Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Belz...]

That, and I'm also deeply sceptical of the notion of "criticizing religion" as opposed to the particular social structures and movements that cause harm. Nearly always, atheists who "criticize religion" have a deeply flawed understanding of what religion is to people and how they understand it.

No, you can criticise the religion, and I've been criticising Christianity for 25 years, by addressing its beliefs and practices. The same is true for Islam.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, you can criticise the religion, and I've been criticising Christianity for 25 years, by addressing its beliefs and practices. The same is true for Islam.

At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.

 

[David Mo]

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.

This is the point. What we urgently need is to debate with European Muslims on the way they conceive democracy. They are in favour of democracy in many cases but they are also inclined to think that society has to be ruled by religious principles —the relative-soft meaning of “sharia”. Therefore the task to convince them of the principle of secular state has priority over the question of the existence of Allah and the criticism against the Koran has to be oriented to anti-democratic ideology. Curiously, this ideology is the same of many white supremacists who speak of imposing our “Judeo-Christian” principles to the “Muslim” principles. Just like Geert Wilders.

When I speak of democracy I am putting the issue of the place of women in society as a main problem. This is probably the main failure in the Muslim concept of democracy.

 

[Carn]

Maybe you could try not couching academic arguments in moral terms like "lie" and try and understand the mindset of believers?

You constantly show that you do not understand the mindset of a relevant number of believers.

For a relevant number of believers, it is at once obvious that there is a difference whether the supreme being literally dictated at some point in time under some circumstances:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

or whether the supreme being supposedly said verbatim in some context:

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."


That you treat these and other content of "holy books" as somehow mostly interchangeable or irrelevant, shows that you are not aware about the mindset of a relevant number of believers.

For a relevant number of believers, the supreme being telling them verbatim to jump would only allow "How high?" as a response; and maybe not even that.

 

[Carn]

I am afraid that you are misunderstanding my point of view.

I was trying to understand, under what circumstances you would find exclusionary criticism of Islam acceptable. It seems never.

And whether you think it might be possible for some religion being more problematic than others. But i think you exclude that possibility.

First: I think that all the Holy Books that I know are anti-democratic and foster the violence against opponents. Many of them —the Quran included— hold an ambiguous position about the infidels, but not complete tolerance is the dominant line.

I understood that you think that.

But that doesn't answer how someone should act and argue who thinks otherwise.

Third: If anti-terrorism laws define what is terrorism and what is encouraging terrorism I don’t see any need to make particular laws neither against Islam nor Judaism. There is no need to make exceptions with neo-nazis groups neither. Violence, racism, intolerance or terrorism are neutral concepts. That is what we need in laws. Not discrimination.

There are exceptions in some countries about Neo-Nazis.

In some countries just trying to spread the ideas of Nazism is illegal. Because the respective countries presume the ideas themself being dangerous or sometimes even a cause for violence.

And i think that there is some justification; if one claims that the Jews are a "race" of infiltrators trying to poison good and healthy "races" from within, the logical consequence would be some sort of violence to "defend" one's own "race" against the Jews. So limitations upon spreading such ideas might be necessary to prevent violence (of course, that is anathema in US; but not in other countries).

To fight against a powerful religion or a minority one is a very different business.

Ans which is Islam?

One point something billion adherents and 57 UN members organized in a group called "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" does not necessarily look like a minority one on a global scale.

I pose an example:
In a demonstration against terrorism I was accompanied by a Muslim that was dirigent of a Muslim women organization. Do you think that this was the moment to discuss with her about the inexistence of Allah or the Quran's verses that provoque intolerance?

No.

Care to provide an example, when exclusive criticism of Islam is fine?

And no more.

I am a little surprised that you seem ignore what is “white-supremacism”. Is it a false impression for my part?

I do not understand, why you think i would ignore it.

But i regurlarly ignore if some people claim someone is a "white-supremacists", since the quota of false accusations is so high. If i want to know, whether the accusation is true, i read myself what the person in questions said or did.

Actual white-supremacist are the people who should pursue other career goals than becoming the ruler of my country.

 

[David Mo]

I was trying to understand, under what circumstances you would find exclusionary criticism of Islam acceptable. It seems never.

And whether you think it might be possible for some religion being more problematic than others. But i think you exclude that possibility.



I understood that you think that.

But that doesn't answer how someone should act and argue who thinks otherwise.



There are exceptions in some countries about Neo-Nazis.

In some countries just trying to spread the ideas of Nazism is illegal. Because the respective countries presume the ideas themself being dangerous or sometimes even a cause for violence.

And i think that there is some justification; if one claims that the Jews are a "race" of infiltrators trying to poison good and healthy "races" from within, the logical consequence would be some sort of violence to "defend" one's own "race" against the Jews. So limitations upon spreading such ideas might be necessary to prevent violence (of course, that is anathema in US; but not in other countries).



Ans which is Islam?

One point something billion adherents and 57 UN members organized in a group called "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" does not necessarily look like a minority one on a global scale.



No.

Care to provide an example, when exclusive criticism of Islam is fine?

.

I am glad to see that you accept the principle that there are more urgent discussions with “moderate” Muslims than the existence of Allah. I have explained this in my comment #143. For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.

I don’t see any problem in the discussion with Muslims about the sacred and the existence of God in the context of an intellectual debate, scholar or not. But if someone defend the existence of God against the existence of Allah, or vice versa, my position will be belligerent against both.

What I say is that we have to differentiate the political circumstances from the intellectual circumstances. And the debate will be different in any case. This is what the racist doesn’t like. Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.

In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.

Finally, I don’t like particular laws on this or that ideology. This kind of laws have been frequently used as means of discrimination and totalitarianism. If a particular ideology is a case of intolerance, racism and violence —as the case of neo-Nazism— it ought to be prosecuted in the name of general laws against intolerance, racism and violence.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I am glad to see that you accept the principle that there are more urgent discussions with “moderate” Muslims than the existence of Allah. I have explained this in my comment #143. For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.

I don’t see any problem in the discussion with Muslims about the sacred and the existence of God in the context of an intellectual debate, scholar or not. But if someone defend the existence of God against the existence of Allah, or vice versa, my position will be belligerent against both.

What I say is that we have to differentiate the political circumstances from the intellectual circumstances. And the debate will be different in any case. This is what the racist doesn’t like. Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.

In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.

Finally, I don’t like particular laws on this or that ideology. This kind of laws have been frequently used as means of discrimination and totalitarianism. If a particular ideology is a case of intolerance, racism and violence —as the case of neo-Nazism— it ought to be prosecuted in the name of general laws against intolerance, racism and violence.

Largely agreed, especially the closing argument. I would, however, say that particular religions (as canon) can be as deserving of wholesale rejection as can particular political ideologies. For me, the key lies in the degree of absolutism, the degree to which the means for opponents to legitimately disagree is suppressed. For example, claiming communism as scientific and "historically inevitable" makes opponents woo-mongers standing ignorantly in the way of truth and progress. Claiming Allah wrote his laws on every human heart, so that all know them and can only be in sinful rebellion when not accepting the faith, allows for execution on the spot of those refusing to bow: wildly, sickly absolutist.

 

[Carn]

I have explained this in my comment #143.

Is there anyone arguing in public in the way your comment 143 suggested and is not being called islamophobe/right-wing by what is called "mainstream media" or Southern Poverty Law Center or similar organizations?

Cause i think it might be pretty tricky. Effectively the position would be:
- all religions are somehwat democracy-incompatible
- fortunately in some religions this was understood - e.g. Christianity - and somehow religion and democracy can coexist
-unfortunately in some religions such an understanding is yet to weak, hence we have to specifically discuss how those religion's scriptures and teaching is incompatible with democracy; and the religion with which the discussion is most urgent is Islam

Tough job to do that without SPLC calling you a bigoted hater.

For example, the interpretation of the Koran passages that discriminate women. If the moderate Muslim affirms that these passages are not valid for contemporary societies —the way of reasoning this it doesn’t matter now—the debate is over for my part— and for the moment. His problem will be with less moderate Muslims. Perhaps a lethal problem.

Same question as above, is there anyone doing this and not getting publically shunned for being an islamophob?

Because their racial theories usually claim the superiority of “white” ideologies over the “black” ideologies. Religion included.

Technically, you claimed superiority of Christianity over Islam, as you indicated that Christians have made the better job at ignoring the problematic passages of their scipture.

That suggest at least a temporary superiority of the religion and/or the adherents over the other.

And therefore i am sceptical how one could argue that way without being trashed as islamophobe.

In the essential, —intolerance and violence— I don’t see that some religions are worse than others (I speak of the three or four big religions that I know). I see some religions more controlled than others. Many barbaric acts had been committed in the name of almost all religions. Why do we have to give one priority over the other? Only circumstances can.

That avoids the question, how should one act who thinks otherwise, so who thinks that some religions are due to the content of their scipture/theology "worse" than other religions.

 

[Belz...]

At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).

That's nothing but deflection. You said criticism of Islam is racism. Full stop. Now you're twisting and turning to try to backtrack from that claim without doing so.

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding.

What about the actual Muslims making those criticisms? Do they not have an understanding of their own religion and culture? You're talking nonsense.

You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies

You know absolutely nothing about me, sir, so don't pretend like you do. Don't project your inadequacies onto me.

If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it.

Yes, let's close that circle, right? The accusation, in and of itself, is enough for guilt to be determined. After all, just criticising Islam makes me a racist, so I'm guilty by definition.

What you are proposing is idiotic and insane.

 

[Carn]

At a minimum, you're going to have a basic understanding of Christian society, power structures, institutions. Christianity will not feel foreign to you. That's going to at a minimum make the criticism more benign, if potentially narrowminded. (And certainly, the anti-Catholic screeds of some people here make me pretty uncomfortable).

But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

So try to keep that in mind. You, personally, like all of us, are deeply shaped by an ingrained Western prejudice against Muslim societies, and you don't understand them as well as you think. If you ever find yourself facing accusations of racism or Islamophobia, try stopping and thinking carefully about what you're saying and what informs it. Maybe make some Muslim friends and talk to them about it, ask what they think. Don't play the diversion game.

Your implicite suggestion that only if one were a non-white from a non-western culture, that then one would not get accused of racism in microseconds after criticizing Islam, does not fit the data:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4377900/Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-hits-Australian-critics.html

Black woman, who grew up in an Islamic country, who had to study the quran (apparently she got some beating when here willingness to study faltered), who was indoctrinated to wear hijab, who had some sympathy for muslim brotherhood and death penalty for Rushdie, who was victim of FGM (which she claims has something to do with Islam) and who was to marry some cousin she did not know and was never asked about.

So the prefect opposite of male, white, western and all the other stuff you think is relevant.

And yet, she gets with variations the same treatment as the male, white, western critics of Islam.

What you suggest, does not fit the data.

And its not a rhethorical trick that i ask since several pages for names of public critics of Islam, which are not deemed to be islampohobic and/or racist. Its just that i could not name anybody and all your words about how reasonable critics should act is empty, if no one can meet the standards you set.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... But with Islam, you cannot claim such an intuitive understanding. For that reason, any criticism you utter is far more likely to be informed by prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. Particularly, anything you say will be directed at a very vulnerable group in Western society, and a civilization treated with stereotyped disdain by the West for 1400 years.

True. Cognizant of that, I went out looking for those subscribing to the faith, self-identified as mostly moderates, most working in the West, to get background on the teachings. When I bought the book cited below, I fully expected to have a handle on identifying mainstream, peaceful Islam, as was the claim at the time.

Islamic Political Ethics: Civil Society, Pluralism, and Conflict

One of the most dynamic aspects of the Islamic revival during the past two centuries has been the rethinking of Islamic political thought. A broad range of actors, ideas, and ideologies characterize the debate on how Islamic ethics and law should be manifested in modern institutions. Yet this aspect of the "return to Islam" has been neglected by policymakers, the media, and even many scholars, who equate "political Islam" with merely one strand, labeled "Islamic fundamentalism." Bringing together ten essays from six volumes of the Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics, this book gives a rounded treatment to the subject of Islamic political ethics.

It was only after carefully reading each author and finishing the book that I realized how utterly shocking and foreign to natural empathy and the golden rule (the default ethical position in most societies, identified as such or not) that Islam is. This is when a reading of the 1990 Cairo Declaration cited earlier in this thread made all the -- horrifying -- sense in the world.

YMMV, of course, and legitimately so. I'd love for someone else to take a look at this fair and representative look at Islam by mostly practicing Muslim authors and provide their own take in contrast with mine.

ETA: But to take up your other point: No individual Muslim can be fairly said to subscribe to any view. Case by case.

 

[IanS]

I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.

Of course it's possible, and perfectly valid, to criticise both Islam and Christianity.

And as religions with followers who believe, preach, and act upon the words of their holy books, the beliefs are not "too broad" at all.

For a start virtually every significant claim made in the holy books has long since been shown by modern science to be almost certainly completely untrue and very seriously misguided. Which makes their continued preaching and the attempts to indoctrinate young children with their beliefs, highly anti-educational and in particular anti-science. And on top of that, since 9-11 (that's 2001), Islam in particular is currently in the process of demonstrating yet again just how appealingly lethal religious beliefs can become.

Of course you might try to claim that Islamic terrorists are killing people all around the world for reasons other than religious belief (e.g., you might claim economic factors and western interference etc.), but if you lived in the UK and had been following the more than 200 UK court trials of Islamic terrorism cases since 9-11, then you would know that in every single one of those cases, with what is now well over 1000 individuals convicted, all of them, i.e. 100%, were all shown by the trial evidence to be religious fanatics and motivated to an enormous degree by their religious beliefs. And if that does not warrant criticism of their religion then I don't know what ever could.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Your implicite suggestion that only if one were a non-white from a non-western culture, that then one would not get accused of racism in microseconds after criticizing Islam, does not fit the data:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4377900/Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-hits-Australian-critics.html

I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ali, but her marriage to Niall Ferguson speaks for itself. The guy writes like the ghost of an Edwardian baron who used to collect Assegais and dabble in Orientalism and now roams the world, lamenting the demise of the British Empire.


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

YMMV, of course, and legitimately so. I'd love for someone else to take a look at this fair and representative look at Islam by mostly practicing Muslim authors and provide their own take in contrast with mine.

ETA: But to take up your other point: No individual Muslim can be fairly said to subscribe to any view. Case by case.

I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.

Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.

I don't know what you mean by "foreign to natural empathy and the Golden Rule", honestly. That's certainly not something historically reflected in Muslim society compared to others.

IanS: I suggest you study radicalism a bit closer. Radicals are rarely very knowledgeable about their religion and are often recent converts. They find in terrorism some sort of justified release for their frustration, I think.

 

[Carn]

I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ali, but her marriage to Niall Ferguson speaks for itself. The guy writes like the ghost of an Edwardian baron who used to collect Assegais and dabble in Orientalism and now roams the world, lamenting the demise of the British Empire.


https://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

Since she was called islamophobe before her marriage, your guilt by association attempt falls flat.

You cannot deny that data indicates, that skin color, background, wealth, gender, religion or whatever is irrelevant: public exclusive critique of Islam is considered by many people ALWAYS to be racism or bigotery (which is pretty unfortunate especially because thereby actual racists and bigots can easily deflect criticism by claiming that these are the usual false accusations).

I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.

Maybe you can correct me, but as far as i know the following is true:

The ONLY FORMAL and OFFICIAL challenge supported by multiple states against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights formally accepted by all UN member states comes from Islamic countries and is based on Islam.


While there are lot of problematic rulers around the world, they at least pay lip service to the declaration of human rights. Only Islamic countries find reason to even skip that lip service.

Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.

Awesome.

You counter "There are 57 Islamic COUNTRIES trying to undermine the universal declaration of human rights" with "But i know some nice Muslim INDIVIDUALS.".

Is anyone stupid enough to fall for this ridicolous counter argument?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... I'd say your mention and rhetorical use of the Cairo DOHR falls into one of the classic Orientalist stereotypes - the virtues of the West have foils in the vices of the East.

I fail to see how a document that was created expressly to define the position of Islam with respect to human rights (UDHR) -- rights that are absolutely essential to democracy -- is a "stereotype" and not a valid reference when discussing the canon with respect to its integration in Western societies and intellectual traditions. The Cairo document was intended to be taken seriously by its signatory nations (most if not all Muslim-majority countries, so representing at least the two major sects as well). Cannot for the life of me understand why they'd publish it as a self-parody and misdirect that no one should pay mind to.

Entirely anecdotally, I have a good deal of Muslim friends and acquaintances, some quite devout, hailing from everywhere from Bosnia to Pakistan. I'd say the devout Muslims I have known have been some of the most thoroughly decent people I've encountered.

I've had Muslim friends since childhood. One who worked for me is like a son to me (non-practicing in his case), and will be coming to stay at home soon. I've had neighbors and customers who, on the other hand, have told me Spain is part of the Caliphate and that "we are coming for you." Which anecdotal evidence shall I take? Obviously, more formal research was and is in order.

I don't know what you mean by "foreign to natural empathy and the Golden Rule", honestly. That's certainly not something historically reflected in Muslim society compared to others.

I refer to lopping off the heads of those not agreeing with you, for example, or the disappearance of pluralism in Muslim societies as time passes after an area or country is conquered. See the recent Yazidi genocide, and the practice of using blasphemy to divest minorities of property and life in Pakistan. Real events, and the second is as mainstream Islam as it gets, as was the recent religiously inspired political attack on the non-Muslim mayor of Jakarta.

My turn to characterize: you are refusing to modify your stance by taking in new information, and prefer the comfort of retaining moderate views, always a self-congratulatory good feeling. In examining, say, fascism vs democracy, the actual ideas do make a difference. As they do in, say, the violence of Catholic fascism as opposed to Protestant renegade terrorism.

My recommendation is to try actual research. As a general lament, not a common practice at all on ISF, sadly.

 

[Belz...]

I fail to see how a document that was created expressly to define the position of Islam with respect to human rights (UDHR) -- rights that are absolutely essential to democracy -- is a "stereotype" and not a valid reference when discussing the canon with respect to its integration in Western societies and intellectual traditions.

When one argues himself into a corner, one has to use increasingly ridiculous arguments to hide that fact.

 

[David Mo]

Largely agreed, especially the closing argument. I would, however, say that particular religions (as canon) can be as deserving of wholesale rejection as can particular political ideologies. For me, the key lies in the degree of absolutism, the degree to which the means for opponents to legitimately disagree is suppressed. For example, claiming communism as scientific and "historically inevitable" makes opponents woo-mongers standing ignorantly in the way of truth and progress. Claiming Allah wrote his laws on every human heart, so that all know them and can only be in sinful rebellion when not accepting the faith, allows for execution on the spot of those refusing to bow: wildly, sickly absolutist.

Yes. The idea of scientific progress has something of totalitarian or selective. Many post-modern philosophers blame rationalism for this. But the belief in scientific progress doesn’t necessarily implies political totalitarianism. Many supporters of Enlightenment rationalism were democrats. The key of totalitarianism is how the rejection of political ideologies is formulated. What we have to ask is the place that this ideology reserves to ideological enemies. That is to say, the unquestionable principle of tolerance or freedom of expression and association —I prefer these last concepts. If a political ideology admits this, it is welcome, be the Enlightenment, Communism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islamism or x-ism. Of course, the way you express Muslim idea is not admissible but I don’t think that every Muslim will agree with you.

My position is: let the believer pray, if he supports true democracy. Let the Muslim criticize us if he admits that we have the inalienable right to criticize him.

 

[David Mo]

Is there anyone arguing in public in the way your comment 143 suggested and is not being called islamophobe/right-wing by what is called "mainstream media" or Southern Poverty Law Center or similar organizations?

Cause i think it might be pretty tricky. Effectively the position would be:
- all religions are somehwat democracy-incompatible
- fortunately in some religions this was understood - e.g. Christianity - and somehow religion and democracy can coexist
-unfortunately in some religions such an understanding is yet to weak, hence we have to specifically discuss how those religion's scriptures and teaching is incompatible with democracy; and the religion with which the discussion is most urgent is Islam

Tough job to do that without SPLC calling you a bigoted hater.


Same question as above, is there anyone doing this and not getting publically shunned for being an islamophob?


Technically, you claimed superiority of Christianity over Islam, as you indicated that Christians have made the better job at ignoring the problematic passages of their scipture.

That suggest at least a temporary superiority of the religion and/or the adherents over the other.

And therefore i am sceptical how one could argue that way without being trashed as islamophobe.



That avoids the question, how should one act who thinks otherwise, so who thinks that some religions are due to the content of their scipture/theology "worse" than other religions.

I have not time to discuss your comment now. I will answer as soon as posible.

Only a thing or two: I don't believe that the relative coexistence of a religion and democracy be consubstantial. It depends of circumstances and social pressures to control the contradiction between Holy Books and spirit of tolerance. I don't think that a religion is a block without fissures. Different believers can live the same religion in different ways. Don't be totalitarian, please.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I refer to lopping off the heads of those not agreeing with you, for example, or the disappearance of pluralism in Muslim societies as time passes after an area or country is conquered. See the recent Yazidi genocide, and the practice of using blasphemy to divest minorities of property and life in Pakistan. Real events, and the second is as mainstream Islam as it gets, as was the recent religiously inspired political attack on the non-Muslim mayor of Jakarta.

Oh. You are once again referring to the practices of radical institutions in particular societies that are largely a 20th century phenomenon, and to a great extent a consequence of reactions to imperialism and political instability caused by it. That doesn't tell us much about "Islam" in the abstract, only about those movements. If you want to understand Pakistan, turning to "Islam" tells you very little. The history of political conflict in Greater India, on the other hand, where religion certainly was a factor, is very informative.

My turn to characterize: you are refusing to modify your stance by taking in new information, and prefer the comfort of retaining moderate views, always a self-congratulatory good feeling.

And you prefer the feling of superiority that comes with the knowledge that you are one of those who understand the true dangers of the eastern barbarians, as opposed to the fuzzy feelings-addicted libs.

In examining, say, fascism vs democracy, the actual ideas do make a difference. As they do in, say, the violence of Catholic fascism as opposed to Protestant renegade terrorism.

???? Protestants made up the core of German fascism. Catholic institutions were among the few to resist the all-consuming cult of Hitler. To what degree sects of Christianity had an immediate influence in the development of Nazism, the rabid antisemitism of Luther played a significant role.

My recommendation is to try actual research. As a general lament, not a common practice at all on ISF, sadly.

The snideness is entirely undeserved. You made a claim about your conclusions about "Islam" after doing supposedly impartial research. I asked you to provide examples of the mentalities that led you to these conclusions.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The ONLY FORMAL and OFFICIAL challenge supported by multiple states against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights formally accepted by all UN member states comes from Islamic countries and is based on Islam.

Briefly, the Cairo declaration on Human rights was a direct consequence of the status of the Iranian Revolution as a forceful reaction of the Islamic world against Western imperialism. Its origins are largely found in the tensions between the "West" and the Islamic world that occurred as a result of the constant violent interference of Western countries in the internal politics of the Islamic world, not in any particular qualities inherent to Islam.