[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[mijopaalmc]

Two tweets that hit right at home. I full expect that Islamic apologists will defend the indefensible.

Islamophobesayswhat?

You do realize that the whole concept of Islamophobia is based on the act of taking what some Muslims do as representative the amorphous entity "Islam"?

Or does the existence of Nazi parties in Sweden make you a Nazi?

 

[Dinwar]

You do realize that the whole concept of Islamophobia is based on the act of taking what some Muslims do as representative the amorphous entity "Islam"?

This thead is an eloquant statement of hte fact that many do not understand this. To many, any statement critical of Islam is to be accepted at face value, while any statement that makes Islam look like anything other than pure evil is to be dismissed as irrational in some way. Logic is the handmaiden of hatred for Islam.

Empathy tends to the latter and is thus not open to 'Normative' thinking, We could all wish for a lovey dovey world, but it is never going to be.

Empathy may be the wrong word, but the concept is so blindingly obvious that any rejection of it can only stem from gross irrationality.

It's self-evident that believers have a particular belief. The act of arguing against it implies that you have a different belief on that topic. You want to move them from Belief A to Belief B. In order to do that, you must understand what Belief A is. You can argue all day about the historical errors in the Bible, but if you're talking to a practitioner of Wicca it's not going to get you anywhere. These discussions of Islam are the equivalent--if you argue against an interpretation of the Qoran that the Muslim in question doesn't believe anyway, you are doing worse than waisting your breath, you are making yourself look incompetant and ignorant. Continued willful refusal to learn the errors are, as far as I'm concerned, the definition of "stupid". (Though it may be unique to my family, the word "stupid" has always meant in my family "the refusal to learn". Ignorance is a problem, but not a moral failure; stupidity is pretty much unforgiveable to us.)

There's another aspect to this. I've heard it called "drumin' up kinfolk" in geology--you find common ground with someone, and use that common ground to open the conversation. It doesn't convince them, but it keeps them from slamming the door in your face before you can even make your pitch. Coming out swinging, like HF, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. do, does the opposite: studies have shown that it merely makes people dig in deeper to their current positions. Saying that Islam=terrorists automatically makes Muslims less likely to listen to your arguments, regardless of quality.

In short, Dawkins and his faithful are acting in a way that is almost tailor-made to ensure that their arguments get rejected in the most emphatic manner. Their attempts at reform are stillborn, and they are damaging serious attempts to reform Islam. All because they can't be bothered to acknowledge that Muslims also have a perspective on this. Call such an acknowledgement empathy, call it the Goblin Universe, call it squalshim for all I care, without that acknowledgement they CANNOT succeed, and can only damage the cause they proport to advocate.

 

[A'isha]

Do you have anything to counter the points made? If so, please do.

I already have. You even try to duck around one of the things I said right here in your reply!

The notion of a "Saudi translation" is a dodge. Would the translation be radically different if made by someone else?

Of course it would. See all those bits in parentheses in that quote tweeted by this *******? See, those things aren't actually in the text. They're interpolations made by the translators to "explain" what they think the text really means.

Seriously, this is all discussed in some detail at the Wikipedia link I gave you.

For your amusement, that guy is followed by Richard Dawkins, who occasionally retweets him.

So, for the record, that's now two hateful bigoted ******** saying hateful bigoted things that Dawkins likes to retweet.

Any more?

 

[Chaos]

Do you have anything to counter the points made? If so, please do.

You were making points? I only saw you regurgitating someone else´s crap.

For your amusement, that guy is followed by Richard Dawkins, who occasionally retweets him.

For your education, an argument is supposed to stand on the merit of its contents, not on the merit of who retweets it.

 

[metacristi]

Talk about assuming your conclusion.

By the way, in case you missed it earlier:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10045033#post10045033

I do not follow you here. How many muslims are there capable to admit publicly that even the quran is fallible? Where is the quranic criticism on a par with the biblical criticism (which played a central role for the apparition of Modernity by the way)? Also where is the widespread re-Hellenization of the muslim mind?

This is the first mark of moderation (if we want to be consistent we should apply the same criterions as in Christianity) and the reality is that we deal with only a small elite of real moderates acting totally outside the mainstream Islamic religious establishment and its educational methods (still brainwashing people's minds and criminalizing all attempts at non trivial reform) and with very very few adherents at the public level.

No doubt there are those who agree with the affirmation that the quran is fallible in private but who prefer to hide or propose way limited reforms on fear to not be branded 'apostates'; unfortunately I cannot count them among the moderates in the western acceptation for they are, indeed, at most passive carriers of same the old islam since they never confront the core problems with islam.

If the core of islam were not so rotten as it is then many of these people who hide now would come out easily. But of course if this had been the case we would have witnessed a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment long time ago. If you were honest enough you'd easily agree that the only chance to modernize islam is via transformation, implying important non trivial reforms.

That's it a moderate islam is very far from the mainstream islam of today and unfortunately such an islam is inexistent now (the real moderates of islam, in the western sense I talked about, are actually only proposing such a way, it is the job of the Islamic religious establishment to make it become a reality; by the way the fact that there is no central authority in islam actually makes things way worse than in Christianity for, given also the rotten basics of islam, it is very difficult to implement important reforms in practice via a top to down mechanism; indeed at all times it is possible that some muslims invoke the right, granted by the Islamic traditions and Muhammad, to 'defend' islam against unbelievers and fight their own scholars and clerics).

I am not against arguments contrary to my views per se. But I find totally dishonest to claim that no serious argument against islam can be mounted on the lines I presented here (from my experience invariably followed by frantic attempts to 'show' that such views are 'logical fallacies', 'bigotry' and, real madness, 'islamophobia'). Devout enough muslims often react to my arguments as if I try to kill them (by the way another effect of the defective core Islamic worldview affecting, at the unconscious level, the minds of many muslims) but let me say that the so called 'western progressives' are often not too far away.

 

[Humes fork]

I already have. You even try to duck around one of the things I said right here in your reply!

No, you just pulled off ad hominems.

Of course it would. See all those bits in parentheses in that quote tweeted by this *******? See, those things aren't actually in the text. They're interpolations made by the translators to "explain" what they think the text really means.

It's based on Tafsir (exegesis).

And what do you think the alternative translations show? That the pious should hand out flowers to the infidels? Here is Pickthall's translation:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

Here is Yusuf Ali's translation:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

In all cases, the message is to fight the infidels until all worship is for Allah alone. Take a stroll through the Tafsirs.

So, for the record, that's now two hateful bigoted ******** saying hateful bigoted things that Dawkins likes to retweet.

Any more?

Who is the second one?

 

[A'isha]

But I find totally dishonest to claim that no serious argument against islam can be mounted on the lines I presented here (from my experience invariably followed by frantic attempts to 'show' that such views are 'bigotry' and, real madness, 'islamophobia').

Citing the demented, hate-filled rantings of Ali Sina is about as far from a "serious argument against islam" as it's possible to get.

I thought it was -worthy enough when you cited the kook who thinks the "Dark Ages" were all a hoax the years 615 AD to 915 AD never actually happened, but linking to the insane bigotry and Islamophobia that you did upthread (and then acting affronted that anyone might dare to deem it bigotry and Islamophobia) really takes the cake.

 

[mijopaalmc]

the "Dark Ages" were all a hoax the years 615 AD to 915 AD never actually happened

Is this a "New Chronology" never-happened or a "Renaissance scholars unfairly labeled the era for ideological reasons" never-happened?

The former is most definitely pseudohistory, the latter not so much.

 

[Humes fork]

I thought it was -worthy enough when you cited the kook who thinks the "Dark Ages" were all a hoax the years 615 AD to 915 AD never actually happened

I know the notion of the Dark Age is crucial for many Islamic apologist arguments, but it is true that very few modern historians share that view of the period. You are on very shaky ground if you claim otherwise. Most popular ideas of the Dark Age is based on Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda.

When was the Dark Age? Where was it? For who was it a Dark Age?

 

[A'isha]

It's based on Tafsir (exegesis).

It's based on the tafsir that the Wahhabiyya favor.

Here is Yusuf Ali's translation:

Indeed. And what he said his translation means is kind of at odds what Hilil-Khan (and you, and your friend "JihadJoe") want it to mean.

In all cases, the message is to fight the infidels until all worship is for Allah alone.

Nope.

Take a stroll through the Tafsirs.

Which range from the Saudi interpretation to Yusuf Ali's interpretation (fight until your enemies stop persecuting you, and if they stop persecuting you, your hostility towards them ends) to Muhammad Asad's interpretation ("Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, 'do not commit aggression'; while by al-mu'tadin 'those who commit aggression' are meant. The defensive character of a fight 'in God's cause' - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to 'those who wage war against you', and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - 'permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged' - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur'anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur'an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse") to Tabatabaei's interpretation (that this was a specific command regarding the polytheists of Mecca, and not applicable to anyone else) to Mawdudi's interpretation ("It does not mean that Islam incites the believers to go to war to force unbelievers at the point of the sword to give up disbelief and polytheism and adopt the Way of Allah instead...One may adopt any way of life that one chooses and may or may not worship anyone or anything.")

Who is the second one?

Pat Condell. We've been over this in this thread.

 

[A'isha]

I know the notion of the Dark Age is crucial for many Islamic apologist arguments, but it is true that very few modern historians share that view of the period. You are on very shaky ground if you claim otherwise. Most popular ideas of the Dark Age is based on Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda.

When was the Dark Age? Where was it? For who was it a Dark Age?

You misunderstand. The "scholar" that metacristi cited, Emmet Scott, doesn't think that the popular ideas of a Dark Age, based on Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda, are incorrect and supplanted by modern historiography. He believes that the Dark Ages literally never happened, that the years 615 to 915 never actually existed (meaning that this year isn't 2014 at all, but properly 1714!), but that due to an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy instigated by Otto III and Gerbert d'Aurillac, we only think the historical events of those years actually occurred.

Is this a "New Chronology" never-happened or a "Renaissance scholars unfairly labeled the era for ideological reasons" never-happened?

The former is most definitely pseudohistory, the latter not so much.

The former.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know the notion of the Dark Age is crucial for many Islamic apologist arguments, but it is true that very few modern historians share that view of the period. You are on very shaky ground if you claim otherwise. Most popular ideas of the Dark Age is based on Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda.

When was the Dark Age? Where was it? For who was it a Dark Age?

You forgot: Is there any evidence that there was a "Dark Age"? Is "Dark Age" even defined in such a way that accurately portrays notions of "progress"?

 

[Dinwar]

The concept in question is called the Phantom Time Hypothesis. Here's a website discussing it:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Phantom Time.HTM

 

[Dinwar]

You forgot: Is there any evidence that there was a "Dark Age"? Is "Dark Age" even defined in such a way that accurately portrays notions of "progress"?

Well, we know that the time period between 476 AD and 1500 AD happened. We have innumerable artifacts, documents, buildings, etc., that have been dated by every method known to science, from that period, all over the world. We certainly know that that time happened.

We know that there was a massive shift in society at the start. Rome didn't fall with a bang, but it certainly lost its hold on Europe and North Africa (the eastern empire didn't technically fall until the 20th century, but it was so different as to be unidentifiable at that point).

We also know, via various methods, that some technologies were lost. Romans had surprisingly advanced surgical techniques, for example--far more so than, say, those available during the Nepoleanic Wars. And there's a reduction in writen records for a time as well, as people were more interested in other activities than writing about how to cheat on your husband at the race track. Plus, there were major advancements in metalurgy, agriculture, war, equestrian arts, etc. during the Middle Ages.

The main issue, far as I can tell, with the so-called Dark Ages is that we look at the upper class of Rome and the lower class of the Early Middle Ages. Comparing a Roman senator to a Norse peasant is going to result in the image of the Norse as backwards and primative. If you compare upper class to upper class, or lower class to lower class, it comes out more even, if not in the Middle Ages' favor.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The main issue, far as I can tell, with the so-called Dark Ages is that we look at the upper class of Rome and the lower class of the Early Middle Ages. Comparing a Roman senator to a Norse peasant is going to result in the image of the Norse as backwards and primative. If you compare upper class to upper class, or lower class to lower class, it comes out more even, if not in the Middle Ages' favor.

(emphasis added)

Errrr.....that's the point. Not to mention that there are several out-right fabrications (or more generously, interpolations of from material clearly meant to be fictional) that continue to be promulgated that make the Middle Ages excessively backwards.

 

[Dinwar]

Errrr.....that's the point. Not to mention that there are several out-right fabrications (or more generously, interpolations of from material clearly meant to be fictional) that continue to be promulgated that make the Middle Ages excessively backwards.

No argument from me on that point. My point is merely that it's all more complicated than either side wants us to believe. The Middle Ages were a unique society in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. In some ways they were far advanced of Rome, and in others they backslid remarkably far.

 

[Belgian thought]

Empathy may be the wrong word, but the concept is so blindingly obvious that any rejection of it can only stem from gross irrationality.

It's self-evident that believers have a particular belief. The act of arguing against it implies that you have a different belief on that topic. You want to move them from Belief A to Belief B. In order to do that, you must understand what Belief A is....


.

'Empathy may be the wrong word'. It is. Let us apply the 'concept' to Charles Manson shall we? Having applied it, what conclusion could it lead to? "Well he was only was doing what he thought was correct."

No, as I stated, when one moves to an emotive approach we face a massive hole of reasoning, the misinterpretations are infinite.

 

[Belgian thought]

You misunderstand. The "scholar" that metacristi cited, Emmet Scott, doesn't think that the popular ideas of a Dark Age, based on Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda, are incorrect and supplanted by modern historiography. He believes that the Dark Ages literally never happened, that the years 615 to 915 never actually existed (meaning that this year isn't 2014 at all, but properly 1714!), but that due to an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy instigated by Otto III and Gerbert d'Aurillac, we only think the historical events of those years actually occurred.



The former.

That's a memory shock.

Living and working in Germany some 12 years back, I met quite a few people, who mentioned this 'missing' dark age.

In the eighties, in the UK, people were going on about Rennes le Chateau

Will we ever get to the truth .... ?

 

[Belgian thought]

When was the Dark Age? Where was it? For who was it a Dark Age?

for these people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

 

[mijopaalmc]

'Empathy may be the wrong word'. It is. Let us apply the 'concept' to Charles Manson shall we? Having applied it, what conclusion could it lead to? "Well he was only was doing what he thought was correct."

No, as I stated, when one moves to an emotive approach we face a massive hole of reasoning, the misinterpretations are infinite.

Are seriously equating forgiving someone in particular who has demonstrably done something wrong with not labellinga diverse group people mentally ill because you disagree with them?

You appearently have no sense of degree or kind?