Khizr Khan at the DNC

[Augustus]

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

Yet you manage to start countless threads that rely on their being an almost uniform consensus on a wide range of issues.

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

What things do you consider to be so universally accepted that they can be stated to reflect the beliefs of (almost) all Muslims?

You started off another thread by saying peace in Islam means 'after we have conquered the entire world'. Do you consider that to be almost universally attested to?

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.

Sharia also says that you should respect the laws of the land you live in as long as they don't stop you from practising your faith which means following the constitution.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume what you say about the majority is true, that still leaves a pretty large number who do not agree. And then it moves on to what is meant by Sharia (only a part of Sharia relates to law). And then onto what it means 'to be part of'. And then you also have to start thinking about the state of the 'secular' legal system in many of these countries where it basically stands for corruption.

But, hey, lets just keep calling them all theocracies because it sounds nice. Do you, for example, consider Indonesia to be a theocracy?

 

[Augustus]

I'm just trying to help everyone understand its true nature.

I'm sure most Muslims will thank you for your noble endeavour. It's always good to be informed about what you truly believe by someone with a cursory understanding.

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.

Wow. 'To live comfortably' they have to jump through your hoops, otherwise they are fair game? That's pretty bigoted.

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

This is why your rank generalisation is highly misleading.

There is not one ideology. You said there was diversity, now you deny it. Muslims have many different ideologies. It's not rocket science.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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?

Islam in practice is not monochromatic. Its core text (the Qur'an) is fixed, yes, but what people make of it certainly isn't. So if a Muslim embraces the Qur'an while at the same time having an interpretation of it that leaves room for being loyal to one's non-Muslim country, that doesn't count as abandoning any political aspects of that person's chosen ideology.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Once again a link to the recent, large Pew poll concerning Muslim's opinions about Sharia:

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

There are some strong statistical conclusions to be drawn from this poll, and others like it. You keep accusing me of generalizing, and I'll keep saying I'm just using statistics. I suspect that in other areas, you rely on statistics as well?

One such conclusion is that across an incredibly wide swath of geographical regions, AND cultures, we see Muslims express consistent opinions about Sharia. Why it's almost as if they believe in their scripture!

 

[icehorse]

DS and Augustus,

I believe it is a mistake to think of Islam as merely a religion. To do so denies large aspects of the ideology.

It might boil down to this: I believe that Islam's political aspirations should never be ignored, and to do so is to engage in soft bigotry.

It would appear that you both hold that we should trust Muslims who imply - without being explicit - that they deny the basic nature of their ideology? Is that a fair assessment of your position?

(BTW, thanks for a well reasoned discussion!)

 

[Augustus]

Once again a link to the recent, large Pew poll concerning Muslim's opinions about Sharia:

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

There are some strong statistical conclusions to be drawn from this poll, and others like it. You keep accusing me of generalizing, and I'll keep saying I'm just using statistics. I suspect that in other areas, you rely on statistics as well?

One such conclusion is that across an incredibly wide swath of geographical regions, AND cultures, we see Muslims express consistent opinions about Sharia. Why it's almost as if they believe in their scripture!

The poll says 77% of Indonesians favour implementing Sharia law which is about the same percentage as voted for secular political parties at the last general election. Sometimes statistics don't tell the whole story.

They also show a wide range of opinions on the questions asked.

They also show much more support for the family/property law aspect of sharia than the criminal aspect. As I said before, what people mean by 'Sharia' is not straightforward, and Sharia is not solely (or even mostly) about law. Sharia law is also more diverse and flexible than you probably think it is, and much of it relates to fairly trivial things (at least from a non-Muslim perspective).

I believe it is a mistake to think of Islam as merely a religion. To do so denies large aspects of the ideology.

It might boil down to this: I believe that Islam's political aspirations should never be ignored, and to do so is to engage in soft bigotry.

I think it is a greater mistake to think of Islam as one religion or one ideology. Just like it is a mistake to think of Stalinism and Social Democracy as one ideology because they are both of the left. You see it in political discourse when some conservatives urge you not to forget the oppressive aspects of left wing ideology and view public healthcare as being akin to Soviet Communism.

Failure to accept this leads to you arguing with people who might otherwise agree with you, and certainly would alienate the Muslims who you are encouraging to be on your 'side'.

It would appear that you both hold that we should trust Muslims who imply - without being explicit - that they deny the basic nature of their ideology? Is that a fair assessment of your position?

As far as I am aware, most Democrats have never denied being Communists and most Republicans have never denied supporting the KKK. Should we trust them?

Do you believe the average US Muslim is secretly harbouring ambitions to facilitate a Caliphate in America? Remember many of them left countries with Sharia laws to move to America. Most of the see no conflict whatsoever in being an American and a Muslim.

And most people of all ilks are more concerned with getting on with their lives than pursuing vague ideological causes.

My position is that there is a very large number of Muslims (no idea in percentage terms) that do not see political dominance in a similar mode of the Wahabbis as being 'their ideology'. There is also a sizeable number who do, but that's why I think it is a mistake to see it as a single ideology.

(BTW, thanks for a well reasoned discussion!)

It's always fun

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam in practice is not monochromatic. Its core text (the Qur'an) is fixed, yes, but what people make of it certainly isn't. So if a Muslim embraces the Qur'an while at the same time having an interpretation of it that leaves room for being loyal to one's non-Muslim country, that doesn't count as abandoning any political aspects of that person's chosen ideology.

A recent thread in the Islam DIR led me to believe that Muslims are duty-bound not to take arms against other Muslims. It was claimed that Ahmadis and Quranists want to overrule that directive but fail to find the means to.

Would you agree with those claims?

 

[YmirGF]

A recent thread in the Islam DIR led me to believe that Muslims are duty-bound not to take arms against other Muslims. It was claimed that Ahmadis and Quranists want to overrule that directive but fail to find the means to.

Would you agree with those claims?

Given how persecuted they are that would be a seriously weird position for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to take. They may as well wear T-shirts with bulls-eyes on them. I doubt the Qur'an only crowd have much traction to effect any kind of influence over the Muslim world in general. It will be interesting to hear DS's take on this.

 

[Augustus]

A recent thread in the Islam DIR led me to believe that Muslims are duty-bound not to take arms against other Muslims. It was claimed that Ahmadis and Quranists want to overrule that directive but fail to find the means to.

Would you agree with those claims?

Islamic history has pretty much been constantly full of Muslims taking arms against other Muslims.

Sunni/shia, Kharijite, Umayyad, Abassid, Fatimid, Mamluk, Ayyubid, Ottoman, to list just a few who have done so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Islamic history has pretty much been constantly full of Muslims taking arms against other Muslims.

Sunni/shia, Kharijite, Umayyad, Abassid, Fatimid, Mamluk, Ayyubid, Ottoman, to list just a few who have done so.

How often did those situations not involve claims that the other side were not true Muslims?

 

[Augustus]

How often did those situations not involve claims that the other side were not true Muslims?

Most of them. They were generally just about power, with a few exceptions.

Short timeline video showing the evolution of the competing empires here.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

(It's been a VERY busy week at work). I'm happy to say "some Muslims fly in the face of Islam and believe in secularism". But Mr. Khan would like to eat his cake and have it too, by ignoring much of Islam's nature and pretending that he can be a Muslim AND loyal to America first. I can believe that Mr. Khan can be loyal to America first - no issue there. But he cannot also be "just another Muslim". He could be a Muslim who's a member of a breakout denomination or sect, but he didn't say that. That's a major omission. By his statements, he wants us to believe that Islam is different than what it really is.

As for Islamic history this is an interesting, short video that makes close to 600 claims. While this is probably a tangent, it seems that that's one thread of this bigger thread. What I think is interesting here is that many will react unfavorably to the speaker, but my guess is you'd be hard pressed to refute the preponderance of his claims:

(And, once again, I ALSO think that Christian history is shameful, I'm not saying Islamic history is worse than Christian history - I think they're both reprehensible.)

 

[sun rise]

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.

You let your bias cause you to misjudge her behavior. She's explained to my total satisfaction her actions that night and since then.

And, no, I totally disagree with the "MUST" - you will never be satisified no matter if every single Muslim in the world repeats 1,000 times what you want them to say. Also, by the way, there's no such thing as "denominations" in Islam - "denomination" is purely a Christian term. https://www.google.com/search?q=denomination&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[sun rise]

Most of them. They were generally just about power, with a few exceptions.

Short timeline video showing the evolution of the competing empires here.

Great video. Thanks. But a note that Spain and India were left off. The history of Spain is very interesting. http://www.islamicspain.tv/ has a great history and highlights a distinction that still is alive today between the barbarians of then and now and the civilized people of then and now:

Over a thousand years ago, the sun-washed land of southern Spain was home to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, living together and flourishing. Their culture and beliefs intertwined, and the knowledge of the ancients was gathered and reborn. Here were the very seeds of the Renaissance.

But this world too quickly vanished … Greed, fear, and intolerance swept it away. Puritanical judgments and absolutism snuffed out the light of learning. Within a few centuries, the fragile union of these people dissipated like smoke. The time of tolerance was lost, forever...

 

[icehorse]

Agreed! And the history of the Hindu Kush is really important to understand, and it's usually swept under the rug.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Although as an aside, I wasn't thrilled with Khan's wife's subservient behavior.)

I suspect that she would be less thrilled with your bigoted and condescending presumption.

Such Muslims MUST declare their radically non-Islamic denomination of Islam.

You don't get to declare what some group of Americans "MUST" do, no matter how phobic your islamophobia.

 

[Willamena]

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?

That makes no sense. "Secular" doesn't mean without religion, it means regardless of religion.

Edit: Ideally, secular life does not "deny the true nature" of any religious ideology.

 

[icehorse]

I suspect that she would be less thrilled with your bigoted and condescending presumption.
You don't get to declare what some group of Americans "MUST" do, no matter how phobic your islamophobia.

bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

There are some things in the world for which we ought to be bigoted. Lying is such a thing. Would you say that we ought to be tolerant and non-bigoted towards habitual liars?

The statement of Khan's which I'm taking exception to is either an extraordinary claim, or at some level it's a lie. I suspect that he's being sincere, except that he's not acknowledging that he's making an extraordinary claim. That's a problem.

Next, "islamophobia" - you understand of course that that's a nonsense term? I do not think that the ideas in Islam are good ideas. That does not make me phobic. I also don't think corruption is a good idea, that doesn't make me "corruptophobic".

Finally, of course I hold little hope that Muslim Americans will boldly and openly declare a new secular sect of Islam. But the world would be a far better place if they did so.

 

[icehorse]

That makes no sense. "Secular" doesn't mean without religion, it means regardless of religion.

Edit: Ideally, secular life does not "deny the true nature" of any religious ideology.

One of the central, core ideas of Islam is to pursue theocracy. (And as I've cited many times, a huge percentage of the world's Muslims - and perhaps the majority - agree that they should be ruled, to some degree, by a theocracy.)

 

[Willamena]

One of the central, core ideas of Islam is to pursue theocracy. (And as I've cited many times, a huge percentage of the world's Muslims - and perhaps the majority - agree that they should be ruled, to some degree, by a theocracy.)

The appeal to statistics aside, do you have some information that supports this? A cursory Internet search turns up "foundational beliefs" that do not offer any insight into your argument.