Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[TubbaBlubba]

I love the changing regimes/overthrowing regimes bit, as if that shows some sort of hypocrisy on my part. What, like Nazi Germany was bad both when it invaded and toppled regimes, and when it supported Antonescu and Pavelic? Such hypocrisy! What, and you're saying summary mass executions of Jews are bad, but ghettoes are bad as well? Ridiculous!!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Palestinians (by which I assume you mean Palestinian Arabs)

No, by the way. I mean Palestinians, as in the national identity that arose in the late Ottoman Empire and was reified by the failure of pan-Arabism.

But denying a people their ethno-national identity is a great way to dogwhistle one's genocidal ambitions - what a thing to learn from the Bosnian War and the genocide at Srebrenica

 

[Roofgardener]

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

We're talking about 2017, not 1917

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.

Well, that's a perfectly reasonable position position to hold.
Except......

 

[Carn]

Palestine is the most obvious example.

Which isn't an example unless you have evidence of "convert or submit" or "kill" "for not respecting/submitting to the religion".

Unless of course one would qualify "human rights" and/or "international law" and/or "better dead than red" as religious concepts, then of course there happened a lot of killing for not respecting/not submitting in respect to some "western" religion (which is the POV of islamists, as they consider this stuff all to be outflow of christianity and/or atheism/materialism).

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

What is it that keeps those culturally completely equal societies to react like any nefarious racists rednecks would to being attacked by France and US?

That is bombing France and US and NOT Switzerland, as they are neutral since about the dawn of time and hence not the correct target for revenge bombing.

https://www.thelocal.ch/20150115/isis-video-encourages-swiss-terror-attacks
"In the wake of last week's murderous terror attacks in Paris, the Islamic State group (Isis) has issued a disturbing video encouraging jihadists to launch a fresh round of violent attacks in Europe, including Switzerland."

Did anyone try to send all those purely motivated by revenge bombing islamists a dictionary with "neutrality" page marked with the literal mention of "Switzerland" under that entry?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/neutrality
"‘during the war, Switzerland maintained its neutrality’"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/neutrality
"the continuous neutrality of Switzerland."

Because when islamistic terrorist note that Switzerland is nearly a snonym for neutrality, they surely will think "Wait, we only bomb and kill because of imperialism and colonialism and because some western nations constantly interefere in our countries; as Switzerland has never ever been part of that, we should not bomb Switzerland, that would be unfair." and Swiss security forces can relax and concentrate on important things like illegal hacks trying to undermine Swiss bank anonimity.

 

[Carn]

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

As the suggestion to use the issue of Israel to identify who might be a potential ally is a policy proposal it is in itself not an argument begging the question, as policy proposals are not arguments, but suggestions how to act.

Besides, i identified "anti-Israel" with not being a suitable ally against Islamism, so i did not identify it with Islamism.

Many anti-israel people are whacko lefties; they are nearly useless as allies in all wars (main exception: against Nazis).

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.

You are too focused on the word terrorism. That the Koran preaches war against the enemies of Islam is already he problem.

Reference for the explicit prohibition of killing elderly Jews would be interesting.

I am claiming that you cannot treat all believers in Islam like terrorists —or suspect to be this.

Which i did not suggest; i suggested observing mosques and based on knowledge of Islamic theology identify problematic teachings or precursors of that and use existing laws against individuals furthering such teachings.

And i suggested to use Israel as an issue to identify potential allies and those unsuitable as allies.

Both does not treat all believers in Islam like terrorists or as suspects in the legal sense.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Which isn't an example unless you have evidence of "convert or submit" or "kill" "for not respecting/submitting to the religion".

Unless of course one would qualify "human rights" and/or "international law" and/or "better dead than red" as religious concepts, then of course there happened a lot of killing for not respecting/not submitting in respect to some "western" religion (which is the POV of islamists, as they consider this stuff all to be outflow of christianity and/or atheism/materialism).



What is it that keeps those culturally completely equal societies to react like any nefarious racists rednecks would to being attacked by France and US?

That is bombing France and US and NOT Switzerland, as they are neutral since about the dawn of time and hence not the correct target for revenge bombing.

https://www.thelocal.ch/20150115/isis-video-encourages-swiss-terror-attacks
"In the wake of last week's murderous terror attacks in Paris, the Islamic State group (Isis) has issued a disturbing video encouraging jihadists to launch a fresh round of violent attacks in Europe, including Switzerland."

Did anyone try to send all those purely motivated by revenge bombing islamists a dictionary with "neutrality" page marked with the literal mention of "Switzerland" under that entry?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/neutrality
"‘during the war, Switzerland maintained its neutrality’"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/neutrality
"the continuous neutrality of Switzerland."

Because when islamistic terrorist note that Switzerland is nearly a snonym for neutrality, they surely will think "Wait, we only bomb and kill because of imperialism and colonialism and because some western nations constantly interefere in our countries; as Switzerland has never ever been part of that, we should not bomb Switzerland, that would be unfair." and Swiss security forces can relax and concentrate on important things like illegal hacks trying to undermine Swiss bank anonimity.

Extremists are not necessarily explicity motivated by those events (though Iran still refers to Operation Ajax. An Iranian expat friend once told me that "It's because of the British" is a common Persian tongue-in-cheek response when things go wrong), but those events set the stage for extremists to seize power. People look for someone to 'stand up to the West', and that offers a lot of ways to power for a revolutionary.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We're talking about 2017, not 1917

Yes, I can tell you enjoy being ahistorical.

Well, that's a perfectly reasonable position position to hold.
Except......
[qimg]http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Fingers_In_Ears.jpg[/qimg]

Responding to tirades of hate is a waste of time.

 

[theprestige]

I love the changing regimes/overthrowing regimes bit, as if that shows some sort of hypocrisy on my part. What, like Nazi Germany was bad both when it invaded and toppled regimes, and when it supported Antonescu and Pavelic? Such hypocrisy! What, and you're saying summary mass executions of Jews are bad, but ghettoes are bad as well? Ridiculous!!

: dl :

Why are you giving examples from Nazi Germany?

A strong argument about the Middle East should have good examples from the Middle East.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why are you giving examples from Nazi Germany?

A strong argument about the Middle East should have good examples from the Middle East.

? Easy.

Changing the Mossadegh regime was bad. Supporting Saudi Arabia and Saddam was (is) bad.

The implied objection was merely that arguing that both changing regimes, and supporting regimes was bad was somehow hypocritical. The Nazi Germany example shows that this is clearly an untenable position.

 

[Roofgardener]

..... and Swiss security forces can relax and concentrate on important things like illegal hacks trying to undermine Swiss bank anonimity.

And the chocolate. Don't forget the chocolate !

I believe that all this talk of Muslim anger over "Western" colonialism or interference is a red herring. Consider that when ISIS published (in its glossy magazine) an article about "why we hate you", reference to "Western" interference was relegated to No.'s five and six, out of six. The first four where "we hate you because you are not muslim". And it doesn't mention Israel AT ALL !

https://clarionproject.org/factshee...magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf
(pages 32-33).

Al Quada started its reign of terrorist attacks against US targets NOT because the US was a colonial power, or was toppling regimes, but simply because it could not tolerate the existence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Not because the troops where doing anything BAD. (they where there at the urgent request of the Saudi government to protect them from Sadam immediately following his invasion of Kuwait), and not because they where somehow interfering with the running of Saudi (they where confined to their bases), but simply because they EXISTED in the "Holy Land".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

[Too busy to spend much time on this topic this month, so picking up here for the moment.]

I notice the argument you make above refers to (1) the impact of canon on behavior and (2) the role of legitimizing/enabling narratives. Why have these been so difficult to accept as explanatory causes for potential behaviors when referring to Islam?

The emerging framework, when adding your earlier references to grievances from actions taken by the West, would now sum to the following short list:

1. Triggering conditions/motives.
2. Enabling creed and social approval for a given derivation thereof/mental shortcuts.
3. Access to resources/opportunity.

Sounds familiar.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

[Too busy to spend much time on this topic this month, so picking up here for the moment.]

I notice the argument you make above refers to (1) the impact of canon on behavior and (2) the role of legitimizing/enabling narratives. Why have these been so difficult to accept as explanatory causes for potential behaviors when referring to Islam?

The emerging framework, when adding your earlier references to grievances from actions taken by the West, would now sum to the following short list:

1. Triggering conditions/motives.
2. Enabling creed and social approval for a given derivation thereof/mental shortcuts.
3. Access to resources/opportunity.

Sounds familiar.

Possibly the biggest problem I can see with applying such a model to Islamic texts is that Islam never had anything like the Catholic Church or Roman Empire. Its power structures were novel and began splintering almost straight away. There's simply too much diversity in most cases.

The second is really a matter of scale and scope. If I were to talk about Christian antisemitism in any given century, I'd look at social factors first. If there were any events comparable to the crimes of Imperialism (say, the dwindling of central power in the Western Roman Empire) I would consider those first to establish context. Only then would I look at continuity of tradition, religious scripture etc, and I'd still have to show convincingly the significance of those factors, using primary and secondary sources. In the case of Christisman antisemitism, we're talking about a nigh-universal and fairly uncontroversial phenomenon.

Especially looking at the 20th century, the importance of factors completely alien to Islam is simply too overwhelming, and the lack of continuity with earlier eras is in many cases quite striking.

 

[David Mo]

As the suggestion to use the issue of Israel to identify who might be a potential ally is a policy proposal it is in itself not an argument begging the question, as policy proposals are not arguments, but suggestions how to act.

It is the identification that makes your argument or proposal —or whatever you want— ridiculous.
Coincidence in an attack against A doesn’t mean that you are supporting whatever enemy of A. This fallacy is an attempt to silence any criticism against A. This is the rhetorics of Totalitarianism and the Cold War.

Besides, i identified "anti-Israel" with not being a suitable ally against Islamism, so i did not identify it with Islamism. (…) Many anti-israel people are whacko lefties; they are nearly useless as allies in all wars (main exception: against Nazis).

“Left-winger”= sub-citizen! They are not reliable people! Do we have to declare the war against leftists also?
Because they don’t accept the Act of Total Submission to Israeli Embassy!:

(...)
8. Declare before the UN that until all members recognize the state of Israel, your country will keep any funding from UN (...) and your countries representatives will before any vote whatsoever call the Israeli UN ambadassor and vote in any way asked for by him/her and use speech time to deliver any statement suggessted (of course if the Israeli ambadassor declines to give any input, then its also fine and one acts the normal way).

No independent state or organization —Islamic or not— would accept to place itself under the command of a stranger nation. This is ridiculous to the nth degree.

You are too focused on the word terrorism. That the Koran preaches war against the enemies of Islam is already he problem.

The same problem that the Bible preaching war against enemies of God.
Of course, we are focused on the problem of terrorism. This is our issue, is it not?

Reference for the explicit prohibition of killing elderly Jews would be interesting.

The Koran only said don’t kill children, women or elderly people. Every child, every woman, every elder. There is not any explicit prohibition to kill elderly Communists or Greek Orthodox women.

 

[David Mo]

I believe that all this talk of Muslim anger over "Western" colonialism or interference is a red herring. Consider that when ISIS published (in its glossy magazine) an article about "why we hate you", reference to "Western" interference was relegated to No.'s five and six, out of six. The first four where "we hate you because you are not muslim". And it doesn't mention Israel AT ALL !

(...)

Al Quada started its reign of terrorist attacks against US targets NOT because the US was a colonial power, or was toppling regimes, but simply because it could not tolerate the existence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Not because the troops where doing anything BAD. (they where there at the urgent request of the Saudi government to protect them from Sadam immediately following his invasion of Kuwait), and not because they where somehow interfering with the running of Saudi (they where confined to their bases), but simply because they EXISTED in the "Holy Land".

You are quoting only a document.
Many terrorists place the fight against crimes of occupation and support to anti-Islamist regimes as a main cause of their activities. The exact place of preference doesn't matter. And we are not discussing if bombing civilian population or maintain places of torture is good or "BAD" (sic) in itself, but if this is considered so by Islamists.

 

[Carn]

Coincidence in an attack against A doesn’t mean that you are supporting whatever enemy of A.

Again, reading problem on your side. I did not claim those who are unwilling to recognize Israel are supporting Islamism; i just claimed that they are useless as allies against Islamism.

This fallacy is an attempt to silence any criticism against A.

No, its an attempt to identify whom one can rely on when things get tough.

Whacko lefties and anyone else is free to proclaim their non-recognition of Israel in any legal way they like.

This is the rhetorics of Totalitarianism and the Cold War.

What again was in principal bad about the underlying idea of the Cold War, which was to keep inhumane communist dictatorship from taking over large parts of the world? (I am not claiming that the methods used were good; but the goal was as pure white as things can get in the area of politics)

“Left-winger”= sub-citizen! They are not reliable people!

Actually i said whacko lefties, but if limited to that, then yes, whacko lefties are not realiable people.

Do we have to declare the war against leftists also?

No; just do not trust them to stand up for human rights or actually fight for them, if the need arises (except vs Nazis as already said).

No independent state or organization —Islamic or not— would accept to place itself under the command of a stranger nation. This is ridiculous to the nth degree.

You asked, what i would propose; i gave a policy proposal; that nobody wants to follow my proposal is another matter. Besides, i am quite certain that the UN ambadassor of my nation certainly would consult with the Israeli one regarding any matters directly about Israel; so it would be more - ok a lot more - of what is anyway done; and it would be "right in your face"-official; which is the main intention.

A weakened form would be, to only require to consult Israel and try to consider their input; but to make it officially, so that realy everyone is aware about it.

The same problem that the Bible preaching war against enemies of God.

Would you care to provide evidence that the preaching of the Bible for war against disbelivers is theologically the same way applicable today as the preaching of the Koran?

And in providing that evidence including some explanation - to honor Tubbla's constant reminder that we should not look at scripture without historical background - why the first 300-1000 years there were no biblically justified christian wars against disbelievers and that there haven't been any for at least 100 years (some minor sects excluded), while the first justified by Koran or its teaching islamic war against disbelievers happened during Mohammeds lifetime and that since then on and off such wars happen regularly (not always against the "West" as there are numerous other disbelievers to fight, e.g. in India)?

Of course, we are focused on the problem of terrorism. This is our issue, is it not?

You asked the question:

"What are you exactly proposing to do with the Koran, Muslims, Islam and mosques? Can you summarize your position?"

I answered with my 9 point proposal.

Neither your question nor the thread title comprise the world "terrorism"; i am also worried about non-terroristic islamism, as for example it could lead to parallel laws violating human rights.

So, no, we are not focused only on the problem of terrorism; which again, is only a tactic, and if we focus on that the phrase islamistic terrorism or so would be better.

The Koran only said don’t kill children, women or elderly people. Every child, every woman, every elder. There is not any explicit prohibition to kill elderly Communists or Greek Orthodox women.

Wonderful, then please the explicit prohibition in the Koran against killing children, women or elderly.

Last time i checked, such a prohibition was not in the Koran, but was suggested by the first caliph.

 

[Carn]

Possibly the biggest problem I can see with applying such a model to Islamic texts is that Islam never had anything like the Catholic Church or Roman Empire. Its power structures were novel and began splintering almost straight away. There's simply too much diversity in most cases.

But they have the unaltered word of the almighty. That is sufficient as an enabling creed.

The splintering just means, that the individually actors motivated by their creed have a harder time cooperating; which might actually be fortunate.

Don't you think the world might look different, if something like the Catholic Church treating the Koran as unaltered word of the almighty with interpretation and contradictions resolved by hadiths and abrogation existed?

Think what was all done under the banner of the Catholic Church while officially trying to heed and follow the example of someone explicitely choosing to be killed instead of fighting back; and then think about what it would mean if officially they instead followed someone who instad drew the sword.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

But they have the unaltered word of the almighty. That is sufficient as an enabling creed.

The splintering just means, that the individually actors motivated by their creed have a harder time cooperating; which might actually be fortunate.

Don't you think the world might look different, if something like the Catholic Church treating the Koran as unaltered word of the almighty with interpretation and contradictions resolved by hadiths and abrogation existed?

Think what was all done under the banner of the Catholic Church while officially trying to heed and follow the example of someone explicitely choosing to be killed instead of fighting back; and then think about what it would mean if officially they instead followed someone who instad drew the sword.

I see only innuendo, no argument.

 

[Carn]

I see only innuendo, no argument.

I constantly forget your deficits in reading comprehension.

Your argument:
"Islam never had anything like the Catholic Church or Roman Empire"

My argument:
"But they have the unaltered word of the almighty. That is sufficient as an enabling creed."
In other words, they have sufficient replacement for lack of RCC.

You see the argument now?

The rest was asking your opinion about a hypothetical scenario, so was no innuendo as well, as it was asking opinion about a hypothetical scenario.

 

[David Mo]

Those who disagree with Israel existing as a state (and that is the only thing one can communicate by not accepting Israel as UN member) are at best sometimes allies in the "war against terrorism" but in the end neutrals; pretty unfortunate, that this means there aren't many reliable allies.

All "Anti-Zionists" (meaning people who want the existance of the state of Israel to end…) 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.

Again, reading problem on your side. I did not claim those who are unwilling to recognize Israel are supporting Islamism;

It would be desirable that you stop blaming the others for misinterpreting you. It would be better if you start to understand yourself. I think that you have no idea of what you are writing or you are only trying to conceal your false steps.

Thank you.

 

[theprestige]

I see only innuendo, no argument.

Dude, your entire thesis in this thread is based on you identifying and critiquing the implications you see in other people's positions. Why has this power of observation suddenly failed you?