Is Islam an evil religion?

[A'isha]

Nice subtle implication that if I don't read and agree with your references I'm not interested in the truth.

Well, if you're not willing to even read an actual scholarly work on the subject and instead to prefer to rely on pages like the ones Bill has cited, I'd indeed be less than convinced about your interest in the truth.

Though I'm more than a little confused by your "agree with" comment. Dr. Ali provides an overview, with reference citations, of the variety of positions contemporary Muslims hold regarding the "standard" view (as transmitted in Sahih Bukhari) of the age of Ai'sha at the time of her marriage. There's nothing to "agree with" or "disagree with", unless you think that Muslims don't actually hold the different views she describes and she's making the whole thing up.

EDIT: Are you worried, based on the title and my description of the author, that this is some kind of wishy-washy liberal Muslim apologetic piece? Because it's not...Dr. Ali pulls no punches when it comes to describing the entire range of beliefs and theology and jurisprudence in the Muslim world, both historically and today, regarding sexuality in Islam. She does draw her own conclusions and poses her own questions, but she is also very careful to separate her own analyses and criticisms from her descriptions of the views held by both classical and modern Islamic jurists. Her book is an overview and critical examination (in the academic sense of the word) of the history and application and modern theologic implications of the Qur'an and the hadith regarding both male and female sexual mores in Islamic jurisprudence; it is not, nor is it intended to be, a polemic or apologetic of any sort.

 

[tsig]

Then let me clarify, for the benefit of tsig and others. The Brotherhood are "true Muslims", just like Sufis are "true Muslims" and Ahmadiyya are "true Muslims" and Twelver Shi'ites are "true Muslims".

What none of them are, however, is representative of all Muslims everywhere.

So when a Muslim does a suicide attack he's not representative of Muslims everywhere but when a Muslim talks of peace he is?

 

[A'isha]

So when a Muslim does a suicide attack he's not representative of Muslims everywhere but when a Muslim talks of peace he is?

What, was "none of them are [...] representative of all Muslims everywhere" not clear enough?

 

[epepke]

With the exception of Anders Behring, you used examples of people who are legitimately reflective of the attitudes of the group you identify them with.

That's at least a valid statement. Of course, it could be argued. We could go through Bachmann's attitudes and see if they are representative of the Republican Party or the Tea Party, bringing up Republican platform documents, her success in the polls, etc. That is, there could be a discussion of Bachmann's role, and reasonable people disagree.

However, we can't do that with Islam if, whenever some Muslim group is brought up in a less than glowing way, there's an automatic statement "they don't represent all Muslims," as if that were a glory (c.f. Humpty Dumpty) argument.

In a way, I don't think it's even relevant who represents all Muslims or all Republicans, or if that is even a meaningful concept. (In fact, I doubt that it is meaningful: most history is driven by numerical minorities.) What matters more to me is who gets to do stuff, good or bad, and the dynamic between them and other groups and individuals who may happen to agree.

This is not done with Islam when the right is spinning it.

Again, it's not all that relevant how the Right is spinning it, or at most, it's only relevant if "how the Right spins things" is the only permissible discussion, and all else must be squelched, just because.

We may complain about pedophile priests, not pedophile Christians, or even pedophile Catholics. That's the difference.

Except that what I've seen is not the same. Consider Tim Minchin's song about the Pope, for example. Although it consists mainly of profanity (and so I shan't link it hear), it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.

You may disagree with the point, but it's a point.

The situation is different with Islam because there is no effective Caliphate and so no obvious single hierarchy by which money is formally funneled up and used, in part, for nefarious activities. But that's as may be. There could be, say, informal mechanisms.

 

[A'isha]

That's at least a valid statement. Of course, it could be argued. We could go through Bachmann's attitudes and see if they are representative of the Republican Party or the Tea Party, bringing up Republican platform documents, her success in the polls, etc. That is, there could be a discussion of Bachmann's role, and reasonable people disagree.

However, we can't do that with Islam if, whenever some Muslim group is brought up in a less than glowing way, there's an automatic statement "they don't represent all Muslims," as if that were a glory (c.f. Humpty Dumpty) argument.

That's because people almost never start with the comparison and discussion process you detail above when they talk about what "some Muslim group" believes, but instead usually leap right to "Islam as a whole is bad because of these beliefs."

EDIT: And as seen in this very thread, very many of the people who do this even accuse Muslims who may not share the beliefs of the Muslim group the focus on as doing Islam wrong and not being "true" Muslims, making the process you describe a futile nonstarter in discussions with them.

In a way, I don't think it's even relevant who represents all Muslims or all Republicans, or if that is even a meaningful concept. (In fact, I doubt that it is meaningful: most history is driven by numerical minorities.) What matters more to me is who gets to do stuff, good or bad, and the dynamic between them and other groups and individuals who may happen to agree.

And overgeneralizations like the ones we're talking about hinder this process at best and make it impossible at worst.

Except that what I've seen is not the same. Consider Tim Minchin's song about the Pope, for example. Although it consists mainly of profanity (and so I shan't link it hear), it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.

You may disagree with the point, but it's a point.

It's not just a point that people disagree with, it's a point that people disagree with vehemently. On another message board that I frequent, despite the fact that it's regularly accused of being a "liberal hivemind" hostile to conservatives, people who made the generalization above (done, in fact, in conjunction with posting links to Minchin's song on YouTube) ended up getting banned because of the direct attacks on regular Catholics and Catholicism as a whole that that represented.

 

[Lowpro]

Except that what I've seen is not the same. Consider Tim Minchin's song about the Pope, for example. Although it consists mainly of profanity (and so I shan't link it hear), it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.
You may disagree with the point, but it's a point.

...Consider rereading your post and see how utterly absurd it is, then report it to be deleted, because it's embarrassing for you.

 

[FireGarden]

You are quite confused. I don't actually have a cause, except to point out what I observe are peculiarities in the discussion. In fact, your idea that I have a cause may be one such peculiarity.

Really?

That is correct. If I could merely get people to think about even the possibility that there is a double standard, then I'd be quite happy.

But that's not an aim or goal (or 'cause', dare I use such crusading language?)

I guess that happiness would be just a lucky, unsought bonus.

That's also correct, but it perhaps has a nonzero chance of starting a discussion. I have some hypotheses.



No, you infer. I don't really care which, honestly.

So why don't you make the claim you suggested, we'll see what the reaction at JREF is and discuss which way to level the double standard if one is revealed.

I'm not really sure which generalization I'm supposed to make, nor at this point what you would view it as.

Did you not consider this a generalisation?:

Second, if I were to assert that Catholicism is evil, on the basis of the covering-up of child rape, ...

 

[JudeBrando]

The Muslim community here in Birmingham seems to be doing rather well. They even have an annual tradition of holding an Open House during Ramadan, for the express purpose of having non-Muslims visit and ask question, even tough questions about women in Muslim societies.

Ask them about Jews.

 

[A'isha]

Ask them about Jews.

Jews and Muslims (and, at least, Catholics) in Alabama get along rather well, thank you.

Their collective relationship with the Baptist Christians in this state, however, has been rather rocky recently.

 

[JudeBrando]

Ask them if the Jews are "apes and pigs"?

 

[Lowpro]

Ask them if the Jews are "apes and pigs"?

They probably would think you're an idiot. Alabama may have a streak of intolerance, but it's mostly from the Baptists, not the muslims.

You should move here Jude, you'd fit right in.

By the way, Bentley is actually a real freakin' douchebag assmaster sucktown guy. What the article ANTpogo showed is just a fraction of the bigoted crap that is Robert Bentley.

 

[JudeBrando]

Should all Jews be killed? Is that evil? Or do you think that is good also?

 

[Lowpro]

Does it hurt being as dense as you are Jude?

Oh, and these are the few I can find that aren't profane (unless you consider advocating the murder or people of a different religion as profane, but you linked your youtube video so I guess you don't really care...)

 

[epepke]

Except that what I've seen is not the same. Consider Tim Minchin's song about the Pope, for example. Although it consists mainly of profanity (and so I shan't link it hear), it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.

...Consider rereading your post and see how utterly absurd it is, then report it to be deleted, because it's embarrassing for you.

Why? What is embarrassing for me? As far as I can tell, what I said entails three things:

1) I know that Tim Minchin exists.
2) I know that he wrote about a song about the Pope, which I have heard and the lyrics of which I have read.
3) Based on my skills as a native speaker of English, it is my conclusion that this is what Minchin is saying.

I don't see how this is embarrassing to me. Perhaps you have a problem telling the difference between me, reporting my interpretation of what Minchin wrote, and Minchin. Rest assured, you can tell us apart with the naked eye. I'm older, wear less eye makeup, have blond hair, and do not play the piano. I enjoy listening to his songs, but that does not mean that I agree with him.

 

[Lowpro]

Why? What is embarrassing for me? As far as I can tell, what I said entails three things:

1) I know that Tim Minchin exists.
2) I know that he wrote about a song about the Pope, which I have heard and the lyrics of which I have read.
3) Based on my skills as a native speaker of English, it is my conclusion that this is what Minchin is saying.

I don't see how this is embarrassing to me. Perhaps you have a problem telling the difference between me, reporting my interpretation of what Minchin wrote, and Minchin. Rest assured, you can tell us apart with the naked eye. I'm older, wear less eye makeup, have blond hair, and do not play the piano. I enjoy listening to his songs, but that does not mean that I agree with him.

Perhaps you can't see color and didn't notice I highlighted the conclusion you made. Now go back to that, address it properly, and come back so we can argue it properly, ie by a method other than trying to dodge.

EDIT: I apologize for the venom in this post, but I will not tolerate this deliberate dodge so consider this me calling you out.

 

[Dayan81]

Should all Jews be killed? Is that evil? Or do you think that is good also?..

What percent of Muslim-Americans do you believe want to kill all of the Jews?

 

[epepke]

Perhaps you can't see color and didn't notice I highlighted the (stupid) conclusion you made. Now go back to that, address it properly, and come back so we can argue it properly, ie by a method other than trying to dodge.

EDIT: I apologize for the venom in this post, but I will not tolerate this deliberate dodge so consider this me calling you out.

OK, let's do it. Here is what I interpreted Minchin's song as saying:

it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.

Now, I am still reluctant to link to the song or the lyrics for fear of violating Rule 10, so I'll make quotes from the song, sufficiently Bowdlerized:

**** the ************, and **** you ************
If you think that ************ is sacred (******* ************)
If you cover for another ************ who's a kiddie ******
**** you you're no better then the ************** rapist

...

So **** the ************* and **** you ************
If you're still a ************* Papist (******* ************)
If you covered for a single ************ who's a kiddie ******,
**** the ************ he's as evil as the rapist

That's enough for now.

I base my interpretation of what Minchin said, in addition, on the following clues:

1) Minchin refers to the Pope in the third person throughout. I interpret the word "you" as addressing the listener.

2) The term "Papist" is a (usually derogatory) term for a Catholic.

So it seems pretty clear to me that the second person refers to people who remain Catholics (Papists) under the light of the evidence against the Pope.

I suppose that it is possible to disagree with my interpretation of what Minchin said, but I think it would be rather difficult to do so to the extent to justify the conclusion is stupid and embarrassing, let alone that it should be removed from the discussion.

 

[Lowpro]

OK, let's do it. Here is what I interpreted Minchin's song as saying:



*snipping the irrelevant bullcrap

Okay, you obviously cannot follow a thread.

Here's what you said

Except that what I've seen is not the same. Consider Tim Minchin's song about the Pope, for example. Although it consists mainly of profanity (and so I shan't link it hear), it does make a point: that if one continues to support the Catholic Church, given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes. You may disagree with the point, but it's a point.

The situation is different with Islam because there is no effective Caliphate and so no obvious single hierarchy by which money is formally funneled up and used, in part, for nefarious activities. But that's as may be. There could be, say, informal mechanisms.

from this post

Notice, I have highlighted the offending conclusion. I couldn't care two whatever's about what Tim Minchin's lyrics say, you have formed a conclusion that Tim Minchin made a point; that:

given that there is strong evidence that the Pope covered up instances of child rape and continues to deflect from that, then one shares responsibility for the child rapes.

Now, I don't know about you but the Pope didn't bugger any kids (as far as we know) he covered that up even going so far as to relocate some buggering Priests around to other areas (Not to give them a wider range of holes but to simply get somewhere to lie low) and while there is an issue of accountability that doesn't mean the actions of the Priests who actually physically raped children translate to "Well the Pope shares that responsibility, therefor Catholicism shares that responsibility"

No matter how much Catholics want to believe it, the Pope is a man not a living embodiment of their dogma (if you actually think he is, you're sharing in the religious delusion) so knowing that you cannot accredit Priests raping kids = Pope raping kids or Priests raping kids = Catholicism raping kids. That's downright false. Conflating the actions of the Pope minimizing child rape stories with the act of raping kids by their Priest is a sell that's just...it's terrible to think that you considered it a valid argument considering the complete lack of merit to it. At this point, you're passing off a grossly skewed image of the case at hand, and smearing some lipstick on it calling it Catholicism's fault. While you're allowed to criticize the actions of the Pope, and the actions of the Priests they are separate (but still devious) acts. But you cannot conflate either of them, and you CERTAINLY cannot conflate them with Catholicism.

Does it make you hate the Pope more? Sure, it even inspired a song. Does it actually validate fears of Catholicism? Hardly. You can blame religious will made manifest all you want, but actual culpability will only ever come down to the one wielding it (in this case the Priests themselves). So having said that, I want to tell you your post was stupid and warrants removal but only by you, it doesn't cross the site's rules, just the rules of general critical thinking.

EDIT: And if you want to shift the goalpost of culpability/responsibility I'm sure the Cinema Business hasn't seen much (valid) litigation whenever their films inspire violence, if they inspire violence at all.

And yes, I do have stock in straw, and while most markets are down, this one never drops.

Another Edit: You'll have to forgive me, I could find more posts to try and give you an actual picture of the argument(s) you've presented and why I find this strange conclusion of yours so...strange. But must you REALLY rely on some perceived lack of memory on my part? Do you think that I don't read yours (and everyone's) post in this thread? I'm sure there are other lurkers here too who read everything posted here, and I feel like you're feigning remiss by trying to isolate the issue to the lyrics of a youtube video when you know damn well where this conversation's been.

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo324/chipkimble/killatheists.png[/qimg]


Does it hurt being as dense as you are Jude?

Oh, and these are the few I can find that aren't profane (unless you consider advocating the murder or people of a different religion as profane, but you linked your youtube video so I guess you don't really care...)

yeah but that was against Atheists. i mean common.

 

[FireGarden]

I suppose that it is possible to disagree with my interpretation of what Minchin said, but I think it would be rather difficult to do so to the extent to justify the conclusion is stupid and embarrassing, let alone that it should be removed from the discussion.

In a similar manner...
I heard there was this poster, Lowpro, who suggested that epepke should be embarrassesed.

You may disagree with his point. But he did make a point.





(I do wonder which side of the argument you think I'm endorsing. Or if you think I'm genuinely neutral.)