Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[TubbaBlubba]

The regions have a common charateristics, for example that apostasy is either directly punishable by state law or is often punished "privately". Therefore there either has to be some common factor causing this OR due to chance similar practices arised in each case due to local causes.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, first, this is not uniform among Islamic countries. And second, such punishments have historically rarely been applied. Just appealing to the Qur'an is a useless way to understand radicalism/reactionarism in contemporary Islamic society. It is clear that the Qur'an is not even REMOTELY necessary or sufficient for these things to pop up in societies. Yes, Islamic scripture forms an important bit of context. But that is context in which we must still examine the facts of history and society. Appealing to the Qur'an itself does not grant understanding.


And since you are yappering about Malaysia, as I said it's not an area I'm well-read in, but as far as I can tell the movement to implement Hudud punishments and strengthen Sharia courts began in the 1990s. So guess what? Those historic Islamic empires are still really relevant. Modern radical/reactionary Islamic movements influence each other.

Please stop making excuses for remaining ignorant.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

All social critique you ever voiced in your life about Christianity was only veiled racism.

I'm not sure I ever voiced that much critique against Christianity. Certain sects and political movements, yes, but if I ever blamed the core religion, I was mistaken and yes, bigoted. It's not a useful way to approach the issue.

Besides, if my opinion about Islam is racism, why is my emotional stance in regard to radical muslim preachers of "darker" skin colour nearly exactly identical to radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color?

Race is socially constructed. Actual skin colour matters less than how we stereotype people.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Look, here's an example how you can study the relationship between "Islam" and "Islamic societies" in a sensible way:

One of the most important factors for the development and maintenance of power structures in society is land ownership. Land can be bought, sold, conquered and inherited. The way land was inherited is known to have had significant influences on many societies in the middle ages - the Frankish empire is probably the most famous example.

One aspect of Islamic law that has generaly had more influence than criminal punishment, is indeed civil law dealing with property and inheritance. How has the application of laws of inheritance based on Sharia affected the distribution of land in selected Islamic societies historically? Did the introduction of Islam cause a shift in how land was inherited? In cases where Islam was imposed by a ruling (landowning) class, did this favour them? Are there any systemic effects that can be observed across Islamic societies today thanks to this?

That could potentially be a perfectly appropriate basis for a dissertation that could lead to a sensible and interesting thesis. That's how you approach the relationship between a cultural-contextual factor like religion and the state of society.

I like this. Exploring the real relations between formal belief systems and outcomes is key for understanding social behavior. Nevertheless, I'd like to reiterate a point I think important.

Critical for the long-term success of the practice of any new or old major religion in democratic societies is to retain the existing understanding of human rights, if they are to remain democratic and respectful of all rights. No more, no less. This logically leads to support for -- should one so wish -- withering criticism of the ideas expressed by any given, or this particular, religion. Not so the practitioners, as outcomes vary, as you point out.

Now, in that light, we OTOH do have the factual case of recent multiple attempts at the UN to introduce a ban on religious criticism. This is a specific instance of doctrine affecting sociopolitical behavior, along the lines of your argument, but no sweeping generality can be afforded this alone. Nevertheless, this effort is an attack on the current understanding of human rights. The response to such an attack, rather than to hush voices in respect, is, in my view, to double down, to insist on the right to disagree, and strongly, with any proposition. If any religion or philosophy wishes to join the fray, all are welcome. Any wishing to silence the party and rule alone, however, should not be.

Is this -phobia? It depends on how the analysis is done. For me, any rule wishing to incorporate its contradiction is flawed, such that one may agree to respect any given freedom of "x" in society, but not also simultaneously agree to granting such freedom of "x" if it is used to expressly deny that same freedom to any or all others. Not without blowing up the system. In short, to limit speech in accommodation of religion is a mistake, and so the incorporation of, say, Islam into democratic society ought to proceed without altering society in any way that is limiting of those rights. I belabor the point because there is that criticism that is licit in this manner, and there is that which is indeed phobia.

Getting back to your point, however, and mindful of the post just prior to this, note that the rising influence of a strain/sect/movement in Malaysia has had a tangible negative impact. I think any analysis of the effect of any doctrine must take into account the degree to which individuals feel there are others who think/feel the same, emboldening action (cf. Trump nuts, white nationalists, etc.). Public sanction of totalitarian action is an important factor, not only doctrinal content. It's what I termed an "enabling narrative" and discussed some years back as one of three triggering conditions for terrorist acts and violence.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think laws surrounding religious criticism easily get thorny due to the ubiquity of religious persecution. In the case of the Islamic world, it's important to remember that radical/reactionary Islamic movements of the 20th century were by and large a reaction against Western imperialism. The Iranian Revolution was the ultimate victory against the meddling westerners. This of course creates a lot of tension in any debate surrounding these movements and their support.

 

[Carn]

Of course, all the Holy Books that I know are incompatible with democracy. They were written in theocratic societies with a theocratic mentality. The Bible and gospels also. In my country the Bible and gospels were the foundations of a dictatorship that lasted more than 40 years. Every criticism to religion was banned and it involved diverse punishments. What makes Wilders a racist is not the criticism of Quran, but that he exclusively orients his condemn to the Quran.

Why is exclusive criticism of Quran not acceptable?

The different sciptures/core stories of religions are DIFFERENT. Quran is composed of different words than Bible.

Why should it not be possible that someone sincerely reaches the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

Note, i am here not making the argument that such is the case; i just ask why it can be excluded that someone honestly reaches that conclusion.

A question: Has Wilders claimed for laws against racists that attack mosques? It is only curiosity.

I am not aware of that; but - like nearly every country - they have laws against tresspassing and damaging private property; so him not calling for such laws does not allow conclusion whether he is in favor of such attacks.

For what i know he is adamantly against special protections for religions, especially if that religion is Islam.

 

[David Mo]

Why is exclusive criticism of Quran not acceptable?

I think that I have already answered this question. See my comment #100

The different sciptures/core stories of religions are DIFFERENT. Quran is composed of different words than Bible.

This is undeniable. But they are alike in many ways.

Why should it not be possible that someone sincerely reaches the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

It is possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others reach the conclusion that their Book is compatible with democracy. They only need forget many pages of it. It is not easy, but faith —in democracy— moves mountains.
In reality, almost all modern believers have experience in erasing what their Holy Book actually said by considering it as “allegoric”.

I am not aware of that; but - like nearly every country - they have laws against tresspassing and damaging private property; so him not calling for such laws does not allow conclusion whether he is in favor of such attacks.

If you don’t know, we have no case.
Yes. My point is that if the state has protective laws about terrorism in general it is a discriminative politics to request laws against a particular belief, as if it was the only one that fosters terrorism. This is discriminative and incites violence against this community.

 

[Carn]

I think that I have already answered this question. See my comment #100

But this would mean, exclusive criticism of Quran would have to be skipped until the day when "white supremacists" (or whatever one wants to call them) no longer exploit fear of Islam for their political goals.

I think "white supremacists" will always exploit such fears as long as such fears exist.

I think fears regarding Islam will exist as long as regularly some kind of atrocities are committed by people claiming to act in the name Of Allah.

So the day when one can offer exclusive criticism of Ouran would be in one option the day when no longer some people regularly commit some kind of atrocities supposedly in the name of Allah, cause only then the "white supremacists" can no longer exploit fears.

Or alternatively the day when world has somehow got rid of "white supremacists".


Presuming the latter never happens, one might find oneself in a perfect catch 22:

If one wants to argue, that the Quran has unlike some other holy books a greater potential to "encourage" some people to commit atrocities in the name of Allah, one has to postpone such argument (or at least the "greater" part) till the day when no longer people commit such atrocities in the name of Allah (or not more than in the name of other gods).

Which would just be the day, when such argument could no longer be true/valid.

It is possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others reach the conclusion that their Book is compatible with democracy. They only need forget many pages of it. It is not easy, but faith —in democracy— moves mountains.
In reality, almost all modern believers have experience in erasing what their Holy Book actually said by considering it as “allegoric”.

So you exclude the possibility that someone might sincerely based on reasoning avoiding any bias reach the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

Yes. My point is that if the state has protective laws about terrorism in general it is a discriminative politics to request laws against a particular belief, as if it was the only one that fosters terrorism. This is discriminative and incites violence against this community.

And how would the state allowed to adjust the laws, if hypothetically some particular belief is fostering realy a lor more terrorism than all other beliefs combined and that a plausibel explanation seems to be that this is due to the content of the belief?


To remind, mostly political ideologies are equaly free to be promoted; but history shows that some political ideologies make human rights violations by governments following the respective ideology far more likely; and this is used by some countries as a justification to have special laws regarding such political ideologies.

Hence, when the state finds that some political ideologies are a lot more problematic than others, the state - at least in some countries - is allowed to tailor laws or even only the application of laws and other political measures specifically to weaken that ideology.

An example for this approach is visible even in this thread, in which some posters seem to argue, that "blasphemous" attacks on mosques should be punished especially severe if committed by right-wing extremist/nazis; that is specifically applying harsher punishments to followers of that political ideology probably with the intent to weaken the influence of that ideology with the underlying motivation based in observation that that ideology is a lot more dangerous than other ideologies.

And also, this was not a comparison, but just an example, that with ideologies the extent in which they foster violence and the connection of that with the content of the ideology is to some extent valid reason for the state is justified in treating that ideology different from others.

Which raises from my POV the above question, if and how the state might react to religions differing vastly in respect to fostering violence.

 

[Belz...]

"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty.

Accuracy is now dishonesty! You heard it here first, folks!

Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe.

Yeah, ever since that damned "catholic" race sent those damned Irish to America!

No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort.

It should when the critique elicits accusations of racism. It's simple: criticise a religion, get called racist, point out that the two aren't the same, and now you want to add another step where you call the previous step dishonest. Congratulations. Now we can't critique Islam without being dishonest AND racist!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Accuracy is now dishonesty! You heard it here first, folks!

Whatever semantics or socially constructed definition of "race" you use (presumably, skin colour) the pedantic drivel is dishonest, because it seeks to distract from the fact that the exact same social structures are involved in skin colour discrimination and Islamophobia. It is clear as day to anyone who cares to study history that Islamophobia today is rooted in ancient and modern ideas of "Eastern barbarism", "Asiatic despotism", "Orientalism", and the desire to see vices of "the East" as foils to virtues of "the West". These same ideas led to, for example, the extensive discrimination against the Chinese in America in the 19th century. But maybe that wasn't racist either?

Yeah, ever since that damned "catholic" race sent those damned Irish to America!

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. A significant development in the conception of "biological" racism occurred in the late middle ages/early modern era. In most states in Europe, Jews and Muslims (when they were permitted to exist) suffered extensive discrimination - for example, prohibitions on owning property or holding certain professions. Traditionally, once they had converted to Christianity, they were usually (legally, if not in practice) considered equal to any other Christians. However, in the 15th and 16th century, perhaps partly due to economic development, the rate of conversion increased, resulting in converted former Jews and Muslims sometimes holding significant influence, which irked the "real" christians". Thus developed for example in Spain, the idea of them having "impure blood", the "Jewishness" and "Muslimness" persisting through conversion. For some it was maybe a matter of doubting their sincerity, for some it was thought that there was some sort of "Jewish essence" persisiting in them.

It also bears noting that "blackness" as a racial/moral characteristic was in most of the middle ages strongly associated with Islam.

Regardless, the advent of these ideas obviously helped perpetuate the atrocities of colonialism and the Transatlantic slave trade.


But sure, Islamophobia and racism have nothing to do with each other

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It should when the critique elicits accusations of racism. It's simple: criticise a religion, get called racist, point out that the two aren't the same, and now you want to add another step where you call the previous step dishonest. Congratulations. Now we can't critique Islam without being dishonest AND racist!

Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.

 

[Belz...]

Whatever semantics or socially constructed definition of "race" you use (presumably, skin colour) the pedantic drivel is dishonest, because it seeks to distract from the fact that the exact same social structures are involved in skin colour discrimination and Islamophobia.

No, that's ridiculous. Religion is not race. Full stop. It's not dishonest IF IT'S TRUE.

It is clear as day to anyone who cares to study history that Islamophobia today is rooted in ancient and modern ideas of "Eastern barbarism", "Asiatic despotism", "Orientalism", and the desire to see vices of "the East" as foils to virtues of "the West".

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

If you're critiquing Christianity then you're a racist, too! Even though it has nothing to do with race. You only think that "islamophobia" (what a stupid word) is about race because apparently you don't realise that Islam crosses quite a few ethnic boundaries, just like Christianity does.

But sure, Islamophobia and racism have nothing to do with each other

Argument from incredulity.

Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.

I tried and have seen it tried, and invariably, even on this supposedly rational forum, it invites accusations of racism. Now, I know you'll say that it's because it wasn't non-bigoted, but that's because you can't distinguish the two: criticism is necessarily bigoted. You can't imagine that those who accuse others of racism could possibly ever make that accusation without cause. Listen and believe!

Actually, the very fact that you're trying so hard to equate critique with bigotry smacks of the exact sort of intellectual dishonesty you described.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, that's ridiculous. Religion is not race. Full stop. It's not dishonest IF IT'S TRUE.

Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".

 

[Belz...]

Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".

Ok tell me: which "race" is Islam associated with? I'll wait before posting a map of majority-Muslim countries.

Alternatively: consider why you're unable to understand and agree to such an obvious and trivial fact.

 

[theprestige]

Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.

Is it possible to criticize Islam in a non bigoted way?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ok tell me: which "race" is Islam associated with? I'll wait before posting a map of majority-Muslim countries.

Alternatively: consider why you're unable to understand and agree to such an obvious and trivial fact.

Whether this can be answered depends on your conception of "race". I would say the identification of Islam as "Eastern" is key. Though today people are more aware of its diversity, association of Islam with both Arabs and Turks (nebuluous concepts, historically) certainly is a source of prejudice.

Is it possible to criticize Islam in a non bigoted way?

I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.

 

[Belz...]

Whether this can be answered depends on your conception of "race". I would say the identification of Islam as "Eastern" is key.

"Eastern" is not a race, nor an ethnic group. It does seem like you're expending quite a bit of effort to avoid agreeing to an obvious fact.

The truth is that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd see an Indonesian and mistake them for an Arab.

So quit it with the accusations of racism and dishonesty, and focus on the actual points made in the critique.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

"Eastern" is not a race, nor an ethnic group.

It is most certainly an ethno-cultural distinction that has existed for a very long time. You know, the old tropes of "eastern hordes" and "oriental despots"? No? Perhaps studying some history is in order then.

You're engaging in the same sort of dumb semantics that people who insist "antisemitism" should include attacking Arabs because Arabs are Semites.

 

[Belz...]

It is most certainly an ethno-cultural distinction that has existed for a very long time. You know, the old tropes of "eastern hordes" and "oriental despots"? No?

Ok, maybe you're simply not clear on what I'm saying, so let me try again. <clears throat> EASTERN IS NOT A RACE.

You can point out the distinction between west and east all you want but the fact remains that you're not talking about race anymore. Your claim was that the distinction between Islam and race was dishonest. Fact is, Islam has nothing to do with race, and you are basically proving that point for me.

Perhaps studying some history is in order then.

Keep your condescension for yourself. Your own knowledge of the topics under discussion seems lacking, so you're in no position to correct anyone.

You're engaging in the same sort of dumb semantics that people who insist "antisemitism" should include attacking Arabs because Arabs are Semites.

Except that "antisemite" has ALWAYS been a term directed at people who hate Jews, specifically. Islam has nothing to do with race, at all. Get that through your head.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ok, maybe you're simply not clear on what I'm saying, so let me try again. <clears throat> EASTERN IS NOT A RACE.

The concept of race is more nebulous than you assume.

 

[Carn]

Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".

You miss the important disctinction between "race" and "religion" that the former can never be changed by the human being identified as member of some "race", while - as you admitted yourself - "religion" can and even often is changed by humans.

Or may i presume you are a Christian(*)?

(There is some decent probability that your parents or grandparents were Christians; and then, just as someone with "black" parents is also "black" you would be Christian if there realy were no relevant differences).


And you miss the equally difference, that to some extent being willingly a member of a certain religion implies one holds certain things to be true. For example a muslim with probability bordering on 100% assumes Mohammed was a Prophet for the supreme good being; about which other people can have various opinions (which then could fuel criticism of Islam).

On the other hand, someone being "black" does not indicate that the person has certain opinions.

So you disregard that religion unlike "race" can be changed by the individual and that certain religions imply certain ideas (which may or may not be liked intellectually by other people).