Condemning Islamic Culture

[CBL4]

Originally post by EvilDave
In various places, and various times, all of these things have been described by Christians as 'bad'. Women's rights, especially.

If what you are saying is that much of the Christian world was Not Free in the past and virtually all of the Islamic world is Not Free now, I would agree 100%.

And what of the Islamic people who were raised in the United States? Do you believe that they don't?

I have made no comment about them because I do not have data. They do not live in an Islamic majority country, so I would guess that most of them would value freedom. But that is only a guess.

Do you have any relevant ideas about the current state about the Islamic world?

CBL

 

[Tony]

I suspect if someone took the time to study the countries in question they would find that all of them are not the same, and that they are not all as dreadful as commonly perceived by the West.

They aren't the same, who said they were?

 

[epepke]

Oh oh, can we condemn Chinese culture too? I mean, obviously they're a bunch of worthless commie bastards.

Only after they become capitalist enough, like happened with Russia. Or if you stick to Hong Kong or Shanhei. You can also currently condemn Tibet, although this flops back and forth every couple of years.

It is, of course, practically mandatory on this forum to condemn Americans or Jews or both. Condemning Christians is optional but permitted.

However, you may not criticize any Isamist cultures. That is utterly forbidden. You can't criticize any aspect of Islam or any individual Muslim, either. That would be orientalism.

 

[Mycroft]

But frankly I'm not that interested, because "X are bad" assertions don't seem terribly constructive. So what? Even if they are that bad, pointing it out isn't going to make them any better.

Probably not on this forum, but in general? What is a civil rights movement if it isn't people pointing out the flaws in a culture and creating pressure to change?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tony
I condemn the religion. And while I'm at it, let me also condemn christianity and fundamentalism in general.

I do not like any religions but I do not condemn foolishness alone. I would not condemn any religion unless it specifically preaches hatred or tyranny. I understand that many fundamentalists and certain smaller sects meet this definition but I do not believe any of the major religions do so. (The Hindu caste system might be one counter example.)

In fact, some sects at some times have done much to promote freedom. This is not a ringing endorsement but if I were to condemn all foolish, unproductive behavior then I would have to condemn everyone at least some of the time.

CBL

 

[evildave]

I notice that in your rabid apologies you missed the part where I also condemned christianity.

'Rabid', eh? Will the level of debate in the forums ever cease to amaze? I don't see that in the post where you listed off items about those 'backwards sh!thole' Islamics.

One can no more generally blame 'Islam' for tyrants and police states and insane revolutionaries than one can blame Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever for the same things that happen in the cultures containing them.

People leading, people following. People.

Fundamentalism is not in its self bad. It's a symptom of the same fragmentation of faith that Christianity is still going through. The very fragmentation of faith that made tolerance ever more necessary.

Try a new word with me: supremacism

Christian Supremacists
Islamic Supremacists
White Supremacists
Black Supremacists

People who believe their religion or cause or race or whatever should reign supreme over the world, and to heck with anybody else.

If you think covering the whole world in strip malls and Wal*Marts is a good idea, rendering every place there is the very image of Generica, perhaps there is a problem. You might be a cultural supremacist.

The notion that we are so wise and good that we should force other people to be just like us is a bit absurd, and dangerous.

If we lose the diversity in the world, we will be weaker for it. Even if we don't like it.

 

[Tony]

'Rabid', eh? Will the level of debate in the forums ever cease to amaze? I don't see that in the post where you listed off items about those 'backwards sh!thole' Islamics.

It's in a different post.

One can no more generally blame 'Islam' for tyrants and police states and insane revolutionaries than one can blame Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever for the same things that happen in the cultures containing them.

I don't see why not.

Try a new word with me: supremacism

Christian Supremacists
Islamic Supremacists
White Supremacists
Black Supremacists

People who believe their religion or cause or race or whatever should reign supreme over the world, and to heck with anybody else.

Good point.

The notion that we are so wise and good that we should force other people to be just like us is a bit absurd, and dangerous.

If we lose the diversity in the world, we will be weaker for it. Even if we don't like it.

This is a new one. We should now tolerate tyranny, despotism, racism and hate in the name of diversity?

 

[Mycroft]

Minority rights?
Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus.

Women's rights?
Women's suffrage is a relatively new issue intruduced in the early 20th century. Christians resisted it for very Christian reasons. Women's rights grew from there. Tell me how mighty women are in Latin America, where Christianity is supreme.

Dave,

Would you agree that reform was necessary in Christian dogma before positive changes were made in these areas?

 

[CBL4]

Take a careful look at the map at the purple (Not Free) countries. They come in the following major groups:
1) Communist – Belarus, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Tibet, etc.
2) Had a war recently (mostly civil) – Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, etc.
3) Islamic

There are some exceptions but Burma, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Togo and Guinea are all I could find. Peaceful, non-Islamic, non-Communist countries are almost always at least Partly Free.

If you would like me condemn Communism and civil wars, I will do that as well.

CBL

 

[evildave]

Do you have any relevant ideas about the current state about the Islamic world?

CBL

There are over a billion people in the 'Islamic world'. Who am I to know the state of all of that?

Are all of the Islamic people in Indonesia bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in India bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in China bad, good, or mixed?

The basic 'problem' is change, and change is painful. There is pull from the fundies who want the old ways. There is pull from the people who 'want their MTV'. There are those who fear their cherished customs and culture could simply be drowned if they let western culture pour in, and all the while, it's seeping into every crack anyway.

In the Persian Gulf, many people sense that they should have a high standard of living, with industries being built there, but they don't and there aren't. The oil money seems to get soaked up by the royalty, and they remain oppressed and poor relative to the images and experience they get from the west, and the west props up their royalty. Certainly this situation does not breed happiness and contentment. No few of them who came to America to be educated stayed in America. That doesn't seem like a 'hatred of freedom'; quite the reverse.

 

[Mycroft]

Are all of the Islamic people in Indonesia bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in India bad, good, or mixed?

Are all of the Islamic people in China bad, good, or mixed?

Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

 

[evildave]

This is a new one. We should now tolerate tyranny, despotism, racism and hate in the name of diversity?

We already 'tolerate', even support tyranny and despotism in the governments who do business with us, so it's hardly a new cocncept.

Some of it is inevitable. Even in America. Note skin-heads, neo-nazis and white supremacists exist here and in many fruity flavors. The fringe will always be with us.

We should generally tolerate people living and believing the way they want to. If someone wants to practice fundy Islam, who am I to judge, any more than someone who wants to practice fundy Southern Baptism? Variants of both state the wife is to defer to the husband in all things.

 

[evildave]

Dave,

Would you agree that reform was necessary in Christian dogma before positive changes were made in these areas?

Yes.

More precisely, that religion had to lose much of its power in government.

 

[evildave]

Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

No, just rhetorical examples. The only possible answer to these questions is 'mixed'. There are good and bad among every sampling.

 

[epepke]

Why are you extrapolating this to refer to every single Islamic person? When you made your earlier statements on Christianity, did you mean those to apply to every single Christian?

We're getting pretty loose with the words here, and it obscures a lot of the things going on.

"Islam" is the religion.
People who believe in the religion are "muslims" or "moslems."
"Islamism" is theocracy under Islam.
"Islamist" refers to a country under Islamism or a practitioner or advocate of Islamism.
"Islamic" is an abstract adjective. It can mean "about Islam" when used in e.g. "Islamic Studies." When applied to a coutry, it means the same as "Islamist."

 

[Mycroft]

Yes.

More precisely, that religion had to lose much of its power in government.

Fair enough.

Is there a problem with saying something similar needs to happen with another religion?

 

[Tony]

We already 'tolerate', even support tyranny and despotism in the governments who do business with us, so it's hardly a new cocncept.

Who is "we"? You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. And I'd say that tolerating tyranny and despotism in the name of diversity is a new thing.

Some of it is inevitable. Even in America. Note skin-heads, neo-nazis and white supremacists exist here and in many fruity flavors. The fringe will always be with us.

They have no political power.

We should generally tolerate people living and believing the way they want to. If someone wants to practice fundy Islam, who am I to judge, any more than someone who wants to practice fundy Southern Baptism? Variants of both state the wife is to defer to the husband in all things.

The thing is those types of people rarely leave it at "believing what they want to". They almost always seek to impose their myths on government and society.

 

[CapelDodger]

from evildave:

Christians don't have a very good history with 'minority rights'. Pogroms in Europe and the Americas slaughtered a lot of people in the name of their Jesus.

In the context of this thread, present Western behaviour is what matters. History can only serve to show how backward most Muslim societies are - say, four centuries adrift, if Western rates of progress are any benchmark. Muslim societies today are, in the overwhelming main, repressive and corrupt. There's no getting away from that. Brave, principled efforts have been made to change things, but they've all failed. Is there a Muslim country any of us would want to live in?

It can't all be down to Western influence. That's too recent, and the West simply isn't that important. There has to be an underlying problem, and trying to ferret out what it is would make for a productive discussion.

My own impression is that the European divide between secular and spiritual power is absent in the Muslim world. The way in which Islam was created precluded that - Muhammad was both prophet and general, Pope and Emperor, and so were his successors. Christianity established itself within the existing Graeco-Roman world, and could only do that by explicitly accepting the secular power-structure. Catholic Christendom saw centuries of conflict between Popes and secular rulers as the Church tried to take all power to itself, and the thugs with swords (the aristocracy) won. (Orthodox Christendom lived under Muslim rule, so the question was moot.) That conflict never occurred within the Muslim world until the last century or so, and the outcome - Ba'athism, Nasserism, whatever Pakistan's ideology might be - has not been attractive or successful. Thus the turning back to more religion rather than less, within just a couple of generations.

from TragicMonkey:

Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

But they're subject to propaganda. (Stolen.)

 

[evildave]

Fair enough.

Is there a problem with saying something similar needs to happen with another religion?

No. I agree that reform in the practice of Islam, and other religions is necessary.

Am I the one to dictate HOW people of a given religion should change? Are you?

In the name of Christianity there are those who preach hatred today, just as there are those in Islam. Is a Christian who preaches that we should destroy Islam, and to hell with the body count any better than an Islamic cleric who preaches the same thing with the labels reversed?

 

[evildave]

Who is "we"? You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. And I'd say that tolerating tyranny and despotism in the name of diversity is a new thing.

"We" being our government in our name. They tolerate tyranny and despotism for oil, and they've done it for fruit.

Tolerating other religions and other forms of government besides one's own is also an old thing.

They have no political power.
They vote. They have the freedom to say what they like, to recruit. They even occasionally act out. A fringe, but not a wholly harmless one.

The thing is those types of people rarely leave it at "believing what they want to". They almost always seek to impose their myths on government and society.
And that's where they cross the line. Not for being 'Islamic', but for being supremacists.