Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

But I'm not in a debate with Omer. I can react to his character on GAF if I like. I found him to be obstinate and uncharitable. I'm going to choose to believe that he isn't always like that... It's something about liberal critics of Islam specifically that sends up the greenlight to go in hard and attack. That's the pattern I've observed with Reza Aslan, so I'm drawing a similarity and sharing it with GAF. Take it or leave it I guess.

I'll leave it. I hope you realize though that pontificating that Aziz and Aslan only say what they say because they are attempting to 'resolve their dual identities' is incredibly condescending. I hate it when people dismiss my posts because of what they imagine my thought processes must be. It happens to me a lot on Gaf and I don't like it when others are subjected to the same thing.

If you're asking me how much I know for some reason

Because you used it to attack Aziz and Aslan.

These are the best answers about the faith given by Muslims to Muslims

But that just describes the faith of those preachers. It doesn't tell you anything about Aziz's or Aslan's faith or mine or Rusty's.

 

[Duji]

Its stupid to assume Islam is the root cause of extremism like that. Take Islam away and the people in these socio economic circumstances would find other ways to justify their violence and extremism.

Yes, take the belief of an afterlife and paradise away and jihadists will still blow themselves up yelling "Allahu Akbar."

So extremists killing muslims shows how Islam is the problem?

We can get technical about what Islam is, but what can't be denied is that ideology plays a role.

 

[Azih]

Yes, take the belief of an afterlife and paradise away and jihadists will still blow themselves up yelling "Allahu Akbar."

That's what happened for the Marxist not theistic Tamil Tigers. They probably shouted something about Tamil Eelam I guess.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

It isn't now just a simple as those in other countries needing reform. Like it or not immigration has given way to individuals coming into the West that wish for sharia law and some of the most vile and degrading parts of where they came from to be established here. Those in the limelight in the West also serve a purpose in the West.

None issue in my opinion.
There aren't many immigrants that backwards.
Immigrants have to abide by our laws just like everybody else, if they can't do that they will go to jail like everybody else who breaks the law.
I don't see this beeing a threat to our society.

So you're saying that Liberalism and Progressivism are older than Christianity?......WAT!?

Yes, the Dark Ages and the Inquisition were very liberal!

You realise that liberal and progressive are adjectives to describe behaviours? Behaviours that predate Christianity by a lot.
Obviously there were liberal and progressive movements and ideologies long before christianity.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'll leave it. I hope you realize though that pontificating that Aziz and Aslan only say what they say because they are attempting to 'resolve their dual identities' is incredibly condescending. I hate it when people dismiss my posts because of what they imagine my thought processes must be. It happens to me a lot on Gaf and I don't like it when others are subjected to the same thing.

Who's dismissed anyone's views? The only reason I'm posting about Omer Aziz is specifically because I listened to his arguments and found that his debate style was abhorrent. He was stubborn and determined to tear down his opponent to the point that it made him sound unintelligent. That caused me to speculate why he goes on the attack, and why I've seen this style before from others like Aslan.

I think it's because of the liberal crtique of Islam cuts hard on western Muslims, and they have to make these critics out to be bigots. "Condescending"..? That's my opinion about the world we live in where two major worldviews are trying to come to term with one another. Maybe it isn't about you.

Because you used it to attack Aziz and Aslan.

Knowledge of Islam has almost nothing to do with criticizing Aziz and Aslan. I want to know why they go on the personal attack against liberal critics of Islam. That doesn't even require knowledge of Islam, though I have that too.

But that just describes the faith of those preachers. It doesn't tell you anything about Aziz or Aslan's or mine or Rusty's.

Just showing you that aside from an academic understanding of Islam, I've engaged with the way in which people actually practice it. Because objections to not knowing how Islam is "really" practiced would be the next logical step after I say I've studied it (not just you, but anyone could followup with that).

No one says that implies anything about all Muslims, and that's not really my concern. I know liberal Muslims exist. But that doesn't mean the doctrine itself isn't illiberal. Most religions are illiberal. It's right that people openly inquire about this topic.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Yes, take the belief of an afterlife and paradise away and jihadists will still blow themselves up yelling "Allahu Akbar."

They will just find another beliefsystem to justify that.

We can get technical about what Islam is, but what can't be denied is that ideology plays a role.

The ideology grew from society, not vice versa.
This is one of the problems I have with new atheists.
They view religions as these static, abstract entities and stupid people choose one of them, but a fundamental part of atheism in my opinion is acknowledging and understanding the fact that religions are man made, they're the results of peoples thoughts, questions, wishes, worries and problems they're confronted with in the environment they live in.
Faith is an incredibly complex social and psychological phenomenon and the way new atheism shrugs it off as stupid nonsense doesn't do it justice and as a result they come to false conclusions like Harris when he made out Islam are the root cause of extremism in the middle east.

It wasn't Islam that made the middle east the cesspool it is, it was the circumstances in the region that shaped the Islam people live.

 

[Azih]

.
I think it's because of the liberal crtique of Islam

Again you are criticizing 'Islam' not 'some versions of Islam' why?

But that doesn't mean the doctrine itself isn't illiberal.

Who gets to decide that. You?

 

[haxamin]

Again you are criticizing 'Islam' not 'some versions of Islam' why?



Who gets to decide that. You?

Slavery. Liberal or illiberal?

 

[Azih]

Slavery. Liberal or illiberal?

I don't understand the analogy.

 

[haxamin]

I don't understand the analogy.

Im asking for your opinion regarding the doctrine.

 

[RustyNails]

Slavery. Liberal or illiberal?

I dont understand. What is this?

 

[BocoDragon]

Again you are criticizing 'Islam' not 'some versions of Islam' why?

There is one set of physical documents that can be criticized. The Quran and some hadith.

And then you can study the various ways that it is actually practiced around the world and criticize those.

After that, we're getting into "no true scotsman" territory. There's no way to talk about anyone if we play the shell game of "not all....."

Who gets to decide that. You?

If liberalism is about gender equality, the ideal governance being democratic, full freedom of religion (more than just "people of the book") and freedom of speech (i.e. people being able to draw who they want)... then Islam (in text and how it is generally practiced) isn't exactly conducive to those values.

More power to liberal Muslims. But you shouldn't be surprised that non-Muslims look at the text and call a spade a spade. It doesn't make them bad people for doing so... without being biased towards reverence as members of the religion, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.

 

[haxamin]

I dont understand. What is this?

The topic is on doctrine now. I'm making a case for why it is illiberal.

 

[ElFly]

Did you even bother reading the replies that actually addressed this point?

Guess you didn't. Seems par for the course from what I've read in this thread already.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you didn't bother reading... Because I honestly don't see how any rational person could double down on your ridiculous statement after multiple people have corrected you.

They are stupid posts and represent a contrived position to justify actual torture.

For example

Yeah, it is. "In Defence of Torture" is a thought experiment. Sometimes philosophers do this. We did it all the time in undergrad. "What is less evil, X or Y". Basic ethics.

This is a poor model of ethics. Please do not live your life according to this. If X behavior is evil, but somehow accepted, does that mean Y behavior, which is less evil, should be accepted too?

Do note that X and Y are not necessarily related. Harris brings up blowing up terrorists or torturing them.

But these are not two sides of the same coin. America does not have an option on their explosives drones for "capture victim and bring them to Guantanamo". Bush did not order prisoners on Guantanamo being blown up if torture didn't work on them. Why is Harris just equating them? This is like saying "cops are really likely to shoot black people for no reason and get away with it, so what's the big deal if black people are paid less in average than white people". It's not like torturing people would somehow void the need america feels to blow up terrorists. He specifically brings up both practices together

My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of water-boarding high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms.

But...what is the relationship between the two? You can try to drop bombs on an attempt to kill Osama...or torture him? What sequence of events gets, say, Obama to have to make that choice?

So he made a contrived case to say "we are blowing up terrorists, so maybe torture is not that bad compared to what we are doing to them?" He says

I argued then, and I believe today, that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board.

This is not a weird position. This is entirely reasonable! but then he arrives to

I believe that there are extreme situations in which practices like “water-boarding” may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary—especially where getting information from a known terrorist seems likely to save the lives of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people.

Do note that he does not bring an actual example. Let's bring actual examples. Torture could not have prevented 9/11. Torture could not and did not prevent the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, torture did not and could not prevent any numbers of post 9/11 terrorist attacks, and finally, torture did not get america the information of where Bin Laden was.

He is pro torture. This is not just a philosophical exercise to him; he sometimes remembers to keep the appearances of this just being a thought experiment, but he relishes in the thought that maybe, one day, Jack Bauer will be real and they both together will torture a guy to tell them where the ticking bombs are. That's all this is. Just a fan of 24.

Some people apparently can't handle this and equate it to him actually supporting torture.

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror

 

[cackhyena]

Harris just wants to be Jack Bauer we figured it out.

 

[Duji]

They will just find another beliefsystem to justify that.

What you fail to understand is that jihadists come from a wide array of backgrounds; educated, uneducated, poor, wealthy, speaking different languages, growing up in different countries, some of them converted to Islam etc, etc.

Talk about socio-economics all you want.

What links all these people together? A radical interpretation of Islam.

ISIS is known for throwing gays off rooftops. It's such a specific thing to do, and incidentally there's some doctrine justifying it; do you seriously think they would be doing that had this doctrine not existed?

Actions follow from beliefs, necessarily. It's the same reason most Muslims don't drink alcohol. I don't understand what there is to disagree about.

 

[Jonm1010]

What you fail to understand is that jihadists come from a wide array of backgrounds; educated, uneducated, poor, wealthy, speaking different languages, growing up in different countries, some of them converted to Islam etc, etc.

Talk about socio-economics all you want.

What links all these people together? A radical interpretation of Islam.

ISIS is known for throwing gays off rooftops. It's such a specific thing to do, and incidentally there's some doctrine justifying it; do you seriously think they would be doing that had this doctrine not existed?

Actions follow from beliefs, necessarily. It's the same reason most Muslims don't drink alcohol. I don't understand what there is to disagree about.

Would ISIS exist if it weren't for the economic, political, historical, military and resource driven circumstances the core of its organization and its forefathers existed under and went through? My bet is it wouldn't. Human history and evidence stemming from multiple disciplines and sources tells us it wouldn't. Religion is a component, an easy manipulation tool people seeking power use, often a rallying pole, a life raft people cling to, something that often fans the flames and tends to reflect the circumstance a culture is living in. But to try and frame it as the primary or sole driver for things like ISIS, terrorism, or conflict in the Middle East is just lazy. The history of these organizations is much more complicated and complex then tying them to just religion and calling it a day.

If I could eradicate Islam from human culture tomorrow I would(all other religions for that matter), but I am not naive enough to think it would end the problems so many want to attribute it's causes to.

 

[2AdEPT]

Not that I agree with Sam Harris on everything, but his exchange on TYT with Cenk Uygur was very telling. The salon piece was shoddy journalism, plain and simple, and Uygur was obviously playing silly bugger or really is incredibly dumb. Many of Sam Harris ' points stand as proper arguments and his detractors usually aren't even half as smart as he is. Notwithstanding, Harris needs to be more Socratic and study adult learning if he really wants to promote philosophy to the masses.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Can someone resolve this inconsistency for me please?

There's the claim that the Quran and the Hadiths are set, the Quran itself being the perfect word of God and so interpretation is near impossible considering what is said in the Quran.

Then there's the claim that ISIS is a clear demonstration of the brutality of the Quran and the Hadiths, everything they do is permissible and justified.

Why did it take almost 1500 years for them to appear? I thought the Quran was immutable, that easy to understand and it all follows from the book to their action, why only now do we see such brutality even Al Qaeda is condemning them.

Of the wonders of the ancient world, which has been in Muslim hands for 1500 years, why did it take ISIS to finally work out what the Quran says?

What I find most hilarious is that most are relying upon a person without qualifications in the Qur'an, Islam, Islamic history, Arabic, Quranic Arabic, who clearly hasn't read the entirety of the Quran to be the arbiter in deciding what is a true muslim or not.

 

[Duji]

Would ISIS exist if it weren't for the economic, political, historical, military and resource driven circumstances the core of its organization and its forefathers existed under and went through? My bet is it wouldn't. Human history and evidence stemming from multiple disciplines and sources tells us it wouldn't. Religion is a component, an easy manipulation tool people seeking power use, often a rallying pole, a life raft people cling to, something that often fans the flames and tends to reflect the circumstance a culture is living in. But to try and frame it as the primary or sole driver for things like ISIS, terrorism, or conflict in the Middle East is just lazy. The history of these organizations is much more complicated and complex then tying them to just religion and calling it a day.

If I could eradicate Islam from human culture tomorrow I would(all other religions for that matter), but I am not naive enough to think it would end the problems so many want to attribute it's causes to.

The question of why people do things is an interesting one. When there are such specific instances of violence - like men sacrificing their lives to literally "AVENGE THE PROPHET!" by gunning down people who drew a cartoon of their favourite sacrosanct figure - it sort points towards this being a problem of dangerous ideology. Now we could sit here and ask what brought them to this ideology in the first place? Since violent jihadists come from all sorts of backgrounds, the issue becomes a lot more complicated.

I think it has a lot to do with grievances, a sense of identity, purpose, glory, and plain old human stupidity. People don't become jihadists because of how convincing the story of Muhammad flying to heaven on a Buraq is; there obviously is some emotional angle - and I believe it's different for every person. I think it being an ideology that is so confident in its doctrines while providing a very simple, albeit clear purpose makes it just that much easier to buy into.

Why did it take almost 1500 years for them to appear?

...? It.. didn't. There are entire books written on the history of violent jihadism. It is absolutely not a new phenomenon in that sense. Also Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other since almost the beginning of Islam's schism. Saladin himself went out of his way to fight the Shia.

ISIS practices slavery. The majority of the Muslim world was practicing slavery well into the 1900s, believe it or not. I have great grandparents who were Muslims and owned slaves -- people acting like this is some unheard of vice in the Muslim world need to take a quick glance at history. Chopping off hands, stoning adulterers, and executing homosexuals aren't things that ISIS introduced; it's something they're trying to revive.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Can I let you into a secret?

Muslims practice jihad every single day, every single muslim is performing jihad.

be. careful.

 

[Duji]

Can I let you into a secret?

Muslims practice jihad every single day, every single muslim is performing jihad.

be. careful.

... I was referring to the violent type. Thanks for diverting the issue though.

And be careful of what? My first name is literally the Arabic word for "jihadist".

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Are ISIS just what Islam was until a hundred years ago [or a bit before]?

 

[Henkka]

The problem with religion is that it deifies the moral standards of people from hundreds of years ago. From what I understand, some of the Quran's teachings were very progressive for their time... But they're barbaric by today's standards. The instant we decide that one book is literally God's eternal, infinite word, it puts a ball and chain on the ankle of moral progress.

Take the acceptance of homosexuality, for instance. What would the world look like if the Bible said nothing at all about it? What would the world look like if the Bible was positive on homosexuality? Leviticus and Paul's writings didn't stop homosexuality being eventually accepted in the west, but they slowed it down by centuries, probably.

Beliefs matter. The actual text of the book matters.

 

[nynt9]

Can someone resolve this inconsistency for me please?

There's the claim that the Quran and the Hadiths are set, the Quran itself being the perfect word of God and so interpretation is near impossible considering what is said in the Quran.

Then there's the claim that ISIS is a clear demonstration of the brutality of the Quran and the Hadiths, everything they do is permissible and justified.

Why did it take almost 1500 years for them to appear? I thought the Quran was immutable, that easy to understand and it all follows from the book to their action, why only now do we see such brutality even Al Qaeda is condemning them.

Of the wonders of the ancient world, which has been in Muslim hands for 1500 years, why did it take ISIS to finally work out what the Quran says?

What I find most hilarious is that most are relying upon a person without qualifications in the Qur'an, Islam, Islamic history, Arabic, Quranic Arabic, who clearly hasn't read the entirety of the Quran to be the arbiter in deciding what is a true muslim or not.

Hadiths are not set at all. That's the point. ISIS is claiming their interpretation and hadiths are the "true" interpretation and everyone else are heretics.

How do you know Sam Harris hasn't read the Quran?

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Hadiths are not set at all. That's the point. ISIS is claiming their interpretation and hadiths are the "true" interpretation and everyone else are heretics.

How do you know Sam Harris hasn't read the Quran?

Just his characterisation of it, I don't think he's read it at all.

Hadiths aren't.

But people talk about Shariah being set when the opposite is true.

 

[Henkka]

Just his characterisation of it, I don't think he's read it at all.

Hadiths aren't.

But people talk about Shariah being set when the opposite is true.

How does that make it better, though? ISIS picks and chooses the parts they like, moderate muslims pick and choose the parts they like. Nobody is right, nobody's wrong. And the cycle continues.

 

[nynt9]

Just his characterisation of it, I don't think he's read it at all.

Hadiths aren't.

But people talk about Shariah being set when the opposite is true.

It's almost like everyone can read a book and interpret it in different ways. My parents who are self identifying Muslims haven't fully read the book either by the way. So are they not Muslims? Who has the right to tell them that?

 

[JimmyRustler]

The problem with religion is that it deifies the moral standards of people from hundreds of years ago. From what I understand, some of the Quran's teachings were very progressive for their time... But they're barbaric by today's standards. The instant we decide that one book is literally God's eternal, infinite word, it puts a ball and chain on the ankle of moral progress.

Take the acceptance of homosexuality, for instance. What would the world look like if the Bible said nothing at all about it? What would the world look like if the Bible was positive on homosexuality? Leviticus and Paul's writings didn't stop homosexuality being eventually accepted in the west, but they slowed it down by centuries, probably.

Beliefs matter. The actual text of the book matters.

The problem is that believers very often claim that human morality springs from religion and that is one of the big reasons that we still need it. What many, many people say is basically that without religion there would be no morality among humans. Heaving read parts of the Bible it is pretty baffling to me how any sane person could believe that.

As you say religion is clearly not the reason why homosexuality is getting more and more accepted in the western world. The Bible clearly says that every gay person is to be killed. Religion also isn't the reason why slavery has been banned. And so on...

Humanity progressed and is progressing all on their own. There is simply no need any more for religion as more guidance for anyone. At this point in time it even teaches a form of morality that is completely backwards and ancient.

 

[M.Bluth]

There's the claim that the Quran and the Hadiths are set, the Quran itself being the perfect word of God and so interpretation is near impossible considering what is said in the Quran.

Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

How does that make it better, though? ISIS picks and chooses the parts they like, moderate muslims pick and choose the parts they like. Nobody is right, nobody's wrong. And the cycle continues.

Surely that's the point then, all people are saying is not to condemn Islam for someones interpretation of it, condemn the interpreter.

Harris et al are saying ISIS's view of Islam is THE version, everything else is either wrong or them not "really believing in it".

It's almost like everyone can read a book and interpret it in different ways. My parents who are self identifying Muslims haven't fully read the book either by the way. So are they not Muslims? Who has the right to tell them that?

Again, that's the simple point even a person of Harris' intelligence seems to miss.

No one has that right to say whatever.

 

[Henkka]

Surely that's the point then, all people are saying is not to condemn Islam for someones interpretation of it, condemn the interpreter.

Harris et al are saying ISIS's view of Islam is THE version, everything else is either wrong or them not "really believing in it".

I don't really want to speak for Harris... It's kind of weird. Arguing about what someone else really believes is kinda pointless if the person themselves can't partake in the discussion. I don't know exactly what he thinks.

But I doubt that he would say that ISIS's view of Islam is the correct one. Rather, their reading of the next is not an implausible one. You don't have to perversely interpret the Quran to justify cutting hands from thieves. Rather, you have to do mental gymnastics to justify why you shouldn't cut hands from thieves. It's in the text, clearly stated, if I recall.

edit: Similarly, conservative Christians who think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes aren't distorting the text. It's actually the liberals who twist and ignore what the text says to justify their position.

 

[Duji]

I don't really want to speak for Harris... It's kind of weird. Arguing about what someone else really believes is kinda pointless if the person themselves can't partake in the discussion. I don't know exactly what he thinks.

But I doubt that he would say that ISIS's view of Islam is the correct one. Rather, their reading of the next is not an implausible one. You don't have to perversely interpret the Quran to justify cutting hands from thieves. Rather, you have to do mental gymnastics to justify why you shouldn't cut hands from thieves. It's in the text, clearly stated, if I recall.

edit: Similarly, conservative Christians who think homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes aren't distorting the text. It's actually the liberals who twist and ignore what the text says to justify their position.

The sad truth of it.

Also if we accept the premise that Muhammd and his followers followed the "truest" form of Islam, I believe an argument can be made that ISIS is closer to that than your average Western Walt-Disney Muslim.

 

[Azih]

There is one set of physical documents that can be criticized. The Quran and some hadith.

Sure but you'll be critiquing your interpretation of those texts only of course.

And then you can study the various ways that it is actually practiced around the world and criticize those.

Sure, but you would be criticizing those people and their practices and professed beliefs specifically.

After that, we're getting into "no true scotsman" territory.

Not at all. The point remains that criticizing 'Islam' in the generic is nonsense. Why are you resisting the notion that you have to qualify when you're speaking of the faith of a billion plus people?

then Islam (in text and how it is generally practiced) isn't exactly conducive to those values.

I'm sorry but I can't get over your conviction that you are the arbiter and authority on what the texts actually say. We're not talking about spades here. We're talking about faith which is y'know different for every individual.

The unshakeable desire to criticize Islam in generic totality rather than specific interpretations of it remains a mystery to me. Either God decides what Islam is or it's different for every individual Muslim. You can't get away from that logical truth but you seem hell bent on ignoring it.

More power to liberal Muslims.

Pro tip: Making extremely reductive and illogical statements about 'Islam' doesn't give more power to anybody except those who want to promote an absurdly simplistic view of a faith followed by a billion plus.

Duji: Being called a Walt Disney Muslim is one of the most fucking insulting thing that has ever happened to me so... Congratulations on that I guess.

 

[Oppo]

Azih, the book doesn't vary from sect to sect does it? it's perfection is not called into question? I'm asking.

also it is possible to criticize religion without criticizing people. you sound like you're getting heated.nthis is what people mean when you see red at the criticism of an institution or set of beliefs and takenit as if it was a personal attack.

 

[Duji]

The unshakeable desire to criticize Islam in generic totality rather than specific interpretations of it remains a mystery to me.

I've come to agree with this.

There aren't many things that you can criticize Islam in, in a general sense, however I think one of them is this concept of "revelation," which to me is hopelessly absurd and fallacious. The revelations were revealed to Muhammad and no one else, and thus it shouldn't be incumbent on anyone to believe it. Resting one's entire world view on the supernatural revelation of a single human being is the very meaning of irrational to me.

Duji: Being called a Walt Disney Muslim is one of the most fucking insulting thing that has ever happened to me so... Congratulations on that I guess.

Is it really? To me a "Walt Disney Muslim" is someone who views Islam in a modern light, lending the religion favour to human rights more than other interpretations, whether it be by inserting one's own morality into the religion or simply reinterpreting old texts in a more favourable way.

 

[Azih]

Azih, the book doesn't vary from sect to sect does it? it's perfection is not called into question? I'm asking.

No, but interpretations of Quranic verses vary quite a bit. Which Hadith to follow or not and what they mean are all over the place especially.

also it is possible to criticize religion without criticizing people. you sound like you're getting heated.nthis is what people mean when you see red at the criticism of an institution or set of beliefs and talent as if it was a personal attack.

Again. I'm not saying at all that religion shouldn't be criticized. My only ask is that specific versions of them be criticized if we're taking about their contents. I mean if there is a philosophical debate about the basic validity of even having a faith then generic criticism is perfectly appropriate. But other than that you have to be specific. Otherwise you deny people their individuality in faith and start making value judgments on 'who is truly Muslim and who isn't' which is an obviously irrational road to head down.


And 'Walt-Disney Muslim' isn't an attack on any religion. It's a direct slam on people.

Is it really?

Yes it completely and totally is.

 

[Duji]

No, but interpretations of Quranic verses vary quite a bit. Which Hadith to follow or not and what they mean are all over the place especially.


Again. I'm not saying at all that religion shouldn't be criticized. My only ask is that specific versions of them be criticized if we're taking about their contents. I mean if there is a philosophical debate about the basic validity of even having a faith then generic criticism is perfectly appropriate. But other than that you have to be specific. Otherwise you deny people their individuality in faith and start making value judgments on 'who is truly Muslim and who isn't' which is an obviously irrational road to head down.


And 'Walt-Disney Muslim' isn't an attack on any religion. It's a direct slam on people.

Yes it completely and totally is.

First of all I never called you that, second of all I view it more as a compliment rather than a pejorative.

I can't control how you feel though, so we'll leave it at that I guess.

 

[Kinitari]

Sure but you'll be critiquing your interpretation of those texts only of course.

Sure, but you would be criticizing those people and their practices and professed beliefs specifically.

Not at all. The point remains that criticizing 'Islam' in the generic is nonsense. Why are you resisting the notion that you have to qualify when you're speaking of the faith of a billion plus people?

I'm sorry but I can't get over your conviction that you are the arbiter and authority on what the texts actually say. We're not talking about spades here. We're talking about faith which is y'know different for every individual.

The unshakeable desire to criticize Islam in generic totality rather than specific interpretations of it remains a mystery to me. Either God decides what Islam is or it's different for every individual Muslim. You can't get away from that logical truth but you seem hell bent on ignoring it.

Pro tip: Making extremely reductive and illogical statements about 'Islam' doesn't give more power to anybody except those who want to promote an absurdly simplistic view of a faith followed by a billion plus.

Duji: Being called a Walt Disney Muslim is one of the most fucking insulting thing that has ever happened to me so... Congratulations on that I guess.

Have you ever discussed a philosophy before, and said something like "Buddhism is about the ills of the ego, and here's why I think that *points out some core Buddhist ideologies*" - only to have someone tell you "well that's only your interpretation of Buddhism, not necessarily anyone else's". How maddening would that be?

Of course that's his interpretation, that's kind of implied when someone critiques a document. The point isn't to somehow say that his interpretation is the one everyone should be following, but that it's the message he's pulling out of the text. Further, when someone criticizes someone else's interpretation (via YouTube) it also isn't necessarily the one everyone is following, just one that is being followed, maybe by many people. Who knows how -you- interpret Islam.

 

[nynt9]

No, but interpretations of Quranic verses vary quite a bit. Which Hadith to follow or not and what they mean are all over the place especially.


Again. I'm not saying at all that religion shouldn't be criticized. My only ask is that specific versions of them be criticized if we're taking about their contents. I mean if there is a philosophical debate about the basic validity of even having a faith then generic criticism is perfectly appropriate. But other than that you have to be specific. Otherwise you deny people their individuality in faith and start making value judgments on 'who is truly Muslim and who isn't' which is an obviously irrational road to head down.

Which versions of Islam don't glorify a warlord, treat homosexuals and women and nonbelievers like full human beings, and don't prescribe a punishment to apostasy? There are different versions sure, but there are also ideas that are common to most if not all of them.

Here's an older post by Azih on this matter:

I'm saying that there are different interpretations which means you can't just criticize 'Islam' in the generic on this. You have to get more specific. Homophobia is a huge problem among most Muslims that must be addressed. But you can't just go "Islam is homophobic". You can certainly say "Most current understandings of Islam are homophobic" or "The vast majority of interpretations of Islam are homophobic" as, seriously, those clarifications are important and it's missing in a lot of commentary.

Which I think links back to a worthwhile discussion on the issue, by the way. The problem is if a vast majority of interpretations are problematic, saying a few of them aren't is a distraction tactic. If the vast majority have a problem, then there is an inherent issue, and the minority groups who don't hold bad views are outliers.

 

[Azih]

First of all I never called you that, second of all I view it more as a compliment rather than a pejorative.

Really? You really think any believing Muslim liberal in the West would feel complimented by...

I believe an argument can be made that ISIS is closer to (true Islam) than your average Western Walt-Disney Muslim

Yeah we all just love being told that the fucking terrorists we are killed by and speak out against are the real Muslims while we get compared to Mickey mouse.

Have you ever discussed a philosophy before, and said something like "Buddhism is about the ills of the ego, and here's why I think that *points out some core Buddhist ideologies*" - only to have someone tell you "well that's only your interpretation of Buddhism, not necessarily anyone else's". How maddening would that be?

Why would that be maddening?

Of course that's his interpretation, that's kind of implied when someone critiques a document. The point isn't to somehow say that his interpretation is the one everyone should be following, but that it's the message he's pulling out of the text. Further, when someone criticizes someone else's interpretation (via YouTube) it also isn't necessarily the one everyone is following, just one that is being followed, maybe by many people. Who knows how -you- interpret Islam.

Exactly so just say 'my interpretation of' or 'some versions of' instead of starting to make value judgments about who is a true Muslim and who isn't'.

 

[Azih]

Which versions of Islam don't glorify a warlord, treat homosexuals and women and nonbelievers like full human beings, and don't prescribe a punishment to apostasy?

Mine. I would assume Aziz's and Aslan's as well. By saying ' that's not real Islam!' based on nothing that stands up to logical scrutiny you deny me a part of my identity.


Nynt9: There is absolutely no distraction tactic here. I would love nothing more than to deal with those issues head on. I can't though if I have to defend me and mine from being accused of being either ISIS apologists or fucking not real Mickey Mouse Muslims. Or fucking both at the same time.

 

[nynt9]

Mine. I would assume Aziz's and Aslan's as well. By saying ' that's not real Islam!' based on nothing that stands up to logical scrutiny you deny me a part of my identity.


Nynt9: There is absolutely no distraction tactic here. I would love nothing more than to deal with those issues head on. I can't though if I have to defend me and mine from being other ISIS apologists or fucking not real Mickey Mouse Muslims.

Ok, but then if your version isn't not the real Islam, then is the version of ISIS not the real Islam? They are mutually exclusive ideas, so how does one reconcile that?

 

[Azih]

Ok, but then if your version isn't not the real Islam, then is the version of ISIS not the real Islam? They are mutually exclusive ideas, so how does one reconcile that?

As Muslims we believe that there is a true Islam that we'll be judged by after we die. Now if you don't share that assumption it'll sound ridiculous and irrelevant but if you can imagine it for a moment you might see that when different groups of Muslims accuse each other of not being 'true' Muslims it's not apologia of any sort. It's the harshest ideological criticism that we can even make as it's a struggle over what it means to lead a good and worthy life.

One of the most ridiculous things about all of this is to be struggling with other Muslims about this issue and then to have outsiders who shouldn't even think there is any real Islam logically speaking jump in and go 'No you guys should shut up and go to Magic Mountain and hang out with Goofy where you belong those rapists and murders are the REAL Muslims which by the way you guys are totally apologizing for also by getting blowed up by them.'

 

[Arkeband]

If I decided to practice splinter Scientology but removed all of the fees, kidnapping, and murder, would it be fair to say that Scientology isn't the problem, it's how you interpret Scientology?

 

[Azih]

If I decided to practice splinter Scientology but removed all of the fees, kidnapping, and murder, would it be fair to say that Scientology isn't the problem, it's how you interpret Scientology?

Yeah. That's the opinion held by Freezoners and I'm sympathetic to their point of view.

 

[Henkka]

Which versions of Islam don't glorify a warlord, treat homosexuals and women and nonbelievers like full human beings, and don't prescribe a punishment to apostasy? There are different versions sure, but there are also ideas that are common to most if not all of them.

Here's an older post by Azih on this matter:





Which I think links back to a worthwhile discussion on the issue, by the way. The problem is if a vast majority of interpretations are problematic, saying a few of them aren't is a distraction tactic. If the vast majority have a problem, then there is an inherent issue, and the minority groups who don't hold bad views are outliers.

Yeah the older post you quoted seems like bs to me... Whatever "True Islam" is, it can't be just some empty container you pour your modern, liberal values into and call it a day.

The text matters. To use an example from Christianity, the Bible explicitly condones slavery. Leviticus even allows you to beat your slave as long as they don't die immediately, and Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Nowhere in the Bible is the idea of owning other people as property condemned in any way. Even some Christian apologists agree: https://carm.org/slavery

Now, the liberal "Walt Disney Christians" who think slavery is absolutely abhorrent don't have some equally valid interpretation of the Bible. They're merely deluding themselves, forcing an ancient text to fit their values. They impose their own morality on the Bible, rather than the other way around. I'm not very educated on Islam, but I'm pretty sure the same applies.

 

[Kinitari]

Why would that be maddening?


Exactly so just say 'my interpretation of' or 'some versions of' instead of starting to make value judgments about who is a true Muslim and who isn't'.

Maddening because that seems like an unnecessary qualification. Like "I like toast" being challenged with "but that's just your opinion, man". It's sort of implied in the statement.

That being said, I would agree that trying to apply this interpretation as an objective truth is wrong, it's fundamentally impossible to find objective interpretation of philosophical text.

 

[Oppo]

Ok, but then if your version isn't not the real Islam, then is the version of ISIS not the real Islam? They are mutually exclusive ideas, so how does one reconcile that?

As Muslims we believe that there is a true Islam that we'll be judged by after we die. Now if you don't share that assumption it'll sound ridiculous and irrelevant but if you can imagine it for a moment you might see that when different groups of Muslims accuse each other of not being 'true' Muslims it's not apologia of any sort. It's the harshest ideological criticism that we can even make as it's a struggle over what it means to lead a good and worthy life.

One of the most ridiculous things about all of this is to be struggling with other Muslims about this issue and then to have outsiders who shouldn't even think there is any real Islam logically speaking jump in and go 'No you guys should shut up and go to Magic Mountain and hang out with Goofy where you belong those rapists and murders are the REAL Muslims which by the way you guys are totally apologizing for also by getting blowed up by them.'

this is pretty much the point where the thread always ran off the rails when maninthemirror was around. his interpretation was true, others were not, or so he claimed.

Azih, you are projecting a lot of rage, or at least indignation here, that may not be warranted. I will try and explain why from my perspective, the Mickey Mouse Muslim is not really an insult. You can of course feel free to continue to be insulted, just offering another perspective here. Really trying to get at the notion of dismissiveness or malice vs an outsider's perspective on Islam.

To me, that expression basically pits jihadists against moderates. The 'serious' muslims take the book at face value and are willing to kill and die for certain notions that come from that book (or hadiths, whatever). Some - most - are not willing to kill and die for these notions, or believe altogether different interpretations. So it's easy to basically say, well, one faction is more serious. I take them seriously because they have demonstrated that they are willing to kill and die for these ideas. I don't like them. I want more 'tourists'. Because, from the outside, the tourists have picked and chosen the beliefs they like, and discarded or tried to rationalize away the ones they don't. These people are much more compatible with liberal Western values. For my part, I believe in the universal declaration of human rights, and I do not give a single damn about what you want to practice. As long as it' doesn't infringe on the rights in the declaration. My commandments as a secular person, if you will.

So when you get all pissed off that someone has dared accuse you of being "unserious" (and why care so much anyways, where is your faith?), it seems nonsensical from the outside, as that person has basically paid you the compliment of assuming you are not a jihadists or militant, unreasonable person. You've already made accommodations due to (I believe) intrinsic morality, rather than existential blackmail, which is to be commended. So while calling someone a Mickey Mouse Muslim sounds condescending, what it means when you unpack it is "not dangerous to society". If you want to continue to split hairs on labels and act indignant, that's your prerogative, but you should know that this is an outsider saying "those guys with the bombs seem fucking serious. you don't seem that crazy." I wouldn't use it myself, moderate seems to be a fair term, but don't get lost in the weeds over something like that, taking it as this huge insult. Most Catholics and Christians are "tourists" too, and that is a good thing.

 

[Azih]

Maddening because that seems like an unnecessary qualification. Like "I like toast" being challenged with "but that's just your opinion, man". It's sort of implied in the statement.

It should be but in a situation where BocoDragon accuses Aziz and Aslan for acting as they do because they can't resolve their liberal values with 'Islam', where Duja says ISIS members are probably following 'true' Islam while Western Liberals Muslims are Disney versions. The opposite is true.

That being said, I would agree that trying to apply this interpretation as an objective truth is wrong, it's fundamentally impossible to find objective interpretation of philosophical text.

Thanks. I know we disagree on a lot so finding at least some common agreement feels good.