Islam rejects meritocracies?

[Augustus]

Perhaps you meant "heterogeneous"?

 

[Augustus]

What if, once and for all, you accept the fact that I understand that Muslims are diverse. None of these discussions are predicated on 100% regularity. All of these discussions are an analysis of trends and statistics.

I get that you know this, what I don't get is that despite you knowing this you feel it completely unnecessary to qualify any statements or place any nuance, limitations or context in your discussions and just make sweeping stereotyped generalisations instead. You then interpret 'True Islam' as being close to the Saudi end of the scale (which contains many problematic ideas) and make generalised points predicated on this logic. You also place 'Islam' ahead of any other social, cultural or political dynamic in attributing significance to events.

If you were talking about Christianity, do you believe it would be meaningful to discuss liberal European Christianity by making points about US Evangelical fundamentalists?

Stepping back, I think that the world is currently saddled with many bad ideas. Oligarchy is a bad idea. Theocracy is a bad idea. Unlimited population growth is a bad idea. Fouling our ecosystem is a bad idea. Islamic doctrine contains many bad ideas. The fact that it hasn't caused as many deaths in the last 100 hundred years as some other idea, is no defense. My understanding is that over the last 1400 years, Islam and Christianity are BOTH responsible for the deaths of 200-300 million people. Does that mean we should hold neither culpable? Does that mean we cannot criticize one without criticizing the other?

My comment wasn't about Christianity, it was about the secularised 'role model' West, which like it or not, has a terrible record when it comes to violence and oppression.

I don't believe you can look at societies and make meaningful judgements based on narrow time frames. If we look at the anticolonial movements in the 'Muslim world', they were mostly secular left-wing nationalists (the West wasn't too keen on many of these though and facilitated several coups). The Islamist revival is really about 30-40 years old and grew as a response to the failure of secular nationalism (often aided by the West).

You will also notice that many Western people are intensely disillusioned with society, when this happened in the 1960s many became radical leftists. Currently though, there isn't really much of an alternative for them due to the demise of communism. You do see a significant rise in right wing nationalism though (not something that people should be complacent about given Europe's history). For Muslims, especially the young, they do have an alternative ideology though and many Muslims around the world are trying to differentiate themselves from the Western system due to its perceived failings (many of which are shared by non-Muslims also).

This just scratches the surface of the complex dynamics at play in many of the issues that you are discussing, but you wish to reduce it to 'Muslim men are lazy because they have a superiority complex and it makes them violent'.

It reminds me of the argument that al-Ghazali killed the Islamic Golden Age, speciously appealing but with no actual substance to it.

 

[mohammadshiamuslim]

I believe I understand that Islam teaches Muslims that they are closer to God than all other people, correct? And also that men are superior to women. This could perhaps be summarized by saying that Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success.

In the article linked to below, the author claims that in Brussels, many Muslim immigrants are poor, but they are much better off than they were in their home countries, no poorer than many others in Brussels, and much better off than people in other parts of Europe, for example Spain. In spite of this relative improvement, and in spite of opportunities for further improvement, Brussels is experiencing anger and violence from many Muslim immigrants.

Perhaps this sense of entitlement is keeping some Muslim immigrants from appreciating their host country and working to take advantage of the opportunities they've been offered?

If so, then once again,we see how when ANY religion establishes an "us vs. them" mentality - and Islam is guilty of this - problems often ensue.

hello my friend.please research about islam from true source .
good luck.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I am absolutely making some generalizations. There is no way to make progress on big issues without making some generalizations. We can only hope that we make useful and accurate generalizations.

In general, when I discuss concerns with Islam, I'm mostly focusing on Islamists, but Islamists represent 30-50% of all Muslims, so while not a majority, it's certainly a significant population. As for Christian fundamentalists, didn't I answer that point in my last post?

My best sense of the situation in Europe these days is that there are some significant problems associated with immigrants and Islamism. I come to this conclusion by reading many articles. It's tricky though, because for various reasons, politicians and journalists tend to give religion soft treatment. It's hard to get an accurate picture. That said, I hope I can usually distinguish between bigotry and well reasoned criticism.

As far as narrow time frames, did I not answer that previously as well?

As far as your summary of my claim, it's inaccurate, and I suspect you know it is.

 

[icehorse]

hello my friend.please research about islam from true source .
good luck.

I've read the world's most commonly printed translation of the Quran. Cover to cover. I took notes. I have read an extremely apologetic biography of Muhammad. I have studied several other translations of the Quran. I have listened to many debates concerning Islam in which Islamic experts have been involved. I have friends who are Muslims. I have read several other books on Islam. I have held many discussions and debates with Muslims in forums like this one.

Which "true source" am I missing?

 

[Augustus]

I am absolutely making some generalizations. There is no way to make progress on big issues without making some generalizations. We can only hope that we make useful and accurate generalizations.

You are making no effort to be accurate though. You could frequently be much more accurate by adding a few extra words to a sentence, but you consider this unimportant.

As for being useful, I assume you want what is best for society. You also want Muslims to be better integrated and more moderate in their views. Crudely stereotyping large numbers of people, telling them what they are supposed to think, how they have a superiority complex, and explaining to them how to properly understand their own religion probably isn't the ideal way to approach such a task.

This is what you do when you purposely decide to use imprecise language.

In general, when I discuss concerns with Islam, I'm mostly focusing on Islamists, but Islamists represent 30-50% of all Muslims, so while not a majority, it's certainly a significant population. As for Christian fundamentalists, didn't I answer that point in my last post?

No you didn't answer the question about whether or not it would be meaningful to analyse liberal European Christianity with recourse to US evangelical fundamentalism.

And if you mainly focus on Islamism, then why don't you focus on Islamism?

My best sense of the situation in Europe these days is that there are some significant problems associated with immigrants and Islamism. I come to this conclusion by reading many articles. It's tricky though, because for various reasons, politicians and journalists tend to give religion soft treatment. It's hard to get an accurate picture. That said, I hope I can usually distinguish between bigotry and well reasoned criticism.

If you want to understand complex issues, the last place to look for information is politicians and journalists so it's no big loss

Let's consider one interesting observation, a religious upbringing is actually negatively correlated with extremism. How does this fit into your model? Shouldn't more religious people be the most 'entitled' and thus prone to disillusionment?

As far as narrow time frames, did I not answer that previously as well?

Not in the context of my point.

As far as your summary of my claim, it's inaccurate, and I suspect you know it is.

See (like everyone else), you expect a high degree of accuracy regarding your own views, however you don't consider it particularly important to try to be accurate regarding the views of others. Don't you think it should work both ways?

Anyway, while it was purposely flippant to make a point, it wasn't too far from what you actually said.

This could perhaps be summarized by saying that Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success... In spite of this relative improvement, and in spite of opportunities for further improvement, Brussels is experiencing anger and violence from many Muslim immigrants... Perhaps this sense of entitlement is keeping some Muslim immigrants from appreciating their host country and working to take advantage of the opportunities they've been offered?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

You step into the absurd when you pretend to know my intentions. And, as should be expected, you're mostly wrong when you do so. I think we should be able to debate without descending to such tactics.

In the spirit of getting back on track:

- What slice of history are you contending is the "correct" slice for us to consider? The last 10 or 20 years? The last 100? The last 1400? Oh, and why do you think that your preferred slice is the most useful one?

- Augustus said:

The Islamist revival is really about 30-40 years old and grew as a response to the failure of secular nationalism (often aided by the West).

You make several very specific claims here, do you have any citations?

- Augustus said:

And if you mainly focus on Islamism, then why don't you focus on Islamism?

I am. For example, I'd say that - pretty much by definition - an Islamist is one who promotes Sharia rule.

- Augustus said:

See (like everyone else), you expect a high degree of accuracy regarding your own views, however you don't consider it particularly important to try to be accurate regarding the views of others. Don't you think it should work both ways?

I don't recall doing that, can you show an example?

If I've missed any open questions, it's not due to ill intent, help me fill in the gaps.

 

[Augustus]

You step into the absurd when you pretend to know my intentions. And, as should be expected, you're mostly wrong when you do so. I think we should be able to debate without descending to such tactics.

When did I do this? I try to avoid making assumptions about people based on a few lines of text. If I have done so I will apologise, but I'm not sure what you are referring to at the moment.

The only assumption I made was that you want what's best for society and want Muslims to be better integrated and more moderate, which I guess is not the thing you are referring to as it assumes good intentions. What other assumptions did I make?

What slice of history are you contending is the "correct" slice for us to consider? The last 10 or 20 years? The last 100? The last 1400? Oh, and why do you think that your preferred slice is the most useful one?

There is no preferred slice of history, I don't have one. They are all to some extent arbitrary. For example, people often point to the success of Europe post-WW2 to contrast with the 'Muslim world', but if you move the timescale back a few years, it becomes difficult to make the same argument.

The main point was that it is difficult to make very generalised statements about something as old, diverse and adaptable as Islam with recourse to a narrow view of contemporary issues.

I am. For example, I'd say that - pretty much by definition - an Islamist is one who promotes Sharia rule.

'Sharia rule' is a very vague concept, but I'll go with your definition.

If this is what you are discussing, why not just say Islamism instead of Islam?

You make several very specific claims here, do you have any citations?

Organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood started a bit earlier than this, but in terms of popularity modern Islamism grew out of the writings of people like Qutb. Before this the major political movements tended to be secular left such as Nasser's pan-Arabism, Baathism, the PLO, etc.

The growth of Islamism mirrored the decline of these movements into corrupt and authoritarian regimes.

don't recall doing that, can you show an example?

Making very broad, unqualified and highly speculative statements about Islam in general. i.e. "This could perhaps be summarized by saying that Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success."

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

When I read the following from you, it seemed to me you were assuming to know my intentions. You said:

You are making no effort to be accurate though. You could frequently be much more accurate by adding a few extra words to a sentence, but you consider this unimportant.

This is what you do when you purposely decide to use imprecise language.

See (like everyone else), you expect a high degree of accuracy regarding your own views, however you don't consider it particularly important to try to be accurate regarding the views of others. Don't you think it should work both ways?

==

As far as time frames, you said:

I don't believe you can look at societies and make meaningful judgements based on narrow time frames. If we look at the anticolonial movements in the 'Muslim world', they were mostly secular left-wing nationalists (the West wasn't too keen on many of these though and facilitated several coups). The Islamist revival is really about 30-40 years old and grew as a response to the failure of secular nationalism (often aided by the West).

==

As far as the roots of "modern Islamism":

I wasn't ever thinking that "Islamism" was only a modern phenomenon. The term might be, but the behavior is as old as Islam itself.

On the question of whether my quest for accuracy is unbalanced, I'm sorry I don't understand your response. Could you try stating it differently?

 

[Augustus]

When I read the following from you, it seemed to me you were assuming to know my intentions.

Sorry if it seemed this way, I didn't mean purposely in the sense of being dishonest or deliberately misleading, just in the sense that you are choosing to use very general (and thus imprecise) terms.

IIRC, you are an editor so you understand the importance of accuracy, you are well educated and articulate, so this isn't the result of poor language skills or lack of understanding. You are choosing your words because these are the words you wish to use even though you understand the potential consequences of making such generalisations. It is a conscious decision not to qualify or add nuance to statements.

It was an observation on what you are doing, not ascribing negative intentions behind this as I don't think you have any.

As far as the roots of "modern Islamism":

I wasn't ever thinking that "Islamism" was only a modern phenomenon. The term might be, but the behaviour is as old as Islam itself.

Rule by formal Islamic Law was really a medieval development from 8th/9thC Iraq. The early Islamic Empires relied on Roman and Persian laws and, consequently, many 'Sharia' practices are actually pre-Islamic Roman/Persian.

Sharia Law is a very vague and constantly evolving concept. The Wahabbi types who want to revert to the 'original' Islamic law are ironically the ones innovating as they seek a return to something that never existed.

The modern extremists are particularly innovative, as Qutb fused elements of Lenninism and fascism into his Islamism.

If you say Islamism = Sharia, what do you mean by Sharia? The Saudi Arabia type version?

On the question of whether my quest for accuracy is unbalanced, I'm sorry I don't understand your response. Could you try stating it differently?

If you say things like "Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success" without any attempt at qualification you are being inaccurate. It is like saying "people who criticise Islam do so because they are bigoted". No qualification on the statement turns it into a very different proposition.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I'm re-posting the OP:

I believe I understand that Islam teaches Muslims that they are closer to God than all other people, correct? And also that men are superior to women. This could perhaps be summarized by saying that Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success.

In the article linked to below, the author claims that in Brussels, many Muslim immigrants are poor, but they are much better off than they were in their home countries, no poorer than many others in Brussels, and much better off than people in other parts of Europe, for example Spain. In spite of this relative improvement, and in spite of opportunities for further improvement, Brussels is experiencing anger and violence from many Muslim immigrants.

Perhaps this sense of entitlement is keeping some Muslim immigrants from appreciating their host country and working to take advantage of the opportunities they've been offered?

If so, then once again,we see how when ANY religion establishes an "us vs. them" mentality - and Islam is guilty of this - problems often ensue.

I first asked for verification. Then said "perhaps" this summary is fair. Then after referring to an article I forgot to link to (my bad), I once again started the 3rd paragraph of the OP with "perhaps". And finally I said "problems often ensue".

How am I not qualifying?

 

[Augustus]

Then said "perhaps" this summary is fair.

This could perhaps be summarized by saying that Islam teaches Muslim men that they are entitled to success.

You are qualifying whether or not the summary is an accurate reflection of the previous points. "If my summary is accurate, Islam teaches this..."

It isn't necessarily about the OP though, more that you have a habit of talking about Islam as a monolithic block thus associating all bad habits with 'Islam' in general.

I highlighted that this was what I was preferring to in a previous post: "Even more so, as you don't believe it ever necessary to qualify statements about 'Islam' as you view it as sufficiently homogenous to be treated as a single entity."

For example:

Islam rejects meritocracies? Fair enough, presented as a question, but more rhetorical than interrogative.

or

I think that the second you label Islam as a religion, you've already made a big mistake

Thus implicitly declaring Muslims who believe in democracy or wear their faith more lightly to not be real Muslims.

You complain about Muslims not integrating, then choose to define 'true' Islam the same way as the fundamentalists do.


Anyway back to the OP, some questions I've asked:

If this is what you are discussing, why not just say Islamism instead of Islam?

If you say Islamism = Sharia, what do you mean by Sharia? The Saudi Arabia type version?

[In their experiences] What about the difference between 1st and 2nd generation immigrants for example?

Why should we focus on one specific aspect of religion as the key to the issue, before gathering any evidence about the situation in general?

 

[DawudTalut]

....... My understanding is that over the last 1400 years, Islam and Christianity are BOTH responsible for the deaths of 200-300 million people. .....

Peace be on you.
1=You are free to free to have and stick to any idea about any religion [IMU your ideas are incorrect] but please consider this too:
Mass killings under Communist regimes @
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...ist_regimes#Comparison_to_other_mass_killings

2=It is abuse of religion which brings destruction, not the religion. There are many peaceful productive religious people throughout history.

3=Can current militant Muslim groups in ME fight IF they are not funded and provided modern weapons? Where are these weapons made? Where are the lobbies situated, which sells these arms? I hope you will explore answers to these questions too. Off course, these sellers make links with religious groups but what is the picture-at-large?

 

[Augustus]

To me it's a smoke screen to contend that "because complex system", no conclusions can be drawn.

How would you factor this into your conclusion?


In contrast to Belgium’s Turks, the Moroccan community is far more divided and resistant to authority, in part because many of the early immigrants came from the Rif, a rebellious Berber-speaking region often at odds with the ruling monarchy in Morocco. “When emigration to Europe started, the king was happy to get rid of these people,” said Bachir M’Rabet, a youth worker of Moroccan descent in Molenbeek.

Another source of anger in his community, he added, is that many Turks often speak poor French and no Dutch, Belgium’s two main languages, and cling to their Turkish identity, while most Moroccans speak fluent French and aspire to be accepted fully as Belgians. This, he said, means that many Moroccans feel discrimination more acutely and, at least in the case of young men on the margins, tend to view even minor slights as proof that the entire system is against them.

Philippe Moureaux, who served for two decades as Molenbeek’s mayor, described this as “the paradox of integration.” A less-integrated Turkish community has resisted the promise of redemption through jihad offered by radical zealots. Yet, a Moroccan community that is more at home in French-speaking Brussels has seen some of its young fall prey to recruiters like Khalid Zerkani, a Moroccan-born petty criminal who became the Islamic State’s point man in Molenbeek.

“The Turks suffer much less from an identity crisis,” Mr. Moureaux said. “They are proud to be Turks and are much less tempted by extremism.”

Emir Kir, the Belgian-Turkish mayor of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, a heavily immigrant Brussels borough that is worse off economically than Molenbeek, said the only Turk he knew about who had tried to go to Syria was a young man who had fallen in love with a girl of Moroccan descent. He got as far as Istanbul before being sent back. “This was a love affair, not an act of extremism,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/w...ants.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=1

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can understand the situation you relate in Rio.

Can you compare the recent immigration experience in Europe for Sikhs, Indians and Muslims? Would all of these groups encounter similar difficulties?

Education wise and job wise a great number of Muslims. Sikhs and Hindus all do very well in the UK. they are well represented in all the Professions and sciences.
however the split comes with those that are less successful. You never hear of gangs of Sikhs or Hindus on the streets. You never hear of them becoming terrorists or abusing women and girls. In fact the poorer ones are notable for their invisibility...Perhaps there are less of them or they are busy earning a living.

We hear daily, of the actions of the less well educated young Muslims. who unlike the fully integrated Sikhs and Hindus, tend to live in areas predominately inhabited by fellow Muslims and in societies dominated by their various religious leaders.

Integration is not a process that can be achieved by the actions of the native population. All the existing institutions are already open and welcoming to everyone. It has always been up to the newcomer to at least meet halfway, not form ghettos and no go areas, or expect others to conform to their particular society and life style.

Even those Muslims that reach the top levels in their professions keep to them selves in their private lives, and do not socialise more than absolutely necessary with non Muslims.
I have worked with all three religions and had them on my staff, By far the most outgoing were the Sikhs who saw them selves as totally equal but perhaps different, but were perfectly happy to socialise. Most of the Hindus were perhaps more private, but otherwise very similar. However the Muslims though Just as skilled and often excellent workers kept them selves apart even from their fellow workers. Non social integration is their own choice.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Peace be on you.
1=You are free to free to have and stick to any idea about any religion [IMU your ideas are incorrect] but please consider this too:
Mass killings under Communist regimes @
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...ist_regimes#Comparison_to_other_mass_killings

2=It is abuse of religion which brings destruction, not the religion. There are many peaceful productive religious people throughout history.

3=Can current militant Muslim groups in ME fight IF they are not funded and provided modern weapons? Where are these weapons made? Where are the lobbies situated, which sells these arms? I hope you will explore answers to these questions too. Off course, these sellers make links with religious groups but what is the picture-at-large?

The source of arms is not the problem. Afghanistan has always had large production facilities on the Northwest frontier with Pakistan. They have always been able to make copies of the latest small arms and transportable weapons.

The Middle east and especially Turkey have always had access to the latests weapons.

If any cause has the need, and the cash, they obtain weapons locally, or on the open market. Eastern Europe China, Russia and the far east are probably the largest suppliers but The USA and Western Europe are perhaps the first choice for weapon systems bought by Middle Eastern Governments.
Muslim Terrorist Groups are funded by Muslim countries, not the west.

In the past mass killings have been carried out by many nations, causes and extreme religious groups of all kinds.
To day and for perhaps the past 50 years these have been predominately but not exclusively Muslim.
Certainly Muslim terrorists have been dominant in recent attacks.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

You said:

It isn't necessarily about the OP though, more that you have a habit of talking about Islam as a monolithic block thus associating all bad habits with 'Islam' in general.

This argument comes up so often we ought to give it a name, just for the sake of expediency. Islamic apologists make your point often, and then they will turn around and say that a particular behavior "offends 1.6 billion Muslims". So apologists want to eat their cake and have it too.

Similarly (a question I learned right here on RF), if you say that we cannot treat Islam as a block, does that mean you'll agree that Islam has no positive aspects? No reason to recommend it? No reason for it to exist at all? If you think that Islam has ANY positive aspects, then once again you are trying to have it both ways, and while I don't know YOUR stance on this, I know that most apologists do in fact want to have it both ways.

If Islam has any benefits, then Islam can be criticized.

Next, we see behavior patterns with Muslims over centuries. And we see these patterns across diverse geographies and across diverse cultures. It would appear as though the common link is Islam. If you have another explanation, bring it on. You could, for example, explain why FGM is almost exclusively an Islamic behavior.

As far as Muslims who prefer democracy, hooray for them. I would ask them to identify themselves as a sect of Islam that rejects Sharia and theocracy.I would guess that - if you're honest - you know full well why such a group of Muslims would be loathe to make such a public declaration.

You ask about Islamism and Sharia. They are both baked in to Islam. Islamic scripture, read parsimoniously, is relatively self-consistent, and relatively stable. It is the flywheel that keeps Islam itself relatively stable and consistent across generations, geographies, and cultures.

 

[Augustus]

imilarly (a question I learned right here on RF), if you say that we cannot treat Islam as a block, does that mean you'll agree that Islam has no positive aspects? No reason to recommend it? No reason for it to exist at all? If you think that Islam has ANY positive aspects, then once again you are trying to have it both ways, and while I don't know YOUR stance on this, I know that most apologists do in fact want to have it both ways.

This is the purpose of qualification of statements.

It is not right to pretend there are no problems and it is not right to make crude generalisations with heavy pejorative connotations. If you say "Islam is a totalitarian ideology", you are basically takfir-ing those who follow more liberal interpretations.

Is it that hard to use a phrase like 'certain interpretations'?

The thing is you want to have your cake and eat it too, you feel free to make unqualified criticisms, but you don't consider it acceptable when Islamic apologists make unqualified positive statements, even though they may be true for many Muslims.

If Islam has any benefits, then Islam can be criticized.

Of course.

Next, we see behavior patterns with Muslims over centuries. And we see these patterns across diverse geographies and across diverse cultures. It would appear as though the common link is Islam. If you have another explanation, bring it on. You could, for example, explain why FGM is almost exclusively an Islamic behavior.

The thing is it is not an almost exclusively Islamic behaviour. Mixing crude generalisations with poor research is a bad combination for creating negative stereotypes.

What else do you see as 'Muslim behaviour patterns'? European behaviour patterns over centuries include going to war a lot and colonising people, often brutally.

As far as Muslims who prefer democracy, hooray for them. I would ask them to identify themselves as a sect of Islam that rejects Sharia and theocracy.I would guess that - if you're honest - you know full well why such a group of Muslims would be loathe to make such a public declaration.

Plenty do reject theocracy, again generalisations and poor research are not great bedfellows.

For example the "Islamist" ruling party of Tunisia:

Many, both inside and outside of Ennahda, were initially surprised by this new label [Muslim-democrat rather than Islamist] and began to wonder what changes, if any, it implied at the political level. The fact is we can no longer use a term so charged with negative connotations when describing what we consider to be one of the most positive phenomena taking place in the Muslim World today. For the vast majority of Muslims, ISIS and its ilk are those who misinterpret and abuse Islam and use religion as a marketing tool for unspeakable, inhumane acts and for a brutal war for territory with no end. We believe we have a critical role to play in countering ISIS. The Islamic scholars which Ennahda members consider as references are serious and legitimate sources of religious interpretation when it comes to positions on violence, barbarity, the modern state, civil liberties, and the objectives (maqasid) of sharia.

It would be a waste of quite a lot of time and energy for us to take up the task of constantly distancing ourselves from a violent and dangerous ideology which is precisely the sort of model we are fighting against. No one, for instance, would seriously link the French socialist president François Hollande with Georges Cirprani, the historical leader of the terrorist group Action Directe, despite both of them hailing from political groups which claim inspiration from the same ideology. We unfortunately are not afforded the same treatment, and must therefore make our differences with ISIS and other extremists clear to all.

In a nutshell, Muslim-Democrat is the most accurate term to describe what Ennahda is trying to accomplish since the beginning: reconciling Islam and democracy in the Arab world.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2016/03/ennahda-islamists-muslim-democrats-ounissi

You ask about Islamism and Sharia. They are both baked in to Islam. Islamic scripture, read parsimoniously, is relatively self-consistent, and relatively stable. It is the flywheel that keeps Islam itself relatively stable and consistent across generations, geographies, and cultures.

You vastly overstate how stable and consistent Islam is across generations and cultures.

When you say 'read parsimoniously' what do you mean btw? What approach are you suggesting?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

You said:

It is not right to pretend there are no problems and it is not right to make crude generalisations with heavy pejorative connotations. If you say "Islam is a totalitarian ideology", you are basically takfir-ing those who follow more liberal interpretations.

To some degree you're correct. But I'm fighting against a wave of apologists, many of whom aren't as honest as they might be. So perhaps I go a bit past dead neutral data, but maybe that shifts the overwhelming apologist balance a bit.

On the other hand, Islam - as codified in its long standing scripture - IS a totalitarian ideology. This IS the most parsimonious reading of the scripture.

You said:

Plenty do reject theocracy, again generalisations and poor research are not great bedfellows.

And plenty - perhaps 30-50% seek theocracy. Let me give you an analogy. I would contend that motocross riding without a helmet is dangerous. That doesn't mean that it's 100% dangerous, it means that it's often enough dangerous, so that the general label of "dangerous" is well accepted. In a similar vein, if 30-50% of Muslims seek theocracy, I feel it's a safe to generalize and say that "Islam is totalitarian". You might disagree, but my guess is that you often attach negative generalizations to beliefs and practices that are "often" negative, even if they're not always negative.

Next, if a sect of "Muslim Democrat" became well known and well ascribed to, I'd be thrilled, that would be progress. And of course, you're guilty of a little spin here yourself when you make a list consisting of Muslim-Democrat and ISIS, as if that doesn't exclude the huge 30-50% Islamist block.

As for Islam's consistency, much like Christianity, it has consistently pursued a violent, conquest-oriented strategy for much of its 1300 years of history. For one example, people tend not to talk much about Islam's multi-century assault on Hindus. (Which, BTW, is estimated to have killed about 80 MILLION people.) (And, BTW, for my money Christianity has been equally violent.)

As for parsimony, what I mean is to read the words as written. To avoid layering on the "interpretations" of "Islamic scholars" and clergy. After all, the Quran is described as being timeless, and if that's the case, the culture of the day should not be a factor.

 

[Augustus]

To some degree you're correct. But I'm fighting against a wave of apologists, many of whom aren't as honest as they might be. So perhaps I go a bit past dead neutral data, but maybe that shifts the overwhelming apologist balance a bit.

You could just as easily say many 'moderate' Muslims are fighting against a wave of bigot, many of whom aren't as honest as they might be. What apologists do should be of no concern, you should strive to present things as accurately as possible rather than using 'but they do it too!' as a rationalisation.

It is interesting that you acknowledge you don't really see (what you acknowledge to be) the majority of Muslims as being 'real' Muslims. I feel you are creating a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy "Islam is totalitarian so non-totalitarian Muslims aren't real Muslims. Thus we have evidence that true Islam is totalitarian".

On the other hand, Islam - as codified in its long standing scripture - IS a totalitarian ideology. This IS the most parsimonious reading of the scripture.

You have decided what the 'correct' reading of scripture is, and don't seem to care a great deal about what Muslims actually think or do.

Can you give me actual historically existing examples of Islamic totalitarian governance? Early ones please, especially during the period when Muslims were a minority.

You might disagree, but my guess is that you often attach negative generalizations to beliefs and practices that are "often" negative, even if they're not always negative.

I try to qualify them though.

For example, I wouldn't say "Americans are ignorant, supremacist, Christian fundamentalist, warmongering, torture supporting, jingoistic, racist bigots" just because it is true of maybe 10-20% of them.

Next, if a sect of "Muslim Democrat" became well known and well ascribed to, I'd be thrilled, that would be progress. And of course, you're guilty of a little spin here yourself when you make a list consisting of Muslim-Democrat and ISIS, as if that doesn't exclude the huge 30-50% Islamist block.

What list? I have no idea what you are on about.

It's the ruling party of Tunisia. Indonesia has around 250 million Muslims and is a democracy

Well known enough?

As for Islam's consistency, much like Christianity, it has consistently pursued a violent, conquest-oriented strategy for much of its 1300 years of history. For one example, people tend not to talk much about Islam's multi-century assault on Hindus. (Which, BTW, is estimated to have killed about 80 MILLION people.) (And, BTW, for my money Christianity has been equally violent.)

Why limit it to Christianity?

Secular regimes have a history of being warmongering, genocidal, totalitarian, rapacious, imperialistic, racist, murderous, war criminals. China and USSR **** on 80 million civilians killed btw. Without doing a deeper analysis, I'd say secular regimes would comfortably top religious ones in their murderousness, pound-for-pound.

Personally, I'd prefer to put such a remark into some kind of context, but there is no need to offer any nuance to statements is there? Agreed?

As for parsimony, what I mean is to read the words as written. To avoid layering on the "interpretations" of "Islamic scholars" and clergy. After all, the Quran is described as being timeless, and if that's the case, the culture of the day should not be a factor.

So you believe only the Salafis understand the 'true' Islam? (this isn't really accurate though as Salafis also heavily rely on interpretation and hark back to a past that never actually existed).

Also, the Quran clearly expects its audience to be familiar with the Biblical narrative, it would be pretty much incomprehensible without 'interpretation'. Not to mention that even classical Islam is practically all interpretation, especially when you factor in hadiths and sira (which were mostly created for the purpose of interpretation centuries after the fact).

You are resting your arguments on some very arbitrary and flawed assumptions that disregard Islamic history and create a fait accompli where everything is forced into a paradigm you have already decided upon.

As regards timeless, people say Shakespeare is timeless because the stories still resonate, this doesn't mean the culture of the day is not a factor.

Again, you are deciding that Islam was fixed in the 7th C and anyone who doesn't agree is not really a Muslim anyway so what they say doesn't really factor into your analysis.