Does Islam belong in Germany?

[A'isha]

Then, by that reasoning, Muslims exist independently of the beliefs which make them Muslims. And the beliefs exist independently of Islam, and Islam exists independently of the Koran, and the Koran exists independently of the Prophet, and the Prophet exists independently of God, and God exists independently of reality, and...

You're really not good at this, are you?.

As opposed to what I'm reading now?

Yes. Read a book already. Learn something.

You especially need to be reading this.

 

[Toontown]

You're really not good at this, are you?

The semantic nitpicking you practice? Probably not. Such as seizing upon the canard "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic", and using that to claim that (recovered) alcoholics can in fact "exist" without alcohol. How clever of you.

Oh well. Recovered victims of false belief systems can live without the crutch of the false belief system too.

Yes. Read a book already. Learn something.

Learn what? What you want me to know? Sorry. There are far more interesting and useful things to learn than what you want me to learn.

I'm not interested in what you want me to learn. I'm interested in what I want to learn. To that end, I read. But I don't read what you read, and you don't read what I read, and you don't know what I know, because we don't discuss what I know.

So why don't you take your own advice and stop talking about things you know nothing about.

You especially need to be reading this.

Why? So I'll be good at analogies? I don't even like analogies. As the current nonsense demonstrates, using an analogy only gives the opponent the opportunity to avoid the issue by resorting to semantic games and claiming that the analogy is poor. Happens every time, like clockwork. I have never seen an instance where anyone has concurred with an analogy offered by an opponent, or failed to question the applicability of the analogy. I knew it would happen this time too.

 

[Toontown]

many young people in germany identify themself as germans and as muslims.
are you saying they got it wrong? they cant be both? they certenly think they can, i guess they forgot to ask for permission at the authority Kauder and toontown.

I don't think anyone is saying that, not even Kauder. Kauder specifically offered the caveat that German citizens who are Muslims "do belong".

I think it is quite possible that Kauder misspoke, saying "Islam" when he meant "Salafists". But I won't assert that.

I don't know (nor do you) exactly what Kauder meant by "German identity and culture". But to mean anything, it would have to be a set of beliefs and ideas broadly agreed upon by a majority of Germans. A mishmash of all the random beliefs held by all Germans would sum to nothing, thus could not form a specific national identity.

Whatever the teapot tempest is all about, I know with great certainty that you are all overreacting, reaching, and using the Muslims for political footballs. That is what you all do, every day, all day long.

 

[Craig B]

Toontown

I said

If I were to become a Muslim, or a Mormon, for example - would that stop me from being Scottish? What a strange idea!

And your response is

You are beginning to display an inability to distinguish yourself from a country. Not a good sign.

Eh? Your observation would have made sense if I had written

... would that stop me from being Scotland?

It is your ability to distinguish a country from an inhabitant of that country which seems to be impaired.

 

[baron]

I often wonder about the foundation upon which both sides of the Islam topic base their arguments, and their motivation too. I'm not so much talking about this thread and the OP as the wider issue. As I see it there are two significant stumbling blocks to open and honest debate.

Ignorance of Islam as a whole: I find it bizarre to see groups arguing about Islam when they don't understand what it is. All this serves to do is produce a flawed basis for any future discussion. Informed opinion based on research seems to have been replaced by shouted absolutes from people who really should learn to keep quiet.

The secret agenda: When we've isolated the hate-spewing racists who have latched onto Islam for their own aims, and the ignorant liberals who push their own ironically fascist agenda of free-speech suppression, then maybe a debate can be had between those who remain.

As it stands, little is being said that is conducive to anything but mounting outrage in both camps. (Or should I say all three camps, but that's another story?) Until there is open, informed debate, nothing can be resolved and the friction will continue to increase.

 

[Toontown]

Toontown

I said And your response is Eh? Your observation would have made sense if I had written It is your ability to distinguish a country from an inhabitant of that country which seems to be impaired.

Your response was a non-sequitur. I did not suggest that your citizenship depended on whether others agree with your beliefs or not. I did the opposite of suggesting that your citizenship imposes upon your country any obligation to assimilate your beliefs.

 

[Craig B]

Your response was a non-sequitur. I did not suggest that your citizenship depended on whether others agree with your beliefs or not. I did the opposite of suggesting that your citizenship imposes upon your country any obligation to assimilate your beliefs.

Exactly so. My country doesn't have any obligation to assimilate my beliefs, or any beliefs whatsoever. Nor am I obliged to possess any particular philosophical or religious beliefs in order to be an inhabitant of my country.

We know about your sort of attack on religious minorities, here in Scotland. It is not that long (well into the 20th century) since Catholics were habitually accused of being unpatriotic, because their primary allegiance was to the Pope in Rome, and not to the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom. So they could not "belong". They had no place here. So it was said.

 

[Toontown]

I often wonder about the foundation upon which both sides of the Islam topic base their arguments, and their motivation too. I'm not so much talking about this thread and the OP as the wider issue. As I see it there are two significant stumbling blocks to open and honest debate.

1. Ignorance of how to have an open, honest debate.

2. Lack of desire to have an open, honest debate.

In internet political forums, there are always packs of hard-wired ideologues who run in packs, will not give an inch, and are determined to dominate the gotcha games that pass for debate.

Ignorance of Islam as a whole: I find it bizarre to see groups arguing about Islam when they don't understand what it is. All this serves to do is produce a flawed basis for any future discussion. Informed opinion based on research seems to have been replaced by shouted absolutes from people who really should learn to keep quiet.

Do you know what Islam is? Whatever you say Islam is, someone will dredge up some Muslim sect who are not that, or give lip service to not being that.

Unless what you say Islam is plays into their ideological hand.

These stumbling blocks of whom you speak are hardened political ideologues, looking to impose their ideological will on the naive.

The secret agenda: When we've isolated the hate-spewing racists who have latched onto Islam for their own aims, and the ignorant liberals who push their own ironically fascist agenda of free-speech suppression, then maybe a debate can be had between those who remain.

Isolate? You mean ban them? That's the only way you can make them shut up.

Hardened veterans of the ideology wars take pains to avoid being banned.

As it stands, little is being said that is conducive to anything but mounting outrage in both camps. (Or should I say all three camps, but that's another story?) Until there is open, informed debate, nothing can be resolved and the friction will continue to increase.

What did you think this is? A debating society? This is a freaking political forum. How long have you been frequenting political forums?

There can never be open, informed debate. Nothing can be resolved and the friction will continue.

Unless it's an echo chamber. And this thread is about to become an echo chamber.

 

[A'isha]

Do you know what Islam is? Whatever you say Islam is, someone will dredge up some Muslim sect who are not that, or give lip service to not being that.

Oh, please tell us what "Islam" is, Mister I-don't-even-know-the-difference-between-Islam-and-Islamism!

 

[Toontown]

Exactly so. My country doesn't have any obligation to assimilate my beliefs, or any beliefs whatsoever. Nor am I obliged to possess any particular philosophical or religious beliefs in order to be an inhabitant of my country.

And how does that mean your beliefs are necessarily a part of the national identity? What if you're a fascist? Does that mean the country must incorporate fascism, simply because you live there?

Hell no it doesn't, and you know it. That's why you slipped in the "inhabitant" word.

And dude...

No one, not even Kauder, and not even you, has said that anyone must possess any particular philosophical or religious beliefs in order to be an inhabitant of a country.

You came close, but stopped short. You said you want to isolate and marginalize me and my beliefs, even though you either have no clue what they are, or are feigning ignorance.

We know about your sort of attack on religious minorities, here in Scotland.

Back to your jackboot-fitting again, I see.

Yer left...yer left...yer left, left, left...

It is not that long (well into the 20th century) since Catholics were habitually accused of being unpatriotic, because their primary allegiance was to the Pope in Rome, and not to the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom.

Hard to see how they could be patriotic with that attitude.

So they could not "belong". They had no place here. So it was said.

Well, there you go misrepresenting our boy Kauder again, no doubt preparatory to equating me to him again.

Once again: Kauder did not say Muslims do not belong. He said the opposite. He did say "Islam" does not fit the German identity and culture, and so does not belong. That's an opinion. Surely you can take issue with that. Surely you don't need to keep lying about what he said, and then attributing the misrepresentation to me. Or maybe you do. Maybe that's all you've got.

Muslims are people. Islam is a religious ideology. The two are not identical. People are not their beliefs. Did you think you were hurting me when you mocked up some beliefs for me and then declared your undying opposition to them and your determination to "marginalize" me because of them? BZZZZT! WRONG! First, they weren't even my beliefs, and second, my feelings wouldn't be hurt if they were. I don't identify with variable beliefs.

 

[A'isha]

Hard to see how they could be patriotic with that attitude.

Ah. So you know as much about Catholicism as you do about Islam, I see.

 

[baron]

1. Ignorance of how to have an open, honest debate.

2. Lack of desire to have an open, honest debate.

In internet political forums, there are always packs of hard-wired ideologues who run in packs, will not give an inch, and are determined to dominate the gotcha games that pass for debate.



Do you know what Islam is? Whatever you say Islam is, someone will dredge up some Muslim sect who are not that, or give lip service to not being that.

Unless what you say Islam is plays into their ideological hand.

These stumbling blocks of whom you speak are hardened political ideologues, looking to impose their ideological will on the naive.



Isolate? You mean ban them? That's the only way you can make them shut up.

Hardened veterans of the ideology wars take pains to avoid being banned.



What did you think this is? A debating society? This is a freaking political forum. How long have you been frequenting political forums?

There can never be open, informed debate. Nothing can be resolved and the friction will continue.

Unless it's an echo chamber. And this thread is about to become an echo chamber.

When I mentioned about what Islam is I was talking in a broader sense, in that most people seem to think it's a belief system equivalent to Christianity or Buddhism. Admittedly for some Muslims it is, especially in West, but this only serves to confuse the issue because you end up with as many definitions of Islam as there are Muslims. Strictly speaking there's no requirement to reverse engineer Islam from the beliefs of Muslims - you just read the texts and the history books - but then again, if you're talking about contemporary social impact then it's the practicalities that matter. Both need to be taken into account and it's easy to see where confusion arises.

By isolate I didn't mean ban, I mean recognise for what they are. So when a racist organisation starts spouting about Islam we know they're really talking about Pakistanis or brown people (no causal link I know but there's a correlation and that's all that matters). Similarly when a frothing lefty gaggle tries to shout down honest debate with their cries of "Nazi" we can safely ignore them too because they're just the other side of the same coin.

 

[A'isha]

Similarly when a frothing lefty gaggle tries to shout down honest debate with their cries of "Nazi" we can safely ignore them too because they're just the other side of the same coin.

What about when it's the non-"lefty" side that starts crying Nazi first?

EDIT: This particular discussion was poisoned from the start.

 

[Moss]

When I mentioned about what Islam is I was talking in a broader sense, in that most people seem to think it's a belief system equivalent to Christianity or Buddhism. Admittedly for some Muslims it is, especially in West, but this only serves to confuse the issue because you end up with as many definitions of Islam as there are Muslims. Strictly speaking there's no requirement to reverse engineer Islam from the beliefs of Muslims - you just read the texts and the history books - but then again, if you're talking about contemporary social impact then it's the practicalities that matter. Both need to be taken into account and it's easy to see where confusion arises.

What do you think is the difference between Islam and those other religions?

 

[Toontown]

Ah. So you know as much about Catholicism as you do about Islam, I see.

If you want to take issue with Craig B.'s description of Scottish Catholics' allegiances, take it up with Craig B. It's not my description. I simply expressed skepticism of it.

 

[A'isha]

If you want to take issue with Craig B.'s description of Scottish Catholics' allegiances, take it up with Craig B. It's not my description. I simply expressed skepticism of it.

He wasn't describing their allegiances, he was describing the accusations about their allegiances that were leveled at them.

 

[baron]

What about when it's the non-"lefty" side that starts crying Nazi first?

EDIT: This particular discussion was poisoned from the start.

Probably best ignore it from both sides.

What do you think is the difference between Islam and those other religions?

That would take a bit longer than I have available. The answer would also vary depending on geographic region, the strand of Islam and the religion you were comparing Islam against. Islam is unique in many ways because of its tight integration with culture and law. For example, sharia instructs on all aspects of Muslim life and social interaction (obviously many Muslims don't follow sharia but I'm talking academically). Sharia is derived from hadith which are effectively sayings of Muhammad, transcribed from Gabriel who was acting as God's secretary. So you have a direct link between culture and divine instruction. Christianity also has this but to a much lesser extent. Islam is more than a personal relationship with God and this has its roots in how Islam began, essentially as a tool of consolidation and conquest.

Taking Christianity, another aspect is how the ideology evolves. Christianity has been allowed to move from the turgid goings on of the OT to lovely stuff like the Golden Rule through the coming of Jesus, but more importantly as a text the Bible is acknowledged to be the work of man and therefore fallible and open to interpretation. In contrast, the Koran is alleged to be the letter-perfect word of Allah and cannot be changed in any way. This makes a comprehensive theory of cherry-picking and mitigation very difficult, made more so by the agenda-heavy instructions of the Islamic scholars. Of course many Muslims do obey only selective parts of the Koran, and don't want to live under sharia, but in terms of academic Islam there is no justification for their stance. Needless to say that in the real world the attitudes of these Muslims are very welcome.

 

[Toontown]

Oh, please tell us what "Islam" is, Mister I-don't-even-know-the-difference-between-Islam-and-Islamism!

First you tell me to shut up about things I know nothing about. Then you beg me to tell you all about it. Well, OK. You asked for it:

"Islam" is an umbrella term used to describe a loose conglomeration of religious sects centered around the teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet who lived in Mecca in the 5th century. As if it matters.

The Prophet's teachings have given rise to all manner of foolishness.

Many details could be laboriously provided, but why bother. It would be like providing a detailed blow-by-blow of a monkey fight. Monkey fights are stupid, but funny if the monkeys are not fighting inside your house. Use your imagination. You've seen plenty of monkey fights. They're all much the same.

The End

 

[Craig B]

Once again: Kauder did not say Muslims do not belong. He said the opposite. He did say "Islam" does not fit the German identity and culture, and so does not belong.

You really have got to be kidding. If I were to say: "I am not saying Catholics don't belong in Scotland; I'm saying the opposite. Catholicism does not fit the Scottish identity and culture, and so does not belong" I would be taken for a lunatic, and rightly so.

Opposite?? I don't believe I have ever read anything as nonsensical as that.

 

[Craig B]

First you tell me to shut up about things I know nothing about. Then you beg me to tell you all about it. Well, OK. You asked for it:

"Islam" is an umbrella term used to describe a loose conglomeration of religious sects centered around the teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet who lived in Mecca in the 5th century. As if it matters.

For your sake I hope it doesn't matter. He lived most of his life, and all his preaching life, in the 7th century, not the 5th. I think the "shut up about things you know nothing about" was good advice.