Khizr Khan at the DNC

[Olinda]

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

Hi @icehorse

Certainly a Muslim can be a loyal citizen in a secular country. But it's a stretch

At first this looked like a contradiction. I do understand that "Certain forms of Islam are political ideologies as well as religions" (quoting @Augustus), but why would we automatically assume that an individual adheres to these, in contradiction to what he says?

. . . and a bit oxymoronic.

Depending entirely on your definition of 'Muslim'.

Islam is fundamentally NOT like those other religions

In what way? I'm referring to Islam overall, not particular forms.

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

Agreed, some are. In this case, I cannot see how assuming hypocrisy or deceit would be useful to anyone.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Olinda,

Islam is far more totalitarian than the other major religions. Supremacy and political power are baked into the core of Islam. Of course not all Muslims are in pursuit of world domination, but to pretend that that's not a part of Islam is disingenuous. Khan's implication was that it is natural for a Muslim to put loyalty to a secular state before loyalty to Islam. While I'm sure many Muslims do this, it is NOT natural, it's a stretch.

 

[Augustus]

Hi Olinda,

Islam is far more totalitarian than the other major religions. Supremacy and political power are baked into the core of Islam. Of course not all Muslims are in pursuit of world domination, but to pretend that that's not a part of Islam is disingenuous. Khan's implication was that it is natural for a Muslim to put loyalty to a secular state before loyalty to Islam. While I'm sure many Muslims do this, it is NOT natural, it's a stretch.

Why do you keep insisting he is putting loyalty to America above loyalty to Islam, rather than him seeing no contradiction between being loyal to both?

Do you find it hard to believe Turkish, Indonesian or Egyptian Muslims can be nationalistic or loyal to their country? One Of IS's pet hates is that most Muslims are nationalistic, seeing this as being incompatible with a global Caliphate.

You are making the mistake of transferring generalisations about a particular version of normative Islam to generalisations about individual Muslims.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Augustus,

Khan claimed "undivided loyalty".

As for generalizations, I suspect we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this point. It strikes me that you are verging on saying that only scholars can truly interpret Islam, while I think that Islam IS what Muslims believe it is. And what I see is that hundreds of millions of Muslims see Islam as being - among other things - theocratic. And it's un-parsimonious to say that theocracy isn't baked into Islam. It's un-parsimonious to say that only the scholars can "properly" interpret the scripture.

You're basically saying that I can't understand the words I'm reading in the Quran? You're saying that I can't read the book with some degree of objectivity? Now once again, I understand Kahneman and biases. But we ALL have biases, so the best we can do is acknowledge them and do our best to be objective. As I read the Quran I took notes. I did this specifically to try to minimize bias. The world could not progress if the general rule was that only experts could properly interpret the written word.

 

[Augustus]

Khan claimed "undivided loyalty".

So if someone with children said 'undivided loyalty' you would consider them to be lying?

As for generalizations, I suspect we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this point. It strikes me that you are verging on saying that only scholars can truly interpret Islam, while I think that Islam IS what Muslims believe it is. And what I see is that hundreds of millions of Muslims see Islam as being - among other things - theocratic. And it's un-parsimonious to say that theocracy isn't baked into Islam. It's un-parsimonious to say that only the scholars can "properly" interpret the scripture.

You're basically saying that I can't understand the words I'm reading in the Quran? You're saying that I can't read the book with some degree of objectivity? Now once again, I understand Kahneman and biases. But we ALL have biases, so the best we can do is acknowledge them and do our best to be objective. As I read the Quran I took notes. I did this specifically to try to minimize bias. The world could not progress if the general rule was that only experts could properly interpret the written word.

No. My point was completely unrelated to that.

I'm saying that even if it is justified to generalise about an ideology, it is not automatically justified to be able to extrapolate from this to normative claims about specific Muslim individuals.


Seeing as you brought it up though, why do you use "un-parsimonious" like it is a fallacy? The orthodox Islamic position is that the Quran should be interpreted in light if the Sunnah, this is not a 'parsimonious' reading of scripture but a contextualised one. Orthodox Sunni Islam also considers it wrong for non-experts to interpret the Quran as they please.

And yes, I believe you can not be objective. Believing the text should be read 'parsimoniously' is already on its own a subjective approach to interpreting the text. You also are subject to countless intertextual influences. You didn't interpret it objectively, but using what you believed to be the correct hermeneutical framework. (Just to make clear, I'm not using this as an argument against your conclusion, but against your reasoning).

Recent scholarship has started to interpret the Quran as part of the wider field of late antique religious tradition. As you don't think it was from God, and you presumably don't think it appeared in a vacuum, why would a 'parsimonious' reading be 'more objective' than a highly contextualised one? Objectivity only functions within a larger hermeneutical framework after all.

 

[icehorse]

So if someone with children said 'undivided loyalty' you would consider them to be lying?

I'd say this is an apples and oranges comparison. In the case of Mr. Khan I'm comparing two political loyalties.

As far as my use of parsimony as a metric, if we can't use parsimony, then aren't we limited to what religious middlemen tell us? And further, doesn't that requirement for middlemen weaken the claim that it is the perfect word of god?

As far as extrapolating from an individual, of course I agree that normally that would be a bad idea. But in this case we witnessed an unusual situation, heavy with implications. It seems clear to me that Mr. Khan was being used as a point from which the viewer was meant to extrapolate.

 

[Olinda]

Hi Olinda,

Islam is far more totalitarian than the other major religions. Supremacy and political power are baked into the core of Islam. Of course not all Muslims are in pursuit of world domination, but to pretend that that's not a part of Islam is disingenuous. Khan's implication was that it is natural for a Muslim to put loyalty to a secular state before loyalty to Islam. While I'm sure many Muslims do this, it is NOT natural, it's a stretch.

Islam is a religion, and the basis of every religion is that it is deemed to hold a "truth" that is "truer" than all the rest. I have already agreed that there are Islamic groups and sects that seriously pursue world political domination. Equally, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims that do not. Nothing that I have seen indicates that the Khans belong to a denomination that has this goal.

Yet even if they did, that would not exclude the possibility that they personally chose to be loyal to their nation above this aspect. Many people of all religions and denominations identify with their religion while deliberately choosing to behave differently from the what is prescribed by the religion. I have given one example; another is the many practising Catholics that use birth control.

As far as my use of parsimony as a metric, if we can't use parsimony, then aren't we limited to what religious middlemen tell us? And further, doesn't that requirement for middlemen weaken the claim that it is the perfect word of god?

Sure, religions mostly require that laypersons accept the interpretation of their priests, ministers, whoever. As to whether this affects the claim that the scripture is 'the perfect word of God', all that matters here is that the believers choose to accept the interpretation. Or to belong to the religion. And they do this for many reasons other that prefect agreement with that interpretation. Which leaves the 'wiggle room' for personal interpretation, often based on conscience.

But in this case we witnessed an unusual situation, heavy with implications. It seems clear to me that Mr. Khan was being used as a point from which the viewer was meant to extrapolate.

As an Aussie, I won't speculate on possible reasons for having Mr Khan speak at the DNC, but stick to the point that nothing has shown that he was insincere in what he said.

 

[Augustus]

I'd say this is an apples and oranges comparison. In the case of Mr. Khan I'm comparing two politic
al loyalties.

So you believe the average American Muslim is a 5th columnist working towards a United Caliphate of America?

As far as my use of parsimony as a metric, if we can't use parsimony, then aren't we limited to what religious middlemen tell us? And further, doesn't that requirement for middlemen weaken the claim that it is the perfect word of god?

I repeatedly said you can use it as a method of interpretation.

I rejected your implication that a parsimonious reading is objective and thus sets objective normative standards against which each individual Muslim must be judged.

I'm of the opinion that the Quran can be better interpreted by looking at it as a work of rhetoric from within its historical context, rather than treating it as a manual and stripping it of a historical context. Your 'parsimonious' reading is no more objective than a historically contextualised reading. They are both valid approaches, but are both based on subjective judgements.

As far as extrapolating from an individual, of course I agree that normally that would be a bad idea. But in this case we witnessed an unusual situation, heavy with implications. It seems clear to me that Mr. Khan was being used as a point from which the viewer was meant to extrapolate.

I presume they were supposed to extrapolate that there are many American Muslims who are proud to be Americans. A not altogether unreasonable point all in all.

 

[icehorse]

As an Aussie, I won't speculate on possible reasons for having Mr Khan speak at the DNC, but stick to the point that nothing has shown that he was insincere in what he said.

Hi Olinda,

Outside evidence aside, and for the sake of discussion, let's say he was sincere. The point is that he was being less than forthcoming concerning the nature of Islam. It is not, as you say, merely "a religion". Again, that implies some sort of equivalence with a religion like Christianity. It is much more accurate to say that it is a totalitarian ideology with a religious component.

 

[icehorse]

I'm of the opinion that the Quran can be better interpreted by looking at it as a work of rhetoric from within its historical context, rather than treating it as a manual and stripping it of a historical context. Your 'parsimonious' reading is no more objective than a historically contextualised reading. They are both valid approaches, but are both based on subjective judgements.

And there is nothing wrong with your more scholarly approach on an individual basis. But in reality, most of the people who are influenced by the quran are not scholars. Are all of those people getting it wrong? I'm sure you don't think that, but I'm not sure what your take is on the preponderance of people who are influenced by the book, but not scholars? Do those people rely on their Imams? Are the majority of Imams scholars? I doubt it.

I don't recall saying that a parsimonious reading was objective, I think I've acknowledged bias several times now. But I *do* think that a parsimonious reading is common in practice. E.g., all of the Islamic terrorist organizations appear to interpret the quran more or less at face value. And it would also appear from polling results that a huge slice of Muslims hold beliefs that are also quite in keeping with a parsimonious reading.

I presume they were supposed to extrapolate that there are many American Muslims who are proud to be Americans. A not altogether unreasonable point all in all.

And I would say that if they are proud, they ought to do us a favor and declare a secular-friendly denomination. Seems like a courtesy.

 

[MARCELLO]

Hey icehorse!

I am really sorry for you and you know why? You want(expect,condition) all muslims to be bloody terrorists but they are not.


You cannot accept ,that's something to be changed about you,not about us.
Let me give you a secret;muslims have a heart exactly same as yours.

 

[icehorse]

Hey icehorse!

I am really sorry for you and you know why? You want(expect,condition) all muslims to be bloody terrorists but they are not.

You cannot accept ,that's something to be changed about you,not about us.
Let me give you a secret;muslims have a heart exactly same as yours.

Well that's not where I'm coming from at all. In fact, I think if you read this thread I've never once brought up terrorism. The point here is that "Islam", not Muslims, but "Islam" teaches theocracy. Do you want to live under a theocracy?

 

[Olinda]

Hi Olinda,

Outside evidence aside, and for the sake of discussion, let's say he was sincere. The point is that he was being less than forthcoming concerning the nature of Islam. It is not, as you say, merely "a religion". Again, that implies some sort of equivalence with a religion like Christianity. It is much more accurate to say that it is a totalitarian ideology with a religious component.

Hi again @icehorse

The point is that he was being less than forthcoming concerning the nature of Islam

Perhaps because his short speech wasn't about the nature of Islam?

It is much more accurate to say that it is a totalitarian ideology with a religious component

Only for those Islamic denominations that read their scripture that way and also strictly adhere to it.

The point here is that "Islam", not Muslims, but "Islam" teaches theocracy. Do you want to live under a theocracy?

Every time I read theocracy I am reminded of a religion with a hymn that begins "Hail the theocracy, ever increasing. . .". An American-based religion.

 

[icehorse]

Only for those Islamic denominations that read their scripture that way and also strictly adhere to it.

Hi Olinda,

And here is where your concerns dovetail with Augustus. I value parsimony, not everyone does. I guess you've probably read my posts concerning a parsimonious reading of scripture, I don't need to repeat that unless you want me to.

As far as his short speech goes, I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. This isn't great, but perhaps you'll get the gist: Imagine an inner city gang member standing up at the convention and saying that he's a "law-abiding, pacifist" as if that was a natural stance. Now of course it's possible for that individual to be telling the truth about his position, but it is misleading to spin it as a natural stance.

So again, I think that one way for a LOT of tension to be relieved would be for Muslims in the West to create and declare a Sharia-revoking, secular supporting denomination. As a side note, if such a denomination were to be declared, we would probably all have to acknowledge that the Muslims who openly aligned with this denomination would be putting themselves at risk. And this problem is one that our leaders refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Augustus]

So again, I think that one way for a LOT of tension to be relieved would be for Muslims in the West to create and declare a Sharia-revoking, secular supporting denomination. As a side note, if such a denomination were to be declared, we would probably all have to acknowledge that the Muslims who openly aligned with this denomination would be putting themselves at risk. And this problem is one that our leaders refuse to acknowledge.

I don't really get why Muslims standing on a stage at a political convention with a copy of the constitution in hand talking about a son who died fighting for America is not enough for you to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are trying to turn America into a theocracy.

What exactly is it about the average American Muslim that you are scared of?

44% of US Muslims support same-sex marriage yet you consider anyone not demanding an oppressive American theocracy to be such an outlier that they have to start their own special club of 'good Muslims'. Failure to sign up means they are to be viewed as mendacious and dangerous.

Even if it is correct to tentatively generalise about a group of people, it doesn't follow that applying the same generalisation to individual members is valid or useful.

I can generalise that Americans are jingoistic but when I meet an American I don't start off assuming that they are jingoistic. This is because I understand that there are 1-2 hundred million Americans to whom this generalisation wouldn't apply.

 

[icehorse]

Even if it is correct to tentatively generalise about a group of people

It gets back to the very nature of what makes Muslims a group. They believe the quran is the word of god, and that Muhammad is his messenger and is the perfect role model of a human.

I often hear that nothing can be concluded from those two beliefs, but I have to say that seems like a stretch. Really? No conclusions can be drawn?

 

[Augustus]

It gets back to the very nature of what makes Muslims a group. They believe the quran is the word of god, and that Muhammad is his messenger and is the perfect role model of a human.

I often hear that nothing can be concluded from those two beliefs, but I have to say that seems like a stretch. Really? No conclusions can be drawn?

So what hidden agenda are you worried that Mr Khan is harbouring?

 

[Olinda]

Hi Olinda,

I guess you've probably read my posts concerning a parsimonious reading of scripture, I don't need to repeat that unless you want me to.

As far as his short speech goes, I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. This isn't great, but perhaps you'll get the gist: Imagine an inner city gang member standing up at the convention and saying that he's a "law-abiding, pacifist" as if that was a natural stance. Now of course it's possible for that individual to be telling the truth about his position, but it is misleading to spin it as a natural stance.
.

Hello @icehorse,

And here is where your concerns dovetail with Augustus. I value parsimony, not everyone does.

When I studied physics at uni, I also valued parsimony, and valued it even more as a business analyst! However, I'm not sure how useful it is with scriptures that contain internal contradictions, as both the Bible and Quran do. In such cases it seems to me better to take a scholarly approach to try to establish how the contradictions came about.

As far as his short speech goes, I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. This isn't great, but perhaps you'll get the gist

It certainly helps me to get your perspective. If such a person had accepted membership of a gang, perhaps for protection, and kept a low profile, it could well be true. Not everyone can live in a relatively safe neighbourhood. If, however, the person had elected to join and actively participated in violence and criminal behaviour, I'd need to see a 'turning point' of some kind to find it credible.

Now in the case of religion, people are more often 'born in' than actively join. And in the majority of cases, the reasons for 'staying in' are less to do with logic-based adherence to the scripture (whether to a literal reading or as expounded by those in authority) than other important reasons. These could include the comfort and structure of ritual and prayer, the sense of community and belonging (especially important in a new country), keeping the family unit intact, passing on traditions and practises that are valued experiences from childhood.

This would explain why so many people who disagree with one or more aspects of the group belief of their denomination choose not to leave it or 'make waves', but quietly disregard that belief and not act in accordance with it. This could be individual, or group (I've given examples of each). This low-key resistance can work to change the denomination's beliefs over time. Not everyone is able or willing to be a Martin Luther.

So again, I think that one way for a LOT of tension to be relieved would be for Muslims in the West to create and declare a Sharia-revoking, secular supporting denomination. As a side note, if such a denomination were to be declared, we would probably all have to acknowledge that the Muslims who openly aligned with this denomination would be putting themselves at risk. And this problem is one that our leaders refuse to acknowledge.

As far as risk goes, I've not seen any threats made against the Khans, another reason to believe that they belong to a moderate denomination that poses no threat to their country. Tension? The tension caused to people who leave a familiar religion to form a new denomination would be incredible. (My great-great-grandparents actually did something of the sort, interesting reading). The stress and disorientation to their whole families would be profound.

A great quote from earlier in this thread is 'Muslim is as Muslim does'. If we can see that and apply it to ALL individuals, rather than to put everyone in an overarching religion in one box and demand that they make radical changes in their lives to reduce OUR tension, we have a far better chance of success.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Olinda,

Most of your last post concerns individuals not in the public spotlight, and of course your points are quite reasonable. Mr Khan chose to be in the spotlight, so IMO that raises the bar. He also chose to declare "undivided loyalty", which he didn't have to do. He raised his own bar and made a misleading statement.

 

[Augustus]

He raised his own bar and made a misleading statement.

So you believe he harbours a secret agenda to turn America into a Caliphate?

I'm still not quite sure why you believe a Muslim can't be loyal to their country. Do you believe all Turks and Egyptians who profess loyalty to their country are lying?