Khizr Khan at the DNC

[icehorse]

The DNC asked the Pakistani Immigrant Khizr Khan - whose soldier son was killed in Iraq - to speak at the DNC, presumably to shame Donald Trump. I respect the Khan family and their son's sacrifice. (Although as an aside, I wasn't thrilled with Khan's wife's subservient behavior.)

At around 1:50 Khan says: "“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”.

Now I believe that such Muslims exist. I believe Khan is “almost” one of them. But those Muslims are most definitely occupying a space that is radically different than what Islam teaches. Such Muslims MUST declare their radically non-Islamic denomination of Islam. If they don’t, how can we trust them? Without such a denominational declaration, the quote above simply cannot be true.

 

[Debater Slayer]

How is it "radically non-Islamic" for an American Muslim to be loyal to his or her country? How are you defining "Islamic"? Is it anything that fits in with the teachings of mainstream Sunni or Shi'a Islam, or is it something else?

 

[icehorse]

How is it "radically non-Islamic" for an American Muslim to be loyal to his or her country? How are you defining "Islamic"? Is it anything that fits in with the teachings of mainstream Sunni or Shi'a Islam, or is it something else?

Let's imagine that a group of Muslims in the west (or anywhere), declared themselves to be "secular Muslims". Those "secular Muslims" would most definitely be occupying a space that is radically different than what Islam teaches. Islam is theocratic in nature, it is anti-secular. So I suppose that's the point really - whether you buy that Islam is fundamentally theocratic. If you don't, then I'd need to trot out more evidence...

BTW, I would welcome and support the creation of an openly declared sect of "secular Muslims". It would take great courage for them to declare themselves as such, and it would be a huge step towards reducing conflict.

 

[BSM1]

Respectfully Mr. Khan admonished Donald Trump because he had never lost anyone or had to sacrifice in defense of this country. Well, neither has Hillary; unless, of course, you count the four Americans she sacrificed in Benghazi.

 

[Augustus]

But those Muslims are most definitely occupying a space that is radically different than what Islam teaches. Such Muslims MUST declare their radically non-Islamic denomination of Islam.

Why do you insist on arguing that only the fundamentalists are Muslims and takfir the more moderate ones?

When Islamic scholars promote democracy and a more progressive version of Islam would you prefer they made a point of publicly stating that they were promoting an unIslamic version of Islam?

You are basically saying that you can't be a Muslim and support democracy, tolerance, etc.

What gives you the right to tell other people that you understand their religion better than they do?

If they don’t, how can we trust them?

Common decency?

Without such a denominational declaration, the quote above simply cannot be true.

Don't be silly.

Since when has anyone been required to make a public statement of their allegiance to particular and named ideology before they are entitled to have people believe they are not part of some subversive plot?

Islam is theocratic in nature, it is anti-secular.

Almost no Islamic states have been theocratic. A theocracy is not a religiously influenced system of government it is clerical rule. Classical Islam is not secular, but not secular does not necessarily entail theocracy.

Islamic governments have tended to be monarchical. Also their systems of laws have been hybrids of religiously inspired laws and pragmatically adopted rules from other sources.

Even going right back to the origins of Islam, the Rashidun caliphates adopted a large amount of Roman and Persian law. The Ottomans adopted a lot of Byzantine law, etc.

Much of what later became seen as Islamic was actually things they adopted from the empires they took over.

Ironically, you legitimise the extremists by promoting their ideology and their revisionist version of history. Then you belittle the Muslims who are basically doing what you want them to do, but aren't jumping through quite enough hoops or not being contrite and submissive enough to be allowed to come to your party.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus,

I think you're being a bit theoretical here. For my money SA and Iran (as examples), count as theocratic in practice.

 

[FearGod]

The DNC asked the Pakistani Immigrant Khizr Khan - whose soldier son was killed in Iraq - to speak at the DNC, presumably to shame Donald Trump. I respect the Khan family and their son's sacrifice. (Although as an aside, I wasn't thrilled with Khan's wife's subservient behavior.)

At around 1:50 Khan says: "“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”.

Now I believe that such Muslims exist. I believe Khan is “almost” one of them. But those Muslims are most definitely occupying a space that is radically different than what Islam teaches. Such Muslims MUST declare their radically non-Islamic denomination of Islam. If they don’t, how can we trust them? Without such a denominational declaration, the quote above simply cannot be true.

This is an advertising material against Trump for the benefit of the DNC, very cheap one indeed.

 

[Augustus]

Augustus,

I think you're being a bit theoretical here. For my money SA and Iran (as examples), count as theocratic in practice.

Why is SA considered to be the most representative example of 1600 years of a diverse religious and cultural tradition?

What makes you side with the Wahabbis?

 

[icehorse]

Almost no Islamic states have been theocratic. A theocracy is not a religiously influenced system of government it is clerical rule. Classical Islam is not secular, but not secular does not necessarily entail theocracy.

I was replying to this. Sorry, I should have copied this in the first place. It was in response to this that I claimed you were being theoretical.

To varying degrees, many of the most populous Muslim majority countries rely on Sharia. I don't have a specific "Sharia threshold" in mind, but by my definition, any country that uses Sharia to any significant degree, I'd count as theocratic.

 

[Augustus]

I was replying to this. Sorry, I should have copied this in the first place. It was in response to this that I claimed you were being theoretical.

To varying degrees, many of the most populous Muslim majority countries rely on Sharia. I don't have a specific "Sharia threshold" in mind, but by my definition, any country that uses Sharia to any significant degree, I'd count as theocratic.

Why in general though do you consider Wahabbis to be the real Muslims, and anyone that isn't similar to them to be borderline apostates?

 

[icehorse]

Why in general though do you consider Wahabbis to be the real Muslims, and anyone that isn't similar to them to be borderline apostates?

I don't think that. I think many members of the OIC use Sharia to some significant degree, as this article and map support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country

 

[Augustus]

I don't think that.

You did say they should publicly announce that they follow an un-Islamic version of Islam. That is to say the fundamentalists have Islam correct and the more moderate believers have it wrong.

When Muslim reformers make arguments regarding the nature of Sharia as an adaptive system of guidance and how rules should be applied in modern society, do you think it would aid their cause to announce how un-Islamic they were being?

I think many members of the OIC use Sharia to some significant degree, as this article and map support:

And? Laws are based on tradition and culture. Calling any country with religious influence on some areas of law a 'theocracy' displays the same lack of nuance as the rest of your arguments.

That shows that most countries use a hybrid system of secular and religiously influenced law, which is what most Islamic states have used historically starting from the adoption of Roman and Persian laws in the 7th C.

'Islamic' law is a very complex topic with a far greater amount of diversity, change, pragmatism and adaptability than you appreciate.


Also how does that relate this:

Such Muslims MUST declare their radically non-Islamic denomination of Islam. If they don’t, how can we trust them? Without such a denominational declaration, the quote above simply cannot be true.

Reductionism like talking about Muslims as a single group, throwing around words like sharia and theocracy without much thought as to their meaning, and setting a load of arbitrary hoops that 'good Muslims' should jump through before they gain your seal of approval and thus don't have to be viewed as a threat is not a very good way of achieving any progress.

2 people who lost their child fighting for their country are only "almost" 'good Muslims', but not quite as they didn't also announce that they were radically un-Islamic and so are presumably part of the problem because they didn't grovel sufficiently for your liking and the man speaking can only have been due to his oppressive patriarchy rather than any other possible reason.

They really can't win can they?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

His wife wasn't being "subservient". She said on the MSNBC interview that she didn't want to speak because she gets too upset from it. She was crying during the interview. It doesn't seem like her English is very good, either.

And shame on the OP for trying to use this to bash Islam.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry, I don't feel any shame. It seems to me that this man lied. I appreciate his son's sacrifice, and I expect that overall the father was being sincere, but the statement I highlighted has a major flaw.

A Muslim's first allegiance MUST be to Islam, not to a secular state. That's mainstream Islam. If he follows a sect for which that is not the case, please tell me the name of that sect, I want to understand it better.

Now don't get me wrong. I imagine the father really wants to be a loyal American. And as a Muslim, he was born into a difficult and dangerous situation. I acknowledge all of that. But with this statement he is trying to eat his cake and have it too.

Augustus - The words "secular", "Sharia", "theocracy" and so on have meanings. It is not over-generalizing to apply those meanings to situations in the real world. You accuse me of reductionism (often), as if generalizations are never appropriate. Do you feel this way about statistical claims in general, or only when it comes to defending religion?

 

[BSM1]

His wife wasn't being "subservient". She said on the MSNBC interview that she didn't want to speak because she gets too upset from it. She was crying during the interview. It doesn't seem like her English is very good, either.

And shame on the OP for trying to use this to bash Islam.

Although I wouldn't say anything against the lady but if you put yourself in the public eye you become fair game.

 

[Augustus]

A Muslim's first allegiance MUST be to Islam, not to a secular state. That's mainstream Islam. If he follows a sect for which that is not the case, please tell me the name of that sect, I want to understand it better.

Going by your logic anyway no one could really make that statement as everyone has divided loyalties to some extent: family, friends, morality, etc.

Strange as it seems, quite a lot of Muslims don't see any conflict between liking their country and following their religion.

Now don't get me wrong. I imagine the father really wants to be a loyal American. And as a Muslim, he was born into a difficult and dangerous situation. I acknowledge all of that. But with this statement he is trying to eat his cake and have it too.

What cake and eating it? Being a proud American and a Muslim?

Being Muslim and being treated with the same respect accorded to the parents go non-Muslim soldiers who died fighting for their country?

Being Muslim and getting people to take you at your word rather than being subject to a specious analysis of the hidden subtext of all of your words by people who think they understand your beliefs better than you do because they once read the Quran?

Augustus - The words "secular", "Sharia", "theocracy" and so on have meanings. It is not over-generalizing to apply those meanings to situations in the real world.

Secular is a concept from the Western Christian tradition, based on a Western Christian concept of religion.

This does not equate to everything else being a theocracy. Religious influences still exist in Western laws, but they are not theocracies. Religious influences exist in many Muslim countries to a larger extent, but this does not mean they are all theocracies.

Most Muslims do not live in theocracies in any meaningful sense of the word.

You accuse me of reductionism (often), as if generalizations are never appropriate. Do you feel this way about statistical claims in general, or only when it comes to defending religion?

I'm not defending religion, I'm criticising your rank generalisation of complex issues.

Generalisations are useful when they enlighten more than they mislead. Yours are very much the latter.

You have adopted a hermeneutical framework of Islam that reflects a superficially Salafist understanding, and mistakenly consider it to be applicable to all Muslims.

A statistical claim would show you that there is great diversity in Islam, but it seems to pain you to accept this.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus,

I have acknowledged time and again that there is great diversity in Islam. There, I did it again!

AND, there are some general truths to be known as well.

As far as theocracies go, a large percentage (perhaps the majority?), of the world's Muslims want Sharia to be a part of the law of their country. This is theocratic enough for me, and it's clearly enough to be counter to the US Constitution.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Let's imagine that a group of Muslims in the west (or anywhere), declared themselves to be "secular Muslims". Those "secular Muslims" would most definitely be occupying a space that is radically different than what Islam teaches. Islam is theocratic in nature, it is anti-secular. So I suppose that's the point really - whether you buy that Islam is fundamentally theocratic. If you don't, then I'd need to trot out more evidence...

BTW, I would welcome and support the creation of an openly declared sect of "secular Muslims". It would take great courage for them to declare themselves as such, and it would be a huge step towards reducing conflict.

I agree that Islam, at its core texts, is theocratic in the sense that it emphasizes the importance of governing one's affairs and Muslim countries according to Shari'a. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Muslims have to label themselves "secular Muslims" if they want to voice loyalty to their non-Muslim countries. It seems to me that you're basically saying that Muslims either have to fit into a box that secularists should create for them or they're insincere about their stated loyalty to their countries that happen to be non-Muslim. I think that's neither fair nor reasonable, and it only facilitates constructing barriers between secularists and Muslims and stifling dialogue that could be had if it weren't for such dogmatic thinking—on either side.

 

[icehorse]

DS -

I didn't create Islam, I'm just trying to help everyone understand its true nature. I wish that Islam's political aspirations weren't baked in, but they are. So yes, I am saying that for Muslims to live comfortably in a secular world they must acknowledge specifically that they're abandoning the political aspects of their chosen ideology.

To deny the true nature of the ideology does not lead to honest dialogue, correct?

 

[MD]

I despise Political Islam and most mainstream Islam (Sufism is cool) for deeply personal reasons and experiences that could fill a book. I come from a religious minority who have been enslaved, killed, run out and persecuted for over a thousand years by various brands of Islam. I almost always agree with you icehouse but gotta disagree at this point.

The dudes kid died for America. There are secular and practicing Muslims who are loyal to non Islamic states. Indian Muslim soldiers died fighting Pakistanis. Let us criticize the faith without attacking the nature of human beings, who are themselves guided by a variety of factors. I felt bad for the mother, who is probably more heart broken than any of us will ever know. While many Muslims do hold the Ummah above secular states, I don't think all do. This man is an example of that.