Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[TubbaBlubba]

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?

My thesis is based on extensive reading on and familiarity with Islam and its history, as well as an understanding of the fascistoid rhetoric, conspiracy theories and fabrications spouted about it.

There is a limited amount of energy I'm willing to put into this, even though I consider it important that hateful rhetoric in sceptic groups doesn't stand unopposed.. It's much easier for someone who hates Islam to throw out canned talking points (and just move on to the next one if they don't stick) than to rebut them or their implications. This is universal when someone sets out to prove that their feeling that something is bad, rather than to better understand it in an objective way. Therefore if someone does not make a clear argument I'm not going to bother unraveling it.

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.

What? How does any document "replace" the power structure of the RCC?

 

[Thor 2]

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.

No, it's like saying "The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Catholicism" and yes I think it is something to get worked up about.

I am with others like Sam Harris on this point. Islam is the problem and we must recognise this fact if we are to make progress. Muslims should not be persecuted however. They, as the biggest victims of this religion, should be given help to gently ease their way out.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, it's like saying "The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Catholicism" and yes I think it is something to get worked up about.

If a contemporary Catholic had cited numerous points of dogma against the Inquisition he would have a point. (Sadly, it's not an area I'm well versed in).

I am with others like Sam Harris on this point. Islam is the problem and we must recognise this fact if we are to make progress. Muslims should not be persecuted however. They, as the biggest victims of this religion, should be given help to gently ease their way out.

Oh, how nice Not patronizing at all. I'm sure they'll be happy to have more of that Western "progress" imposed on them

But sure, the ME needs more secular, progressive leaders like Saddam Hussein. Maybe go and suggest this to some of your Muslim friends?

 

[Belgian thought]

If a contemporary Catholic had cited numerous points of dogma against the Inquisition he would have a point. (Sadly, it's not an area I'm well versed in).



Oh, how nice Not patronizing at all. I'm sure they'll be happy to have more of that Western "progress" imposed on them

But sure, the ME needs more secular, progressive leaders like Saddam Hussein. Maybe go and suggest this to some of your Muslim friends?

I have asked this many a times - what part of any holy books would you (or anyone else) like to include in a secular constitution and which parts would you (or anyone else) not?

 

[acbytesla]

I have asked this many a times - what part of any holy books would you (or anyone else) like to include in a secular constitution and which parts would you (or anyone else) not?

Absolutely NONE. Not that there are not worthy sentiments in most if not all of these books. Being secular IMV means you don't want to go anywhere near a religious text in your Constitution.

Note that US Constitution doesn't include anything at all from the bible and the only mention of religion is to bar religion from any part of the government and to bar government from any part of religious affairs.

 

[Belgian thought]

Absolutely NONE. Not that there are not worthy sentiments in most if not all of these books. Being secular IMV means you don't want to go anywhere near a religious text in your Constitution.

Note that US Constitution doesn't include anything at all from the bible and the only mention of religion is to bar religion from any part of the government and to bar government from any part of religious affairs.

Hurrah

God bless USA!

Oooops....

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I have asked this many a times - what part of any holy books would you (or anyone else) like to include in a secular constitution and which parts would you (or anyone else) not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

 

[acbytesla]

I have asked this many a times - what part of any holy books would you (or anyone else) like to include in a secular constitution and which parts would you (or anyone else) not?

Hurrah

God bless USA!

Oooops....

I'm not trying to be overly patriotic. There are a lot of things the founding fathers got wrong...like slavery That said, I strongly believe the secular aspect of our constitution is the one thing they got right. I consider the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be the single best thing about the USA.

 

[Carn]

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.

Again, your reading problems.

"supporting" without anything else ~ intentionally helping

-->>

Those "supporting" islamism are different from these i am talking about here
"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."

as it also includes non-intentional helpers

"are at best sometimes allies in the "war against terrorism" but in the end neutrals"

Here is a clarity problem in my formulation as it is not clear whether "at best" refers to "sometimes allies" or to the entire rest of sentence.

With the latter - which was the intent - it is again consistent with what is said above.

To summarize for you:

Who is unwilling to accept the existance of Israel is at worst an islamist or an intentional helper thereof; at best that someone is unintentionally being useful for islamists and can only sometimes be recruited as a parttime ally against them, though in the end will be no real ally and instead will stand aside trying to remain neutral.

Therefore someone not recognizing Israel is a useful information.

 

[Carn]

What? How does any document "replace" the power structure of the RCC?

The power structure of the RCC is only a power structure because of the authority the Pope has; this authority is at the heart of the RCC power structure, what the Pope says is bound is bound for caths; what the Pope says is loose is loose for caths. Without this authority there would be no relevant power structure.

Therefore, the factor you see as important is at its core the belief in some absolute/near-absolute authority.

As the word of the Koran carries for Muslims in principle the same or even more authority than legitimate papal decisions carry in principle for caths, the Koran could be a replacement for the lack of any comparable organization, as at the heart of the power structure of RCC is nothing more than authority accepted by believers, which the Koran also has.

 

[David Mo]

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)

I was not speaking of the “idea”, but the concept of “enemies” in both sides.

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

In Spain we say se te ve el plumero. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/spanish-english/se-le-ve-el-plumero

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.

Once again you are changing your own words to mask your first statement. You have not spoke of “consult”, but “and your countries representatives will before any vote whatsoever call the Israeli UN ambadassor and vote in any way asked for by him/her”. This is not to consult but to obey.

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? (…) 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),

I am really amazed. You have no idea of history or you are mystifying words again. Do you not know about religion wars in Europe? How do you think the Czar claimed to be the war against Turkish? Etc., etc. My fathers and myself when I was young have endured a tyrant —by the way, supported by the USA— that killed several hundreds of thousands people in the name of God and the Crusade against “atheism and masonry”. I know what is to kill in the name of the God of the Bible in first hand.

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.

II think it is not in the Koran, but in the Sunnah (Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257). But the Sunnah is the second sacred book of Muslims. Not “a certain calipha” but “Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD) (rahimahullah). His collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection of reports of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore our mistake was not important. Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred.

 

[David Mo]

Again, your reading problems.

"supporting" without anything else ~ intentionally helping

-->>

Those "supporting" islamism are different from these i am talking about here
"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."

as it also includes non-intentional helpers

"are at best sometimes allies in the "war against terrorism" but in the end neutrals"

Here is a clarity problem in my formulation as it is not clear whether "at best" refers to "sometimes allies" or to the entire rest of sentence.

With the latter - which was the intent - it is again consistent with what is said above.

To summarize for you:

Who is unwilling to accept the existance of Israel is at worst an islamist or an intentional helper thereof; at best that someone is unintentionally being useful for islamists and can only sometimes be recruited as a parttime ally against them, though in the end will be no real ally and instead will stand aside trying to remain neutral.

Therefore someone not recognizing Israel is a useful information.

Stop manipulate words, please. To help, to support or to be allied are synonyms. You are accusing those that don't match your conservative position to be objective allies of Islamism and the crimes that you attribute to it. This is disgusting.

 

[Carn]

To help, to support or to be allied are synonyms.

Which is why i referred to my use of "some intentionally, some without being aware about this"; it is a difference if someone writes "[synonym of support] ... without being aware" or "[synonym of support]".

You are accusing those that don't match your conservative position to be objective allies of Islamism and the crimes that you attribute to it. This is disgusting.

a) I said "Who is unwilling to accept the existance of Israel" not "don't match my conservative position"; for example there exist some parties i would never ever vote for in an election; but as many of their members accept the existance of Israel, they do not fail my test although they certainly do not match my "conservative position".

And is used the term "whacko lefties"; which i would not call those members of such parties; while they are often wrong in many things, their acceptance of existance of Israel shows that they still have some connection to reality.

b) However we exactly word it, the accusation is not disgusting. For example so called "islamophobes" are regularly accused to be enablers of islamists; as you "good guys" use that sort of accusations, it is not disgusting, cause you "good guys" would not use it then.

c) What matters is, whether it is true; not whether it is disgusting. And those unwilling to recognize Israel are an asset for islamists in numerous ways.

 

[Carn]

I was not speaking of the “idea”, but the concept of “enemies” in both sides.

The concept of "enemy" was useful in the Cold War to some extent; mainly because at least some on communisms side were enemies.

Once again you are changing your own words to mask your first statement. You have not spoke of “consult”, but “and your countries representatives will before any vote whatsoever call the Israeli UN ambadassor and vote in any way asked for by him/her”. This is not to consult but to obey.

Maybe you should have considered the words: "so it would be more - ok a lot more -".

Mandatory consultation is a very weak form of giving veto power to the other side.

I am really amazed. You have no idea of history or you are mystifying words again. Do you not know about religion wars in Europe? How do you think the Czar claimed to be the war against Turkish? Etc., etc. My fathers and myself when I was young have endured a tyrant —by the way, supported by the USA— that killed several hundreds of thousands people in the name of God and the Crusade against “atheism and masonry”. I know what is to kill in the name of the God of the Bible in first hand.

"the preaching of the Bible for war against disbelivers is theologically the same way applicable"

I missed the part in your answer, where you referred to the preaching of the Bible and its theological application.

Someone claiming to act in name of some god is little indication in what way the preaching of the respective scripture was theologically applicable to the respective situation.

II think it is not in the Koran, but in the Sunnah (Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257). But the Sunnah is the second sacred book of Muslims. Not “a certain calipha” but “Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD) (rahimahullah). His collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection of reports of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore our mistake was not important. Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred.

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihbu...ri-volume-004-book-052-hadith-number-257.html
"During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."

Nothing about elderly.

"Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred."

Pretty bloody wonderful:
https://sunnah.com/search/expel-arabian-peninsula
"The Prophet (ﷺ) on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin `Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.")"


So you hereby verbatim claimed that Muslims consider Mohammeds order on his deathbed to expel all pagans from the Arabian Peninsula to be "sacred". As this was the last order of Mohammed regarding pagans on the Arabian Peninsula and as he was per islamic belief the last prophet and therefore there exists no legitimate authority to undo this command, would it then per unreasonable to assume that trying to set up a shop for hinduistic religious items on the Arabian Peninsula might be a pretty bad idea,

because Muslims consider this an ongoing sacred command and therefore the show owner can expect some problems far beyond lack of customers?

Problems he only has due to something written in a 1000+ year old book and which are directly attributable to that 1000+ year old book?

 

[Roofgardener]

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. .......

Interesting. I might agree with the "occupation" issue with - say - the Afghanistan Taliban. But where else in the "Islamic World" do "crimes of occupation" exist and - perhaps more interestingly - can you give me an example of an "Anti Islamist" regime ?

I say this because - at a Scriptural level - ALL non-muslim nations that resist conversion are "Anti Islamist", and we return to the Scriptures being at the heart of the terrorism and conflict, rather than geopolitics in the conventional sense.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The power structure of the RCC is only a power structure because of the authority the Pope has; this authority is at the heart of the RCC power structure, what the Pope says is bound is bound for caths; what the Pope says is loose is loose for caths.

Are you joking? The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in Europe in most of the medieval era (post-Charlemagne I believe, a LONG period, mind you) It was an empire in many senses. Abbots and bishops, answering to both a sovereign and the pope, held vast and numerous fiefs in the HRE, France (which, remember, was as splintered as the HRE before the early Modern Era) and Eastern Europe (I know less here). Just as an example, the Teutonic Order alone was a major power player of the Baltic. The power vested in the Pope to crown the King of the Romans emperor, thus granting him authority to acknowledge princes as kings, was very significant in itself.

Jeez. The Pope was an immensely powerful theocratic monarch, not just a religious figurehead.

 

[David Mo]

Which is why i referred to my use of "some intentionally, some without being aware about this"; it is a difference if someone writes "[synonym of support] ... without being aware" or "[synonym of support]".

They are synonyms and you have accused “leftists” to be objective supporters of Islam.
Do you understand the words “synonym” and “objective”?

a) I said "Who is unwilling to accept the existance of Israel" not "don't match my conservative position"; for example there exist some parties i would never ever vote for in an election; but as many of their members accept the existance of Israel, they do not fail my test although they certainly do not match my "conservative position".

This is a gobbledyhook.

Maybe you should have considered the words: "so it would be more - ok a lot more -".

This is just the change that you have done after your first proposition was showed to be a nonsense.

I missed the part in your answer, where you referred to the preaching of the Bible and its theological application.

Someone claiming to act in name of some god is little indication in what way the preaching of the respective scripture was theologically applicable to the respective situation.

This is becoming surreal. Do you thing that the Bible was not preached against heretics and infidels during the war of religions?
You are missing a lot of things, truly.

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihbu...ri-volume-004-book-052-hadith-number-257.html
"During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."

Nothing about elderly.

Elderly, trees, inhabited towns and other war exceptions are quoted in other parts of the Sunnah. It is not difficult to find them. Search for them and don’t made superfluous questions, please.

So you hereby verbatim claimed that Muslims consider Mohammeds order on his deathbed to expel all pagans from the Arabian Peninsula to be "sacred". As this was the last order of Mohammed regarding pagans on the Arabian Peninsula and as he was per islamic belief the last prophet and therefore there exists no legitimate authority to undo this command, would it then per unreasonable to assume that trying to set up a shop for hinduistic religious items on the Arabian Peninsula might be a pretty bad idea,

I don’t know how Arabian State interprets this surah. Bearing in mind that Saudi Arabia is one of the most fundamentalist Muslim regimes I suppose that any not-Islamic religious propaganda is forbidden and severely punished. This is a cause among others that the support of the USA, EU and other satellite states to Saudi Arabia disgusts the “leftists” that you used to blame. (See Amnesty International reports about the awful system of Justice in Saudi Arabia, for example).

 

[Thor 2]

If a contemporary Catholic had cited numerous points of dogma against the Inquisition he would have a point. (Sadly, it's not an area I'm well versed in).

The obvious point I am making is that The Inquisition was religiously inspired and justified by reference to scripture just as the work of IS is today.

Oh, how nice Not patronizing at all. I'm sure they'll be happy to have more of that Western "progress" imposed on them

Do I detect a note of disbelief in the sincerity of what I said?

Not Western progress but secular progress.

But sure, the ME needs more secular, progressive leaders like Saddam Hussein. Maybe go and suggest this to some of your Muslim friends?

Don't know what point you think you are making here. Saddam Hussein is the only alternative to Islam perhaps? ....... Try again.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The obvious point I am making is that The Inquisition was religiously inspired and justified by reference to scripture just as the work of IS is today.

And I'm saying that a Catholic could very well make a good case for why it wasn't a very "Catholic" thing.

Not Western progress but secular progress.

... in other words, Western modernity, which is largely "secular" yet still significantly rooted in Christianity. How about not trying to "liberate" people from there culture and identity just to force oir own on them? Progress and society doesn't have to look the same all over the globe, and there is no Civilization-style tech tree that societies progress through. Stop trying to play off the Middle East as a foil for the "enlightened" West.

Don't know what point you think you are making here. Saddam Hussein is the only alternative to Islam perhaps? ....... Try again.

That the worst leaders by FAR in the Middle East were the most secular? That Islam is a red herring?

 

[Thor 2]

And I'm saying that a Catholic could very well make a good case for why it wasn't a very "Catholic" thing.

Did I not say "religiously inspired"? That other Catholics may dis-agree with the actions of another group doesn't change this does it?

... in other words, Western modernity, which is largely "secular" yet still significantly rooted in Christianity. How about not trying to "liberate" people from there culture and identity just to force oir own on them? Progress and society doesn't have to look the same all over the globe, and there is no Civilization-style tech tree that societies progress through. Stop trying to play off the Middle East as a foil for the "enlightened" West.

No. You persist with this notion about imposing Western stuff on the Middle East. I am just saying "secular" influence should be encouraged.

That the worst leaders by FAR in the Middle East were the most secular? That Islam is a red herring?

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim as I understand it and persecuted Shi’ite Muslims.