[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Hlafordlaes]

'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.

I think you may miss my point. Mapping minds is a natural skill for understanding other minds in social groups to gauge intent. Empathy is the result, following a non-threatening read, of then placing oneself in another's position or place and seeing from that perspective, with the purpose of learning or further reading intent, as I discuss here for other reasons.

Sympathy is perhaps what you are thinking of, or an act of permanently withholding judgement.

No, empathy can be used as an effective tool to get to where someone is, to allow you to start inviting them to where you would like to go. In conversation, restating their positions is one way to signal you are trust-worthy, and have not identified them as "other," as social animals are still tribally driven and are on guard for that signal.

As for Manson, a little mapping of that mind from a distance is all one needs to see danger. That is the purpose of mind mapping, to predict actions and intent.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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?

You seem to be arguing that there is no movement to modernize Islam by reinterpreting the Quran, based on your own incredulity or unwillingness to look.

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.

So you're the one who gets to decide who's a true Muslim and who isn't?

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.

Which are?

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.

There you go, assuming your conclusion again by asserting that Islam is rotten to the core. It sounds like you don't want it to be reformed at all.

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).

What are the "rotten basics of Islam"? Be specific. Also, are you aware that the spokespeople for Islamic fundamentalism are actually a vocal minority? Just because Bin Laden got all the media attention while he was still breathing didn't make him the face of the Islamic world.

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.

Maybe that's because the source on which you leaned so heavily was indeed full of logical fallacies, bigotry, and irrational fear of Islam. Most Muslims are normal people who are quite capable of living in the modern civilized world.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Most Muslims are normal people who are quite capable of living in the modern civilized world.

Judging from my cab rides in Cairo, also quite capable of pleasant equanimity in the face of absolute traffic chaos. One rarely hears a horn beep amidst a swirl of fast moving, and for me unpredictable, objects. Cabbies seem far more cheerful than in NYC, for example.

That could be also a measure of joy from getting a nice fat fare from the airport. Guess they are human after all.

 

[Chaos]

Judging from my cab rides in Cairo, also quite capable of pleasant equanimity in the face of absolute traffic chaos. One rarely hears a horn beep amidst a swirl of fast moving, and for me unpredictable, objects. Cabbies seem far more cheerful than in NYC, for example.

That could be also a measure of joy from getting a nice fat fair from the airport. Guess they are human after all.

It should not come as a surprise to most of us that people, even if they speak a different language, wear different clothes and have a different religion, are first and foremost simply people, just like us.

 

[Dinwar]

'Empathy may be the wrong word'. It is. Let us apply the 'concept' to Charles Manson shall we?

The only way you can even pretend this is a rational summary of what I said is if you assume that all theists are the equivalent of Charles Manson.

This is the sort of nonsense I was talking about. This comparison is the best way to ensure NO ONE on the other side will take you seriously. To close your eyes to the obvious differences between Manson and the overwhelming majority of theists (who are NOT psychopaths, murderers, cult leaders, etc) is to abandon all pretense at rationality.

Here's a very simple challange for you, Humes fork, metacristi, and all the other Islamophobes in this thread: How are you going to convince people they're wrong when you are unwilling to learn what they believe? Until you can answer that, the only rational option is to learn what they believe and THEN try to convince them that they are wrong.

You appearently have no sense of degree or kind?

This is the fundamental fallacy of islamophobia and anti-theism (there's a difference between an atheist, even a very vocal atheist, and an anti-theist). Islamophobs and anti-theists assume that the worst cases are representative--and that better people either don't exist, or are somehow violating the priniciples of the religion, or can otherwise be safely ignored. It's a fallacy, and one that they scream their heads off when people use against them (I've had people on this forum pretend that they were unaware of what the term "New Atheists" means, for example), but hey, it's religion they're attacking; since it's obviously wrong, there's no reason to use reason when attacking it!

 

[Chaos]

How are you going to convince people they're wrong when you are unwilling to learn what they believe? Until you can answer that, the only rational option is to learn what they believe and THEN try to convince them that they are wrong.

Here´s the problem: they´ve made it clear enough that they believe they already know exactly what every theist, especially every Muslim, believes.

If one is convinced, beyond any shred of doubt, that they know everything you need know, why should they take appeasers´ frivolous demands to learn more seriously?

 

[Belgian thought]

The only way you can even pretend this is a rational summary of what I said is if you assume that all theists are the equivalent of Charles Manson.

This is the sort of nonsense I was talking about. This comparison is the best way to ensure NO ONE on the other side will take you seriously. To close your eyes to the obvious differences between Manson and the overwhelming majority of theists (who are NOT psychopaths, murderers, cult leaders, etc) is to abandon all pretense at rationality.

Here's a very simple challange for you, Humes fork, metacristi, and all the other Islamophobes in this thread: How are you going to convince people they're wrong when you are unwilling to learn what they believe? Until you can answer that, the only rational option is to learn what they believe and THEN try to convince them that they are wrong.

This is the fundamental fallacy of islamophobia and anti-theism (there's a difference between an atheist, even a very vocal atheist, and an anti-theist). Islamophobs and anti-theists assume that the worst cases are representative--and that better people either don't exist, or are somehow violating the priniciples of the religion, or can otherwise be safely ignored. It's a fallacy, and one that they scream their heads off when people use against them (I've had people on this forum pretend that they were unaware of what the term "New Atheists" means, for example), but hey, it's religion they're attacking; since it's obviously wrong, there's no reason to use reason when attacking it!

Not at all - I believe that actually being polite yet direct is the way to be.


I would not though try and understand their beliefs because I stopped believing in anything remotely supernatural a long long time ago and perhaps cannot show empathy, sympathy yes.


I am still surprised in these days of science and technology, how many believe their religious books.


I am prepared to understand a person's belief in a creator, if it were ones own conclusion, the dilemma having been too big, and after struggling on the agnostic fence, they jumped one side.


But, to believe in any book that contains fallacies, a mish-mash of contradictions then to proclaim it the word of god, I find absurd, regardless which following does it and, I do not need to learn the whole book before calling it nonsense.


Finally regarding learning to understand, I am sure were this thread to be about Scientology or some other recently made up spiritual guidebook, most posters, myself included, would not take such a softly softly approach, they would laugh and criticise the 'new' books in a very direct fashion.


I doubt we would be asked to read and try and understand the book and beliefs before replying. It is this hypocrisy which I find distasteful.

 

[Dinwar]

Not at all - I believe that actually being polite yet direct is the way to be.


I would not though try and understand their beliefs....

This necessarily results in you being polite, direct, and having no idea if you're actually discussing anything relevant or not. Understanding their beliefs is CRITICAL to being able to converse with them about their beliefs--as in, without understanding their beliefs you have no better ability to hit on important concepts to them than chance.

b...ecause I stopped believing in anything remotely supernatural a long long time ago...

Thank you for stating another foundational fallacy of Islamophobia and, to a much larger degree, anti-theism: "I don't believe, for these reasons, therefore they should be enough for anyone." It's a very self-centered world-view, one which dismisses as irrelevant the fact that you are dealing with another person, with their own beliefs and opinions and understanding. Furthermore, such behavior is only ever considered acceptable regarding religion. No scientist thinks that just because something convinced them, it therefore must convince everyone else--we are trained to ask (and provide unasked, when we are the objecting party) "What evidence would convince you?" The reason is self-evident: it's not YOU that you're trying to convince.

Just look at your post--the constant refrain in it is "Me, Me, Me, Me, Me!!!"

I do not need to learn the whole book before calling it nonsense.

To call it nonsense? No, of course not--you can call it nonsense because the purple fairies told you to. That's called "freedom of speach". In order to convince any believer it's nonsense? You most certainly DO need to understand it. (Oh, and I apparently need to point out yet again that the holy book of the religion is not the whole of the religion. I suppose such ignorance of basic facts is to be expected from folks who feel ignorance of the opposition is a badge of honor, but that's very shoddy critical thinking and a gross and negligent misrepresentation of the other side. To call such nonsense a straw man argument is giving it too much credit.)

You're surprised that in this age of scientific wonder people believe in old story books. I'm flabbergasted that alleged skeptics continuously fail to comprehend the basics fo rhetoric and logic to such a degree.

Finally regarding learning to understand, I am sure were this thread to be about Scientology or some other recently made up spiritual guidebook, most posters, myself included, would not take such a softly softly approach, they would laugh and criticise the 'new' books in a very direct fashion.

You are wrong. If you want to laugh at some belief, you can use whatever criteria you wish. If you want to convince believers to abandon the belief, you need to understand their belief.

It's really very simple: they believe something. You disagree. You want to convince them. YOU THEREFORE NEED TO FACTOR THEIR BELIEFS INTO THE EQUATION. There is no honest or rational disagreement possible in this matter. None. Anyone who disagrees with it is either dishonest or irrational, with no exceptions.

If you say anything along the lines of "So you expect me to read every religion before I disagree with it?" I'm through talking to you. I have made it clear that I am specifically discussing how to convince other people, and anyone who can't differentiate between conversations with others and studying something on your own is obviously incapable of making contributions to a serious discussion.

It is this hypocrisy which I find distasteful.

The only hypocrites are you, Humes fork, and other "skeptics" who abandon the principles of rationality and the very concept of other people when dealing with theists. I am advocating basic, fundamental principles of rationality.

 

[Belz...]

Errrr...I think you're missing the point that the hajj is defined as "the pilgrimage to Mecca" and is one of the fundamental obligations of Islam.

I just love religion. They can make the most useless things mandatory, and the most natural, basic needs sinful.

 

[Belz...]

It's freedom of speech. Something Islamic apologists have a complicated relationship to.

You might have a point if anyone was calling for your banning or something like that. But since you're free to focus all your attention on Islam in almost every post you make here, I don't see the problem.

 

[Dinwar]

I just love religion. They can make the most useless things mandatory, and the most natural, basic needs sinful.

Different perspectives render different things of different importance. To a peasant 500 years ago sitting around typing was irrelevant--even reading was considered superfluous in many regions. Knowing how to start a fire, or identify edible plants, was of far more significance to them. When was the last time you foraged for food?

I'm not saying that the religious perspective is good. I'm just saying that the fact that they have a different concept of what is necessary doesn't necessarily make them wrong. It merely means that they have a different perspective.

 

[Belz...]

For one thing, empathy helps you stay away from the antagonistic standpoint, i.e. that the other guy - be he the Woo-Woo, the Liberal, the Muslim or whoever - is the enemy to be fought.

Empathy isn't a switch, mind you. You can have it in some contexts and not in others.

No, you just pulled off ad hominems.

And you just pulled off links. Those aren't "points" that you made.

 

[Belz...]

Different perspectives render different things of different importance. To a peasant 500 years ago sitting around typing was irrelevant--even reading was considered superfluous in many regions. Knowing how to start a fire, or identify edible plants, was of far more significance to them.

Still, telling someone that even thinking about sex is wrong, and that making a trip to a city somewhere in the desert is of prime importance seems to be a good case of misplaced priorities.

 

[Dinwar]

Still, telling someone that even thinking about sex is wrong, and that making a trip to a city somewhere in the desert is of prime importance seems to be a good case of misplaced priorities.

I'm not so sure. My job tells me that taking a trip to the desert is of prime importance, while my wife tells me that sex with women other than her is wrong.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just saying that from their perspective there may be reasons for this. You're looking at two floating concretes; there may be some underlying principles, of which these are applications, that make them make more sense. I'd rather attack the principles than the concrete applications.

Empathy isn't a switch, mind you. You can have it in some contexts and not in others.

Very true. I can empathize with the average believer--they are raised with certain customes and beliefs, and most of them never think too much about it, regardless of the faith in question. Those who do I can also empathize with--they are undertaking a very difficult mental task, which requires a tremendous effort. I believe it misplaced, but that's a different matter entirely.

I cannot empathize with outrights frauds, such as the Institute for Creation Research, or with people like cult leaders who cynically manipulate religious belief to prey on people.

 

[Belz...]

This is the fundamental fallacy of islamophobia and anti-theism (there's a difference between an atheist, even a very vocal atheist, and an anti-theist). Islamophobs and anti-theists assume that the worst cases are representative--and that better people either don't exist, or are somehow violating the priniciples of the religion, or can otherwise be safely ignored.

That's odd. I'm an anti-theist (anti-religion, that is) and yet I don't assume this. Perhaps you're the one doing the assuming in this case ? Or did you mean anti-theist as in "against theists" ? That would be an odd use of the word, as far as I'm concerned.

I think that religion is harmful more than it is beneficial, and I wish it dissapeared as our knowledge of the world improves, and I admire Hitchens for his efforts and for speaking his mind regardless of who he was with or watched by. I know plenty of nice theists, and I can respect their beliefs even if I disagree with them strongly. But to me, belief is anathema. I simply don't think that way, so it's hard for me, in the context of a religious discussion, to be sympathetic for a point of view that is, to me, irrational.

 

[Dinwar]

Or did you mean anti-theist as in "against theists" ?

This. There's a difference in not believing, and discarding rationality in order to make theists look bad. Someone who points out genuine flaws with theism or religions is not, in my book, an anti-theist--they are a rational critic of religion. I have always limited the term to those who attack theism irrationally.

Religion is bad enough on its own. We don't need to make crap up about it in order to point out the flaws. If someone feels the need to do so, or worse to attack those who point out that they are wrong, they're not rational, and they're not helping bring about the end of religion. Even if we agree with their conclusion, their methods and "reasoning" are so poor that they do more harm than good. And to me, it's useful to have a word to discuss such people; at the very least, it shows that we're making an attempt to clean our own houses before we complain about the mess in someone else's.

I simply don't think that way, so it's hard for me, in the context of a religious discussion, to be sympathetic for a point of view that is, to me, irrational.

Why, exactly, does your view matter when discussing the beliefs of someone who isn't you?

 

[Humes fork]

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.

It's a meaningles comparison, becuase the Nordic counties were never under Roman control. A central aspect of the Dark Age narrative is that the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire lead to backwardness.

Also, what parameters does your upper class comparison entail?

 

[Dinwar]

It's a meaningles comparison, becuase the Nordic counties were never under Roman control.

It's actually a meaningless comparison because we're comparing a multitude of various cultures, under two umbrellas, by the standards of a third culture. The rest of the issues are secondary, and based on the problems inherent in that one.

I'm not the one making these comparisons, by the way--I'm criticizing the logic of such comparisons. When we think of Rome, we think of the upper class. Togas and Baccanalias and people with money to spend on watching gladiatorial matches, that sort of thing. When we think of hte Middle Ages we think of people digging in the dirt to scratch out a bare subsistance living. Problem is, most people of every society were farming until very recently, and the peasants of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages really weren't all that different.

Also, what parameters does your upper class comparison entail?

Diet, lifestyle, technology, etc. Most measurable standards, as I recall (I don't have my books on the subject at hand, however, so I can't give specific references). A hedge knight in the Middle Ages had better weapons and armor than was available to the Romans (metalurgical advancements made new types of armor and weapons possible). On the flip side, Romans had better surgical techniques.

 

[A'isha]

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.

That's not surprising, since the whole "Phantom Dark Ages" hypothesis nonsense was started by a German, Heribert Illig, and never really got much attention outside Germany (one of Emmet Scott's stated goals in writing his own book was to expose a wider audience to Illig's ideas).

Here´s the problem: they´ve made it clear enough that they believe they already know exactly what every theist, especially every Muslim, believes.

And not only are they convinced that they already know what every theist, especially every Muslim, believes, they're perfectly happy to ignore any evidence that contradicts that, even in their own sources.

Above, Humes fork linked to Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas in order to support that jackhole "JihadJoe's" ******** sarcasm that Q 8:39 is "Conclusive proof that Islam respects ALL religions equally & has no agenda to eliminate all until only Islam remains". Unfortunately for Humes fork, the tafsir he linked to actually says:

(And fight them) i.e. the disbelievers of Mecca (until persecution) disbelief, idolatry, idol worship and fighting against Muhammad (pbuh) in the Sacred Precinct (is no more, and religion) in the Sacred Precinct as well as worship (is all for Allah) such that none remains except the Religion of Islam.

Ibn Abbas' interpretation of Q 8:39, as cited by Humes fork, is that Muslims are commanded to fight the disbelievers of Mecca until all worship in the Sacred Precinct is for Allah alone. The "Sacred Precinct" is the Masjid Al-Haram in Mecca, and there haven't been any "disbelievers of Mecca" for 1,384 years. In other words, Ibn Abbas, like Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei, interprets that verse as being about a specific time and place, telling the Muslims of Medina after their victory at the Battle of Badr in 624 AD that their war with the polytheist Quraysh that ruled Mecca and controlled the Ka'aba would not be over until the Quraysh were either ejected from Mecca or converted to Islam, and handed over sole control of the Ka'aba to the Muslims.

Here's a very simple challange for you, Humes fork, metacristi, and all the other Islamophobes in this thread: How are you going to convince people they're wrong when you are unwilling to learn what they believe? Until you can answer that, the only rational option is to learn what they believe and THEN try to convince them that they are wrong.

I think it's extremely unfair to lump Belgian thought in with those others. As I said above, I've certainly had my disagreements with him vis-a-vis Islam, but in my experience Belgian thought has certainly shown a willingness to learn that the others have not.

 

[Belz...]

This. There's a difference in not believing, and discarding rationality in order to make theists look bad. Someone who points out genuine flaws with theism or religions is not, in my book, an anti-theist--they are a rational critic of religion. I have always limited the term to those who attack theism irrationally.

Alrighty, then. I'm not an anti-theist by your definition. It gets a bit confusing, though, when I have to use the same word differently depending on who I'm talking to.

Religion is bad enough on its own. We don't need to make crap up about it in order to point out the flaws.

Agreed.

Why, exactly, does your view matter when discussing the beliefs of someone who isn't you?

Because I'm half of the conversation, too, and it takes two points of view to have a conversation. If I can't relate to the other's views, it does make conversation more difficult.