Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Roofgardener]

This isn't really something to get worked up about. They mean it the same way you'd say that a mass murderer could hardly be a humanist.

This is also especially touchy within Islam. Due to the doctrine that there is but one Islam, accusing someone of not being a true muslim, takfir, is considered extremely serious. But that's something ISIS do rather frivolously. It follows, accordingly, that ISIS themselves cannot be "true muslims" or they wouldn't engage in this practice so much.

It's a contorted bit of mental gymnastics, but it makes sense.

A good point TubbaBlubba. Except......
Could you give me an example of ISIS "frivolously" declaring that somebody is not a "true muslim" ?

It should be noted that Al Azhar university - the most respected source of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence in the contemporary world - critisised ISIS's interpretation of the Sunnah, but held back from declaring them "takfir".

Hence ISIS can murder, rape and terrorise itself across Iraq and Syria.. but they are nevertheless "true muslims" ?

Well, and why not ? That is - of course - the example of Mohammed !

Well, you've made a number of points during our discussion; I don't agree with them, but I WILL research your comments and see if they cast any light on my thinking.

But ... here and now.. the topic thread was about why Atheists are divided in criticism of Islam. I subsequently added Feminists and LGBT groups to that list.

We are not dealing with the 8th, 12th, or 18th centuries. We are dealing with Islam in the here and now. And.. right now.. the most well-funded, influential and GROWING philosophies in the UK are the Deodandi and Wahhabi/Salafist schools of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. And so THEY set the agenda, and the benchmark that we should measure Islam with.

And that is NOT good news for Atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, feminists, Hindu's, Pagans, homosexuals, and followers of the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. (peace be upon his Noodley appendages)

So, to paraphrase Carn's opening post... why are these groups giving Islamism such a free pass ? Why are they holding it as being beyond criticism ?

Or are they just afraid that they will be killed by somebody with a knife shouting "My God is Greater" ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

A good point TubbaBlubba. Except......
Could you give me an example of ISIS "frivolously" declaring that somebody is not a "true muslim" ?

It should be noted that Al Azhar university - the most respected source of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence in the contemporary world - critisised ISIS's interpretation of the Sunnah, but held back from declaring them "takfir".

Hence ISIS can murder, rape and terrorise itself across Iraq and Syria.. but they are nevertheless "true muslims" ?

Well, and why not ? That is - of course - the example of Mohammed !

https://www.memri.org/reports/dispute-over-takfir-rocks-islamic-state

This piece is very obtusely written but it is a thorough look at ISIS and Takfir.

Also, could you not try to argue by innuendo? What's your point about Al Azhar? The only really essential piece to be a muslim acccording to many is to say "There is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet." That has nothing to do with whether they approve of ISIS or not.

 

[Roofgardener]

https://www.memri.org/reports/dispute-over-takfir-rocks-islamic-state

This piece is very obtusely written but it is a thorough look at ISIS and Takfir.

Also, could you not try to argue by innuendo? What's your point about Al Azhar? The only really essential piece to be a muslim acccording to many is to say "There is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet." That has nothing to do with whether they approve of ISIS or not.

TubbaFlubba, if you don't acknowledge the importance of Al Azhar, then.. well.. either you are being deceptive (which I doubt), or you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. And by what torturous logic do you come to the conclusion that I am "arguing by inuendo" ?

To give you an illustration: if the ONLy "really essential piece to be a muslim" is the recitation of the Shaddah, then can you explain this ? , and hundreds like it ?

 

[Carn]

"Use force to extract tax" is honestly not a particularly radical teaching.

If the people to be taxed are inhabitants of a neighboring country, which has no intention to employ you as tax collectors, it is pretty radical teaching.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If the people to be taxed are inhabitants of a neighboring country, which has no intention to employ you as tax collectors, it is pretty radical teaching.

Give context and citation if you wish to discuss a particular Qur'anic verse. Particularly, summarize the context in your own words and explains how it supports your contentions.

TubbaFlubba, if you don't acknowledge the importance of Al Azhar, then.. well.. either you are being deceptive (which I doubt), or you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. And by what torturous logic do you come to the conclusion that I am "arguing by inuendo" ?

Where have I said that Al Azhar is not important?

When I say you're arguing by innuendo, I mean saying stuff like...

It should be noted that Al Azhar university - the most respected source of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence in the contemporary world - critisised ISIS's interpretation of the Sunnah, but held back from declaring them "takfir".

Hence ISIS can murder, rape and terrorise itself across Iraq and Syria.. but they are nevertheless "true muslims" ?

Well, and why not ? That is - of course - the example of Mohammed !

which makes it sound like you think Al-Azhar approves of ISIS' actions or that they can't deny it because of something Mohammed did. Which, of course is not true.

To give you an illustration: if the ONLy "really essential piece to be a muslim" is the recitation of the Shaddah, then can you explain this ? , and hundreds like it ?

Explain what? Takfir is not a simple matter and not all people share the same view on this. As I said, takfir is very serious in Islamic doctrine. Traditionally, all you need to do is to say those words to convert to Islam. Even if they believe that ISIS abuses the Qur'an, it might be hard for a scholar to conclude that they are some kind of apostates that should be put to death. However, some might conclude that ISIS' actions are so abhorrent and against their understanding of justice that they cannot be said to be muslims; that they have violated their submission under Allah, if you will.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We are not dealing with the 8th, 12th, or 18th centuries. We are dealing with Islam in the here and now. And.. right now.. the most well-funded, influential and GROWING philosophies in the UK are the Deodandi and Wahhabi/Salafist schools of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. And so THEY set the agenda, and the benchmark that we should measure Islam with.

No. If anything, muslims worldwide "set the agenda" and the "benchmark" we should measure Islam with. Except, there is no such "benchmark" and only people who are interested in scorekeeping to support their own preconceived notions think that way.

I can understand concerns about the Wahhabist school; it's by and large extremely reactionary and ahistorical. But it's perfectly possible to examine Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia's attempts to influence the world by funding Muslim organizations without pearl-clutching about "Islam".

You always, always need context. You can't decontextualize "Islam" today completely from the experiences of the Muslim world in the 19th and 20th centuries or the many political tensions resulting from them, or attempts to adapt to "modernity" (such as Islamism). That's why getting your knickers in a twist about how horrible "Islam" is is so counterproductive, and only indicative of a desire to demonize the "others".

 

[Roofgardener]

No. If anything, muslims worldwide "set the agenda" and the "benchmark" we should measure Islam with. Except, there is no such "benchmark" and only people who are interested in scorekeeping to support their own preconceived notions think that way.

I can understand concerns about the Wahhabist school; it's by and large extremely reactionary and ahistorical. But it's perfectly possible to examine Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia's attempts to influence the world by funding Muslim organizations without pearl-clutching about "Islam".

You always, always need context. You can't decontextualize "Islam" today completely from the experiences of the Muslim world in the 19th and 20th centuries or the many political tensions resulting from them, or attempts to adapt to "modernity" (such as Islamism). That's why getting your knickers in a twist about how horrible "Islam" is is so counterproductive, and only indicative of a desire to demonize the "others".

Contextualising is PRECISELY what I AM doing. And TubbaBlubba, how can you accuse me of getting my "knickers in a twist" ? The Islamists would force me to convert or submit to Dhimmi. They treat women as property. They kill people for not 'respecting' their religion. (and by 'respecting', I mean "submitting".)

My parents and grandparents fought a war against Fascism in THEIR day. Well, EeeexSCUSE me if I choose to follow suite, and resist a fascist incursion into my country in MY day.

You can go your own way; I just hope you don't have any friends who are Kuffur, or Harem, because if Islam takes control, you will watch them being killed.

But hey, no need to lose your head over it !

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Contextualising is PRECISELY what I AM doing. And TubbaBlubba, how can you accuse me of getting my "knickers in a twist" ? The Islamists would force me to convert or submit to Dhimmi. They treat women as property. They kill people for not 'respecting' their religion. (and by 'respecting', I mean "submitting".)

My parents and grandparents fought a war against Fascism in THEIR day. Well, EeeexSCUSE me if I choose to follow suite, and resist a fascist incursion into my country in MY day.

You can go your own way; I just hope you don't have any friends who are Kuffur, or Harem, because if Islam takes control, you will watch them being killed.

But hey, no need to lose your head over it !

You don't get it, do you? You are on the side of the fascists this time. And the things you're worried about imaginary Muslims doing to you? Those are things the West did to much of the Islamic world, a fair bit of which is within living memory.

 

[Carn]

Give context and citation if you wish to discuss a particular Qur'anic verse. Particularly, summarize the context in your own words and explains how it supports your contentions.

As a reminder, what i initially wrote:

"But if all that evaluation of context about for example when the command to wage war until either conversion or willing submission and jizah payment is to be followed leads to:"Here! Now! Against those disbelievers over there/over the border/whereever"

then waging war/attacking is "virtous" for the respective believers."

was just a claim that if some interpretation leads to a certain result, then waging war/attacking is "virtous".

To prove my point i would not have to show that such an interpretation is the main one, but just that some interpret it that way and that these then consider waging war/attacking virtues.

If you understand that just pointing to one islamist group thinking that way and ariving at the the conclusion that war/attacking is "virtous", would prove that particular argument i made, then i can certainly provide such.

But i suspect more, that again you misinterpreted something i wrote.

 

[Carn]

Those are things the West did to much of the Islamic world, a fair bit of which is within living memory.

When did "the West" force people in the islamic world to convert or submit to second class citizen status "within living memory"?

When did "the West" kill people in the islamic world for not respecting/submitting to the religion of "the West" "within living memory"?

Besides who or what is that "West" composed of you are ascribing here certain actions? And which one is the religion of that "West"?

 

[Carn]

https://www.memri.org/reports/dispute-over-takfir-rocks-islamic-state

Wait, Memri is an acceptable source?

Funny. Memri is used all over the place by "islamophobes" as source.

@Roofgardener

Al-Azhar intends to be as inclusive as possible, hence they only see takfir as permissable by clear violation of any fundamental doctrine. Differences of when and whose necks to strike or when to stone raped women to death and when to only punish them mildly therefore cannot result in respective declarations by al-azhar.

Of course the "humanistic" reason to have such a lenient approach is in part due to need of Muslims being united against atheist and other unwanted influence:

http://www.azhar.eg/slider/danger-of-takfir-1
"As a matter of fact, al-Azhar al-Sharif, which adopts the principle of "Reuniting the Ummah" and which does not adopt different stances as to those schools of law fighting waves of atheism, westernization and moral corruption, spares no effort in resisting the causal deviation in thought, which is rejected by the Muslim Ummah in the past and in the present"

 

[Carn]

You don't get it, do you? You are on the side of the fascists this time. And the things you're worried about imaginary Muslims doing to you? Those are things the West did to much of the Islamic world, a fair bit of which is within living memory.

Considering that the protocols of the elders of zion were a fake and considering that the masked gentlemen cutting of heads or at least their leaders literally quote the Koran as justification for their actions,

wouldn't you think you should at least concede that the enemy of today "facist" is not as imaginary as the enemy of past facists?

Cause for someone not thinking himself a facist being called a facist by someone unable to acknoledge objective differences between past facist and today potential "facist" your argument would be very ineffective and even might have the opposite effect.

With me, i no longer take charges of facism against anyone seriously unless underpinned by detailed court-quality evidence; therefore i do not consider for example Geert Wilders to be a facist; not that he might not be one; i am just operating on the presumption that most charges of facist are just overblown nonsense.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

When did "the West" force people in the islamic world to convert or submit to second class citizen status "within living memory"?

When did "the West" kill people in the islamic world for not respecting/submitting to the religion of "the West" "within living memory"?

Besides who or what is that "West" composed of you are ascribing here certain actions? And which one is the religion of that "West"?

Palestine is the most obvious example. In general the carving up of the Middle East, overthrowing/installing regimes, supporting tyrants, and so forth. All matters of forcing people into submission, felt to be permissible because they were "others", largely a function of their religion and "foreignness".

France and the U.K. are the main perpetrator; the U.S. to some extent depending on what you choose to exclude.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Wait, Memri is an acceptable source?

Funny. Memri is used all over the place by "islamophobes" as source.

I mean, it's run by an Israeli ex-intelligence officer so I hardly take it to be an unbiased purveyor of ME media, but I don't really see a reason to doubt this particular article about a jihadist group. The main criticism is usually that they selectively translate extremist views.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Considering that the protocols of the elders of zion were a fake and considering that the masked gentlemen cutting of heads or at least their leaders literally quote the Koran as justification for their actions,

wouldn't you think you should at least concede that the enemy of today "facist" is not as imaginary as the enemy of past facists?

Cause for someone not thinking himself a facist being called a facist by someone unable to acknoledge objective differences between past facist and today potential "facist" your argument would be very ineffective and even might have the opposite effect.

With me, i no longer take charges of facism against anyone seriously unless underpinned by detailed court-quality evidence; therefore i do not consider for example Geert Wilders to be a facist; not that he might not be one; i am just operating on the presumption that most charges of facist are just overblown nonsense.

Not really. I take todays fascist's fear of Islam about as seriously as I take Nazi fears of "Zionism" or "Judaeo-Bolshevism" as a world-conquering force. I mean, it's true that there were a lot of Jews in the higher echelons of the U.S.S.R., after all.

 

[David Mo]

Again, again and again you read in my words, what i did not write.

"All "Anti-Zionists" (...) are abetters, helpers and/or allies of islamism, some intentionally, some without being aware about this; the latter should be treated as nice as possible."

"islamism" i wrote, not "terrorism".

… ergo “indirectly” support terrorism, because you said that Islam is a main source of terrorism. I remember you that among the measures that you proposed against Islamic terrorism was the recognition of the state of Israel.

Again, again and again you try to correct your point when you feel caught. Without any succes.

NOTE: the argument is equally ridiculous when you identify anti-Israel with Islamism. It is based on a petitio principii.

NOTE: “...as nice as possible”? Sometimes you scare me.

Did you just suggest, that christian scripture is a source of antisemitism?
If you think, that scripture can by source of somethind, then why is it not possible that islamic scripture is also source of some non-nice stuff, but in a different way than gospels, cause the texts differ?

Antisemitism is explicit in the gospels. See my comment #349. It was the main/a relevant cause of pogroms till the twentieth century in Europe.

Terrorism is not explicit in the Koran. The Koran preaches the war against enemies of Islam, but explicitly forbid to kill women, children and elders. This is one difference between the bad effects of the Bible and the Koran among others.

Anyway, I am not suggesting that the Koran cannot inspire some terrorists. I am claiming that you cannot treat all believers in Islam like terrorists —or suspect to be this. In the same way you cannot treat every Christian as an anti-semitic and all the Jews as war criminals.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think it's hard to pin pogroms on the text of the NT. Jews were "others", much like Muslims (they were treated very similarly in Spain), and thus inherently suspicious. I do think that Biblical antisemitism, along with the power structures of the Catholic Church, may have helped legitimize state actions like robbing and expelling the Jews to fund Crusades and so on.

 

[Roofgardener]

Palestine is the most obvious example. In general the carving up of the Middle East, overthrowing/installing regimes, supporting tyrants, and so forth. All matters of forcing people into submission, felt to be permissible because they were "others", largely a function of their religion and "foreignness".

France and the U.K. are the main perpetrator; the U.S. to some extent depending on what you choose to exclude.

Hmmm....
Sooo... the "West" is bad if it overthrows tyranical regimes.
And "The West" is bad if it supports tyranical regimes.

Notwithstanding: Carn's two questions where...

When did "the West" force people in the islamic world to convert or submit to second class citizen status "within living memory"?

When did "the West" kill people in the islamic world for not respecting/submitting to the religion of "the West" "within living memory"?

...

The real answer is - of course - that "The West" has never done any of those things in living memory, where as many Islamic states do it all the time, and show no sign of stopping. And why should they ? Their Scriptures both authorise and - indeed - encourage/mandate it.

So to return to the opening post; I am baffled as to why atheists, humanists, feminists and many other groups are not more vocal about Islam and Sharia, or why governments are so keen to protect Islam from criticism. Or perhaps - individually or collectively - they are just afraid of the violence that will erupt from the adherents of "The Religion of Peace" when such criticism is voiced.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

When did "the West" force people in the islamic world to convert or submit to second class citizen status "within living memory"?

When did "the West" kill people in the islamic world for not respecting/submitting to the religion of "the West" "within living memory"?

Besides who or what is that "West" composed of you are ascribing here certain actions? And which one is the religion of that "West"?

Palestine is the most obvious example.

When did the West force Palestinians (by which I assume you mean Palestinian Arabs) to become second-class citizens?
When were Palestinians killed for not converting to Christianity, by Western forces?

In general the carving up of the Middle East,

Which was done at the end of WW1, almost 100 years ago. Which ME countries have, in all that time and given their independence, come to an agreement about changing the borders of their countries to undo this harm? Which of them have agreed that the Kurds, who were left divided between several countries, should have their own homeland? How long will you, and others like you, continue to blame the West for problems that could have been solved years ago by those involved?

overthrowing/installing regimes,

Changing regimes is bad.

supporting tyrants,

Not changing regimes is bad.

and so forth. All matters of forcing people into submission, felt to be permissible because they were "others", largely a function of their religion and "foreignness".

France and the U.K. are the main perpetrator; the U.S. to some extent depending on what you choose to exclude.

Is this the same France that refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq?

Please provide evidence that the goal of the West was that the peoples of the ME should be "forced into submission", and that this goal was religiously motivated.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Right, Western Civilization never did anything bad, it's all those Oriental savages And unless the West did the exact same thing, with the exact same, explicitly stated, motivations, no comparison can be made at all! Never mind the ties between Imperialism and racism, and racism and religion

Just so you know: I don't bother with disingenuous arguments (those made without a genuine attempt to learn and understand the point made), and I don't let too much of my time be wasted by pure fascistoid trolling.