Thanks for your reply luis. I think that there is a clear contradiction in your argument, which is why I feel I have to call it out.
Best of luck.
You say on the one hand:
"Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of moral responsibility it presents all of us."
And also say:
"the only means acceptable are non-vilent ones. Violence is by definition self-defeating."
Quite so.
...but You also finish with:
"[Islam] is not reasonable, it cant be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason or enlightenment."
That too.
The latter statement rules out the possibility of a non-violent way to "end Islam" as muslims believe in a "well-organised, repressive superstitition" more "than it has ever been a true religion".
Hardly. It just points out that there will be a lot of pain and sorrow involved when the inevitable happens.
It is not in the power of Muslims to make it otherwise. And it is not in the power of anyone else either.
I won't insist on feeling guilty for contradictions and self-inflicted harm that came by no choice of mine. It is not anyone fault, Muslims or otherwise, that Islam is a dead end.
But it would be my fault if, once I learned of that (which I did gradually in the last couple of years or so) I refused to accept that and the consequences. The main of which is the duty not to further vain hopes that it might somehow turn out ok in the end.
Islam is doomed to collapse under its own weight, because it is a glorified bet that can't be won. Therefore, those who realize and accept that have a moral duty to lessen the damage as they can, mainly by pointing out that they won't play a lost game and encouraging others not to put theirs on that line either.
You cannot say Islam is immune to reason and yet simultaneously say that Muslims will voluntarily change their beliefs without the necessity of violence without contradicting yourself.
I can, I must, and I most definitely do.
I also lament that they have to go through so much sorrow, for they are very much a sincere set of people overall.
I also acknowledge that not very many among them ever had a choice, much as I never had the choice to not be raised into Christian expectations and Spiritist environments either.
To a very significant extent, that is why Islam will fall. It causes a lot of harm and sorrow to those who sincerely listened to its message and sacrifice so much to it.
Without a modicum of acceptance of diversity of belief and of respect for scientific education, Islam condenes itself to obscuratism.
And with both, it condenes itself to self-extinction by way of contradiction.
It is really sad. It is ultimately unavoidable. It can't help but be painful and disturbing to a very many people.
And it is not my fault, so I will feel lots of sorrow, but no guilt whatsoever.
The resolution of that contradiction includes the possibility of a violent attack on all Muslims to "end Islam"- something you clearly do not intend.
Darn right I do not. That would be wrong in all conceivable levels, starting with the moral justification and going all the way up to the practical results. Violent actions are not even helpful in containing Islamic beliefs, even if I were willing to disregard their complete failure at the moral level.
That in no way translates into any obligation of stating that Islam is viable, sustainable or even respectable, though. Muslims must ever be respected, among other reasons simply because they are human beings that are entitled to basic dignity. Islam must earn its respect, although that will ultimately mean self-extinction.
There is a conflict there, and it will be very painful. But it is not so for any fault of mine. It is instead an inherent contradiction among Islam's goals. It is simply not possible to attain lasting peace by betting on the wisdom of subjecting oneself to the tender mercies of a doctrine that is inimical to both freedom and rationality.
I must deal with that situation both respecfully and realistically. That means refusing to further the harm while also accepting that its causes are not my own choices and actions, and therefore all that I can do is contribute to lessening the damage by spreading awareness and dispelling well-meaning but ultimately destructive delusions.
Sometimes a situation simply can't have a happy end, and we are left with the choice among various painful resolutions. I refuse to encourage Muslims and non-Muslims into ways that I sincerely believe to be ultimately destructive. All the more so because for years now I have carefully considered the evidence, the doctrines, the testimonials and the arguments.
Either I accept that Islam will fall under its own weight and we must deal with the damage control of it - as so many others did in various measures in the past in the Ottoman Empire, in India and elsewhere - or I choose to lie to myself about it and therefore become a willing contributor to augmenting that damage. There is no logical third option.
I would be failing to pass on the lessons of history of communist attempts to liquidate religion if I didn't call this out.
Perhaps, but I don't think so. I do not want to liquidate religion, or even Islam (which I no longer consider a religion).
I just refuse to speak on its behalf anymore, now that I have learned how poor a choice that would be. Islam does not deserve my protection, although its victims and its own adherents certainly do. And by consequence, I won't attempt to avoid its collapse and I will not waste any efforts by presuming the best of it at every opportunity anymore.
That will result in lots of conflict and sorrow. And it would be that tiny bit worse still if I refused to accept the reality. It is not in my power to make either the past, the present or the future of Islam painless, healthy or safe. I must instead deal with the consequences of its existence and its lifecycle.
Whilst it is permissable for individuals to hold anti-islamic views (and even rational to do so), the current climate even on this forum is that this is not an isolated sentiment.
Quite true, and a good if certainly dangerous thing, too.
Islam at its root demands others to either accept it or confront it, even as it insists on disrespecting those who do not agree with it and lying to itself on that matter. It is an arrogant bet that bullies others into paying the price for its pride. Therefore, it must be defeated, and it will.
Anti-Islamism is a moral need, although most people don't fully realize that and would rather attempt to doubt it as long as they possibly can. I know I did.
We must ever watch against misjudgements and unfairness as it is expressed, for there is a lot at stake, and it is a delicate and serious balance to pursue too. But expressed it must be, in a decisive if hopefully careful and loving way.
When it then goes beyond mere criticism to wanting to end an entire religion, it crosses a threshold and makes more extreme views acceptable.
I just don't know what you mean here. You seem to be assuming some sort of violent means in my discourse, even though you acknowledge that I don't lend those any support.
I can only guess that you are operating under the premise that I had the choice to leave Islam well enough alone and have it return the favor. That is an appealling thought, and one that I nurtured for a long time. No longer.
Its just the "social proof" of how such views as validated in groups. Whatever your intentions (and no doubt the satisfaction derived from venting your frustration on this) there may well be others who would contemplate using unethical means to achieve the same ends as you have in mind. The only difference is one of means, not of ends. Thats it.
My feelings are actually far more mixed than my goals. There is indeed satisfaction in no longer carrying the burden of attempting to protect Islam as an idea. But there is also the sober and grim realization that the sorrow has only began and I have a moral duty to be a witness and even an instigator to some measure of it.
It can't be helped. All the other options are worse, although some involve some measure of denial and may appear to be less painful at first.
As for unethical means, I am again not quite sure what you mean. The question of how much of influence my statements may have on the motivations of others is intriguing, and I can't deny that I wish I were influential to some discernible extent. And of course there is an ethical responsibility coming with any ideas and goals, particularly when those are extreme.
Still... how responsible exactly do you expect me to feel for the flaws of the ideas that I am exposing? And how helpful, if at all, would it be if I chose denial instead?
It seems to me that while the dangers of violent extremism are real and worrisome on both sides of the clash of expectations, it is not at all helpful to attempt to postpone the confrontation. The conflicts will only fester and worsen if we keep hoping for the best while avoiding mutual, clear understanding. Extremism is caused by fear, which by its turn is enabled by ignorance. While safety comes from respect, which demands acceptance which by its turn comes from awareness and acknowledgement.
In a nutshell, idealized Islam - the one that is willing to learn from reality, the one that understands and accepts basic human dignity, the one that is not a harmful and glorified bet on the truth of the Qur'an and that is not all out unprepared to deal with diversity of beliefs - is certainly so much more palatable than real Islam. But it is not any help in promoting mutual understanding, respect and acceptance, and therefore must be discarded. The sooner, the better.
So I just want to show you the road your heading on so you have an option to reconsider and get off.
I guess you failed. Either at understanding what road that is or in showing me that it is not one to be taken. I'm betting on the first option.
If it really has got this bad its better to discuss a muslim genocide publicly as an exorcism of the sentiments behind it rather than let it fester.
I will never support any form of genocide, so again, it seems that you are misreading me quite fiercely.
Good intentions won't be enough to justify what is the logical but absurd conclusion of this train of thought.
Good thing that it is not mine, then.
