Reza Aslan looking pretty silly with those tweets...
What ISIS Really Wants (The Atlantic)
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
- Status
Reza Aslan looking pretty silly with those tweets...
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
You never did answer my question on the previous page: "So if an apostate does amazing good deeds for the rest of his/her life, are they still going to hell?"
As usual.
Just take a look at the Obama speech thread to see how many Gaffers are adamant in the point of view that ISIS/Al-Qaeda types are the most muslimy muslims that it's possible for muslimy muslims to be. And this is Neogaf. Imagine how much worse it is in other places. That's why I'm taking the hardline stance against this full on bullshit in this thread. It makes it impossible to have a conversation about those bastards if I first have to attempt (and fail) at establishing myself as a 'real' (not nominal, not cotton candy) non-terrorist Muslim.
That's not what Haylek, Harris, Interceptor, or some of the many posters in the Obama thread say.
captainnapalm
Member
You have to realise what a strong PR campaign you're fighting. The media is inundating us with the narrative that these are religious nutjobs sprung forth from the well of Islam, doing everything because of religion, and ISIS (or whoever is responsible for their superb western-style PR) is doing the exact same thing. We have all this excellent snuff porn to go along with it as well, professionally shot for maximum bloody bloodiness, pretty much exclusively for our benefit. I haven't watched a single one, but I'm sure they're guaranteed to evoke an incredibly visceral response.
It's a potent mix and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. I mean, when you have barbarians willing to mass decapitate people for your viewing pleasure, that's a very powerful storytelling tool.
The complex geo-political narratives - the fostering of terrorism and violence in the middle east through quasi-Western support, the brutalisation of the middle east, the overthrowing of governments, the funding for ISIS coming from the likes of Western allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar - these are far less sexy stories, far more baffling stories in light of the prevailing narrative, and most people don't have the energy or the will to take a long hard look at them and their deeply troublesome implications.
I know captainnapalm.. it's why I've been... less than polite in this thread as well as being mulishly obsessed with a single point. If people would stop ranking muslims, with insanely violent and barabaric muslims invariably being slotted as amazingly real and true muslims, then a conversation can start to happen about the origins of their sect/school of though/whatever and how to limit and end their influence. Can't even get to that though over a pre-conceived narrative of Islam=CrazyMedeivalEvil that people on Neogaf are wedded to, let alone the wider world.
Islam is both the crazies and the moderates, you need to get over that fact. Once you do we can continue in this conversation on how to stop the crazies.
Again Christianity had to acknowledge that WBC/KKK where Christians and when they did it become easier to root them out.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
If it's so islamic then why aren't they endorsed by any Islamic leaders? Why don't they have a bunch of Korans in their hands where they are?
This is the culture divide that Obama was talking about.
"If WBC are christian then why don't they have support from the rest of the community and why don't they read our bible?"
If WBC are accepted as Christians even when the rest of the moderates hate them, then ISIS should be accepted as Islamic.
RustyNails
Member
The point he is making is that ISIS is heralded of being more "muslimmy" than he by the armchair analysts on neogaf, and that is unfair assessment.
All I see is people saying that both are muslims and you need to accept that to continue forward, most athiests don't care who is more "muslimmy" just that you accept both the bad and good are part of your religion.
According to Haylek, Harris, Interceptor and a whole hell of a lot of the posters in the Obama thread the crazies are way more authentically Muslim than the moderates. That's a big huge problem and you're not acknowledging it.
You just think they're saying that because they're pointing out the contradictions and how ISIS came to their interpretation.
Huh? Harris flat out says he would consider me a "Nominal Muslim not serious about my faith" Haylek flat out says that unlike ISIS I have a "cotton candy view of Islam". A ton of posters in this and the Obama thread state flat out that "You can't get more Islamic than ISIS".
If You're not saying that ISIS is more Islamic than moderates then that's great. Why the hell are you adamant on trying to speak for and defending others who DO?
RustyNails
Member
Technically they are Muslims, because anyone who professes the shahada is one. If you say the shahada, you're a Muslim too. But then what follows is actually being a Muslim and here is the point of contention. ISIS violates every principle laid out in Islam, every edict that was followed by genarations of Muslims, every established law in Shari. 99% of prominent religious authorities in Sunni and Shia Islam have denounced them as "deviants", including the grand mosques, Al Azhar and various religious scholars and clerics. But this Atlantic piece comes out and says "lol ur all wrong...they be MORE muslamic than u cotton candy fools". Do you see the conflict now and why its causing so much agitation.
Actually I'm saying neither you or ISIS are more islamic, I'm saying your both equally islamic, you can't seem to accept that though even though it's the truth.
No the article is stating that you think your interpretation is the only right one, hence being "cotton candy" about it. It's like when a Christian denies WBC are Christians and that they're following the "true" word of god, even though the rest of the world calls them on their bullcrap.
This an excellent post. It's also why I feel like Maininthemirror, Azih and other defenders of a rational Islam are doomed in some ways. Like Azih mentioned, with the amount of negative thoughts on Islam on a board like Neogaf (very civil, very open, tolerant). What's the prevalent thinking on the wider Internet? The answer is well, extremely lopsided in the opposite direction.
Then I say they are doomed, because ISIS and similar groups will be a big part of the news cycle for years, if not decades. They will have victories and defeats. As well as continuous small scale attacks (possibly large ones too) in western countries. Extremely well done videos of violent murders in all the ways a human can be killed will continue to be shot and spread on social media. You put that all together and public perception will continue to harden and rational voices will disappear under the constant barrage of criticisms whether they are valid or not.
There is not much that can be done. I remember initially after 9/11 and the attacks in Spain/London how the discourse was still very much even on both sides. It has changed radically in the last ten years. I can't even imagine what another ten years of attacks, growth in Muslim population in sensitive areas (Europe), as well as ISIS continued existence will bring to discussions of Islam.
And then I'm not speaking about you. But I am speaking about Haykel, Harris, Interceptor, and a lot of gaffers in this thread and the obama thread. For some reason you're trying to defend them with:
Further I am saying that what Harris, Haykel, and a lot of other gaffers are doing by ranking ISIS types are more muslim than moderates is illogical, damaging, and dangerous.
RustyNails
Member
What you are saying now is that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is equally valid as Azih's, correct? We agree that they are both Muslim so lets get that out of the way.
No they're acknowledging the existence that ISIS' interpretation of Islam is just as valid as your interpretation but you don't like that so you think they're saying it's more muslim.
Sure and that all interpretations of the quran are correct.
captainnapalm
Member
Yeah, I don't want to be negative, but I do sometimes wonder if there's any stopping this train now.
This whole ISIS thing is going to roll on for years, even though according to wikipedia "over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL" and they could easily be wiped out, I reckon they will be kept around so as to justify various imperial projects in the middle east. I mean, that's just about all that's happened so far, isn't it, they've been used as a pretext for a continued military presence in Iraq and further involvement in Syria.
And yes, muslim unrest in Europe will worsen, which will push Europeans further to the right, exactly where those in power want them on this issue.
It doesn't look good for the future. It's all locked in now.
How can you say that when they use terms like "Nominal.. not serious... cotton candy" when describing moderates? Why are you trying to defend that?
RustyNails
Member
And there is no academic, objective way to determine what is correct? If so, then what is heresy? If tomorrow I pull an interpretation out of my ass, would it be an equally valid as just as any other?
Because if you were serious about your religion you would acknowledge that ISIS' viewpoint is a valid one of your religion, it was born of your religion it doesn't matter if it's a perverted view in your eyes it's still Islam and still a problem.
Sitting back and saying "Well those are just extremists" or "Those aren't the 'true' followers" never solves jack ever in the world because extremists are the causes for basically every war in human history. When you mix extremism and a ideology that is literally a way of life for several billion people then that becomes a very potent problem.
Yes because a religion isn't a physical stated fact like Gravity exists or We breathe air.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I've responded to this type of misrepresentation at length with maninthemirror. It's not a pejorative, it's simply a reference to what is plainly apparent when you take a literal, strict reading of the texts.
When an atheist says moderates (of any religion) are not as serious about their faith in reference to explicit, holy texts, it is an indictment of those texts. It has nothing to do with the people who hold those views.
People want a moderate, peaceful Islam to be the more Islamy Islam, and pretending otherwise to play the victim is getting pretty old.
I'm not speaking about them saying it's 'is a valid interpretation' I'm speaking about them calling it a 'MORE valid interpretation' By denigrating the moderate interpretation as 'nominal.. not serious... cotton candy'
So you are appointing yourself arbiter of what is truly in Islam or not? You don't get to do that.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
No one does...hence the issue, no?
Again. I'm speaking against Haykel, Harris, Interceptor, and tons of gaffers in this and the Obama thread (including ReignOfSparrows JUST NOW) doing exactly that in the direction of ISIS being more truly Muslim than moderates.
RustyNails
Member
I disagree with that. What about law then. Law does not have "physically stated facts". Can I legally start my own army and form a state tomorrow? Or does the law require a more astute interpretation.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Sorry, was in the other thread, and I don't remember seeing anyone actually saying that ISIS gets more authority or are more Muslim.
ReignofSparrows
Member
That you could think I am attempting to do that in any way should show everyone that you are just seeing what you want to see.
Then what does
mean other than I ,as a moderate, not taking a literal strict reading of the texts while ISIS types are? (Hence you appointing ISIS as being closer to a literal strict reading of Islamic texts than me).
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Taking a strict literal view of the text doesn't some how give you more religious street cred. If someone truly believes that apostasy should result in execution or that adultery should result in flogging then well...
Calling one side 'nominal, not serious, cotton candy' CERTAINLY gives more religious street cred to the other side.
Oppo
Member
I'd like to underscore this point.
RustyNails posted a list of 15 very specific points about "how to read the Quran" which struck me as preposterously specific, almost an arsenal of spin, including several obviously factual errors ("the science of interpreting metaphor and simile?" are you kidding me). If I were to re-write that list and say you need to learn these 15 semi- to totally-obscure rules before you can effectively interpret the meaning of Sam Harris, how do you think that would go over? Maybe HE's speaking in metaphor, there were treaties, context is key etc etc etc ad infinitum.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
I've used the term hardcore, extremist, old testament, etc. to describe some Christian family members. Does that mean they get more cred? If so, why?
ReignofSparrows
Member
You are conflating textual interpretation with 'who gets to be more Muslim.' All you need is reading comprehension for the former.
You can find pieces of text in any religion that, if taken literally and at face value, would cut against what followers believe to be core to the religion. Again, it has nothing to do with who is more or less religious. It's just looking at the pieces of text being relied upon and reading them as an adult. Nothing more.
Can i legally marry a man and have all the rights implied by the union?
could i 20 years ago?
it's almost like this 'law' thing is actively debated and changed on a regular basis.
What about murder? surely a crime as heinous as that must be fairly static, but then again what if you are assisting a suicide? is that murder? societies are certainly thinking about it now and it might not be for long.
Why are you so strung up on 'cotton candy'? If anything, the contexts was being used to more closely resemble moderates, not downplaying how "true" non-ISIS muslims are.
Take Christians for example. Most will say they follow the love of God by obeying the 10 commandments or following the teachings of Christ while rejecting slavery or sacrificing your child to prove your love to him. That's cotton candy right there. Cherry-picking the good while rejecting the bad.
Take Christians for example. Most will say they follow the love of God by obeying the 10 commandments or following the teachings of Christ while rejecting slavery or sacrificing your child to prove your love to him. That's cotton candy right there. Cherry-picking the good while rejecting the bad.
Murder and Stealing don't matter if they're "morally" right at all they create physical observable problems in the world.
RustyNails
Member
Hence, there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of the law, which goes back to my point of not all interpretations are equal.
ecnal
Member
it's the never ending slippery slope of, "no, no, no -- this is the correct interpretation; all other interpretations are blasphemous!"
the fact that people are willfully excluding religion as a factor in these examples of groups of individuals (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc) who are using literal interpretations of religious texts is mind-numbingly preposterous. it's just as mind-numbing as claiming religion is the sole reason for their actions.
there are complex social, political, cultural, and economic reasons for the actions these groups are taking; but to completely rule out the religiosity that's intertwined throughout is intellectually dishonest at best, and completely unintelligible at worst.
It is if you call tolerant new testament types "nominal, not serious, cotton candy" Christians. Which is what I'm speaking about. If Haykel had just called ISIS extremists in the article rather than calling moderates cotton candy then I wouldn't be posting this here.
y2dvd: The 'cotton candy view of their own faith' comment by Haykel is further bolstered by his comments about moderates being "embarrassed and politically correct" and neglecting “what their religion has historically and legally required". All of it points towards ISIS types being more authentically Muslim than moderates and that is not only illogical but incredibly dangerous.
Other pundits like Sam Harris make it even more clear. This is not an isolated point of view.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Well I have called moderate Christians, cafeteria Christians, which I think is what some people are doing here. From my perspective it isn't a pejorative, it is a way to signify that they pick and choose what they want from their holy text. It doesn't mean they are less of a Christian or that literal believers are somehow more Christian. It is just a way to signify the difference between the two types.
There's two things happening when words like nominal, not serious, cotton candy, cafeteria are used to describe a moderate believer's faiths.
1. It makes a pretty damn large assumption about what the faith actually is (You have to otherwise you wouldn't be able to determine what's nominal not serious etc. and what isn't). This is illogical.
2. Since pretty much every religious person thinks they're following the faith closely, it weakens moderates when they try to deal with extremists, since they're all struggling exactly over what it means to follow the faith closely and outside commenters coming down on the side of the extremists gives them ammunition. This is dangerous.
And it's happening all the damn time now towards Muslims.
Firstly I reject your contention that I, as a moderate, am picking and choosing what out of Islam I believe. I firmly believe I don't.
Secondly do you really expect me to be able to deal with ISIS types effectively when they can just laugh me off as a nominal, not serious, cotton candy, cafeteria muslim who picks and chooses what to believe while they, according to Haykel and Harris and yourself etc., don't?
Edit: I'm from a Shia Muslim family. My community is one of these ISIS type bastards favourite god damn targets to be killed. It's fucking frustrating to have outsiders chime in "Ayup, them people are serious about their faith, unlike you" and have to defend myself against that and have to establish my god damn credentials as a serious non cafeteria/cotton candy Muslim when what I should be doing is debunking these Al-Qaeda/Wahhabi inspired murderers.
1. It makes a pretty damn large assumption about what the faith actually is (You have to otherwise you wouldn't be able to determine what's nominal not serious etc. and what isn't). This is illogical.
2. Since pretty much every religious person thinks they're following the faith closely, it weakens moderates when they try to deal with extremists, since they're all struggling exactly over what it means to follow the faith closely and outside commenters coming down on the side of the extremists gives them ammunition. This is dangerous.
And it's happening all the damn time now towards Muslims.
Firstly I reject your contention that I, as a moderate, am picking and choosing what out of Islam I believe. I firmly believe I don't.
Secondly do you really expect me to be able to deal with ISIS types effectively when they can just laugh me off as a nominal, not serious, cotton candy, cafeteria muslim who picks and chooses what to believe while they, according to Haykel and Harris and yourself etc., don't?
Edit: I'm from a Shia Muslim family. My community is one of these ISIS type bastards favourite god damn targets to be killed. It's fucking frustrating to have outsiders chime in "Ayup, them people are serious about their faith, unlike you" and have to defend myself against that and have to establish my god damn credentials as a serious non cafeteria/cotton candy Muslim when what I should be doing is debunking these Al-Qaeda/Wahhabi inspired murderers.
- Status