Manhattan explosion

[Mark6]

You know what's really sad? We have more trust in the communications capabilities of an illiterate 7th century camel merchant than A'isha has in her God. You'd think that an omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to tell a message of peace in a way that wouldn't require you to have a crystal ball and the gift of clairvoyance to understand the deep meaning, and that wouldn't require you to completely butcher verses just to make them seem less evil. An illiterate 7th century camel merchant could understandably encounter problems, but the way I see it, he managed it - in a mangled way, but he managed it, somehow.
Yet, A'isha thinks so low of this perfect God of hers that she thinks he too is practically illiterate, to the point of being practically unable to communicate a coherent message. At least she won't be cold in the afterlife

Keep in mind that A'isha claims to be an atheist. That is, raised Muslim, but not actually believing any of this stuff.

 

[tyr_13]

For every token "boy golly gee those ISIS fellers sure are bad" I see thousands of words devoted to how bad Christianity is TOO (or at least WAS 800 years ago); how mean people are towards muslims; how misunderstood poor islam is etc etc.

For ***** sake what do you call someone who has done her damnest to twist the stats to show that there really is no islamic terrorist threat? No, her ideology is exactly as I describe and it's pretty despicable the lengths atheists will go to defend that horrendous religion in the name of political correctness.

Dawkins, Hitchens et al absolutely nailed it re: ALL religions, no wonder they're such pariahs in the atheist community now run by SJWs.

You're an atheist, correct? Maybe if you spent a quart the time on combating the extremists in the atheist community as you spend on condemning Muslims, that wouldn't be a problem.

Or are you going to finally step up and take responsibility for the actions of the atheist community?

 

[tyr_13]

Contrary to what A'isha claims, there is a local Islamic authority in charge of the mosques:


Contrary to what A'isha claims, these mosques are not attended by a minority of local Muslims:

Where did A'isha calm there was no local authorities or local 'majorities'?

 

[A'isha]

Where did A'isha calm there was no local authorities or local 'majorities'?

Especially since one of my main points was that I could tell that the mosques in the Channel 4 documentary would be spouting extremist claptrap specifically because they belonged to larger organizations who openly embraced an extremist ideology (the UK Islamic Mission and the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith).

My comparison to the organizational structure of evangelical Christianity earlier was not an accident. Some mosques are entirely independent. Some belong to local organizations. Some belong to international organizations. Some are part of a rigid and defined hierarchy within their groups. Some are only loosely associated with a group and are almost as independent as the completely independent mosques. Some belong to specific sects/subsects (which may or may not coincide with any organization they belong to). Some are their own subsect. Some are always attended by the same, mostly static congregation. Some have more fluid congregations formed of Muslims who don't always attend that same mosque.

EDIT: And it's entirely unsurprising that three of the six mosques in High Wycombe belong to the same local organization, since the population of High Wycombe is rather small and the Muslim population there is even smaller, and is made up mostly of people from very specific regions of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan & Bangladesh. The other three mosques appear to be entirely independent of each other and of the Wycombe Islamic Mission & Trust.

Why anyone would think that this proves that there's a "central mosque authority" or something that Muslims can appeal to, or that the local organization of a half-dozen mosques in a tiny town with a tiny Muslim population can be scaled up to make judgments about Muslims in the whole of the UK is somewhat mystifying, to say the least.

 

[McHrozni]

Keep in mind that A'isha claims to be an atheist. That is, raised Muslim, but not actually believing any of this stuff.

Really? I didn't know that. That's one weird denialist indeed.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Why anyone would think that this proves that there's a "central mosque authority" or something that Muslims can appeal to, or that the local organization of a half-dozen mosques in a tiny town with a tiny Muslim population can be scaled up to make judgments about Muslims in the whole of the UK is somewhat mystifying, to say the least.

Incidentally, that's one of the problems with Islam. The fact it has essentially no formal internal structure allows promotion of just about anything that is found in it's holy texts. If there was a central authority you'd at least have someone to appeal to, to negotiate with, to criticize or to endorse.

The way things are now though ... anything goes. This too is Islam, and in this case it's a massive problem that results in deaths and discrimination. You don't think this is something that should be solved? I do, and I think it would do wonders for Islam if it finally got it's feces together.

McHrozni

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Are you applying the same standard of knowledge and understanding to your average secular or Christian man in the street when it comes to their own religion that you do to one they don't even practice? If not, why not?

Instead of religious canon, think in terms of political dogma. In this realm of analysis, there is no difficulty in distinguishing between the extremes of laissez-faire and totally authoritarian postulates among the various approaches. There is also no difficulty in assessing the relative grasp among followers and those living under the regimes of what the ideologies preach, and the degree to which those postulates are actively practiced. So, for example, while we may consider totalitarian ideologies oppressive, there is no reason to believe, say, all residents of Nazi Germany or the USSR were, even when formally subscribers to the dogma, aware of or diligent in practicing their precepts. We may also identify those individuals who most act in line with them. In all cases of totalitarianism, we can state that the ideologies do not respect human rights, and when in power, suppress them. A few good apples do not save the bunch, and are examples of the free variation of individual responses, not of the ideology or what it teaches.

The same is true, of course, for non-authoritarian ideologies, such as democracy, under which we can identify both the Lincolns and the Trumps, the good-faith voters and the vote suppressors. The bad apples do not indicate the ideology preaches what they practice, only once again, we can note the variation of responses.

I think you have the point by now. Anecdotal individual behavior is not indicative of an ideology; it is the formal postulates that indicate what actions and central tendencies those who follow a given canon will have. And the homework you are missing is the evaluation of Islam - the religion - as preached and exemplified by its prophet. Those same examples of behavior are what those fleeing from Mosul, today, cite when interviewed as the horrors of ISIS.

Dogmas: evaluation is/should be based on the actual teachings/canon.
People: evaluation is/should be based on our common human nature.

By scrutinizing these issues, you will be quickly afforded an insight into exactly how and why those who are living normal, comfortable lives in the West (or in an Islamic country) who start to practice the faith as its prophet indicated become terrorists. The problem: Islam. Islam, a tribal canon preached by a warlord who slew his opponents without mercy and made himself, alone, sole arbiter of all things past, present, and future. Think Trump, and you get a much better idea of his "qualities."

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Think Trump, and you get a much better idea of his "qualities."

Clarification: Referring here to Trump the narcissist and near sociopath, not to Trump's exact political ideas. (Too late to edit above.)

 

[A'isha]

Really?

Really.

I didn't know that.

Which is weird, since I don't even try to hide it or anything.

That's one weird denialist indeed

Because the only choices are "think its the evilest thing that ever eviled" or "believe in it yourself"?

Incidentally, that's one of the problems with Islam. The fact it has essentially no formal internal structure allows promotion of just about anything that is found in it's holy texts. If there was a central authority you'd at least have someone to appeal to, to negotiate with, to criticize or to endorse.

The way things are now though ... anything goes.

Just like...well, all the other major religions. Or maybe you think the More Light Presbyterians should petition the Catholic Pope to do something about the Southern Baptist Convention.

And I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea of a "central authority" in any religion. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, and what are you going to do when the dictator isn't quite so benevolent? I don't want there to be a "Pope of Islam" because I definitely don't want there to be a Saudi Pope of Islam.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like the Saudis can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're doing their damndest to try and pull that off anyway).

Saudi[/I] Pope of Islam.

Interesting.
You keep saying how you don't like all Muslims to be stereotyped, and how extremists don't represent all Muslims, or even a majority of Muslim opinion.

How then does this apparent indignation square with your depiction of Saudis? You depict them as being all of one voice and opinion, and all members of an intolerant version of Islam you reject and abhor.

It seems to me that you are doing to the 29 million inhabitants of Saudi Arabia what you are accusing and condemning others here of doing.

Please list your reasons why all the excuses you have made for extremism in the West do not apply to Saudi Arabia. For example:

• They cannot be held responsible for imams in mosques they do not attend.
• They cannot control what is preached in mosques they do not attend and are not members of.
• The views of a minority of extremists cannot be viewed as representative of the peaceful, tolerant majority.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Where did A'isha calm there was no local authorities or local 'majorities'?

Because some Muslims can't get mosques that they don't control, have no one they can appeal to who does have control, and aren't even members of shut down?

Right here. Seems clear enough to me.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Where did A'isha calm there was no local authorities or local 'majorities'?

Because there is no one that Muslims who disagree with this can appeal to in order to get those imams removed or to ensure that those mosques don't preach hatred and violence. If a mosque is founded by an Ahl-i Hadith preacher and draws together Ahl-i Hadith adherents to make up its congregation, what, exactly, do you think non-Ahl-i Hadith Muslims can do about it?

It's not like the Catholic or Anglican churches where a problematic clergyman can be removed by his superiors higher up the chain. It's more like evangelical Christianity, where anyone can build (or rent) a building somewhere, set themselves up as the preacher, gather together a like-minded congregation, and preach whatever **** they like from the pulpit about how gays deserve the death penalty and God's law should be the law of the land and the secular ruler is the Devil, and no one can do anything about it.

Oh, and a slightly longer version here.

So, was this knee-jerk apologism, or did you just not read all of her posts?

 

[A'isha]

Please list your reasons why all the excuses you have made for extremism in the West do not apply to Saudi Arabia.

Because, unlike in the West, Saudi Arabia has an official state version of Islam, with an established religious hierarchy regulated by the government, and crack down (with the full force of that hierarchy and that government) on versions of Islam that differ from and oppose the official version. It's not at all like the UK, where the state church is CofE but you can still be Catholic or Lutheran or even Muslim of Jewish.

Hence your comparison is not just invalid, but makes me go

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'd like to add a little more to the two posts I made above.

The constant moving of the goal posts is becoming a little wearying.
Two examples:
First, A'isha complained that Anjem Choudary was allowed to appear on British TV unopposed. When I posted 3 links to his appearances, appearances in which he was very much opposed, suddenly that charge shifted to "opposed by Muslims".
Second, A'isha stated that there was no way for Muslims to control their local mosques, and no authority to which they could appeal to have those extremist preachers expelled, or the mosques shut down. When I posted facts showing that was in error, the claim quickly changed to calls for a "national-level authority" supervising Islam.

To my mind, any viewpoint that needs to be changed and redefined every time it is challenged by facts, is suspect.

I'm sure our local apologists will soon appear to tell me why that doesn't apply to Islam.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Because, unlike in the West, Saudi Arabia has an official state version of Islam, with an established religious hierarchy regulated by the government, and crack down (with the full force of that hierarchy and that government) on versions of Islam that differ from and oppose the official version. It's not at all like the UK, where the state church is CofE but you can still be Catholic or Lutheran or even Muslim of Jewish.

Hence your comparison is not just invalid, but makes me go

Are you aware that 10% of Saudis are Shia? Do you have any evidence that all Saudis, or even the majority of Saudis, are Wahabbis?
Let me remind you that you did not state "the majority of Saudis". Nor have you acknowledged that, as Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy wedded to a fundamentalist sect, ordinary Saudis have no sway over their government at all. The excuses you use for British Muslims should also apply to Saudi Muslims. Can you explain why you apparently don't agree?

 

[A'isha]

Right here. Seems clear enough to me.

Okay, then. Who do the members of the MECAWT masjid, which is not a member of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust and not related to their three mosques, do to get those mosques that they don't control, have no one they can appeal to who does have control, and aren't even members of shut down? If they go to the board members of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust and say "we don't like what you're doing, quit it", and the board of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust says "no, buzz off", what is the next step the members of the MECAWT masjid should take to get them stopped?

Oh, and a slightly longer version here.

So, was this knee-jerk apologism, or did you just not read all of her posts?

As I pointed out above, the "Ahl-i Hadith" I mention in that post you quote to accuse me of having said that mosques can never have local authorities is a local authority that I was specifically citing as an organization of mosques that one could use to tell what sort of ideology is preached at mosques under its umbrella. [EDIT: Not to mention that the entire point of that post was to ask what you think Muslims who aren't members of the aforementioned organizations or of the mosques belonging to those organizations are supposed to do.]

*facepalm*

 

[A'isha]

I'd like to add a little more to the two posts I made above.

The constant moving of the goal posts is becoming a little wearying.
Two examples:
First, A'isha complained that Anjem Choudary was allowed to appear on British TV unopposed. When I posted 3 links to his appearances, appearances in which he was very much opposed, suddenly that charge shifted to "opposed by Muslims".

Because the issue, as pointed out by the people quoted in the Guardian article you yourself linked to, is that Anjem Choudary is brought on to give "the Muslim viewpoint", and the BBC and other media outlets not only don't oppose his claims in that regard, but they contribute to it. Even Lord Carlile said "we now need to hear much more from the Muslim community – particularly from young leaders in the Muslim community – about how they condemn his actions", which is kind of hard to do when the TV show you were just on didn't have any of those leaders on and instead only featured Anjem Choudary.

If there's no opposition to his claims to be speaking on behalf of "Muslims" or "Islam", then "opposition" to him on those shows doesn't actually oppose his viewpoint and his claims, it merely reinforces it by giving him credibility and authority he does not deserve and does not actually have. Sean Hannity can bring Choudary on to his show to tell him he thinks Choudary is a terrorist-supporting scumbucket, but if he does so while not just buying into but encouraging the idea that Choudary is presenting "the Muslim point of view" or talking about the way "Islam" says things should be, then Choudary's claims about Islam and Muslims aren't actually being opposed or addressed no matter how much Hannity yells at him.

Are you aware that 10% of Saudis are Shia?

Yes, and they're persecuted and oppressed, prevented from doing things like building mosques and going on the hajj, routinely arrested and beaten, and sometimes even killed.

Let me remind you that you did not state "the majority of Saudis". Nor have you acknowledged that, as Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy wedded to a fundamentalist sect, ordinary Saudis have no sway over their government at all. The excuses you use for British Muslims should also apply to Saudi Muslims. Can you explain why you apparently don't agree?

Well, the fact that Saudi Muslims live in an autocratic monarchy wedded to a fundamentalist sect and British Muslims don't is a pretty big clue.

EDIT: Why the **** do you even think I'm talking about individual civilian Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, and not, you know, the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus)? Especially in the context of talking about some kind of potential organized authority over the whole religion of Islam to enforce the "correct interpretation" of Islam on the entire community of believers?

Yes, not all Saudi citizens are extremists or Wahhabis. Now imagine how much bigger their number would be if they didn't live in a place where an extremist Wahhabist version of Islam wasn't imposed on them by a wealthy authoritarian government that punishes any religious deviance from the official state religion? And you think it would be a good thing if Muslims in the West lived under the same kind of system of mandated religious conformity?

 

[McHrozni]

Which is weird, since I don't even try to hide it or anything.

You know, I don't make a point to stalk people from forums to figure out as many intimate details about their lives as possible.

Because the only choices are "think its the evilest thing that ever eviled" or "believe in it yourself"?

It's weird for someone who was raised into nonsense but has grown out of it to defend it from all criticism, come hell or high water.

Just like...well, all the other major religions. Or maybe you think the More Light Presbyterians should petition the Catholic Pope to do something about the Southern Baptist Convention.

If Bapists start blowing up planes, airports and shooting up concerts in the name of Jesus, I'll do just that. Until then I really don't see any particular need for it.

And I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea of a "central authority" in any religion. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator, and what are you going to do when the dictator isn't quite so benevolent? I don't want there to be a "Pope of Islam" because I definitely don't want there to be a Saudi Pope of Islam.

That's not the case in the slightest. Fighting against someone who has a lot to lose is a whole lot easier than someone who has nothing to live for in the first place. I suspect this is a major reason behind polygamy in Islam - it creates a large body of young males whose only chance of ever seeing a woman is to go to war to either capture one, loot enough wealth to marry, or die and go to paradise (another problem with Islam right here).

Unlike a dirty hate-preacher and his band of confirmed bachelors such a dictator has a lot to lose. It's hugely unlikely that an Islamic pope (or however you'd call him) would ever want to risk his privileged earthly life in favor of anything especially bad.

If he did, we could always do a modern variant of Paul Revere and send in the Minutemen. It's not ideal, but it has an adequate precedents and also adequate legal and moral backing.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

EDIT: Why the **** do you even think I'm talking about individual civilian Muslims living in Saudi Arabia, and not, you know, the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus)? Especially in the context of talking about some kind of potential organized authority over the whole religion of Islam to enforce the "correct interpretation" of Islam on the entire community of believers?

Well, let's see. Possibly because, as I pointed out before, you did just that- if we use your own arguments.
You said this:

You said "I thought you said that Muslims [no modifier, just "Muslims" as a whole] condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole] are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims [a modifier to specify Muslims in Britain, but no further modifier, just "British Muslims" as a whole] to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole again] did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'."

If you didn't mean "Muslims" as a whole or "British Muslims" as a whole, why did you write it that way?

This is the post about Saudis I was responding to:

At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like the Saudis can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're doing their damndest to try and pull that off anyway).

Let's subject your post to your own criticism.

You said Saudis [no modifier, just "Saudis" as a whole] can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their [no modifier, just "their" as a whole] own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're [no modifier, just "they" as a whole] doing their damnedest to try to pull that off.

If you didn't mean "Saudis" as a whole, why did you write it that way?

Towards the end of your post, I think you began to realise what you had done, and I will acknowledge that you said

Yes, not all Saudi citizens are extremists or Wahhabis.

However, that is still too little, too late to excuse your blatant double standard. You have condemned all Saudis, by your own criteria, as extremists. I know for a fact that they are not.
You really should think through the implications of what you are saying before you post.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Because the issue, as pointed out by the people quoted in the Guardian article you yourself linked to, is that Anjem Choudary is brought on to give "the Muslim viewpoint", and the BBC and other media outlets not only don't oppose his claims in that regard, but they contribute to it.

For at least the third time: The article says nothing of the sort. Do, please, quote anything from the article that says that.
Here's the link again:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/20/bbc-today-programme-cleric-anjem-choudary

I am not surprised that you continue to claim this in spite of the facts: what surprises me is that, apparently, no-one except me on this skeptics forum has read the article, and/or is prepared to challenge you on this. What you are claiming is absolutely untrue, and it makes no difference how many times you repeat this claim: it will still remain total fiction.

If there's no opposition to his claims to be speaking on behalf of "Muslims" or "Islam", then "opposition" to him on those shows doesn't actually oppose his viewpoint and his claims, it merely reinforces it by giving him credibility and authority he does not deserve and does not actually have. Sean Hannity can bring Choudary on to his show to tell him he thinks Choudary is a terrorist-supporting scumbucket, but if he does so while not just buying into but encouraging the idea that Choudary is presenting "the Muslim point of view" or talking about the way "Islam" says things should be, then Choudary's claims about Islam and Muslims aren't actually being opposed or addressed no matter how much Hannity yells at him.

I had to google Sean Hannity, because I did not know who he was, and I didn't remember reading any reference to him in the article to which I had linked.
I then discovered the reason: because there was no mention of him in the article to which I had linked. Nor was there any mention of him in the British TV interviews to which I had linked.
Why was this?
Because Sean Hannity isn't British.
In a debate about Anjem Choudary's appearances and coverage on British media, you chose to introduce a personality who is an American presenter on Fox News.
Now if you want to talk about how Muslims are portrayed on American TV, that's fine, but to use that as an example of the bias of British media is misleading at best, or, to those less forgiving, blatantly dishonest.
Why did you do this, A'isha? Sean Hannity has no relevance to this debate at all. Was this just a smokescreen, or was there some point about the British media you thought you could make by citing the example of a presenter on Fox News?