Playing Islam's advocate

[LuisDantas]

How is it any more "totalitarian" than other religious texts?

Famously and most obviously, by insisting on the need for Muslims to side with each other and accept no true friends nor allies among non-Muslims.

There are also the straight claims that Judaism and Christianity lost their way and need to be superseded by Islaam.

Also the call for submission to the God of the Qur'an (right there on the name of the doctrine) and the provisions for demanding conversion or taxes from non-Muslims.

Then again, just simply reading the Qur'an will give you a good general idea.

 

[godnotgod]

For what it is worth, I do not condone that violence.

I do not think it establishes any form of roughly comparable situations, either. Myanmar is an outlier, very much so.

As genuine Buddhists, of course we cannot condone this violence on either side, and no, it is not typical Buddhist behavior, and it will prove to be a costly lesson for the Buddhist community there. The only solution from an authentic Buddhist perspective is to work on and establish peaceful relations with the Rohingya. To regain trust willl be most difficult. What makes things more complicated is that much of the hatred directed toward the Rohingya is coming from official Buddhist authority in the region. Don't remember his name at the moment, but he should really be removed from such position. But the fear is that the false sense of righteousness against Muslims could spread, justified by Dharmic teachings, in the same manner as other official religions have done throughout history.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Famously and most obviously, by insisting on the need for Muslims to side with each other and accept no true friends nor allies among non-Muslims.

Um, where does it say that? It seems to be something that plenty of Christians do, just while we're talking.

There are also the straight claims that Judaism and Christianity lost their way and need to be superseded by Islaam.

So? That's what Christians say about Judaism, isn't it? And then there's all the various denominations of Christianity claiming to have superseded earlier ones. I'm not sure what you think your point is? "Islam is bad because they claim to be the most correct religion"? Well? What religion doesn't?

Also the call for submission to the God of the Qur'an (right there on the name of the doctrine) and the provisions for demanding conversion or taxes from non-Muslims.

Yeah, um, have you READ the Bible?

Then again, just simply reading the Qur'an will give you a good general idea.

As cherry picked claims, these sound damning, sure. Taken in the larger context of, gosh, every other religious text on the planet? Not so much.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

As genuine Buddhists,

No true...

Um...

 

[LuisDantas]

Um, where does it say that? It seems to be something that plenty of Christians do, just while we're talking.

Surah 5:51, 8:73, 9:71

And no, I don't think there is any true parallel, in no small measure because Islaam specifically insists that the Qur'an is both perfect and eternal.

So? That's what Christians say about Judaism, isn't it?

It is not nearly as central for Christianity, and again, there is that nasty matter of supposed divine warranty of eternal validity of the Qur'an.

And then there's all the various denominations of Christianity claiming to have superseded earlier ones. I'm not sure what you think your point is?

I can see that.

"Islam is bad because they claim to be the most correct religion"?

Not "bad" exactly. There are quite more specific objections to raise than simply being "bad". And it is not just a claim, either; it is a central tenet that guides even their military decisions and parameters of morality, often at the expense of peace and respect for others.

Well? What religion doesn't?

The proper question, I think, is "what doctrine, if any, goes out of its way to claim divine guidance in disqualifying others while also claiming to be their legitimate and eternal substitute".

Yeah, um, have you READ the Bible?

Enough of it. You won't find a lot of enthusiasm for it in me, but it is still not very comparable to the Qur'an.

More to the point, it is reasonably easy to reject its drawbacks and be a moderate Christian. By contrast, there isn't much of a condition to be a moderate Muslims as opposed to simply a disinterested or non-practicing one instead. That is no accident, either, but rather a design parameter of the doctrine.

As cherry picked claims, these sound damning, sure.

Which is why I advise you not to cherry pick. Despite that being the path that leads to the true scare.

Taken in the larger context of, gosh, every other religious text on the planet? Not so much.

Uh, actually, no. You are quite mistaken, alas.

 

[LuisDantas]

No true...

Out of curiosity, do you have or intend to eventually develop a coherent stance regarding unfair generalizations?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Surah 5:51, 8:73, 9:71

What do actual Muslims say about those verses?

And no, I don't think there is any true parallel, in no small measure because Islaam specifically insists that the Qur'an is both perfect and eternal.



It is not nearly as central for Christianity, and again, there is that nasty matter of supposed divine warranty of eternal validity of the Qur'an.

So all the Christian Biblical literalists who say the exact same thing are... what? Have you never encountered Sola Scriptura Christians?

I can see that.

So explain it, maybe? If you want an in intellectually honest discussion, of course

Not "bad" exactly. There are quite more specific objections to raise than simply being "bad". And it is not just a claim, either; it is a central tenet that guides even their military decisions and parameters of morality, often at the expense of peace and respect for others.

I don't see how it does so any more than the Bible does, and about a billion moderate Muslims apparently agree more with me than you.

The proper question, I think, is "what doctrine, if any, goes out of its way to claim divine guidance in disqualifying others while also claiming to be their legitimate and eternal substitute".

Um... all of them, pretty much?

Enough of it. You won't find a lot of enthusiasm for it in me, but it is still not very comparable to the Qur'an.

I've read both. In my opinion, none of the charges you're levelling at the Koran are exclusive

More to the point, it is reasonably easy to reject its drawbacks and be a moderate Christian. By contrast, there isn't much of a condition to be a moderate Muslims as opposed to simply a disinterested or non-practicing one instead. That is no accident, either, but rather a design parameter of the doctrine.

You know better than the moderate Muslims, of course. Why do moderate Christians get a free pass but moderate Muslims don't? Does their failure to abide by your stereotypical strawman of what you think Muslims should be trigger you cognitive dissonance? How inconsiderate of them!

Which is why I advise you not to cherry pick. Despite that being the path that leads to the true scare.

You seem to be doing plenty of cherrypicking, I'm just pointing it out to you

Uh, actually, no. You are quite mistaken, alas.

Why? Because you say so? How about you show me a significant religious text that DOESN'T do the horrible things you're accusing the Koran of?

I'll wait...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Out of curiosity, do you have or intend to eventually develop a coherent stance regarding unfair generalizations?

Huh? I'm really not sure what clever point you think you're making, but this post was intended as humour for those familiar with the phrase "no True Scotsman" being applied to Buddhists. I didn't think it was that obscure.

 

[Srivijaya]

I'm no apologist for any theist doctrine but there is one generalisation I can make and for this alone Islam has value in my opinion. I say it's a generalisation, as it does not apply to every individual, but I contend that the exception proves the rule.

On a global, historical perspective "so-called" western values have often been a convenient justification for colonialism and military intervention. Along with this came an irrefutable belief in the righteousness of our system. We won (to some extent - as much as the multi-national corporations needed). Liberty and freedom play second fiddle to rampant consumerism and materialism on the back of sweat-shop labour - you are what you own and you are encouraged to define yourself and your place in the world against this benchmark. The environment is paying the price.

Many Muslims reject this materialist creed out of hand. Globally speaking, they are the only counterweight to this all-pervasive 'buy-it-now' narcissistic culture. Many have a deeply spiritual side to their nature, which measures their deeds, aspirations and wishes against the teachings of their faith. Old forms of Christianity, like the Amish, are the last vestiges of that mindset in the west. That alone should tell us that there are other ways of living and of valuing ourselves as people. Not my way, to have this realisation 'imposed' from above, but there it is.

Since the days the old western powers decided that the Ottoman Empire had to die, we have been exploiting those lands. The British backed the House of Saud and its Wahhabi sect to help reach this end. Repeated meddling and the confiscation of Palestine has resulted in an inevitable 'hardening' of Islamic values. Why are we surprised? Let's not forget that Sufism is also Islamic and was once a great moderating influence.

Nowadays shallow, greedy and hypocritical western values have run up against a fundamentalist, murderous, radicalised form of Islam and there seems to be no middle ground, with both sides digging in. One thing's for sure, this show's going nowhere fast.

 

[icehorse]

What do actual Muslims say about those verses?

Islam is a collection of ideas. Fundamental to the collection are a few:

1 - The Quran is the perfect, timeless, easy to understand, unalterable word of god.
2 - Muhammad's life is the perfect role model.

If you do not agree with at least those two ideas, you cannot really call yourself a Muslim. If you disagree, please locate a few Muslims who will stand up and declare that it's okay to cherry-pick the Quran.

 

[godnotgod]

No true...

View attachment 19850

Um...

View attachment 19853

?????

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Islam is a collection of ideas. Fundamental to the collection are a few:

1 - The Quran is the perfect, timeless, easy to understand, unalterable word of god.
2 - Muhammad's life is the perfect role model.

If you do not agree with at least those two ideas, you cannot really call yourself a Muslim. If you disagree, please locate a few Muslims who will stand up and declare that it's okay to cherry-pick the Quran.

and yet there's as many interpretations of what those ideas mean as there are interpretations in Christianity.

I'm still not sure why what your claiming about Islam is either problematic per se, nor different to any other major religion. Using the examples you cite, there are many Christians who would make the exact same claim about the Bible, and I would think Christ is the perfect role model to all Christians, so what's the issue?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

?????

Go look up the phrase "no true Scotsman". I really didn't think the joke that obscure.

 

[icehorse]

and yet there's as many interpretations of what those ideas mean as there are interpretations in Christianity.

I'm still not sure why what your claiming about Islam is either problematic per se, nor different to any other major religion. Using the examples you cite, there are many Christians who would make the exact same claim about the Bible, and I would think Christ is the perfect role model to all Christians, so what's the issue?

I think you're drawing a false equivalence. Christians are far more flexible than Muslims in terms of being open to cherry-picking their scripture and documenting interpretations. I'm not sure I've ever heard a Muslim declare that "Surah X" can be disregarded. In my experience, Muslims will defend ever last iota of the Quran and of Muhammad's life, no criticism is acceptable. (BTW, I'm no fan of Christianity either, it's just that at least most Christians are less dogmatic.)

 

[godnotgod]

Huh? I'm really not sure what clever point you think you're making, but this post was intended as humour for those familiar with the phrase "no True Scotsman" being applied to Buddhists. I didn't think it was that obscure.

Spell it out. I don't get your analogy and intent.

 

[godnotgod]

Go look up the phrase "no true Scotsman". I really didn't think the joke that obscure.

OK, thanks, but I don't see that it applies to what I was saying. For those who, like me, do not know the fallacy:

"The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defines a group such that every groupmember possess some quality. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people".

No True Scotsman - RationalWiki

I simply meant by 'genuine Buddhist' someone who practices compassion for those who suffer along with insight into the true nature of Reality. Buddhism must go beyond an intellectual understanding of the way things are.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Spell it out. I don't get your analogy and intent.

I don't really see what else can be spelled out. They're Buddhists in kilts.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think you're drawing a false equivalence. Christians are far more flexible than Muslims in terms of being open to cherry-picking their scripture and documenting interpretations. I'm not sure I've ever heard a Muslim declare that "Surah X" can be disregarded. In my experience, Muslims will defend ever last iota of the Quran and of Muhammad's life, no criticism is acceptable. (BTW, I'm no fan of Christianity either, it's just that at least most Christians are less dogmatic.)

Depends on the Christian and the Muslim in question. There are inflexible, dogmatic Christians and there are flexible, contemplative Muslims. I suggest rather than trying to demonise any one religion in particular, it's more productive to realise that fundamentalism is the problem here.

 

[icehorse]

Depends on the Christian and the Muslim in question. There are inflexible, dogmatic Christians and there are flexible, contemplative Muslims. I suggest rather than trying to demonise any one religion in particular, it's more productive to realise that fundamentalism is the problem here.

Well I'd agree that extremism / fundamentalism is a problem in many domains. But this thread is about Islam.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well I'd agree that extremism / fundamentalism is a problem in many domains. But this thread is about Islam.

Yes. And if someone's beliefs about Islam appear based on double standards or logical fallacies, I will point it out.

I appreciate Islam is much easier to demonise when looked at in isolation, but that's not intellectually honest. I'm not defending Islam here, I'm criticising hypocrisy.