Islam

[Yerda]

It feels a bit like the liberal position on Islam is a bit wonky. We shouldn't judge a religion or it's adherents based on the worst examples but there doesn't seem to be a lot of thought on connecting the worst examples to some of the current thought and structure of Islam as it is right now. The right seem much better equipped to discuss this (though they're drowning in lies and bigotry on the issue of Muslims, imo).

I'm wondering how liberal people feel about the culture war surrounding Islam.

What do you make of the percieved threat of Islam?

Is ISIS or the Taliban Islamic?

(Compared to how Christian you think the evangelical movement is in America for example)

How should liberals help stop the spread of virulent and hateful strains (or if you prefer violent bastardisations) of Islam?

Do you support immigration reform? Temporary bans of movement from certain regions?

Is it Islamophobic to suggest that much of the Koran is bat**** crazy as many public atheists and prominent new conservative types do?

 

[LuisDantas]

IWhat do you make of the percieved threat of Islam?

It has to be met up front, and on the field of ideas most of all.

People should not be afraid to call it on its dangers and flaws.

Is ISIS or the Taliban Islamic?

Sure they are. The common recourse of calling them "obviously unislamic" is no more valid than it appears to be at first glance.

(Compared to how Christian you think the evangelical movement is in America for example)

An interesting, but IMO ulitimately questionable comparison.

In any case, I don't even know how I would call this later question. Nor do I think it matters much. No one is interested in waiting for my call to be made, after all.

How should liberals help stop the spread of virulent and hateful strains (or if you prefer violent bastardisations) of Islam?

By exposing the inherent flaws of Islaam and expecting Muslims to carry their own (theological) weight as adults.

Do you support immigration reform? Temporary bans of movement from certain regions?

Not really, but I don't think I can give much of an opinion on the matter. It is probably fairly localized anyway.

Is it Islamophobic to suggest that much of the Koran is bat**** crazy as many public atheists and prominent new conservative types do?

No.

 

[socharlie]

ISIS is CIA creation, continuation of Operation Gladio that never stopped.

 

[sun rise]

The world is full of fanatics right now. Hindu fanatics are attacking Muslims in India. Buddhist fanatics are attacking Muslims. Muslim fanatics are attacking basically everyone including Muslims. Israeli/Jewish fanatics want to ethnically cleans the West Bank. Christian fanatics are fortunately not murdering others but are celebrating violence because to them it's a sign of the end times.

How should liberals help stop the spread of virulent and hateful strains (or if you prefer violent bastardisations) of Islam?

Do you support immigration reform? Temporary bans of movement from certain regions?

Is it Islamophobic to suggest that much of the Koran is bat**** crazy as many public atheists and prominent new conservative types do?

To me the best thing for liberals to do is to not buy into the hatred of Islam but instead embrace the majority who just want to live in peace. And we need to have a balanced view that any religion's doctrines can be used to justify evil as well as good. In my Jewish "DNA" is the memory of Nazi Germany's attacks and so I'm totally against broad-brush condemnations.

As far as the OP goes, there are some who insist on focusing on selected parts of the Quran which reinforce their beliefs and condemn Islam because of their out-of-context quoting of translations.

Just one example: 8:60 sounds pretty warlike

Yusuf Ali: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

But the very next verse is critical to understand the context: 8:61

Yusuf Ali: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

As far as immigration goes, I don't believe that the vast majority should be prejudged as guilty for the crimes of a very few. To me "immigration reform" includes making legal "dreamers" and others, making it easier for people to come to the USA while at the same time doing our best to spot bad actors.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do think there's some real wonkiness with how some sectors of the left deal with Islam and Islamic culture. I think it has to do with most Western modern leftism mostly focusing its critique on Western power structures which they equate to white, male and Christian (basically taking Marxist class critique and applying it to ethnicity and gender). Everyone else is granted "minority" status and basically given a pass. In this view, Middle Eastern people (Arabs, anyway) are granted "people of color" status and Islam is viewed as an "exotic" foreign religion which only white bigots view with suspicion. It ignores that Islamic countries are basically all hellholes and blames their problems on (white) colonialism only, ignoring their own responsibility and corruption. Anti-Semitism also plays a role as that is a common feature of both far-left and far-right ideologies. It's gotten to the point where certain leftists are declaring that you can't support Zionism and be a feminist, for example, or people carrying flags with Stars of David are kicked out of LGBT pride parades so they don't offend Palestinians and Muslims (although Israel is literally the only country in the Middle East where it is safe to be openly LGBT!).

So, yes - there's a problem here. There's a double standard. Islam definitely deserves critique like everything else does. I don't think we should bar religions or ethnic groups from immigration but neither should they be above criticism, especially when they ghetto-ize themselves and preach hate towards their host countries. More has to be done to promote integration.

 

[Politesse]

What do you make of the percieved threat of Islam?

The perceived threat of Islam is a political tool that foreign terrorists and domestic kleptocrats find very useful for creating fear and thus serving their own ends.

Is ISIS or the Taliban Islamic?

(Compared to how Christian you think the evangelical movement is in America for example)

Of course they are. Religion is not a matter of degree. I do not think their interpretation of their faith is a good or healthy one for a society to take.

How should liberals help stop the spread of virulent and hateful strains (or if you prefer violent bastardisations) of Islam?

Ideally, by opposing them. In my classes, I find it is useful to expose the sordid roots thereof to the light. Politically, I would support material and strategic aid to those sovereign nations most threatened by such movements, if requested. I also think that across all divisions of society, we should be promoting education and intercultural dialogue, and expunging the ugly remnants of racism.

Do you support immigration reform? Temporary bans of movement from certain regions?

Of course not, how will banning refugees from escaping kill zones lead to any sort of positive outcome? They'll just get killed, and their sons forced to point guns at us until we kill them also. I don't know why everyone thinks "kill everyone you hate" is such an effective tactic, when through all of human history, it has never actually worked. It can force your opposition to go underground, but violence never truly eliminates an idea from society.

Is it Islamophobic to suggest that much of the Koran is bat**** crazy as many public atheists and prominent new conservative types do?

No. Just ignorant and bigoted. It is possible to hate someone without having a phobia of them.

 

[icehorse]

The perceived threat of Islam is a political tool that foreign terrorists and domestic kleptocrats find very useful for creating fear and thus serving their own ends.

I'm sure that it's sometimes that. But as an individual, I find many of Islam's core values to be personally abhorrent, and try as I might, I find it difficult to see ways in which Islam has a positive impact on the world. I don't see why a successful secular society should welcome such a regressive set of ideas?

So, as with any candidate for immigration, I welcome successful candidates and I welcome apostates.

 

[Politesse]

I'm sure that it's sometimes that. But as an individual, I find many of Islam's core values to be personally abhorrent, and try as I might, I find it difficult to see ways in which Islam has a positive impact on the world. I don't see why a successful secular society should welcome such a regressive set of ideas?

So, as with any candidate for immigration, I welcome successful candidates and I welcome apostates.

You could say this about any sufficiently large grouping of people; look at the version of their philosophy you find most personally abhorrent and paint, paint away with that broad brush. I don't support the Crusades, so I'm not a Christian or a Muslim. Soviet Gulags are scary, so I'm not an atheist or a socialist. I don't support assassinating presidents, so I'm not an anarchist, but I don't like plowing down rainforests, so I oppose capitalism. And everyone who is connected with any of those philosophies. Even through inheritance, if they don't "choose" to disown themselves from it. It is a paltry worldview that leaves one very isolated, judging everyone by level of potential offense.

 

[icehorse]

You could say this about any sufficiently large grouping of people; look at the version of their philosophy you find most personally abhorrent and paint, paint away with that broad brush. I don't support the Crusades, so I'm not a Christian or a Muslim. Soviet Gulags are scary, so I'm not an atheist or a socialist. I don't support assassinating presidents, so I'm not an anarchist, but I don't like plowing down rainforests, so I oppose capitalism. And everyone who is connected with any of those philosophies. Even through inheritance, if they don't "choose" to disown themselves from it. It is a paltry worldview that leaves one very isolated, judging everyone by level of potential offense.

If you can't pin down any truths about any ideology, then you can't say that it has any redeeming features, correct?

I understand that there are exceptions in any group, but I also think that we have to be able to criticize ideas, it's essential.

BTW, I'm critical of most religions. I think Christianity could well lead to the destruction of the planet. But this thread is about Islam.

 

[Politesse]

If you can't pin down any truths about any ideology, then you can't say that it has any redeeming features, correct?

I understand that there are exceptions in any group, but I also think that we have to be able to criticize ideas, it's essential.

BTW, I'm critical of most religions. I think Christianity could well lead to the destruction of the planet. But this thread is about Islam.

Well, I think it is patently absurd and counter-logical to suggest that one of the world's major ideological constructs is "without redeeming features" - how could it even exist? And in any case, suggesting that one knows this without knowing anything specific about its contents, would be absurd regardless of its actual virtues and faults.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I think it is patently absurd and counter-logical to suggest that one of the world's major ideological constructs is "without redeeming features" - how could it even exist? And in any case, suggesting that one knows this without knowing anything specific about its contents, would be absurd regardless of its actual virtues and faults.

Sorry for the confusion. The way I read your post #8 was that you were saying it's not fair to make generalizations. I hear that argument a lot, and my response is that if you cannot make general criticisms, then how can you - on the other hand - claim any benefits? In other words, you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim that a set of ideas has benefits, then you're generalizing, and you must accept that the same set of ideas can be criticized in general.

As for knowing its contents, I know a lot about Islam.

 

[Politesse]

Sorry for the confusion. The way I read your post #8 was that you were saying it's not fair to make generalizations. I hear that argument a lot, and my response is that if you cannot make general criticisms, then how can you - on the other hand - claim any benefits? In other words, you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim that a set of ideas has benefits, then you're generalizing, and you must accept that the same set of ideas can be criticized in general.

As for knowing its contents, I know a lot about Islam.

The OP was asking about the criticisms made by "many public atheists and prominent new conservative types". I cannot speak for your credentials, but such merchants of hate and intolerance have never impressed me with their knowledge and understanding of Islam, or any other religious tradition not their own. Indeed, the new conservative dogma does not work without a bit of ignorance to fuel its xenophobia. I will say that after many years of study and the guidance of many fine Muslim philosophers, I would not consider myself any sort of expert on the faith, not in the way someone is who belongs to the faith and has studied it their whole life. And I consider it a mark of wisdom not to claim knowledge too boldly in areas where I am yet novice.

I do not see what "fair" has to do with anything. Making lazy generalizations is foolish whether or not it is fair.

 

[icehorse]

The OP was asking about the criticisms made by "many public atheists and prominent new conservative types". I cannot speak for your credentials, but such merchants of hate and intolerance have never impressed me with their knowledge and understanding of Islam, or any other religious tradition not their own. Indeed, the new conservative dogma does not work without a bit of ignorance to fuel its xenophobia. I will say that after many years of study and the guidance of many fine Muslim philosophers, I would not consider myself any sort of expert on the faith, not in the way someone is who belongs to the faith and has studied it their whole life. And I consider it a mark of wisdom not to claim knowledge too boldly in areas where I am yet novice.

I do not see what "fair" has to do with anything. Making lazy generalizations is foolish whether or not it is fair.

I guess I need to know who you're referring to? The prominent critics I see come from all locations on the political spectrum, from conservative to centrist to liberal. Speaking only for myself, this has nothing to do with xenophobia. This has to do with assessing the quality of ideas and morals and finding Islam lacking. The Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand. IMO any unbiased and parsimonious reading of the book reveal its moral teachings. It strikes me that the "scholars" mostly try to obfuscate that which is obvious. Next, look at the Muslim world. Frankly, it's a wreck. For the first four hundred years it was marked by violent conquest, and for the last thousand years it's been steadfastly regressive. Where is the "good stuff" in Islam? Where is the proof in the pudding? Please, point it out to me.

Now this is not to say that there aren't many, many fine Muslim individuals, of course there are. But AFAIK it's not Islam that makes them fine, they're fine in spite of Islam.

 

[Politesse]

I guess I need to know who you're referring to? The prominent critics I see come from all locations on the political spectrum, from conservative to centrist to liberal. Speaking only for myself, this has nothing to do with xenophobia. This has to do with assessing the quality of ideas and morals and finding Islam lacking. The Quran declares itself to be clear and easy to understand. IMO any unbiased and parsimonious reading of the book reveal its moral teachings. It strikes me that the "scholars" mostly try to obfuscate that which is obvious. Next, look at the Muslim world. Frankly, it's a wreck. For the first four hundred years it was marked by violent conquest, and for the last thousand years it's been steadfastly regressive. Where is the "good stuff" in Islam? Where is the proof in the pudding? Please, point it out to me.

Now this is not to say that there aren't many, many fine Muslim individuals, of course there are. But AFAIK it's not Islam that makes them fine, they're fine in spite of Islam.

If you despise scholarship as a means to knowledge, we are not likely to find a middle ground.

 

[icehorse]

If you despise scholarship as a means to knowledge, we are not likely to find a middle ground.

I never said that. Once again, Muslims contend that the Quran is perfect and timeless. The Quran itself describes itself as clear and easy to understand.

So in this case, it would seem that deep scholarship should not be necessary, correct? What am I missing?

 

[Yerda]

I keep forgetting about this thread.

People should not be afraid to call it on its dangers and flaws.

What are the dangers and flaws you see?

Ideally, by opposing them. In my classes, I find it is useful to expose the sordid roots thereof to the light.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this. What classes? What sordid roots?

I also think that across all divisions of society, we should be promoting education and intercultural dialogue, and expunging the ugly remnants of racism.

This should go without saying. Sadly it doesn't.

No. Just ignorant and bigoted. It is possible to hate someone without having a phobia of them.

Do you find the distinction between criticising Islam and criticising Muslims to be a meaningful one?

 

[LuisDantas]

I keep forgetting about this thread.

What are the dangers and flaws you see?

Islaam, unlike Christianity, imposes on itself a promise of perfection of scripture. There is very little and very tricky room for a Muslim to navigate between the extremes of being a fundamentalist and an apostate. That situation is aggravated by the tribalistic and accusatory nature of the Qur'an.

The scripture is useless garbage, even when compared to the Bible, yet the whole doctrine is built to glorify and protect it. Islaamic theology is not only mediocre, self-conflicted and destructive, it is self-imposed the duty to be so.

The Qur'an is written in a tribalistic and authoritative way, drammatically limiting its potential usefulness as an ethical guide and essentially destroying any chance of it ever having actual religious value. Yet it is also the one part of Islaam that all Muslims have a literal duty to value if they are to consider themselves Muslims.

For the reasons above, Islaam is also far too reliant on the word of authority, even as it reassures itself that only the Qur'an is inerrant. It is doomed to crave authority figures and to invite Muslims to mistrust and accuse them of not being true Muslims at the same time.


As for this question that you ask to Politesse:

Do you find the distinction between criticising Islam and criticising Muslims to be a meaningful one?

It definitely is meaningful. Sadly, it is also of limited practical significance, since there is little condition for Muslims to avoid fundamentalism.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Islaam, unlike Christianity, imposes on itself a promise of perfection of scripture. There is very little and very tricky room for a Muslim to navigate between the extremes of being a fundamentalist and an apostate. That situation is aggravated by the tribalistic and accusatory nature of the Qur'an.

The scripture is useless garbage, even when compared to the Bible, yet the whole doctrine is built to glorify and protect it. Islaamic theology is not only mediocre, self-conflicted and destructive, it is self-imposed the duty to be so.

The Qur'an is written in a tribalistic and authoritative way, drammatically limiting its potential usefulness as an ethical guide and essentially destroying any chance of it ever having actual religious value. Yet it is also the one part of Islaam that all Muslims have a literal duty to value if they are to consider themselves Muslims.

For the reasons above, Islaam is also far too reliant on the word of authority, even as it reassures itself that only the Qur'an is inerrant. It is doomed to crave authority figures and to invite Muslims to mistrust and accuse them of not being true Muslims at the same time.


As for this question that you ask to Politesse:


It definitely is meaningful. Sadly, it is also of limited practical significance, since there is little condition for Muslims to avoid fundamentalism.

How much study do you have on Islam? I'll try myself for instance....

My mother was a part of the NOI or Nation of Islam. I actually learned Surah Al-Fatihah in Arabic from her considering that is one of the things many NOI's learn when studying Islam. Although I was Baptist Christian at the time I did learn a lot as a kid. Fast forward to undergrad, I double majored in psychology and philosophy...Wrote my first long paper on the Ikhwan Al-Safa or "Bretheren of Purity" concerning Tawhid and the ontological argument for God's existence. I have tons of books on Karen Armstrong ( a former nun mind you) discussing Islam. I did another paper my senior year on Ibn Rushd's rebuttal of Al-Ghazali from the writings of Tahafut al-Tahafut "The incoherence of the incoherence."

I have a hadith copy, two Qur'an copies one of them an actual transliteration which I read from time to time. I've been to several mosques spoken to Alims, and Imams concerning certain aspects of Islam. My question to you is aside from your biased background what is your academic background concerning Islam. You speak on anecdotes but don't cross check both from Muslim and non-Muslim sources nor do you speak Arabic. So please tell me your background if you know more about Islam than me. Not just the theology but its philosophy and laws because you speak as an authority. I know I'm no authority but I am curious if what you know tops what I've studied.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I never said that. Once again, Muslims contend that the Quran is perfect and timeless. The Quran itself describes itself as clear and easy to understand.

So in this case, it would seem that deep scholarship should not be necessary, correct? What am I missing?

The Qur'an is clear in conjunction the th timeless questioning of those in the past who developed schisms based on one simple truth....There is only one God. The Lord of the universe. The Lord of all existence and all things that were created......The latter settles the dispute concerning whether the Jews were chosen. God is not just the Lord of Israel but the Lord of this solar system and the Lord of the entire universe and beyond. In prayer God is nearer to you than you're own jugular vein so nothing that you hide in secret is not unknown to him. When you die, you return to God. How simpler can you get...

 

[Yerda]

It definitely is meaningful. Sadly, it is also of limited practical significance, since there is little condition for Muslims to avoid fundamentalism.

You really think so?

None of the Muslims I know are fundamentalist.