Islam rejects meritocracies?

[icehorse]

Augustus - On bigotry: This might be impossible to debate, but because so often legitimate criticism is mislabeled as bigotry. No doubt, bigotry exists, and should be addressed, but so should the mislabeling problem.

As for "real Muslims" (your words), check out the results of this poll. You will see that I'm being quite generous when I say it's only 30-50%:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Next, I have not decided what the correct interpretation of the scripture is. That work was done by scholars, spending thousands of hours working on accurate translations. You have quite a job ahead of you to prove that you know more about Islam than the scholars who did the world's most popular translations.

On "secular regimes", really? Hasn't this meme died yet? The fascist regimes you refer to were not truly secular. These regimes - more or less - created their own new dogmas to be followed. These were not free thinking societies, they were societies run by dogmatic dictators. Their fascist ideologies - while not religious - absolutely linked adherence to dogma with state.

As for timelessness, and given the poll I just linked to, isn't it clear that most Muslims in the world are not making the cultural updates you claim they are? Of course some percentage take on a more modern perspective, but hundreds of millions - perhaps a majority - do not.

 

[Augustus]

This might be impossible to debate, but because so often legitimate criticism is mislabeled as bigotry. No doubt, bigotry exists, and should be addressed, but so should the mislabeling problem.

Would probably indicate that it is wise to clearly differentiate legitimate criticism from bigotry by qualifying statements and adding nuance.

As for "real Muslims" (your words), check out the results of this poll. You will see that I'm being quite generous when I say it's only 30-50%:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

The problem about such a poll is the subjectivity of the term 'sharia'.

Also, if you look at the poll for Indonesia, you will notice that more people adopt what you consider a 'theocratic' interpretation than actually vote for Islamist political parties. This is a problem about trying to oversimplify things.

BTW, you previously claimed Islam was very stable and consistent across generations and cultures, that poll really contradicts that.

Next, I have not decided what the correct interpretation of the scripture is. That work was done by scholars, spending thousands of hours working on accurate translations. You have quite a job ahead of you to prove that you know more about Islam than the scholars who did the world's most popular translations.

A fallacy. A translation doesn't tell you how to interpret the Quran (although some of them do combine exegesis with their translations).

Also, why don't you have 'quite a job'to prove you know more about Islam the many scholars who interpret the Quran very differently than you have decided is 'true'?

On "secular regimes", really? Hasn't this meme died yet? The fascist regimes you refer to were not truly secular. These regimes - more or less - created their own new dogmas to be followed. These were not free thinking societies, they were societies run by dogmatic dictators. Their fascist ideologies - while not religious - absolutely linked adherence to dogma with state.

Communism was clearly secular, you don't get to make up your own definition of the term just because it's convenient.

Anyway, remember, we are not putting statements into context here as you see that as unnecessary. Some secular regimes were totalitarian, so I'm going to play by your rules. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. All the bad stuff is 'true Islam', but all of the bad stuff is 'not secularism'.

Most of those epithets also apply to the democracies also though so it doesn't really matter. Secularism is at least as murderous, if not more so than religious governance. The 20th C shows us that.

When it is your beliefs that are being distorted and spun in a way you don't agree with, you don't like it. But hey, what's good for the goose...

As for timelessness, and given the poll I just linked to, isn't it clear that most Muslims in the world are not making the cultural updates you claim they are? Of course some percentage take on a more modern perspective, but hundreds of millions - perhaps a majority - do not.

I have no issue with qualified and nuanced criticism of any belief system. You refuse to do such a thing though.

It smacks of double standards.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the article I posted that shows a clear difference between Turkish and Moroccan immigrants to Belgium re your OP?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Too many parallel debates here. I don't want to dodge any of them, but I'd like to tackle them one at a time. You can choose the point you want to focus on first.

I will say however that it seems absurd to me that a "perfect book", translated by renowned scholars, is something you think can't be properly understood without the help of middlemen to interpret the words for you.

 

[Augustus]

I will say however that it seems absurd to me that a "perfect book", translated by renowned scholars, is something you think can't be properly understood without the help of middlemen to interpret the words for you.

Who are the Sabians then? (one of the 3 people of the book)

Who was the woman, and why did she laugh?

Our messengers came to Abraham with the good tidings; they said, 'Peace!' 'Peace,' he said; and presently he brought a roasted calf. (69)And when he saw their hands not reaching towards it, he was suspicious of them and conceived a fear of them. They said, 'Fear not; we have been sent to the people of Lot.' (70)And his wife was standing by; she laughed, therefore We gave her the glad tidings of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob. (71)

Try interpreting them without outside knowledge.

You need to move away from a narrow normative understanding of what you think Islam should be, and towards a more positive understanding of what Islam actually is and had been when it is practiced by actual people.

Why criticise Islam for being 'totalitarian' and call for its reform, but then ignore any interpretation that isn't 'totalitarian' as being somehow inferior?

You can choose the point you want to focus on first.

The difference between Turks and Moroccans in Belgium.

 

[icehorse]

As far as the Quran goes, I'll bow to Sagan and others when I say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you want to argue that the Quran is an interesting book that contains some good advice here and there and can be used to get an insight into 7th century Arabia, you'll get little argument from me. But Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, final, unalterable, timeless word of God. That has to count as an extraordinary claim if ever there was one. As such, Muslims themselves set the book up for the harshest and closest of scrutiny. If - as you claim - the reader needs outside knowledge to interpret the book, it hardly qualifies as either perfect or timeless, wouldn't you say?

As for the article you linked to, seemed like a good article. I'm not sure what your point is? I've already agreed that Muslims are a diverse collection of folks.

 

[Augustus]

As far as the Quran goes, I'll bow to Sagan and others when I say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you want to argue that the Quran is an interesting book that contains some good advice here and there and can be used to get an insight into 7th century Arabia, you'll get little argument from me. But Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, final, unalterable, timeless word of God. That has to count as an extraordinary claim if ever there was one. As such, Muslims themselves set the book up for the harshest and closest of scrutiny. If - as you claim - the reader needs outside knowledge to interpret the book, it hardly qualifies as either perfect or timeless, wouldn't you say?

Are you now a Quranist rather than a Salafi?

You forget that the book wasn't 'revealed' in a vacuum and was never intended to be read without knowledge of the broader Christian tradition (why do you think it refers to Biblical characters and topos, but doesn't narrate them or provide background details? I provided you a very clear example of this earlier).

Anyway, no book can possibly written that doesn't rely on outside knowledge to some extent.

I don't think it is particularly useful to adopt a narrow, normative approach to what you think 'Islam' should be based on a fairly superficial understanding of certain theological standpoints, and ignore the complexity and reality.

As for the article you linked to, seemed like a good article. I'm not sure what your point is? I've already agreed that Muslims are a diverse collection of folks.

In your OP you speculated about problems being caused by a certain aspect of Islam. Given that Belgian Muslims in the same are of the same town have vastly different experiences based on their ethnicity, don't you think it is so speculative to be meaningless? Also, the more integrated community is the one having the most trouble which is another reason to avoid jumping to specious conclusions about the 'Muslim problem'.

As I said back at the beginning, there are so many complex dynamics at play that jumping from nowhere into finding the precise aspect of Islam which is the cause, before even making a case that Islam is the primary cause is not in any way rigorous or tenable (for example your errors regarding FGM, etc.). I think people have a responsibility not to make highly pejorative speculations about minority groups. You criticise Muslims creating an 'Us and Them' mentality, but you are also guilty of this at times when you speculate, refuse to add qualifications to many statements, and acknowledge fundamentalists as being the 'real' Muslims.

In general, I think you overplay 'Islam' and underplay all other cultural dynamics. I don't see how you could have made the OP otherwise.

 

[DawudTalut]

....... If you want to argue that the Quran is an interesting book that contains some good advice here and there and can be used to get an insight into 7th century Arabia, you'll get little argument from me. But Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, final, unalterable, timeless word of God. That has to count as an extraordinary claim if ever there was one. ......

Peace be on you.
It is unique that Quran has teachings for all times and all people.
It guides about fundamental truths for people and nations.

You can find lot of help points in these resources:
UNIVERSAL MORAL VALUES, POLITICS AND WORLD PEACE
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/universal/index.htm?page=3#top

ISLAM'S RESPONSE TO CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/IslamsResponseToContemporaryIssues.pdf

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

I'm simply reacting to the claims that Muslims make concerning the book. When you say:

Anyway, no book can possibly written that doesn't rely on outside knowledge to some extent.

It seems you're making my point for me. The extraordinary claims don't hold up.

Then you said:

I don't think it is particularly useful to adopt a narrow, normative approach to what you think 'Islam' should be based on a fairly superficial understanding of certain theological standpoints, and ignore the complexity and reality.

I'm attempting to find common patterns in day to day reality, I don't care much about theoretical theology discussions because very few Muslims do. One of my concerns is that what Islamic radicals think is consistent with the words in the book, and what many of these disenfranchised immigrants think is also often consistent with the book. You and I can rattle on all day about 7th century culture and theory, and it matters not a bit on the streets.

As for the OP, I said "some immigrants". It seems you want to accuse me of making more general claims than I did?

You said:

In your OP you speculated about problems being caused by a certain aspect of Islam.

Doh! Yes, I'm speculating. I believe we have a problem. I'm looking at what factors might contribute to the problem. I never said that "lack of meritocracy" was the sole answer. Also, as I recall from your article, one difference in the two immigrant groups was that one of them had a stronger local clergy to keep things on track. If anything, that supports the idea that taken on it's own, some of Islam's messages are counter-productive, no?

As for overplaying Islam - I have acknowledged many, many times that it's a complex system. I believe Islam is a factor. Most apologists refuse to acknowledge that the religion in question is a factor. Normally I see every manner of deflection.

So do you think that in this complex system, Islam is a factor in the problems we see?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Dawud,

Thanks for those links. I believe that your intentions are good, but I disagree with that those authors are saying. I do not believe that the path to world peace is for us all to submit to Islam.

 

[firedragon]

Hey Dawud,

Thanks for those links. I believe that your intentions are good, but I disagree with that those authors are saying. I do not believe that the path to world peace is for us all to submit to Islam.

Don't you think that being busy discounting claims of an extraordinary divine nature of the Quran, you also discount efforts of showing that it is not actually a book imposing a totalitarian theocracy upon the world?

 

[Augustus]

I'm attempting to find common patterns in day to day reality, I don't care much about theoretical theology discussions because very few Muslims do. One of my concerns is that what Islamic radicals think is consistent with the words in the book, and what many of these disenfranchised immigrants think is also often consistent with the book. You and I can rattle on all day about 7th century culture and theory, and it matters not a bit on the streets.

You keep referring to what Islam teaches though, and saying things like 'to some degree' you believe more moderate Muslims aren't really Muslims.

As for the OP, I said "some immigrants". It seems you want to accuse me of making more general claims than I did?

I've said I was referring to a more general feature of your posts on Islam.

Doh! Yes, I'm speculating. I believe we have a problem. I'm looking at what factors might contribute to the problem. I never said that "lack of meritocracy" was the sole answer. Also, as I recall from your article, one difference in the two immigrant groups was that one of them had a stronger local clergy to keep things on track. If anything, that supports the idea that taken on it's own, some of Islam's messages are counter-productive, no?

There is a fine line between making a tentative argument based on evidence, and pure speculation that is not qualitatively different from historical racist, anti-Catholic or anti-semitic arguments though.

More relevant imo was the part about identity. One thing that has been noted by scholars is the '2nd generation' immigrant experience, and how they often have different, and more extreme, perspectives than their parents. This is tied to issues of identity and feeling on the edges of society.

You can see a different experience between the Turks and the Moroccans where the Turks are less integrated, but have fewer problems due to a stronger sense of identity.

Many young Muslims seem to be uniting around an Islamic identity, especially seeing as they feel constantly criticised and viewed with suspicion as well as reacting to Western foreign policy. All the anti-Muslim sentiment is probably the best marketing tool for Islam.

So do you think that in this complex system, Islam is a factor in the problems we see?

Extremist Islam is a problem of course.

One thing to note though is that, among Muslims in the West, a religious upbringing is negatively correlated with extremism. Extremists are disproportionately converts and 'lapsed' Muslims (often with gang/criminal/drugs pasts), who suddenly become pious (like the Paris attackers).

In the 1960s and 70s European youths were attracted to join terrorist organisations like the Red Army Fraction, Red Brigade, etc. and countless more sympathised with such groups. Since the death of communism, there is a lack of radical ideology for most people, but Muslims have extremist Islam (well quite a few non-Muslims are also attracted to convert for this reason).

If Islam (in general) was the cause, shouldn't the more religious youth have more problems though?

As for non-extremist Muslim youth who exist on the edge of society, are they any different from non-Muslims in similarly disadvantaged situations? I already mentioned about the special case of Belgium where you really need French and Flemish to get a good job.

Marginalised youth have always rebelled against society.

 

[icehorse]

Don't you think that being busy discounting claims of an extraordinary divine nature of the Quran, you also discount efforts of showing that it is not actually a book imposing a totalitarian theocracy upon the world?

I have asked over and over again what Islam brings to the world, and I get pretty weak answers along the lines of "be charitable". Charity is great, but it's hardly unique to Islam. There is no central authority in Islam. There are no agreed upon tenants, unless you look to the scripture. This means it's entirely appropriate to criticize the scripture. If Muslims want to clarify themselves, fantastic. I recently started a separate thread on the "Muslim Reform Movement", a group that as of today, I applaud.

So, show me Islam's charter, and I'll answer your question about it's supremacist goals.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus - I owe you more answers (coming this evening), but please, aren't we above putting racism and idea criticizing in the same bucket?

 

[Augustus]

Augustus - I owe you more answers (coming this evening), but please, aren't we above putting racism and idea criticizing in the same bucket?

You misunderstand the point.

What I said was there is a fine line between valid criticism of an group's ideology, and unfair misrepresentation of that group that is not qualitatively different from prejudiced stereotyping. The intention may be different, but the effect is the same.

I gave you the example of anti-Catholicism before. Of course Catholicism can be criticised, but that doesn't mean it is not possible to display prejudice against Catholics or misrepresent their views in a pejorative manner.

(Please don't think I'm saying you are prejudiced btw. I know you are discussing the belief, not the people)

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

You said:

You keep referring to what Islam teaches though, and saying things like 'to some degree' you believe more moderate Muslims aren't really Muslims.

That must be a miscommunication, because I don't think that. What I DO think however is that the terrorists, and fundamentalists / Islamists have an easy job defending their beliefs and actions by using Islamic scripture. This is what I mean when I say that their interpretations are very parsimonious.

On the question of the "2nd generation" phenomenon, I agree that this is a real thing. What I don't understand is how that weakens my theory. If anything it seems it might strengthen it.

You said:

Many young Muslims seem to be uniting around an Islamic identity, especially seeing as they feel constantly criticised and viewed with suspicion as well as reacting to Western foreign policy. All the anti-Muslim sentiment is probably the best marketing tool for Islam.

On being criticized: Too friggin bad, welcome to secular society. Seriously, should we not exercise our precious personal liberties so to not offend them or hurt their feelings? Come on.

On western foreign policy: I understand that that reason is often cited. And I'd be the first to say that the Iraq war was a horrible calamity, and I'd like to see members of the Bush admin brought up on war crimes charges. That said, it's no reason for us to abandon the enlightenment. One more point here, in many discussions with Muslims it seems that many of them have been given a sugar-coated version of Islam's history. I think a little honest comparative history would show us that NONE of us should be proud of the actions of many of our ancestors. Nobody has a clean slate.

As far as the marginalized youth argument goes: I'm happy to agree that that would be a factor. Remember, I'm not saying that "meritocracy" or Islam is the ONLY factor. My contention is that they are SOME of the factors. What I see in the world is that few are willing to acknowledge even that much.

 

[Augustus]

On the question of the "2nd generation" phenomenon, I agree that this is a real thing. What I don't understand is how that weakens my theory. If anything it seems it might strengthen it.

Why? The 1st generation were Muslims too. Why did they not have a 'sense of entitlement'?

You say Islam is the cause, but it seems to only affect very specific Muslims in certain situations. Don't you think that this suggests the situational variables are the most important?

That must be a miscommunication, because I don't think that.

In reply to my point that you were "takfir-ing" liberal Muslims by disregarding their interpretations in favour of extremists you said: "To some degree you're correct."

What I DO think however is that the terrorists, and fundamentalists / Islamists have an easy job defending their beliefs and actions by using Islamic scripture. This is what I mean when I say that their interpretations are very parsimonious.

Yes extremists can support many of their actions with recourse to scripture. What do you propose? The text isn't going to change after all.

As I mentioned before though, a religious upbringing seems to reduce the potential for extremism though. This seems to contradict your thesis.

On being criticized: Too friggin bad, welcome to secular society. Seriously, should we not exercise our precious personal liberties so to not offend them or hurt their feelings? Come on.

It was descriptive explaining some of the dynamics. Probably a lot more relevant that some unevidenced claim of rejecting meritocracies. And, just because some criticism is legitimate, this doesn't mean that people cannot be subject to unfair scapegoating and prejudicial treatment.

They are not the only community that feels victimised, and it is not totally without foundation either. Do you think Muslim youths have nothing to complain about?

Black youths in America often feel very victimised too, and also suffer from many social problems. Are they just whining for no reason?

It is the perception that is important anyway, not what other people judge should be objectively 'fair'. It is about what drives their behaviour, not how other people think they should be behaving.

On western foreign policy: I understand that that reason is often cited. And I'd be the first to say that the Iraq war was a horrible calamity, and I'd like to see members of the Bush admin brought up on war crimes charges. That said, it's no reason for us to abandon the enlightenment. One more point here, in many discussions with Muslims it seems that many of them have been given a sugar-coated version of Islam's history. I think a little honest comparative history would show us that NONE of us should be proud of the actions of many of our ancestors. Nobody has a clean slate.

Abandon the enlightenment? Who proposed anything resembling that? (plenty of Enlightenment philosophy was very actually illiberal but that is beside the point). It is just a source of hostility towards the establishment that should be acknowledged.

Early Muslim 'history' is theology, rather than actual history though. Seeing as most of it didn't actually happen I suppose this gives them a bit more flexibility. (I do wish more people realised it was theology though)

They also wouldn't be the first group to sugar coat their history.

As far as the marginalized youth argument goes: I'm happy to agree that that would be a factor. Remember, I'm not saying that "meritocracy" or Islam is the ONLY factor. My contention is that they are SOME of the factors. What I see in the world is that few are willing to acknowledge even that much.

The problem is that you have presented no real argument that it is even a factor, never mind a significant one.

Personally, I've never met a Muslim who gave me the impression that they felt they were entitled to success simply because they were a Muslim (I've met plenty of people of all backgrounds who had a sense of entitlement for other reasons though).

In the 1960s, white secularists were the extremists and black people were the 'troublesome immigrants'. Islamist extremism is part of the zeitgeist at the moment, in previous times it was something different.

I think it is far more relevant to look at what drives people towards extremism in general, rather than make wild guesses which are totally unsubstantiated, but very hard to undeniably refute.

If your goal is to improve society, your approach is counterproductive as it increases prejudice (even if you don't intend this), and pisses off Muslims. This doesn't mean there is no room for legitimate critical discussion, but the key word is legitimate. So far you have made no case whatsoever that your point is legitimate, just asserted it as likely true.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I think we're having a useful debate, when you declare victory for yourself, it weakens your case.

Back to your points:

On "situational variables": Once again, my main point is to introduce a new factor into the discourse. It is not to discredit other factors.

On the scripture changing: What CAN change is people's relationship to the scripture.

As for evidence: It's a theory based on the correlation between indoctrination and behavior.

Finally, my goal IS to improve society. As a first step, it's important to isolate the factors, and to name them accurately.

 

[Augustus]

I think we're having a useful debate, when you declare victory for yourself, it weakens your case.

Declare victory?? All I'm doing is making the point I made right back at the start that there is a lack of evidence for your assertion and problems with your argument.

For example:

Islam teaches men they are entitled to success [evidence? This is an assumption based on 2 other assumptions].
In spite of this relative improvement [2nd generation are in their home country], and in spite of opportunities for further improvement [opportunities that are clearly significantly less than other Belgians], Brussels is experiencing anger and violence from many Muslim immigrants [true, but a clear minority].
Perhaps this sense of entitlement is keeping some Muslim immigrants from appreciating their host country [their birth country] and working to take advantage of the opportunities they've been offered? [they are not foreigners being 'offered' something]
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. [and speculating wildly and calling Islam a totalitarian ideology without qualification doesn't do this?]

On the scripture changing: What CAN change is people's relationship to the scripture.

That's what I've been saying all along. I took issue with you delegitimising more liberal interpretations.

As for evidence: It's a theory based on the correlation between indoctrination and behavior.

One very important point that I've mentioned several times without reply, why is it that a religious upbringing is negatively correlated with extremism amongst Western Muslims? Why are converts and lapsed Muslims disproportionately represented in the ranks of extremists?

Your theory rests on the assumption that the 'more Muslim' someone is, the more likely they should be to suffer from a 'sense of entitlement' and be prone to extremism.

Also the important point that it should affect Muslims relatively equally across various communities and nations as they all follow the same text. US Muslims are both wealthier and less involved in crime than the population average. Turkish Beligians are less integrated but less extremist.

Finally, my goal IS to improve society. As a first step, it's important to isolate the factors, and to name them accurately.

And I don't believe you are doing this in this case. I think you could be more judicious in your choice of expression, and that you are making a speculation without any degree of justification.

By doing so you scapegoat Muslims in general, increase prejudice and alienate others who have no love for the extremists. This is exactly what the extremists want you to do, and is the only way that they can win.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

On your negative correlation question: As I've said, I agree that there are many factors in the soup here. I can BOTH accept the fact of "negative correlation" AND still claim that "resistance to meritocracy" (RTM), could still be a factor. Perhaps RTM increases when certain population thresholds are exceeded? Who knows, we're just discussing two of many factors in a complex system.

As for the "extremists want" argument. What's your alternative to trying to find accurate answers? It seems to me that if we stop talking "because extremists", we're giving away our own personal liberties.

 

[Augustus]

I can BOTH accept the fact of "negative correlation" AND still claim that "resistance to meritocracy" (RTM), could still be a factor. Perhaps RTM increases when certain population thresholds are exceeded?

Does Muslim population density correlate with a less religious upbringing? Seems unlikely.

Also do Turkish Belgians live in less dense populations? When I lived in a Turkish neighbourhood in Holland many moons ago this didn't seem to be the case.

Moreover, I'm still not getting where you have made a case for RTM actually existing. On countless issues I could make a speculation that is speciously plausible, yet have nothing to really support such an accusation. In these cases, I doubt the legitimacy of making such a speculation.

As for the "extremists want" argument. What's your alternative to trying to find accurate answers? It seems to me that if we stop talking "because extremists", we're giving away our own personal liberties.

Nothing of the sort. You give away none of your personal liberties by choosing not to make pejorative allegations before you have any evidence to make them, or by qualifying your statements to make sure you don't scapegoat sections of the population for beliefs they do not hold.

It's not about 'not talking', I disagree with your belief that you are giving 'accurate answers'.

Provocateurs can only win if you give them what they want. The best strategy is to not give them what they want. The last 15 years has provided pretty much all of the evidence you need that giving them exactly what they want is total folly (actually they have been given far more than they expected, their pre-9/11 strategy is freely available).