Khizr Khan at the DNC

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Subservient behavior? She's made it clear that it's difficult for her to speak when looking at a photo of her son (I would be in that same boat, if it were me). Khizr says he asked his wife if she wanted to speak but she declined, for the reason I just.

She has since written an Op Ed piece on the subject, as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't kept up with this thread, but I did see
something in the news which might interest people.....
http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/347825-Youre-not-acceptable-to-US-Khizr-tells-Donald-Tr

Allah doesn't like Trump?
I can live with that.

 

[icehorse]

Subservient behavior? She's made it clear that it's difficult for her to speak when looking at a photo of her son (I would be in that same boat, if it were me). Khizr says he asked his wife if she wanted to speak but she declined, for the reason I just.

She has since written an Op Ed piece on the subject, as well.

I would say that the "optics" were a support of a misogynistic culture.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would say that the "optics" were a support of a misogynistic culture.

Meaning what? They looked misogynistic standing there?

 

[Willamena]

I would say that the "optics" were a support of a misogynistic culture.

Or... the expectation of misogyny supported the alleged optics.

 

[icehorse]

Or... the expectation of misogyny supported the alleged optics.

I've got daughters. I don't want them to ever be at risk of being forced to live in a culture where Khan's wife's attire might be mandatory. Or even considered healthy. The probability of coercion in this sort of situation is quite high. Not absolute, but high.

 

[columbus]

I don't want them to ever be at risk of being forced to live in a culture where Khan's wife's attire might be mandatory. Or even considered healthy.

I don't mean to pick on you in particular. I don't know you, your community, or your daughters.

But I see women wearing some of the most ridiculous clothing. Packaging for "the assets ", little concern for practicality or protection from weather.
If you ask them, "Why are you wearing a miniskirt to school in the 4th grade when it's snowing and below freezing? "
They'll tell you it's because they like it. Just like Muslim women tell you that they like their restrictions on dress.
It's more cultural than anything. Westerners use advertising to enforce their dress code for women, Muslims use other more primitive methods. But the results are the same. Women dress for men, believing it is their own choice to do so.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

I've got daughters. I don't want them to ever be at risk of being forced to live in a culture where Khan's wife's attire might be mandatory. Or even considered healthy. The probability of coercion in this sort of situation is quite high. Not absolute, but high.

I would not want to live in a society where such attire was mandatory. But nor would I want to live in a society where a woman was discriminated against just because she wore a scarf on her head.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would not want to live in a society where such attire was mandatory. But nor would I want to live in a society where a woman was discriminated against just because she wore a scarf on her head.

Where I live, one sometimes sees women dressed thusly....

It's interesting that I don't see double takes around them.

I wonder if this shameless hussy gets flack for the exposed hands?

 

[icehorse]

I don't mean to pick on you in particular. I don't know you, your community, or your daughters.

But I see women wearing some of the most ridiculous clothing. Packaging for "the assets ", little concern for practicality or protection from weather.
If you ask them, "Why are you wearing a miniskirt to school in the 4th grade when it's snowing and below freezing? "
They'll tell you it's because they like it. Just like Muslim women tell you that they like their restrictions on dress.
It's more cultural than anything. Westerners use advertising to enforce their dress code for women, Muslims use other more primitive methods. But the results are the same. Women dress for men, believing it is their own choice to do so.
Tom

This is a great point, my intuition is that the "Miley Cyrus" approach has swung too far in the other direction. As for whether Muslim women are really free to make a choice - well I'm sure that some are. Sadly, many do not have the choice.

 

[fantome profane]

Where I live, one sometimes sees women dressed thusly....

It's interesting that I don't see double takes around them.

I wonder if this shameless hussy gets flack for the exposed hands?

We see them where I live too. Strange, but none of my business

And for the record, it is nothing like what Mrs Khan was wearing.

My elderly Scottish Grandmother use to wear something like that.

 

[Augustus]

I've read Kahneman, and I understand the ubiquitous nature of biases. That said, a fella could use Kahneman to undermine ANY conversation.

I didn't mean biases as in the 'heuristics and biases' branch of psychology, but biased as in based on attitude to interpretation of language, preconceived notions about how the text 'should' be read, subjective experience and personal preference.

Simply calling for a 'parsimonious' reading is a bias (as would be calling for a figurative, historically contextual or esoteric reading)

As far as "how to read the scripture", I don't buy your argument. It sounds to me like your argument means that only scholars and historians can "properly" interpret the scripture, and of course that's a huge problem for the 1.6 billion Muslims who aren't historians.

I didn't say you couldn't interpret it, I just said interpretation can never be unbiased by anyone, layman or scholar alike.

Your approach to scripture is closest to Salafism. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that there is no reason to favour this approach over others from an 'objective' perspective. It's highly unlikely that this was the 'original' Islam (unless you believe Islam emerged fully formed, rather than evolving), it isn't even the Classical Sunni Islam that developed in the Medieval period (which had a more clerical approach).

Things like Shiism and more esoteric strands of Sufism, etc. are older than Salafism, so viewing them as 'deviant' doesn't really make much sense if you claim to be unbiased.

I can't quite tell the degree to which you disagree with me, but I have a weird request. Even if you disagree with me conceptually, I suspect you understand where I'm coming from. I also suspect that part of your pushback is that you don't like the way in which I state my opinions. So here's the weird request. Would you be willing to try to restate my claims in language that you would find more acceptable or productive? Again, I'm not asking you to agree...

What I agree with: Religions are different and not just 'out of the same bottle', and belief affects culture, etc. It would be wrong to assume Islamic society will turn into Western type society eventually (this is too teleological for me anyway). Certain forms of Islam are political ideologies as well as religions and shouldn't get a 'free pass' in the name of 'religious freedom' as we should be aware of the paradox of tolerance

Where we differ: While it is possible to make some generalisations about Islam, it is much harder to extrapolate from these to generalisations about individual Muslims. It also makes more sense to treat Islam as multiple, broadly-categorised real-world ideologies, rather than trying to create some normative concept of what Islam 'should be' based on scripture and considering the rest 'radically unIslamic'. Doing so ignores the history of Islam and is counterproductive from a social perspective.

 

[Willamena]

My elderly Scottish Grandmother use to wear something like that.

As did my Ukrainian grandmother.

 

[icehorse]

As did my Ukrainian grandmother.

If no one forced her to wear that, then she was fortunate. If she was forced to wear that, then we have a bigger problem.

 

[columbus]

This is a great point, my intuition is that the "Miley Cyrus" approach has swung too far in the other direction.

This is not new.
Back in the 70s, tall gawky teenagers were staggering around in miniskirts and stacksoled shoes.
And that was in my religious high school.
Tom

 

[Olinda]

Hi Olinda,

Based only on what you said in your post, I would say that the Quakers acted in ways that they felt were morally and ethically consistent with their religion. This is as opposed to a Muslim saying that his secular country is his first allegiance, which is in opposition to their religion.

Thanks, @icehorse.
What Khizr Khan said, and you quoted in the OP was "with undivided loyalty to our country".
If a Christian said that it would not be regarded as a problem. Although all denominations I know of require that God be put first, few people see a conflict between that and being a loyal citizen, unless the government imposed rules contrary to religious practice.

Even there, Quakers and other Christian individuals were quite prepared to follow their conscience ahead of rules and religious guidance and STILL identify themselves as Christian and loyal citizens.

I can see no reason why Muslims cannot do the same.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Olinda,

Certainly a Muslim can be a loyal citizen in a secular country. But it's a stretch, and it's a bit oxymoronic. Whereas it's not a stretch for folks following the other religions you mention. In other words, Islam is fundamentally NOT like those other religions.

(And yes, I know I'm generalizing, and yes, I think some generalizations are necessary and useful.)

 

[icehorse]

What I agree with: Religions are different and not just 'out of the same bottle', and belief affects culture, etc. It would be wrong to assume Islamic society will turn into Western type society eventually (this is too teleological for me anyway). Certain forms of Islam are political ideologies as well as religions and shouldn't get a 'free pass' in the name of 'religious freedom' as we should be aware of the paradox of tolerance

Where we differ: While it is possible to make some generalisations about Islam, it is much harder to extrapolate from these to generalisations about individual Muslims. It also makes more sense to treat Islam as multiple, broadly-categorised real-world ideologies, rather than trying to create some normative concept of what Islam 'should be' based on scripture and considering the rest 'radically unIslamic'. Doing so ignores the history of Islam and is counterproductive from a social perspective.

The study of the origins and evolutions of Islam are of course valid, and they might also help us explain and predict where we are today and where we might be headed. But mostly I'm concerned with how Islam impacts the world today.

In the case of Mr. Khan, my intention was to make a (strong), statistically based claim. That claim being that while it's of course *possible* for a Muslim to put loyalty to a secular country before loyalty to Islam, it verges on being an extraordinary claim. IMO, Mr. Khan's speech was designed to whitewash the predominant nature of Islam (i.e. theocratic). It was couched along the lines that "of course Muslims can hold these priorities". It would have been far more honest if the message had been presented as "here is a brave Muslim who is openly (and at great risk), standing against what his ideology demands".

This is not an argument about what "should be", this is an extrapolation of what "is".

 

[Augustus]

In the case of Mr. Khan, my intention was to make a (strong), statistically based claim. That claim being that while it's of course *possible* for a Muslim to put loyalty to a secular country before loyalty to Islam, it verges on being an extraordinary claim. IMO, Mr. Khan's speech was designed to whitewash the predominant nature of Islam (i.e. theocratic). It was couched along the lines that "of course Muslims can hold these priorities". It would have been far more honest if the message had been presented as "here is a brave Muslim who is openly (and at great risk), standing against what his ideology demands".

He didn't say he put loyalty to US above Islam. He saw no conflict between being loyal to US and Islam, just like you see no conflict between being loyal to your family and being loyal to US.

By your own statistics, 40-70% of Muslims don't want to live under a formal system of Sharia Law. How does this make Mr Kahn's claim 'extraordinary'? There is nothing 'extraordinary' about his claim. It is a very ordinary view shared by hundreds of millions of Muslims.

You don't think Egyptians, Turks, Indonesians, etc. are proud citizens of their countries?

You want 'moderate Muslims' to speak out against the 'theocratic Muslims', why do you think the best way for them to do this is by advertising themselves as being 'radically unIslamic', rather than via a progressive interpretation of Islam?

 

[icehorse]

You want 'moderate Muslims' to speak out against the 'theocratic Muslims', why do you think the best way for them to do this is by advertising themselves as being 'radically unIslamic', rather than via a progressive interpretation of Islam?

I would be THRILLED if they declared themselves as progressive, and described exactly what that meant. This seems like a courtesy if nothing else.