[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Because the core precepts of any body of thought are predictive of potential behaviors that claim adherence to it. This is the difference between, I dunno, Home&Gardens Guide to Better Living and Mein Kampf.



My experience also indicates that that same variety of expression is directly related to the degree to which the adherent is a literal practitioner of a given flavor/sect, as it does for any body of thought.

And so my concern regards the deployment of the precepts of Islam under literalist interpretations, and that certainly includes thought I find entirely contrary to my core values, and the bulk of Western intellectual tradition.

The focus on Islam at this juncture pertains to its complete relevance to daily events across the globe. It is the topic of the thread. And as stated earlier, what is sancrosanct about mythical beliefs, if anything?

I of course find fault with the positions of orthodox/fundie anythings, but consider that at this time in the world, I needn't be overly concerned (though it is still relevant in middle America) with the faith and science debate with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists or Jainists. Scientologists are another laughing matter altogether, however.

Yeah, religion can be dangerous, because it can be used as a vehicle of claims of Objective Authority, but claims of Objective Authority are not limited to religion.

 

[Chaos]

Because the core precepts of any body of thought are predictive of potential behaviors that claim adherence to it. This is the difference between, I dunno, Home&Gardens Guide to Better Living and Mein Kampf.

Your own experiences that you have described that these precepts are NOT predictive. You´ve said yourself that the Muslims you know run the gamut from potentially violent fanatics to extremely nice people - how are the core precepts of Islam predictive of that?

My experience also indicates that that same variety of expression is directly related to the degree to which the adherent is a literal practitioner of a given flavor/sect, as it does for any body of thought.

So you think the precepts are predictive of nothing, and adherence to the precepts are predictive of behavior. Why not say so to begin with? Why jump on the "Islam is evil" bandwagon rather than the "fundamentalism is dangerous" bandwagon?

And so my concern regards the deployment of the precepts of Islam under literalist interpretations, and that certainly includes thought I find entirely contrary to my core values, and the bulk of Western intellectual tradition.

But we´ve established already that the precepts have nothing to do with behavior...

The focus on Islam at this juncture pertains to its complete relevance to daily events across the globe. It is the topic of the thread.

The question is, WHY is Islam the topic of the thread? Why single it out, when it is fundamentalism, not a single religion, that is the problem?

And as stated earlier, what is sancrosanct about mythical beliefs, if anything?

The problem is, Islam is the absolute OPPOSITE of sacrosanct these days - any kind of ignorant bigotry is "criticism of Islam" apparently.

I of course find fault with the positions of orthodox/fundie anythings, but consider that at this time in the world, I needn't be overly concerned (though it is still relevant in middle America) with the faith and science debate with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists or Jainists. Scientologists are another laughing matter altogether, however.

You are clearly not an atheist in the Bible Belt, or a Muslim in Myanmar, then.

ETA: It is also the case that Islam, among the major religions, is singularly concerned with the ordering of civil society in explicit ways. Though this can be read into many religious texts, it is far more a core part of teachings in Islam than in any other religious body of thought.

You are clearly not familiar with Christian fundamentalism, especially in the US, then.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Chaos, Chaos, Chaos...Haven't you learned that when a Muslim is bad it is because of Islam and that when a Muslim is good it is in spite of Islam?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Your own experiences that you have described that these precepts are NOT predictive. You´ve said yourself that the Muslims you know run the gamut from potentially violent fanatics to extremely nice people - how are the core precepts of Islam predictive of that?...

I think you misread there a bit; try again.

Certainly fundamentalist approaches to any line of thinking, even in science (and they occur), are bad. Understanding truth as anything but the provisional interpretive representation of observations, agreed to consensually, is dangerous. (In fact, to go one step more: To declare a one-to-one mapping of that mind-dependent reality to an external reality "out there" happens, in terms of proofs, to be a leap of faith.)

I am keenly aware of Christian fundamentalism in the US, Canada, Australia, and now even the UK and Germany. Given that some of its proponents and financiers have political agendas, it worries me greatly. But I think the fight there is more about transparency in political financing, and the use of unlimited funding for campaigns, and the utter nonsense about corporations being people. I am not concerned, however, with this as a religious movement as much as I am with the backroom politics that nourish it.

Recall, for example, the financing and tacit support of the Nazi party by the conservative establishment as a way to head off support for leftist or moderate proposals in the Wiemar Republic. It was a horrible idea then, and it is being repeated on a much larger scale now, on both sides of the Atlantic. Look out!

I am coming just now from an econ & public policy forum where these issues are addressed. I have opted to discuss the philosophical side here on JREF, however. I think it is the appropriate place.

And once again, given the death totals and potential for more, my greatest concern at this juncture in history, in religious terms, is understanding Islam.

I know there are effective and knowledgeable posters who are Muslims, or who were raised so, posting here on JREF, and am hoping that, in correcting any of my statements, one or more of them might provide insights ~ based on fact ~ that are helpful in gaining more nuance in my positions. I most definitely do not fear being proved factually incorrect; it is a path to better knowledge.

To be explicit: I am reeling a bit from what I understand, provisionally, about the differences in the books written in Mecca and those in Medina, which change tone quite drastically (Sura 9 is often quoted in this context).

And I have had the personal experience of a peaceful neighbor going Islamic fundie on me and launching quite a revealing exposé of feeling, along with threats. (This is not the only context for such experiences, as I was nearly shot by a close friend during a coup, based solely on my nationality.) I like to try to get at the root of these things, since they happen to me and others around the world. In the second case, I have needed to delve into historical Catholic fascism, as fascinating as it is disgusting.

Yes, there are Buddhists going nuts in Myanmar, but in this case, I find nothing in the core teachings* to support it, and so understand this as a social and political problem, not one indicating any sort of source in Buddhist canon for these behaviors.

*I could be wrong on that last, and am willing to stand corrected. I am not thoroughly familiar with Buddhism, and am making an assessment more on its public portrayals in my own culture; admittedly sloppy on my part.

 

[A'isha]

I am keenly aware of Christian fundamentalism in the US, Canada, Australia, and now even the UK and Germany. Given that some of its proponents and financiers have political agendas, it worries me greatly. But I think the fight there is more about transparency in political financing, and the use of unlimited funding for campaigns, and the utter nonsense about corporations being people. I am not concerned, however, with this as a religious movement as much as I am with the backroom politics that nourish it.

I disagree...the fight is about so much more. I live in Alabama, where our former Chief Justice was booted from his position for refusing to remove a giant monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse...only to get re-elected and roll right on with stuff like this.

This is why I'm not afraid of "creeping sharia" or any of that nonsense...we'll be living under a Christian theocracy long before shari'ah comes anywhere close to Alabama.

I know there are effective and knowledgeable posters who are Muslims, or who were raised so, posting here on JREF, and am hoping that, in correcting any of my statements, one or more of them might provide insights ~ based on fact ~ that are helpful in gaining more nuance in my positions. I most definitely do not fear being proved factually incorrect; it is a path to better knowledge.

To be explicit: I am reeling a bit from what I understand, provisionally, about the differences in the books written in Mecca and those in Medina, which change tone quite drastically (Sura 9 is often quoted in this context).

This is why I cautioned you above about overstating the "sacred immovability" of the text, because it leads to things like simultaneously believing the utterly contradictory ideas that Muslims cannot ignore or change anything written in the Qur'an, and that they have to ignore the "peaceful verses" in the Qur'an because those verses have been abrogated by the "violent verses".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I disagree...the fight is about so much more. I live in Alabama, where our former Chief Justice was booted from his position for refusing to remove a giant monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse...only to get re-elected and roll right on with stuff like this.

This is why I'm not afraid of "creeping sharia" or any of that nonsense...we'll be living under a Christian theocracy long before shari'ah comes anywhere close to Alabama.

Yet I subscribe to the view that the underlying phenomenon in this case is the taking of refuge in religion with the express purpose of cherry-picking interpretations that are entirely self-serving. This has been taking on various forms in the US since the Civil War, and has gone through several iterations since the Civil Rights era.

The Democrats had a lock on the South since the days of the Republican Party's Emancipation Proclamation. This gave a mix of labor-friendly, yet bigoted Southern Democrats. Things worked until the Johnson administration, when the South was "lost" to the Republicans. Befitting the interests of the latter, we now get lots of combination fundamentalist Christians with either a Libertarian or a neocon slant. This is a relatively new "creation," and one that is surprising for its myriad contradictions.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the entire trend is heavily promoted and financed today, not by 'true' believers with an interest in faith, but by those wishing to see less government in order to pay fewer taxes. The mantra is private enterprise trumps all, to the extent that charity has become a bad word. Some pretty fundamental contradictions are glossed over because the goal is not really a Christian nation, but one of "emancipated" business, free of restraint or proper governance. The rest is self-serving obfuscation disguising racism, bigotry, a mistrust of science, and fear.

Fundies were laughed at by both parties until they became useful in recent times. But sure, let me at least agree that the Christian-nation drum is being given a thorough beating in the US today. I just think the arguments here are to be won in court regarding law, and little return would be seen from arguing matters of faith and science. Too much self-interest is behind the positions taken; that is what must be flushed out into the open.

Still, my concerns are more in Europe, and my take is that in our case, we are getting somewhat less freely-minded immigrants to start with. The US tends to attract those already convinced by the political freedoms and entrepreneurial opportunities, and have a mind to stay.

Each system attracts differently, and there are great geographical considerations affecting the nature of migration. For most of the world, you already need to be successful and so usually more educated in order to legally emigrate to the US from outside the Americas.

In Europe are lands claimed by some in Islam to belong to them. That this is a serious issue is illustrated by Osama bin Laden's clear statements that 911 was in response to foreign interference in Islamic territory, in this case, in East Timor (to stop the slaughter).

This is why I cautioned you above about overstating the "sacred immovability" of the text, because it leads to things like simultaneously believing the utterly contradictory ideas that Muslims cannot ignore or change anything written in the Qur'an, and that they have to ignore the "peaceful verses" in the Qur'an because those verses have been abrogated by the "violent verses".

More on this, thank you. I do not yet appreciate the distinction between the issues raised by the sacred nature of the text itself on the one hand, and the struggles to reconcile its contradictions on the other.

Has the latter opened the door to full textual critique, including asking who actually put the Koran together, when, and from what sources? I would be greatly encouraged to hear that direct dictation by an angel of god of the Koran to Mohammed is an idea under open question within mainstream Islam, say, in Saudi Arabia or Iran, to take the two leaders of the two main variants. I have yet to witness any indication to that effect.

If not, do you see or can you describe ways in which this may come about?

 

[mijopaalmc]

They are killing thousands is one difference I can come up with. Can you think of any?

So it is the killing that annoys you? Or the number that are killed?

 

[A'isha]

Still, my concerns are more in Europe, and my take is that in our case, we are getting somewhat less freely-minded immigrants to start with. The US tends to attract those already convinced by the political freedoms and entrepreneurial opportunities, and have a mind to stay.

I don't think there's as much difference among the immigrants to the US and to Europe as you think.

In Europe are lands claimed by some in Islam to belong to them. That this is a serious issue is illustrated by Osama bin Laden's clear statements that 911 was in response to foreign interference in Islamic territory, in this case, in East Timor (to stop the slaughter).

Bin Laden's statements are hardly the barometer of Islamic thinking on the matter.

Has the latter opened the door to full textual critique, including asking who actually put the Koran together, when, and from what sources?

Not full, no, but the door is there and unlocked. The traditional history of the codification of the Qur'an, along with supporting archaeological evidence like the Sana'a manuscript, certainly allow for the beginnings of textual criticism within an Islamic context, and it's already happening where Islamic religious scholarship and Western academia (which, really, is the only place things like "textual criticism" actually are done) intersect.

I would be greatly encouraged to hear that direct dictation by an angel of god of the Koran to Mohammed is an idea under open question within mainstream Islam, say, in Saudi Arabia or Iran, to take the two leaders of the two main variants. I have yet to witness any indication to that effect.

As I said, that's not needed for textual criticism to start. And Saudi salafist Wahhabism and Iranian Islamist velāyat-e faqīh are not what I would call "mainstream Islam". I would expect such open questioning to arise last in those two places, not first.

 

[Belgian thought]

So it is the killing that annoys you? Or the number that are killed?

pardon ?

 

[mijopaalmc]

pardon ?

 

[hgus]

If Christian Crusaders had automatic weapons and bombs it's likely the enlightenment would have been delayed by several centuries, if ever. That's the problem, this is the 21st century not the 12th. This world has too many countries whose politics are 12th century.

Sorry, you're wrong, simply raising the questions does make me a bigot in some peoples eyes.

Simply by not agreeing that Islam is the greatest threat to humanity I will be called an Islam apologist by SOME people!

Claiming that SOME people think you are a bigot for raising those questions is very likely true, but also meaningless. Why bother what the fanatics thinks? When rational people starts calling one names, then it is time for some honest self assessment.

 

[Belgian thought]

Honestly, I do not understand your question.

Please clarify it.

And for effect - here is my smiley

 

[mijopaalmc]

Honestly, I do not understand your question.

Please clarify it.

And for effect - here is my smiley

I think you missed the salient issue concerning the exetremists' actively ignoring liberalizing influences in their religion—which has little to nothing to do with exteremists' "killing thousands".

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think there's as much difference among the immigrants to the US and to Europe as you think.

There are good reasons to believe that American Muslims are different from European Muslims, for reasons that Rachel Gillum explains here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/

Basically, American Muslims tend to be more highly educated, economically affluent, culturally integrated, and religiously moderate than their European counterparts, because of historical differences in when and why they immigrated to their new host nations.

 

[Belgian thought]

I think you missed the salient issue concerning the exetremists' actively ignoring liberalizing influences in their religion—which has little to nothing to do with exteremists' "killing thousands".

Still lost - maybe another day.

No wish to offend, but on this topic, I have lost your thread and logic completely.
Maybe it is just me, getting old and all that..

 

[mijopaalmc]

Still lost - maybe another day.

No wish to offend, but on this topic, I have lost your thread and logic completely.
Maybe it is just me, getting old and all that..

I might—in all politeness*—that you go back and read our exchange again. Doing so without the several-hour lacunae might help clarify my point.

*Which is difficult to make seem genuine given my curtness.

 

[hgus]

First some background. I live in Sweden, a secular Christian country. I lean towards atheism. I can well understand why one becomes an Islamaphobe. I know intellectually that Islam as all religions contains mostly good parts and some bad parts. Just as humanity itself. BUT I almost entirely see the bad parts of Islam. On television I see Bin Laden, suicide bombings, religious wars, intolerance and hate. If I do not actively search for it, I would never read or see anything of the good parts of Islam. So emotionally it is very easy to become afraid of and therefore hostile to Islam. Information bias see to that. That it is foreign and hard to understand do not help. Neither is our tendency to generalize the bad things THEY do, and particularize the bad things WE do.

The point of this rambling is that I believe that Islamaphobia is mainly an emotional thing. And if one is not aware of that, it is probably hard to get a constructive discussion.

And lastly. It is of course fully possible, to dislike and even hate Islam based on rational arguments. But I believe it is less often the case.

(It is late and english is not my first language. Any incoherent blabbing and errors is blamed on one of those factors. )

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If somebody is an outsider to Islam, it's far better for them to just keep silent about things they don't really know about, correct? That's the only way you can be sure that you aren't being a bigot. Just keep silent on Islamic issues unless you have direct experience with Islam.

What could be clearer?

 

[mijopaalmc]

If somebody is an outsider to Islam, it's far better for them to just keep silent about things they don't really know about, correct? That's the only way you can be sure that you aren't being a bigot. Just keep silent on Islamic issues unless you have direct experience with Islam.

What could be clearer?

Cool straw man, bro.

 

[angrysoba]

There are good reasons to believe that American Muslims are different from European Muslims, for reasons that Rachel Gillum explains here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/

Basically, American Muslims tend to be more highly educated, economically affluent, culturally integrated, and religiously moderate than their European counterparts, because of historical differences in when and why they immigrated to their new host nations.

I think there is some truth to that, although you might be more correct in saying that there are also a lot of different Muslim communities within Europe, depending upon the country they are living in, the country they migrated from, if indeed they are migrants - Europe does also have ancient Muslim communities, particularly in parts of Eastern Europe - and also perhaps the reasons for their migration, if as above they have migrated.

For example, an Asian Muslim migrant from Uganda living in the UK may have very little in common with a Turkish economic migrant in Germany who may in turn have little in common with an Algerian Muslim living in Paris, who may in turn have little in common with a Pakistani Glaswegian.