Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Kumar]

Ultimately it all comes down to how it's practiced, but Christianity was, due to that phrase, ultimately apolitical, while Islam is, at its core, the opposite. I think that's an important difference.

I think, first to understand for any religion, whether it is basic/truth, rational/gross or intermediate/irrational based?

 

[Carn]

Have you considered that some of these "elements" have deep rotings in MENA cultures and did not always have the implications they had today? That some go far beyond Islam, and that some have nothing at all to do with it?

Would you mind explaining in what way:
"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."
is not rooted in Islam itself, which claims that at some time and place the creator of the universe gave this command verbatim to some followers of Islam?

The only disputed issue i ever heard about this, is to whom under which circumstances this is a literal command; nobody ever claimed it has little to do with Islam.

Frankly, your assertions reek of orientalism. As the "Civilized West" finally realized come the Holocaust, we are just as capable of atrocities. Arguments resting on cultural essentialism are very dangerous.

You noticed i rested my argument on undisputed wording of some book?

There is nothing constructed, imposed or "one can view it one way or another" or "imperialism did this" about the fact, that those words (or at least arabic words with a similar meaning) are in that book. So not an argument resting on cultural essentialism (presuming i understand this undefined term correctly; checked some definitions and they are such, that maybe there is absolutely nobody resting his worldview/arguments on cultural essentialism, if taken the definitions at their literal meaning; but i suspect the usual "define lously some nasty sounding thing to use it in ad hominem" stuff like the use and definition of the term "islamophobia").

Have you made a thorough investigation of the pedigree of the phenomena that disgust you so much? Did you know, for example, that the laws about rapists marrying their victims in the Near East to evade punishment derive from 19th-century French law (code Napoleon), and were deeply rooted in an European tradition of abduction and forced marriage? (Rape was generally taken for granted; without it being assumed, the marriage would not have been enforceable as the woman could've requested a nullification).

a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

b) Even if they did only get this idea from copying from Christian Europe, why haven't these laws since long been amended?

Most islamic countries are independent in one form or another since decades.

c) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

"Bride kidnapping has been practiced around the world and throughout history. It continues to occur in countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus region, and parts of Africa, and among peoples as diverse as the Hmong in Southeast Asia, the Tzeltal in Mexico, and the Romani in Europe."

You lie when you claim bride kidnapping was an European tradition; it was and to some extent is a male tradition.


d) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Europe

"In 326 A.D., the Emperor Constantine issued an edict prohibiting marriage by abduction. The law made kidnapping a public offence; even the kidnapped bride could be punished if she later consented to a marriage with her abductor."

And the first ever supposedly christian ruler making it illegal, does not support that it has it roots in christianity.


Realy, please take some care in formulating arguments. What you are doing is not presenting arguments, but just making a show of phoney arguments so you can paint me as stupid, uninformed or careless.

 

[acbytesla]

Here is the problem. Whether the violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture, I do not know. That is essentially irrelevant to me. I can only view this by how Islam is practiced throughout the world. If Judaism was practiced today as was written in the Torah and most of the Old Testament it would be even more backwards and terrifying than how Islam is practiced throughout the world. But it is not.

I personally agree with Christopher Hitchens that religion poisons everything. That said, some forms are more toxic than others. If this was the 1930s, I'd say Catholicism was the most dangerous religion on the planet because of its association even partnership with NAZISM. But today the problem is Islam and the obvious requirement it becomes more benign.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Umpteenth time, but hokay:

The 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is recent, fair and representative of mainstream Islamic teaching, and transparently repressive. It mentions Shari'ah law ten times, and concludes its statement of rights thus:

ARTICLE 24:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Shari'ah law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights:

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

The Court considered that even if States’ margin of appreciation was narrow in the area of the dissolution of political parties, since pluralism of ideas and parties was an inherent element of democracy, the State concerned could reasonably prevent the implementation of such a political programme, which was incompatible with Convention norms, before it was given effect through specific acts that might jeopardise civil peace and the country’s democratic regime.

Note that the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU-only, not same as above) has, as its closing article, this:

Article 54 Prohibition of abuse of rights.
Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.

A positive case actually needs to be made that mainstream, institutional Islam is at all compatible with democracy. It has not been made, is in fact merely an assumption made in good faith by others, and is hard to come by in reality. Just as a Mormon cannot have many wives legally, Muslims cannot preach the supremacy of Shari'ah law without violating democratic principle and violating human rights, often protected as well under civil law.

Civil law is the only law in civil affairs, and that is all that need to be said and enforced, preferably shouted from rooftops five times a day near any church, mosque, or synagogue.

 

[Kumar]

When we check validity and applicabílity on any àspect, we may need to júdge that from nature and social POV. An aspect true in nature may not be rational in society and vice versa.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

.

c) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping

"Bride kidnapping has been practiced around the world and throughout history. It continues to occur in countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus region, and parts of Africa, and among peoples as diverse as the Hmong in Southeast Asia, the Tzeltal in Mexico, and the Romani in Europe."

You lie when you claim bride kidnapping was an European tradition; it was and to some extent is a male tradition.

Good job googling things I mentioned! Wow!

The laws in the Arabic countries descend from European tradition. They were borrowed into Ottoman law in the 1850s. Arab countries inherited this law. The same code explicitly decriminalized homosexuality. Ponder that for a bit.

Hence, it is a European tradition in this case.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your drivel as you are clearly uninterested in understanding Muslims or Islamic society and only concerned with proving that brown people are evil. The day you are interested in learning, I suggest you make some Muslim friends, go to a mosque, and chat with an imam.

 

[Carn]

Good job googling things I mentioned! Wow!

The laws in the Arabic countries descend from European tradition. They were borrowed into Ottoman law in the 1850s. Arab countries inherited this law. The same code explicitly decriminalized homosexuality. Ponder that for a bit.

Hence, it is a European tradition in this case.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your drivel as you are clearly uninterested in understanding Muslims or Islamic society and only concerned with proving that brown people are evil. The day you are interested in learning, I suggest you make some Muslim friends, go to a mosque, and chat with an imam.

You know what a constant in such debates is?

Islamapologetes providing nearly zero evidence for their claims.

They just say, something is that way, blabla (you for example regarding the influence of European law on Ottoman law in 19th century; evidence? no, you just claim it is that way).

And for example, you claim that i want to prove that brown people are evil. What evidence or at least something pointing somehow in that direction you provide?

Zero. None. And you simply do not care.

Just for you:
I give a damn about the skin colour of the Quran, cause it can have any "skin" colour, as it is a book and its cover can be white, brown, yellow, pink, black or any sort or combination of any color perceivable by human eyes.

 

[Carn]

Whether the violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture, I do not know. That is essentially irrelevant to me.

Whether it is irrelevant or not, does not change that one could read the Quran and then form an opinion upon whether it is the case.

And what Islamapologetes do is to claim that anyone, who has read Quran and relevant Hadiths is Islamophob and driven by racism if he/she thinks that "violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture".

Its like someone reads a book and then says:
"Uh, this book is so full of violence, sexism and backwardness."

and someone else replies:
"Since you made this statement, you are a racist."

and any questions like:
"Wait, why do you say that? I made a statement about that book; i did not say anything about any humans at all much less imply that there are superior and inferior races; why do you call me racist?"

is not answered and instead something like this is said:

"You are not open to the evidence i did not provide, stop being a racist."

It is just totally ridiculous.

@Hlafordlaes

As you do this for the "umpteenth time", did you ever see anyone arguing for the opposite care about evidence and providing evidence or something similar?

 

[David Mo]

Abstract discussions lead nowhere. Islam is not worse than Christianity —nor vice versa— in an absolute sense but in some particular circumstances. The action of a neo-nazi group against a mosque cannot be seen as a problem of religious liberty in abstract —as it seems to be the case of some Dawkins’ particular statements. It happens that German neo-nazis are the spearhead of a right-wind racist movement that is growing in Europe last times; it happens that the offended mosque was in Europe; and it happens that in Western countries we have not words that establish a clear separation between inhabitants of some countries and believers in a particular religion. Islam, Muslim and other words mean both things indifferently and are applied to everybody that comes to Morocco, Syria or Palestine.

Therefore, some precisions are needed:
The neo-nazi attack is sheer racism as other similar expressions of “islamofobia” frequently are. This not happens with almost all attacks against Christianity in Europe.
The big majority of “Muslims” in Europe are moderate and don’t support the Islamic terrorism. When a neo-nazi group attacks a mosque his aim is to segregate or even to expel a racial minority.

Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.

I essentially agree, but I also think it's a bit pointless to "criticize Islam" or "Christianity" in general. A critical examination of source texts, sure, but any criticism directed at Islamic practice and society must be carefully done in a socio-political and historical context. For example, no sensible person should reach the conclusion that the main cause of suicide bombing is some wording in the Qur'an - its popularity is generally to be attributed to its use in the Iran-Iraq war. Likewise the application of various ultrareactionary policies like in Saudi Arabia must also be viewed with an understanding of the history of these movements and their relationship to "ordinary" Muslims, fundamentalism as a reaction to imperialism, etc.

Anything less is useless demagoguery.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

(you for example regarding the influence of European law on Ottoman law in 19th century; evidence? no, you just claim it is that way).

That the 1858 Ottoman code was primarily based on Civil Law, particularly the Code Napoleon, should be common knowledge to anyone who presumes to engage in the sort of sweeping tirades you do. If you don't have the most cursory knowledge of the history of the Ottoman empire, you are too ignorant to be worth discussing with, and you have clearly demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn.

The fact that you in spite of such ignorance are ready to spew vitriol over Muslim society is clear evidence that you are in fact fuelled by bigotry.

 

[Darat]

Whether it is irrelevant or not, does not change that one could read the Quran and then form an opinion upon whether it is the case.

And what Islamapologetes do is to claim that anyone, who has read Quran and relevant Hadiths is Islamophob and driven by racism if he/she thinks that "violence, sexism and backwardness is inherent in Koranic scripture".

Its like someone reads a book and then says:
"Uh, this book is so full of violence, sexism and backwardness."

and someone else replies:
"Since you made this statement, you are a racist."


...snip...

Who has actually done that in this thread?

 

[Carn]

Therefore, some precisions are needed:
The neo-nazi attack is sheer racism as other similar expressions of “islamofobia” frequently are. This not happens with almost all attacks against Christianity in Europe.
The big majority of “Muslims” in Europe are moderate and don’t support the Islamic terrorism. When a neo-nazi group attacks a mosque his aim is to segregate or even to expel a racial minority.

Therefore, when we atheists assess an attack against “Islam” we have to clarify our position, that is to say, we have to clarify that we criticize the Islam as any other religion, but we strictly condemn the “islamophobia” as a confuse kind of racism. This is not the case with Christianity where this confusion is not possible and this is the cause that some Christians don’t see clearly the atheist views on “Islam”. It is boring, but we ought to explain it to them continuously.

You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Etymology_and_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.

 

[Carn]

Who has actually done that in this thread?

My post 57 was an argument about the wording of quran and its relevance; TubbaBlubba replied to that suggesting my argument was based on cultural essentialism, i replied, and he/she said i was supposedly "concerned with proving that brown people are evil".

Hence, it followed the pattern of quickly going from offering disgust at some content of quran to being called a racist.

 

[Carn]

That the 1858 Ottoman code was primarily based on Civil Law, particularly the Code Napoleon, should be common knowledge to anyone who presumes to engage in the sort of sweeping tirades you do. If you don't have the most cursory knowledge of the history of the Ottoman empire, you are too ignorant to be worth discussing with, and you have clearly demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn.

You know that in discussions one provides evidence even if one presumes the other side knows about it?

All links i offered are in my opinion about knowledge to expected in such discussions; but i still offer them just in case.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You know that in discussions one provides evidence even if one presumes the other side knows about it?

All links i offered are in my opinion about knowledge to expected in such discussions; but i still offer them just in case.

And once you stop going on offensive, bigoted tirades and start showing an interest in learning, I will be happy to provide sources.

Actually, I'll give one to you right away: Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel. Read that and get back to me.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Etymology_and_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.

Stuff like this is why I stopped caring for the skeptic community. The idea that this banal sophistry constitutes intellectual, academic discourse is pure poison.

 

[Darat]

My post 57 was an argument about the wording of quran and its relevance; TubbaBlubba replied to that suggesting my argument was based on cultural essentialism, i replied, and he/she said i was supposedly "concerned with proving that brown people are evil".

Hence, it followed the pattern of quickly going from offering disgust at some content of quran to being called a racist.

Aren't our perceptions funny? You see from reading those words I did not gain the understanding that you have but took a rather different understanding.

 

[Carn]

Aren't our perceptions funny? You see from reading those words I did not gain the understanding that you have but took a rather different understanding.

You did not gain from reading the words "concerned with proving that brown people are evil" that i am accused of racism?

Or you mean that the suggested pattern of quickly getting from critique of quran to beind called a racist was not there?

 

[Carn]

Stuff like this is why I stopped caring for the skeptic community. The idea that this banal sophistry constitutes intellectual, academic discourse is pure poison.

The point is that you are unable to any intellectual discourse if you cannot admit at once that before calling anyone "islamophob" one needs some useable definition of the word. So its you causing the lack of standards.

And once you stop going on offensive, bigoted tirades and start showing an interest in learning, I will be happy to provide sources.

The problem starts with you thinking i offered something qualifying as "offensive, bigoted tirades" in this thread.

That makes you think i need to get rid of some prejudice regarding Muslims or middle east.

Which leads to suggesting getting information about

Actually, I'll give one to you right away: Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel. Read that and get back to me.

the history of Osmans from 13th to 20th century, supposedly making me understand people in the middle east weren't backward barbarians.

Which completely misses my basic position, that revelation of Islam written down in 7th to 9th century comprises some problematic things, which effect today world in numerous problematic ways.

You understand that whatever happened between 13th and 20th century cannot prove that something written in 7th to 9th century doesn't contain something problematic?

And that however islamic texts of 7th to 9th centuries were applied/interpreted betwenn 13th and 20th century cannot prove that today events are not effected by islamic texts today?