yeah, you have a de facto 100% muslim population but just because the state punishes apostasy. In fact you get killed for it so it's no wonder why the statistics are like that. Wait till these people don't have to fear punishment anymore and you will be suprised by the number of atheists.

If the initial function of an ideology was to maintain dominance, what has changed about that ideology to ultimately remove that function?

Liberalism had good ideas but the agenda behind it was flawed and that's why other ideas like post-structuralism/ postmodernism emerged. They subtracted these power structures from these ideas. Your logic is to simply abolish everything just because there was an agenda originally which doesn't make any sense.

The claim that liberalism and democracy contradict each other is simply wrong (and I'm not even a fan of liberalism). You seem to ignore a huge mass of liberalist theorists such as Rawls and Habermas (as a history teacher, ouch!). Liberalism is not a stiff set of ideas since there are very different streams within it, some are contradictory to democracy and others stress the band between liberalism and democracy.
But apart from this I think we should seperate this secular liberalism of muslims from the original liberalism.

Furthermore, you're only answering to 25% of my post and ignoring other questions emerging from your statements. You don't even mention what other model of society you would prefer. When you fear that the acceptance of the LGBT community by muslims will lead to the loss of their true Islam, then what should you do instead? What do you do with these people and why do you think that a society where everyone owns equal rights, is a bad thing (apart from this "liberalism is evil" thinking)? What is your suggestion? This won't be a fruitful discussion when you only criticise others without stating your opinion on these things.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Which empire? Or do you mean the west as an entity?
I think I can see where we part.

My point is an analogical one.

Apart from disliking when people talk of Islam or the West as monolithic states, I see and trust in the agency of individuals in a free society.

What is a 'free society'? How are individuals created and what is the import of their agency?

Sometimes you need greater state involvement to level the playing field I suppose e.g. welfare checks

That's pretty illiberal of you.

What kind of framework do you see Islam flourishing best in?

Islam endures regardless, each epoch has its own challenges.

It's not about the words, they're exchangeble.

I don't believe they are and that was my point. How are they exchangeable?

It's about the mechanism of this use of language. "Our values are in danger", "Our religion (also values just religious values) are in danger". It's the same thing because its goal is to create an imaginary "us" with an agenda behind it.

Alternatively it reflects a reality and the mechanism works because there is an 'us' to talk about.

That's exactly what the Republicans in the US for example do (Islam is a threat for our values) and also what you do (Liberalism is a threat for our true Islam). It's the creation of an ideology.

It isn't 'the creation of an ideology'. What is the problem with that? Islamic thought IS a threat to republican values.

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. You don't understand the matter here. It's not about what you think is right for the people or in which way they should follow their religion/ lack of religion.

lol. No the problem is that you aren't clear.

So how are you going to change the people without force? I'm not even talking about physical force.

What are you talking about then? The term normally means 'coercion'. Is argument coercion?

You teach history so you're able to tell us what happened with the other older religions. Islam is 600 years younger, so yes it's not on the decline yet. A lot of my family in Turkey is becoming atheists though, the younger generation too.

Cool. Except Turkey more generally has been in a religious revival. Its secularism has been maintained predominantly through a secular core's use of force on a religious periphery.

They're not openly admitting it because they're under pressure since the majority of the religious people there don't tolerate atheists. It's the same in countries like Iran. Yeah, you have a de facto 100% muslim population but just because the state punishes apostasy. In fact you get killed for it so it's no wonder why the statistics are like that. Wait till these people don't have to fear punishment anymore and you will be suprised by the number of atheists.

And yet the entirety of Central Asia had 80 years of enforced atheism, held over their heads through threat of violence, you go there today though and there is a religious revival in progress. Speaking of republican rhetoric, what you're doing here is referring to a 'silent majority' lol.

Liberalism had good ideas but the agenda behind it was flawed and that's why other ideas like post-structuralism/ postmodernism emerged. They subtracted these power structures from these ideas. Your logic is to simply abolish everything just because there was an agenda originally which doesn't make any sense.

That isn't how I'd characterise either poststructuralism or postmodernism.

The claim that liberalism and democracy contradict each other is simply wrong (and I'm not even a fan of liberalism).

It isn't enough to just say 'you're wrong'... I've explained my point, where are its flaws?

You seem to ignore a huge mass of liberalist theorists such as Rawls and Habermas (as a history teacher, ouch!).

How so?

Liberalism is not a stiff set of ideas since there are very different streams within it, some are contradictory to democracy and others stress the band between liberalism and democracy.

There are some that view the two as compatible but I disagree for the reasons outlined above.

But apart from this I think we should seperate this secular liberalism of muslims from the original liberalism.

What?

Furthermore, you're only answering to 25% of my post and ignoring other questions emerging from your statements.

Which points have you made that I've ignored?

You don't even mention what other model of society you would prefer.

I'm not a utopian.

When you fear that the acceptance of the LGBT community by muslims will lead to the loss of their true Islam, then what should you do instead?

I haven't discussed that at all, you're thinking of somebody else.

What do you do with these people and why do you think that a society where everyone owns equal rights, is a bad thing (apart from this "liberalism is evil" thinking)?

I've already addressed this above.

What is your suggestion? This won't be a fruitful discussion when you only criticise others without stating your opinion on these things.

Why not?

 

[Oogedei]

I don't believe they are and that was my point. How are they exchangeable?

You don't even deliver one single argument for your "point". I explained it, you just have to read it. It's just a mechanism to unite a mass of people against other people/ ideas. You could exchange it with every arbitrary word to make an agenda out of it, the aim of this mechanism remains the same though.

Alternatively it reflects a reality and the mechanism works because there is an 'us' to talk about.

Yeah, which "us" then (again you're only stating bland phrases without any explanation)? There is no us. To have an "us" would mean to have a mass of completely similar people, but the muslims aren't all the same . There's a huge diversity among muslims over the world - this is the "reality". What you refer to is what you want to be the "us", but that's just your opinion. I and many other muslims disagree.

It isn't 'the creation of an ideology'. What is the problem with that? Islamic thought IS a threat to republican values.

The concept of "threat" itself is pure ideology. What threat? That others believe in other things? That some people have a different idea of Islam? That the way how they're living their Islam is different from the way you're living it? There is no threat for your true Islam. You can believe whatever you like, nobody is forcing you to give up your true Islam. It's the same with the Republicans. They're whining about how Islamic thought is a threat for the US. No, it simply isn't.

lol. No the problem is that you aren't clear.

Which part was unclear? I have no problem with repeating myself.

What are you talking about then? The term normally means 'coercion'. Is argument coercion?

Propaganda for example, though it's coercion somehow, but that isn't even the point here. I've asked what you would do instead. There was no answer to this of course. You said that you wouldn't force them, but how do you convince them then?

Cool. Except Turkey more generally has been in a religious revival. Its secularism has been maintained predominantly through a secular core's use of force on a religious periphery.

This may be true, but the majority of Turkey was always muslim. This is changing.

And yet the entirety of Central Asia had 80 years of enforced atheism, held over their heads through threat of violence, you go there today though and there is a religious revival in progress. Speaking of republican rhetoric, what you're doing here is referring to a 'silent majority' lol.

Religious revival? You realise that there's still violence there today, right? It just changed from punishing religious people to punishing atheist people/ people with other beliefs. If you want to say that Iran is in a religious revival just because the state is making Islam obligatory, go ahead. It's still false.

That isn't how I'd characterise either poststructuralism or postmodernism.

Poststructuralism and postmodernism maintained the majority of the core values of liberalism. That's not the way you characterise them that's certainly true since there is much more to it, but the idea that everyone should have their rights and that these rights have to be protected are still part of it.

It isn't enough to just say 'you're wrong'... I've explained my point, where are its flaws?

I delivered an answer. If you want to look at specific examples you could look at the discourse ethics of Habermas.

How so?

Because it seems like you don't know much about it.

There are some that view the two as compatible but I disagree for the reasons outlined above.

I don't think that the mere fact that you disagree changes the fact that influencial theorists discussed this matter and established certain ideas within Liberalism. Especially because their explanations tend to be more specific than your superficial definition of Liberalism.

What?

From a sociological standpoint it makes no sense to categorize them as "secular liberalists" when you continue to stick to your strict definition of Liberalism. "Secular" would be sufficient enough, since this seems to be your problem. You only attack them on this liberalism level though, which is strange.

Which points have you made that I've ignored?

Quite a lot. E.g. you made the point that some states allow you to openly practise your religion while Western countries restrict it. I said that this is the case yes, but other religions/ opinions are restricted in those countries which allow you to practise yours. It seems like you would rather ignore those facts.

I'm not a utopian.

Nobody asked for the perfect society. But since you appear to dislike these ideas of society you should have an idea what to change about it.

I haven't discussed that at all, you're thinking of somebody else.

But you entered this discussion while we talked about this topic and made your points according to the things said to this specific topic (and furthermore you seem to believe this, correct me if not)

I've already addressed this above.

Uhm...not really. I checked everything but there is no explanation or whatsoever.

Why not?

Seriously?

 

[OttomanScribe]

You don't even deliver one single argument for your "point". I explained it, you just have to read it. It's just a mechanism to unite a mass of people against other people/ ideas. You could exchange it with every arbitrary word to make an agenda out of it, the aim of this mechanism remains the same though.

No your point really isn't clear beyond 'there are arguments which have broad appeal and so groups of people mobilize around them'.. the problem with which isn't entirely clear.

Yeah, which "us" then (again you're only stating bland phrases without any explanation)? There is no us. To have an "us" would mean to have a mass of completely similar people, but the muslims aren't all the same . There's a huge diversity among muslims over the world - this is the "reality". What you refer to is what you want to be the "us", but that's just your opinion. I and many other muslims disagree.

That there is diversity is a given, how this obscures commonalities is unclear.

The concept of "threat" itself is pure ideology. What threat? That others believe in other things? That some people have a different idea of Islam? That the way how they're living their Islam is different from the way you're living it? There is no threat for your true Islam. You can believe whatever you like, nobody is forcing you to give up your true Islam. It's the same with the Republicans. They're whining about how Islamic thought is a threat for the US. No, it simply isn't.

Yeah I'm not buying it. These strange individualism obscures social realities and the function of movements.

Which part was unclear? I have no problem with repeating myself.

You're saying I don't understand the matter, what don't I understand?

Propaganda for example, though it's coercion somehow, but that isn't even the point here.

'Propaganda' is not coercion.

I've asked what you would do instead. There was no answer to this of course. You said that you wouldn't force them, but how do you convince them then?

Convince who? You're saying I shouldn't be making the points I am because I am apparently using force to do so... yet it is unclear exactly what force I am using and who it is directed at.

This may be true, but the majority of Turkey was always muslim. This is changing.

There are fluctuations in the religious identity within particular geographic regions, so the idea that 'the majority of Turkey was always Muslim' is both not true and doesn't even work for your argument.

Religious revival? You realise that there's still violence there today, right? It just changed from punishing religious people to punishing atheist people/ people with other beliefs. If you want to say that Iran is in a religious revival just because the state is making Islam obligatory, go ahead. It's still false.

How do such things occur? Do they occur in a vacuum? Is there nothing behind these things save the arbitrary decisions of ruling elites? A religious revival is a religious revival, sometimes there is violence associated with that but the reality is that the revival is a requirement for the latter to occur in the first place.

Poststructuralism and postmodernism maintained the majority of the core values of liberalism. That's not the way you characterise them that's certainly true since there is much more to it, but the ideasthat everyone should have their rights and that these rights have to be protected are still part of it.

How does poststructuralist antihumanism work to maintain liberalism's core values? What are liberalism's core values?

I delivered an answer. If you want to look at specific examples you could look at the discourse ethics of Habermas.

Don't refer vaguely to a theorist, if you say they support you, explain how.

Because it seems like you don't know much about it.

I said 'how so' as in 'explain your point' I wasn't ask you why you were making it.

I don't think that the mere fact that you disagree changes the fact that influencial theorists discussed this matter and established certain ideas within Liberalism. Especially because their explanations tend to be more specific than your superficial definition of Liberalism.

This is a discussion, for a discussion to occur you need to engage with the points I am making. This isn't doing so. If you are saying that specific liberal theorists disagree with me, and their points are more cogent than my own then you have to show how and in what way for there to be a meaningful engagement.

From a sociological standpoint it makes no sense to categorize them as "secular liberalists" when you continue to stick to your strict definition of Liberalism. "Secular" would be sufficient enough, since this seems to be your problem. You only attack them on this liberalism level though, which is strange.

Makes no sense to categorise who?

Quite a lot. E.g. you made the point that some states allow you to openly practise your religion while Western countries restrict it. I said that this is the case yes, but other religions/ opinions are restricted in those countries which allow you to practise yours. It seems like you would rather ignore those facts.

How does the point that there are varying levels of restriction to religious practice across liberal and illiberal states contradict something which I've said? How is it a point against me?

Nobody asked for the perfect society. But since you appear to dislike these ideas of society you should have an idea what to change about it.

Surely critique is required for such a thing to occur?

But you entered this discussion while we talked about this topic and made your points according to the things said to this specific topic (and furthermore you seem to believe this, correct me if not)

Seem to believe what?

Uhm...not really. I checked everything but there is no explanation or whatsoever.

People confuse the dominance of the Empire with the soundness of the lies it tells itself. Then they believe those lies wholeheartedly, and in turn endorse the Empire itself.

As I said above.

Seriously?

Yes seriously, how is critique not itself a constructive act, how does critique make a discussion cease to be fruitful?

 

[Oogedei]

No your point really isn't clear beyond 'there are arguments which have broad appeal and so groups of people mobilize around them'.. the problem with which isn't entirely clear.

The problem is that you use the same rethoric mechanisms as others who want to unite certain groups and set them up against other ideas/ people. You talk about true Islam and how secular people pose a threat to it. Republicans talk about their values (e.g. christianity) and how Muslims pose a threat to it. The problem is that there is no threat. It just enables to spread hatred towards others. You use the same mechanisms but you point towards other groups which changes the definition of who "us" and who the bad guys are but it doesn't change the effect of this kind of argumentation. This is as easy as it gets.

That there is diversity is a given, how this obscures commonalities is unclear.

Which communalities? The fact that we all read the Qur'an? It seems like we get completly different things out of it when I look over your last responses, so where is our communality? My perception (and of some others here) seem to be world's apart from yours, so where's the us? Yeah, there is no us.

Yeah I'm not buying it. These strange individualism obscures social realities and the function of movements.

What exactly? The fact that no secular Muslims poses a threat on your Islam? Again not even a short explanation. Since when do people who are in favour of freedom of religion and equality obstruct social realities and function of movements?

Convince who? You're saying I shouldn't be making the points I am because I am apparently using force to do so... yet it is unclear exactly what force I am using and who it is directed at.

Originally it was about convincing the people who aren't (in your opinion) following the true Islam. I said that you can't force them to become Muslims. You said why force them and I've asked: well how are you supposed to convice them then?

What you wrote now...at this point, I don't even know what you're referring to

There are fluctuations in the religious identity within particular geographic regions, so the idea that 'the majority of Turkey was always Muslim' is both not true and doesn't even work for your argument.

It is true. The highest amount of non-muslims since the foundations of the Republic of Turkey was in 1927 with 2,5% of the population being non-muslims (source : Icduygu, A., Toktas, S., & Soner, B. A. (2008). The politics of population in a nation-building process: Emigration of non-muslims from turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(2), 358-389.). Of course there are particular geographic regions with other religious identities but still the majority was always muslim and there is proof to back this up. I guess you're confusing the establishing of an laicist state with being non-muslim.

How do such things occur? Do they occur in a vacuum? Is there nothing behind these things save the arbitrary decisions of ruling elites? A religious revival is a religious revival, sometimes there is violence associated with that but the reality is that the revival is a requirement for the latter to occur in the first place.

You mean the revolution in Iran? Yeah it certainly didn't occur in a vaccum. Instead the Western countries pushed it to its position. Since you don't want to hear about the people there who suffer under this regime and don't want to live under it, there is no use in talking about this case honestly.

How does poststructuralist antihumanism work to maintain liberalism's core values? What are liberalism's core values?

You could ask one of the most famous poststructurists Judith Butler what she thinks about human rights. Hint: she won't be delighted by your claims since she's a feminist and fighting for the women rights. Uhm it's right there dude: " but the idea that everyone should have their rights and that these rights have to be protected are still part of it." Antihumanism doesn't mean that you abolish human rights.

Don't refer vaguely to a theorist, if you say they support you, explain how.

Since you're an academic you should be able to look for these theories and not rely on me to explain every single liberalist theory supporting democracy. I will include a list of essential books at the end of my post. Read it or not, since this isn't even my concern in this discussion.

I said 'how so' as in 'explain yor point' I wasn't ask you why you were making it.

This doesn't make any sense. You don't know these theories of course you automatically ignore them when you don't know about their existence..

This is a discussion, for a discussion to occur you need to engage with the points I am making. This isn't doing so. If you are saying that specific liberal theorists disagree with me, and their points are more cogent than my own then you have to show how and in what way for there to be a meaningful engagement.

Again this isn't even my concern in this discussion. I don't know how this discussion should benefit from your liberalism is so evil talk. I don't want to talk endlessly about this. You don't deliver any point apart from liberalism is about the individual and democracy is about the will of the mass which is contradictory according to you. Honestly as a political scientist this gives me headaches.

no sense to categorise who?

The "liberal" seculars posing a threat to the true Islam of Muslims.

How does the point that there are varying levels of restriction to religious practice across liberal and illiberal states contradict something which I've said? How is it a point against me?

I didn't say that. You ignored it that's all.

Surely critique is required for such a thing to occur?

Yeah, but constructive criticism.

Seem to believe what?

That secular muslims who fight for the rights of the LGBT community pose a threat to the true Islam of the Muslims.

People confuse the dominance of the Empire with the soundness of the lies it tells itself. Then they believe those lies wholeheartedly, and in turn endorse the Empire itself.

As I said above.

Uhm, so this is a reason why there shouldn't be equal rights granted to everyone?

Yes seriously, how is critique not itself a constructive act, how does critique make a discussion cease to be fruitful?

Because I hardly see any critique. Most of it is just asking back without explaining anything, using extremely simplified arguments and no indication about what you exactly dislike about equal rights for everyone other than human rights being a part of liberalism at one point of history. But first attempts of human rights existed long before the emerging of liberalism , so I don't really get what your problem is with it.

Fishkin: Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform

Habermas: the theory of communicative Action

Pretty much every book by Rawls 

 

[Ashes]

That's pretty illiberal of you.

Sounds like defacto Social Liberalism to me.

 

[OttomanScribe]

This conversation is getting excessive with the quote by quote so I'll address your points generally.

The issue here seems to be that we have a fundamentally different idea about how human societies function. This is why we are talking past each other. You imagine a specific thing, the individual, which as a unit is fundamentally distinct from others.. almost a being without contingency, an island.

For me the very idea of such a being is a creation, an innovation, a product of a particular time and place. To you there are no social movements... there are only individuals, for me without society there is no individual.

You seem to quote theorists in support of this but my readings of any of those you quoted doesn't seem to negate my points. I concede that liberalism has a fundamental problem approaching 'groups' but that is part of the point. I'm talking about the flaws of liberal thought and you're getting frustrated that I won't take this or that theorist's word as gospel.

This ahistoricising move is precisely what I have a problem with... the illogical endorsement of 'the strange fantasies of liberal philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Smith, about the origins of human society in some collection of thirty- or forty-year-old males who seem to have sprung from the earth fully formed, then have to decide whether to kill each other or begin to swap beaver pelts.'

 

[Ashes]

Not sure who you're addressing, but I don't think it is me. My point of view is that you're attacking shadows, and nothing more.

Your claims hinge on understanding things from a historical perspective but you hark back to origins, with no clear prerogative - when debating me specifically - to understand that changes within the said movements have taken place. And continue to do so.

It is at worst - or best according to some - a cornucopia of views - with each author jostling to further the direction of the movement.

I don't mean to tell you how to understand liberalism, but that perhaps it is best for you to acknowledge that others understand liberalism, and in the context of secular liberal thought, different to you. & within that difference bellies a foundation ripe for ideas such as religion in modern society to both flourish and wither. But the individual will be freer to choose in a secular society than in an modern political Muslim state.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Not sure who you're addressing, but I don't think it is me. My point of view is that you're attacking shadows, and nothing more.

Your claims hinge on understanding things from a historical perspective but you hark back to origins, with no clear prerogative - when debating me specifically - to understand that changes within the said movements have taken place. And continue to do so.

It is at worst - or best according to some - a cornucopia of views - with each author jostling to further the direction of the movement.

I don't mean to tell you how to understand liberalism, but that perhaps it is best for you to acknowledge that others understand liberalism, and in the context of secular liberal thought, different to you. & within that difference bellies a foundation ripe for ideas such as religion in modern society to both flourish and wither. But the individual will be freer to choose in a secular society than in an modern political Muslim state.

You didn't reply to me any further so I wasn't really addressing you.

People may understand things different to me but discussion is an appraisal of understandings, an evaluation of them. My assertion is that liberal thought is a product of particular historical circumstances and in service of particular historical groups. It is not a collection of ahistorical values but rather a rhetorical tool used by particular states and groups within states in serving themselves and their empire.

In this respect the Muslim who lives within such states must be wary of assuming otherwise, particularly in terms of endorsing beliefs which specifically target him, both as Muslim subject and as 'other'.

 

[RustyNails]

That secular muslims who fight for the rights of the LGBT community pose a threat to the true Islam of the Muslims. 

This is not a direct quote but if I may take a stab at this sentiment, and maybe address the larger point OS is trying to make, Muslims are not fighting for the rights of LGBT community per se. Maybe some are because their friends want to get married, but those specific individuals are not a threat to Islam. At best, Muslims are indifferent. As someone who lives in a secular western city with strong Muslim presence, I don't really care if gays are allowed to get married according to the traditions they see fit. This is the advantage of living in a liberal society; I will respect your traditions as long as you respect mine. If the state is oppressing any person, be they gay, lesbian, Christian or atheist, I will fight for them but that is not the case currently. I will start caring when Mosques here start doing Nikahs for Gays and Lesbians or when the state starts forcing Mosques to accept gay Nikahs. Which brings us to the larger point of "Islam is threatened by secular liberal values". Technically Nikah is only possible between Man and Woman. It has very specific set of rules (mahr, guardian's permission, valima, etc). But even Christo-Judaic Marriage Law has very specific set of rules of marriage, but over time the liberal-secular values 'eroded' these rules and OS' fear is that over time, same may happen with Islam. I don't personally see this happening because Islam is not similar to other religions. It governs everything. I could be wrong, but I can understand his concern.

 

[OttomanScribe]

tbh the very emphasis on LGBT issues with regards to Muslim issues is an example of what I'm talking about.. in that it illustrates how contradictory the narrative of liberalism is...

Think about how anti-Muslim advocates use two things: homophobia and misogyny. I've met plenty of anti-Muslim bigots online and their concern with regards to both women and LGBTI people is only up to the point where it can be used as a bludgeon to beat Muslims with. They will talk til their face is blue about how Muslims 'disrespect OUR women' but their actual engagement with feminism is confined to Meninist t shirts.

LGBT issues are brought up usually with no actual concern to how Muslims have historically discussed gender and sexuality (as the T in LGBT has nothing to do with sexuality) but rather with a concern to point out a lack of Muslim liberality. These things are a mark of savagery.

This is curious considering the extent to which homophobia in Muslim communities is a product of the importation of enlightenment ideas into Muslim polities, usually on the back of 'liberal' Empires. So here liberalism is a tool for coercion, not for liberty, and that is how it has always worked.

 

[Ashes]

So here liberalism is a tool for coercion, not for liberty, and that is how it has always worked.

Coercion through argument? In other words, they're trying to persuade you that their ideas are better than yours? All you have to do is ask them whether you're at liberty to believe things that they find illiberal or offensive or whatever tag or label you want to call it? No?

Or is Secular Liberalism bad for allowing for a debate to take place? Islam shouldn't wilt for fear of criticism. That's a cowardly stance. No?

Instead it should be at the head of the marketplace of ideas. God's ideas ought to be the best amongst mankind. And if you're not fit to argue Islam's corner, I dare say, others will take your place.*

As to the LGBT issue, last time I was present between an Imam and a Muslim gay rights activists, and note this is in London, the activist asked the imam, what he - the imam - knew about human sexuality, and what did his predecessors know about human sexuality, that they talked so confidently about rejecting it.
Whilst, I was kinda stumped, cause the science is kinda new, the Imam answered quite confidently, and each went their own way, pleasing their own choirs.

edit: that sounds kinda mean, and I don't at all mean this to come across as mean. My ideas of fitness are.. never mind, I'll just leave this here as it is.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Coercion through argument? In other words, they're trying to persuade you that their ideas are better than yours? All you have to do is ask them whether you're at liberty to believe things that they find illiberal or offensive or whatever tag or label you want to call it? No?

Or is Secular Liberalism bad for allowing for a debate to take place? Islam shouldn't wilt for fear of criticism. That's a cowardly stance. No?

Instead it should be at the head of the marketplace of ideas. God's ideas ought to be the best amongst mankind. And if you're not fit to argue Islam's corner, I dare say, others will take your place. That sounds kinda mean, and I don't at all mean this.

As to the LGBT issue, last time I was present between an Imam and a Muslim gay rights activists, and note this is in London, the activist asked the imam, what he - the imam - knew about human sexuality, and what did his predecessors know about human sexuality, that they talked so confidently about rejecting it.
Whilst, I was kinda stumped, cause the science is kinda new, the Imam answered quite confidently, and each went their own way, pleasing their own choirs.

The arguments of an empire are never merely words, as I shared in the other thread:

In the wake of the brutal and targeted killings of staff at French magazine Charlie Hebdo a huge volume of cartoon eulogies have emerged. The common trend amongst these cartoons is a contrast; the violence of the gun with the pacifism of the pencil. Bleeding pencils, snapped pencils, weeping pencils, all have flooded our timelines to reinforce the point that not only were the cartoonists non-combatants, but that freedom of speech is dichotomous with violence.

This contrast, however, is a false one. Cartoons, like the rhetoric of freedom of speech, have never been distinct from violence. Sinister caricatures of a racist Jewish archetype haunt Europe still. The distorted characterisations of various racial others formed the architecture of the European race sciences which in turn permeated European empire. The height of so called ‘enlightenment values’ was simultaneously the height of European expansion into the rest of the world, often with the purported goal of their spread.

Who, misquoting Voltaire regarding freedom of speech, acknowledges his Napoleon; French ‘freedom’ spread by an Imperial Philosopher King with musket and bayonet? The ‘enlightened absolutism’ of much enlightenment thought shifted from Kings within Europe to Europe as King of the world. Just as the ruler legitimated their rule through enforcing the values of the enlightenment upon the populace, so Europeans’ right to its colonies and ‘mandates’ was made legitimate by the same.

The cry of ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’ thus echoed over vast Imperial holdings long after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were on the books. French colonial violence was justified by the language of rights dangled above the heads of French colonial subjects. The historical violence associated with French rights discourse and racial caricature may be easily forgotten by those to whom it was never directed.

There is no 'marketplace of ideas', just like there is no 'market' without the State. Both are defined ultimately by power relationships, there is no space into which such things do not intrude. Liberalism does not stand on its own, it stands with a million rifles behind it, and it always has.

I wrote this about evolutionary theory, race and Empire and it has further relevancy. Liberalism's primary utility is as a marker of savagery to justify the disciplining of illiberal subjects. Liberal states no more follow its dictates than those they prop up in Muslim lands overseas.

 

[Ashes]

The arguments of an empire are never merely words

There you go with empire again. I know you like to bandy it around because you're persuaded by your own narrative, but I'm not entirely sure that you get that I'm not.

That's not to say it extends to your piece on Evolutionary Theory, Race, and Empire. I agree, at first reading, particularly your points about the worst uses of it. Not only on Race, but I'd add evolutionary pseudopsychology.

But when you talk of the new atheist movement, you've already lost me. I don't care much for any of these new atheist pioneers. Not for their arguments. Not for their perceived popularity. I've heard them speak their anti-religious rhetoric. And all I thought was, why you got to be a dick?

I do however care for knowledge. You say it has no practical use in the Global South, and I don't like that attitude. It's education. And I hold education in very high regard. I personally think a child's education - male and female - should be a human right..
edit: Even though it appears impractical above matters of life and death such as access to clean water.

 

[OttomanScribe]

There you go with empire again. I know you like to bandy it around because you're persuaded by your own narrative, but I'm not entirely sure that you get that I'm not.

That's not to say it extends to your piece on Evolutionary Theory, Race, and Empire. I agree, at first reading, particularly your points about the worst uses of it. Not only on Race, but I'd add evolutionary pseudopsychology.

But when you talk of the new atheist movement, you've already lost me. I don't care much for any of these new atheist pioneers. Not for their arguments. Not for their perceived popularity. I've heard them speak their anti-religious rhetoric. And all I thought was, why you got to be a dick?

I do however care for knowledge. You say it has no practical use in the Global South, and I don't like that attitude. It's education. And I hold education in very high regard. I personally think a child's education - male and female - should be a human right..
edit: Even though it appears impractical above matters of life and death such as access to clean water.

What don't you get about my point about empire? I guess I don't get that you don't 'get' it because you aren't really addressing it. My point is that liberal arguments come with guns, and I support this point through reference to the history (and indeed present) of precisely that. What exactly do you disagree with?

I don't know if you've understood my point about evolution. What I'm saying is that the emphasis upon it is solely as a marker of savagery. The immense emphasis in the importance of 'evolution education' comes not from its utility for life and health. It isn't like the need to know how a combustion engine works or antibiotics, it isn't functional knowledge, at least not save a very few specific circumstances. Which doesn't make it worthless, but doesn't justify the scale of its influence.

Its influence, and importance is solely tied to its use as a tool against religious people. That's it. That is why I compare it to women's rights or whatever, because many of those who use such ideas do so primarily to the end of attacking others, but do not actually care about the lives or state of women at all.

As to the new atheists, that was a reference to the way in which new atheism has become steadily more and more aligned with Empire, justifying interventions against the barbarians at the gate. That however extends to and combines with my point about liberalism more generally. Which is why I brought it into this discussion.

 

[Ashes]

Not merely words... - Where I am saying it allows debates to take place - you intend to frame it on a historical narrative in a scale that essentially includes anything you want to include - in this case French Libertarianism and colonialism.

Whilst I understand that it makes a compelling argument for you, I don't think, it applies to for example the Liberal Welfare reforms in the UK - from 1906 to I can't recall when.

I honestly don't think you have shed light on Al Qaeda's motives either. It was a revenge attack based on insulting the prophet. That by itself is comprehensible to me. That makes sense to me.

You think redressing the focus to include French colonialism makes their case for revenge clearer? No.

Look, I've heard what you've had to say, and I think I am for the most part done. I don't particularly wish to follow you on this fruitless journey. I queried your intellect, and have made my own opinions of it. And for that I say thank you. And it's not just because I'm fasting. hah!

 

[irfaanator]

anybody going to isna in a couple of weeks. thought this would be the best place to ask

 

[Ashes]

There was another attack on western tourists - this time in Burkina Faso. Which reminded me of this thread. That thread will run for a while I guess.

Didn't somebody recommend some youtuber they listened to in times of need and stuff? I'm not feeling down my self. But I remembered that it was a US imam of some kind. And they had regular updates/posts on youtube.

 

[Nemo]

Anyone here happen to be deep into Sufism? And I mean really DEEP

edit, for starters did anyone abstain from the 3 basics of not eating, not talking and not sleeping? And if so for how long?

There was another attack on western tourists - this time in Burkina Faso. Which reminded me of this thread. That thread will run for a while I guess.

Didn't somebody recommend some youtuber they listened to in times of need and stuff? I'm not feeling down my self. But I remembered that it was a US imam of some kind. And they had regular updates/posts on youtube.

There's a few around this subject, I know of this person at least:

https://www.youtube.com/user/Drzakirchannel