Playing Islam's advocate

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for your clarification on the Surah/Surata as that was very helpful.

You are welcome. Thanks for replying. I realize I do not make it exactly easy.

I think if I reduced my thinking on this to one idea, it's that we have to differentiate between Islamophobia and legitimate criticism of Islam. the problem focuses on what is or is not a "legitimate" criticism.

Very much so. And much as I would like to trust my hopes that I might extrapolate from Christianity and file my current opinion under "likely due exposure to the worst examples", I no longer dare to.
It is simply too difficult to ignore that most any criticism or questioning of Islam is quickly denounced as "Islamophobic", while demanding such generous amounts of good will that they make the average critic of Islam appear like a veritable saint.
That is not to say that unreasonable mistrust of Islam or of Muslims or even of Arabs does not exist. Very far from it. But so does legitimate,necessary questioning and criticism, and it is for everyone's loss to lose the ability to tell the one from the other.

Whilst this is a common position amongst politically left leaning people, I have to admit it is somewhat self-contraditoy (e.g. should I defend Islam even when its beliefs are contary to feminism or the freedom for apostates such as myself to have their beliefs). a bigger issue is where you draw the line and say military intervention is necessary against ISIL. I'm not opposed to it, but it makes me uneasy.

I don't support military action against ISIL at all. ISIL sees themselves as martyr heralds of the time of the glory of the Lord, and by killing their soldiers military action furthers that perception. Even if full genocidal action were taken succesfully, it would just not be worth it by any sane measure, quite the opposite.
Instead, ISIL must be destroyed by way of its appeal and credibility, such as they are. We must understand how it survives in the ideological sense and intervene at that level.

I garbled it, but my point was- is that in rejecting universal values you reject the basis for a "right" to intervene. You make a good case that it is our right and our duty to intervene and I wish I had your confidence on that. I suspect that Deash and Al-quieda are interpretations of the Qur'an as a source for Sharia Law but this does not necessarily make them the "correct" or only interpretation of it. I would be surprised if it really is as clear cut as they are "fakes" or unbelievers in disguise.

I agree, with the proviso that no one, either kafir or True Muslim, should ever refrain from clearly disapproving of unprovoked killings of unarmed, helpless people. Even if universal moral values can't be found, I just don't think there is much of a case for being in doubt about such a situation.

In so far as Islam (as it appears to be) is based on a literalist and fundamentalist reading of the scripture as a source of sharia law, it turns "religion" into a group identity that falls outside of secular definitions of freedom of the individual to exercise religious belief.

That is indeed a relevant point that deserves more attention and more firm answers. How much rejection of fundamentalism is even possible for a proper Muslim to have?
Group identity is obviously of some value to Islam, which is also clearly not too fond of secularism. I want to believe that concluding that Islam is entirely incompatible with religious and personal freedom is going too far, but so often it turns out that the defenders of Islam turn me down that it is depressing.

I think any criticism on Islam can come down to one; that it cannot be reformed or secularised as christianity has and is therefore irreconciably opposed to western systems of freedom democratic soceities.

I don't know about Western, personally. I would even prefer a more oriental approach towards personal space and freedom of believf, truth be told.
I just can't see much of a reason to refuse to speak against what so consistently presents itself as a deeply flawed system of beliefs. At some point the line that separates a respectful distance from a neglect to point out excesses is crossed. Good will is a two way lane.

I did an earlier post in which I said that accusations of Totalitarianism are equivalent to accusing someone of satanism, atheism and witchcraft in earlier times (which I have now deleted). I stand by that, but having thought about it more- yes- you have a point. If it can be demonstrated that "Islam" is totalitarian, it then becomes a problem and is incompatable with western practices of individual liberty. But in order to argue that, I think you would have to demonstrate that it could not be secularised in an "Islamic reformation". its a question of whether there is a problem with simply one interpretation of Islam, or Islam as a whole.

That, of course, is pretty much entirely a matter for Muslims to decide. Whatever is to be understood as being "True Islam" or even "Proper Islam" will be decided by the practicioners and by no one else. I personally feel that Islam self-imposes way too many constraints to be capable of necessary renewal without collapsing first, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
However, the signs that reach my way are anything but encouraging. There is no shortage of hopeful, even desperate prodding for signs that ISIS is no more representative of Islam than Westboro is of Christianity, but the results are tentative at best. There is much claim that they are distorting the Qur'an, of course, but one can't help but notice that ISIL does not seem to be feeling much of a dent as a consequence. It is even succesfully recruiting more people. And there are vague claims that they might in some sense not be true Muslims, almost as if there was an actual suspicion that they might be atheists/Jewish People/Christians/Islamophobes/fill the blank under a pretense of being Muslims.
That is certainly not the kind of reassuring response that I hoped for. How is one supposed to interpret the claims that the message of the Qur'an is being distorted by ISIL exactly? Is it a call for sanity, or is it rather a reminder that the Qur'an must be presumed perfect and fair no matter what?
As I type these words, I suspect that many sincere Muslims will ask themselves why I present a choice between what turns out (far as they understand it) to be the same thing worded in two different ways. Is that because I am touched by Islamophoby, because I am not sufficiently exposed to the true face of Islam, or because Muslim cultures are usually inimical to religious reflection and tend to rely on dogmatism?
Is one expected to simply insist on being in doubt no matter what?

I'd prefer it be much more specific as then we can demonstrate it and fact-check it and get some context. That would make me reconsider my opinion of Muslims and not just Islam. I think if I don't have the courage to direct criticism against Muslims themselves, it isn't worth very much, nor does it give them an oppurtunity to show that I am wrong or that they can change if I were right.

Completely agreed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Peace be on you.
You are giving a verdict against Islam here. So what is there to talk?

For starters, what reasons might I have to reconsider?

Make no mistake, I sorely want to find out that I am somehow being unfair, difficult as it may seem to believe that from where you stand.

What are actual issues in your opinion?

How to deal with disagreements in a constructive way.

What could be done immediately when it comes to accommodation for religious diversity when it comes for Islam (in both ways) - for instance, could it be a good idea to make adjustements for Muslims to have their weekly rest on Fridays instead of Sundays even in non-Muslim governments?

Better clarification of what Muslims expect of non-Muslims. That, of course, will involve a variety of considerations guided by local political and social environments, but that is no reason to pursue it any less.

Purely doctrinary matters, such as how much significance there is in the Trinitarianism of many Christians, or how the role of Allah in Islam compares and contrasts with that of the Deva in Hinduism.

If you have already made your mind, how can you be convinced?
It will be waste of time.

It most likely will at that. I did not reach my current stance lightly, nor from a position of particular aversion to Islam.

All the same, I am still and will ever be honor-bound to attempt to hear and learn from those who disagree with me.

That does not automatically mean that I will be worth of your efforts to make the attempt, nor of those of anyone else. And it most certainly does not mean that I feel duty-bound to accept any and all responses that come my way.

But I have waited for years for good reasons why I should reconsider my opinion, which I did, albeit not in the direction I hoped to. And I see no reason to settle the matter at that level.

(...) Is it compliment?

Yes, it certainy is. Equanimity of treatment is a value that I respect very much, and which I long to see more widely adopted.

If you are talking against role of theocratic role and military roles mixed with extremism, then it should not be there.

That is a start. What do you think should follow from that?

 

[MARCELLO]

For starters, what reasons might I have to reconsider?

Make no mistake, I sorely want to find out that I am somehow being unfair, difficult as it may seem to believe that from where you stand.




How to deal with disagreements in a constructive way.

What could be done immediately when it comes to accommodation for religious diversity when it comes for Islam (in both ways) - for instance, could it be a good idea to make adjustements for Muslims to have their weekly rest on Fridays instead of Sundays even in non-Muslim governments?

Better clarification of what Muslims expect of non-Muslims. That, of course, will involve a variety of considerations guided by local political and social environments, but that is no reason to pursue it any less.

Purely doctrinary matters, such as how much significance there is in the Trinitarianism of many Christians, or how the role of Allah in Islam compares and contrasts with that of the Deva in Hinduism.




It most likely will at that. I did not reach my current stance lightly, nor from a position of particular aversion to Islam.

All the same, I am still and will ever be honor-bound to attempt to hear and learn from those who disagree with me.

That does not automatically mean that I will be worth of your efforts to make the attempt, nor of those of anyone else. And it most certainly does not mean that I feel duty-bound to accept any and all responses that come my way.

But I have waited for years for good reasons why I should reconsider my opinion, which I did, albeit not in the direction I hoped to. And I see no reason to settle the matter at that level.




Yes, it certainy is. Equanimity of treatment is a value that I respect very much, and which I long to see more widely adopted.




That is a start. What do you think should follow from that?

Would you pls use a simpler language? This is not a forum of ancient greeks of athens 2 milleniums ago. We are average jo and marry. We do not edit on guardian newspaper.

Equanimity of treatment???? Since I could not spell ,I had to copy and paste. Do you really need that word to express yourself?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, @MARCELLO .

I am a bad boy that way, but I will try not to overdo it.

 

[Laika]

You are welcome. Thanks for replying. I realize I do not make it exactly easy.

I think this will be "one of those threads" where there will be alot of long replies, but I hope it will be fruitful.

Very much so. And much as I would like to trust my hopes that I might extrapolate from Christianity and file my current opinion under "likely due exposure to the worst examples", I no longer dare to.
It is simply too difficult to ignore that most any criticism or questioning of Islam is quickly denounced as "Islamophobic", while demanding such generous amounts of good will that they make the average critic of Islam appear like a veritable saint.
That is not to say that unreasonable mistrust of Islam or of Muslims or even of Arabs does not exist. Very far from it. But so does legitimate,necessary questioning and criticism, and it is for everyone's loss to lose the ability to tell the one from the other.

sadly I have to agree. Whilst Islam grabs the headlines, most of the coverage isn't really indepth enough to go beyond vague phrases or claims. cliams of Islamophobia are often as sensationalised as much of the criticism. As one of Deash's goal may be a world caliphate (whatever its interpretation) we can't avoid the issue forever.

I don't support military action against ISIL at all. ISIL sees themselves as martyr heralds of the time of the glory of the Lord, and by killing their soldiers military action furthers that perception. Even if full genocidal action were taken succesfully, it would just not be worth it by any sane measure, quite the opposite.
Instead, ISIL must be destroyed by way of its appeal and credibility, such as they are. We must understand how it survives in the ideological sense and intervene at that level.

well said. its highly debatable whether we should intervene as it will only be a short-term fix- assuming it was even a complete success which is unlikely. you are right to say that the deeper issue is ideological and that is what needs to change.

I agree, with the proviso that no one, either kafir or True Muslim, should ever refrain from clearly disapproving of unprovoked killings of unarmed, helpless people. Even if universal moral values can't be found, I just don't think there is much of a case for being in doubt about such a situation.

regrettably, I'm not 100% sure that is the case- but I couldn't agree with the sentiment more for even breif periods of doubt are disturbing.

That is indeed a relevant point that deserves more attention and more firm answers. How much rejection of fundamentalism is even possible for a proper Muslim to have?
Group identity is obviously of some value to Islam, which is also clearly not too fond of secularism. I want to believe that concluding that Islam is entirely incompatible with religious and personal freedom is going too far, but so often it turns out that the defenders of Islam turn me down that it is depressing.

agreed. well we can think on that one together at least.

I don't know about Western, personally. I would even prefer a more oriental approach towards personal space and freedom of believf, truth be told.
I just can't see much of a reason to refuse to speak against what so consistently presents itself as a deeply flawed system of beliefs. At some point the line that separates a respectful distance from a neglect to point out excesses is crossed. Good will is a two way lane.

fair enough.

That, of course, is pretty much entirely a matter for Muslims to decide. Whatever is to be understood as being "True Islam" or even "Proper Islam" will be decided by the practicioners and by no one else. I personally feel that Islam self-imposes way too many constraints to be capable of necessary renewal without collapsing first, but I would gladly be proven wrong.
However, the signs that reach my way are anything but encouraging. There is no shortage of hopeful, even desperate prodding for signs that ISIS is no more representative of Islam than Westboro is of Christianity, but the results are tentative at best. There is much claim that they are distorting the Qur'an, of course, but one can't help but notice that ISIL does not seem to be feeling much of a dent as a consequence. It is even succesfully recruiting more people. And there are vague claims that they might in some sense not be true Muslims, almost as if there was an actual suspicion that they might be atheists/Jewish People/Christians/Islamophobes/fill the blank under a pretense of being Muslims.
That is certainly not the kind of reassuring response that I hoped for. How is one supposed to interpret the claims that the message of the Qur'an is being distorted by ISIL exactly? Is it a call for sanity, or is it rather a reminder that the Qur'an must be presumed perfect and fair no matter what?
As I type these words, I suspect that many sincere Muslims will ask themselves why I present a choice between what turns out (far as they understand it) to be the same thing worded in two different ways. Is that because I am touched by Islamophoby, because I am not sufficiently exposed to the true face of Islam, or because Muslim cultures are usually inimical to religious reflection and tend to rely on dogmatism?
Is one expected to simply insist on being in doubt no matter what?

its difficult to get people to be honest about the negative aspects of their beliefs and we shouldn't be wholly surprised if a majority don't have the courage to do it. nobody wants to feel connected with the worst people can do, even if they share the same set of beliefs. even to the point of wearing the same uniform- and thats the truly frightening one. But it is alot to ask for, to trust that those few who may have the courage to ask those sort of question can change a whole movement. it seems so incomprehensible until it happens. "the dam bursts" but these are rare events to say the least and take us by surprise. it is alot to hope for I admit.

the middle east does look like such a medieval cesspool. then I wonder what the ex-commie, bisexual apostate sitting here typing must look like to a member of ISIL. how repulsive am I to them? what fate do they believe I have in hell? And for what reason can I condemn them for anything other than wanting to behead me?do reasons even make sense when we talk about violence? I hate to admit it, but occassionally, you need to hear these people speak for themselves, to make their case and represent themselves, if only we are to dismiss them. they are never as insane as we wish they were. we just can't comprehend the alternative. but almost always- they will be too dishonest and deny anything wrong has happened at all. they don't want to talk about it either.

I don't think it is necessarily for Muslims to decide but certainly, it would require people with a deeper level of knowledge of Islam than I possess to make a credible case for an Islamic Reformation. I think that as we are judging people, rather than their beliefs in the abstract, there will always be room for doubt- but that is not necessarily an impedient for action. we just have to find "what works" as we go along.

Completely agreed.

Is there something specific you have in mind we could debate? I'd have to put my wikipedia searching skills to good use.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would you pls use a simpler language? This is not a forum of ancient greeks of athens 2 milleniums ago. We are average jo and marry. We do not edit on guardian newspaper.

Equanimity of treatment???? Since I could not spell ,I had to copy and paste. Do you really need that word to express yourself?

Lol. That made me laugh.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. the idea of "ummah" ..

"Ummah" is a closed club consisting only of Muslims and against all other people of the world, the unbelievers. I do not know if this observation is permitted in this topic. If not, please delete it forthwith without any hesitation.

Edited: And there are strict regulations as to how these "dimmis/zimmis" are supposed to live in an Islamic state. I can provide the details if needed.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an interesting point to raise.

Like most any religions concept, the idea of Ummah may be used for both positive and negative purposes. At its best it may be a specific if slightly chauvinistic appeal towards mutual consideration. But it may also be a pleasant word to use in order to request submission to authority, to justify abuse of power and undue hostility towards "foreigners".

In short, raising the word is simply not enough, nor was it supposed to be. As with any other religion, Islam needs not so much to have the "right" concepts and ideas as to develop and express them in wise, constructive ways.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It was essential to make "dimmis/zimmis" realize their position. It was never supposed to be pleasant. http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

 

[LuisDantas]

Because they fail to realize that it is the will of God, yeah, I know the drill.

We hear similar nonsense from Christians, but there is a sizeable percentage of people who have the common sense to challenge it to some degree or another.

Islam most certainly has similar internal disagreements about how strictly and literally the Qur'an is supposed to be taken, and it shows to some extent in the sects division. But I think it is dangerous and premature to assume that there is actual acceptance and peace towards those who oppose literalism and fundamentalism.

At the very least, I would expect clearer indications that such is the case.

 

[sun rise]

Because they fail to realize that it is the will of God, yeah, I know the drill.

We hear similar nonsense from Christians, but there is a sizeable percentage of people who have the common sense to challenge it to some degree or another.

Islam most certainly has similar internal disagreements about how strictly and literally the Qur'an is supposed to be taken, and it shows to some extent in the sects division. But I think it is dangerous and premature to assume that there is actual acceptance and peace towards those who oppose literalism and fundamentalism.

At the very least, I would expect clearer indications that such is the case.

If I were a Muslim, my comment would be "how many times do we need to repeat it before you'll stop asking for what we keep saying?" Because I've read and heard what you're asking for many many times since 9/11

 

[LuisDantas]

If I were a Muslim, my comment would be "how many times do we need to repeat it before you'll stop asking for what we keep saying?" Because I've read and hear what you're asking for many many times since 9/11

No doubt. With over a billion Muslims abroad, that is unavoidable even from a purely statistical standpoint.

So did I. But not with the consistency, clarity and unambiguity that I find necessary or even just reassuring.

 

[Laika]

No doubt. With over a billion Muslims abroad, that is unavoidable even from a purely statistical standpoint.

So did I. But not with the consistency, clarity and unambiguity that I find necessary or even just reassuring.

Can I ask what you would want them to say? we can't put words in their mouths but having some idea of what kind of reassurance you (and certianly many others on RF) would want to hear would probably help.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can I ask what you would want them to say? we can't put words in their mouths but having some idea of what kind of reassurance you (and certianly many others on RF) would want to hear would probably help.

Some evidence that a proper Muslim may dare to disapprove of his own political leader's claims, perhaps. That there is a place for questioning authority in the life of a good Muslim.

Signs of true tolerance of diversity of thinking. What I have seen so far looks a lot more like hope that we will eventually submit to the supposed wisdom of their ways if we are at all honest with ourselves.

An admission that it is indeed possible for one to sincerely claim to be following the Qur'an yet be terribly wrong.

In a pinch, a simple admission that it is acceptable to choose to be moral as opposed to obedient would serve well as a starting point.

Edited to add: Some degree of insistence that homosexuals and disbelievers deserve consideration and respect no matter what would be welcome as well.

Come to think of it, I am curious if anyone would feel like tackling the matter of whether "kafir" means "unbeliever" (with no "proper" justification such as being unaware of the Qur'an's contents) and whether that should be understood as a technical term or rather as an insult. I sometimes find myself wondering if the doctrine even allows for the differentiation.

 

[icehorse]

Can I ask what you would want them to say? we can't put words in their mouths but having some idea of what kind of reassurance you (and certianly many others on RF) would want to hear would probably help.

My concern is that at a bedrock, foundational level, Islamic values and morals are in opposition to the values of western, secular society. For example:

- the west values secularism, Islam values Sharia
- the west values freedom of and from religion, Islam (and most Muslim leaders), does not
- as an important subset of this, the west is fine with apostasy, Islam thinks apostasy should be a (often capital!), crime
- the west values free speech, Islam thinks blasphemy should be a crime
- the west values scientific inquiry, Islam values such inquiry only as long as it doesn't contradict the Quran
(to be fair, many radical Christians have the same issues with science)
- the west is striving for equality for all, Islam is locked into misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia, and infidel-thinking

I would find it very refreshing to hear apologists just admit to a very different set of core values.

 

[LuisDantas]

That reminds me of a situation I once met and that seems to me to evidence a disturbing pattern.

Muslims tend to keep to their DIRs and even to insist on bringing discussions there even in situations that, to me, strongly advise against it, such as invitations for somewhat more direct discussion of Islamic topics (which would be better suited for a debate or at least a discussion area).

DIRs are by nature and by proposal inhibitors of actual discussion. Non-Muslims in a Muslim DIR are by necessity muted and tied. They can't speak their minds and they have serious restrictions on what they may even ask.

I would expect people interested in promoting a more open acceptance of Islam to invite people out of the DIRs, not into them.

There is an IMO disturbing if perhaps unconscious implication that Muslims tend to expect to never deal with any significant questioning. No doubt because they have been raised to see that as the proper behavior.

While it is often and rightly pointed out that this is a political reality as opposed to a necessarily religious one, the fact remains that plenty of Muslims live in less repressive countries, yet their attitudes are not all that noticeably different.

There is a very persistent feeling that while liberal Muslims may exist and perhaps in significant numbers even, the mindset that would welcome their acknowledgement as proper, representative Muslims apparently does not exist. It is not at all a situation that resembles the very open and ultimately peaceful if sometimes grumpy coexistence of various lines of Judaic thought or the impressive variety of interpretations of Christianity. Muslims seem to feel that there MUST be a right way of being Muslim and a wrong way, and that there is little room for honorable accomodation of different understandings.

 

[rocala]

At its best it may be a specific if slightly chauvinistic appeal towards mutual consideration.

Chauvinistic - An adjective meaning to show or otherwise feel an excessive or aggressive level of patriotism. Have that one on me Luis before anybody else complains about your superb and highly enjoyable use of English.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah... my joy does not come without a price paid by my fellow forum users, unfortunately

 

[Deidre]

How open minded can or should one be with a doctrine that spends considerable efforts attempting to scare me with eternal hell, because I won't pretend to believe in a concept that makes no sense to me? A doctrine that expects one to eventually realize that all people were born adhering to it, no less?

Frankly, it is a straight case of learning of a doctrine and realizing that it can not possibly be right. Or even have a lot of space for worthwhile teachings among all the theocracy preaching.

So it is a combination of being the most emphatically theocratic religion I ever met (even Christianity has learned better) with having a doctrine shaped to rely on said theocentrism almost ot the exclusion of anything else, including basic common sense and not too rarely basic moral sense as well.

Also, the apology is consistently appalling, to the point that other religions benefit from it at Islam's expense. Whatever Islam teaches these days is having a very hard time showing any evidence of being conducive to wisdom. Having good will towards Islam becomes quickly and ever increasingly a hope that what I do know of is at odds with what I have yet to learn about the reality of the religion, with hardly ever any actual evidence to support such a hope.
What is slightly (and yes, at this point it seems that slightly is the proper word) in question by now isn't whether Islamic doctrine is worth considering, but rather what can be learned of why people still adhere to it.

It is still worthwhile and necessary to reach the best possible communication and understanding with Muslims, no matter how depressingly difficult the task may seem at times.


Did the above clarify it somewhat?

The vast majority of worldwide Muslims are peaceful and kind people, many live in the US and throughout the world. And then there are terrorist groups who distort the message of Islam, and as tired as you are Muslim apologists, I'm rather weary of people who keep ranting about how Islam is not a religion of peace, and to keep 'proving' that it is. Look around the world at the vast majority of Muslims who are just like you and me, and wish to live in harmony with those around them. With respect, if you don't ''understand'' or ''accept'' Islam, that is not their fault. I don't follow it, and I didn't convert to it upon exploring it, but there is a lot of beauty to the religion, and I don't have to follow it to find good within it.

 

[LuisDantas]

The vast majority of worldwide Muslims are peaceful and kind people, many live in the US and throughout the world.

Obviously.

And then there are terrorist groups who distort the message of Islam, and as tired as you are Muslim apologists, I'm rather weary of people who keep ranting about how Islam is not a religion of peace, and to keep 'proving' that it is.

I used to say much the same thing a few years ago. But one can't very well ignore the evidence.

People are naturally likely to seek mutual respect and acceptance unless driven by perceived need or otherwise encouraged not to.

It is very much proper to ask and investigate how conducive to peace Islam is or fails to be.

Look around the world at the vast majority of Muslims who are just like you and me, and wish to live in harmony with those around them. With respect, if you don't ''understand'' or ''accept'' Islam, that is not their fault.

I am not like most Muslims - or at least not like most people who claim to understand Islam - in that I do not expect people to submit to my beliefs "if they only learn better". Nor do I see refusal to adopt those as a "sin".