Why so many threads/posts about Muslims or Islam?

[Maya Kaath]

In your opinion, what's the true nature of Islam?

If I had to pull one verse that sums up the core of Islam it would be this one:

"Hast thou observed him who belieth religion? That is he who repelleth the orphan, and urgeth not the feeding of the needy. Ah, woe unto worshippers who are heedless of their prayer; who would be seen (at worship) yet refuse small kindnesses!" — Qur’an, Surih 107:1-7 (Pickthall)

It reminds me of Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe in mint and cumin yet neglect the weightier parts of the Law: justice and mercy and faith." (That was from memory, so pardon any slips.)

 

[First Baseman]

It reminds me of Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe in mint and cumin yet neglect the weightier parts of the Law: justice and mercy and faith." (That was from memory, so pardon any slips.)

Not bad. Not bad at all.

 

[icehorse]

Maya said:

We non-Muslims contribute to that demonization when we carelessly repeat what we've heard rather than investigating the teachings of Muhammad for ourselves and understand them in their historical context. We contribute to it when we fail to speak out against any violence in the name of religion whether it is from Islamists or Islamophobes.

While I agree that what you describe above happens, I think it's a red herring. I for one am concerned about Islam because of what Muslims themselves tell us they believe in. It matters very little to me whether modern Muslims are staying true to "historical context". It matters very little to me what a few people think the "correct interpretations" ought to be. What matters is how Muslims tell us they believe their faith to be. And what they say is in harsh contrast to humanism and secularism. This is not "theoretical Islam", this is about what Muslims believe in 2016.

 

[Aquitaine]

The UK is also my country, so in what way is it at odds with so called social progressiveness?

Christianity has been in the UK so long that it is considered the "default" religion by many. This means that it is seen as more "native" rather than "foreign", and as such we can criticize the religion without accusations of Christianophobia or racism.
This, in my opinion has helped contribute to the dwindling numbers of actual practicing Christians, and I believe the smaller numbers have forced many Christian branches to ease up on their orthodoxy, to the point where we have many of them defending gay marriage.

Islam on the other hand matches the orthodoxy that Christianity had in the past, rath than present day liberalised Christianity.
We both know that Islam is less compatible with the UK compared to Christianity in its current state. If Islam wants to be more compatible it will have to undergo the same declawing process Christianity has been through, and it can start by not viewing criticism as "Islam bashing".

Btw, I won't be able to reply to everyone, so I apologsie for that but this thread, asking one question has morphed into the norm for this forum, namely, "let's bash Islam some more" but I'm more than happy to answer questions, already answered some above. But that then also requires a two-way discussion. Let'ssee if it progresses like that.

Islamic victim complex confirmed.

 

[Aquitaine]

Why should they get annoyed? It is prophesied in the scriptures belonging to each one of their religions.
If at all they should be annoyed first with the founder of their own religion who prophesied the coming of a reformer. Right? Please
Regards

No it is not, you're attempting to write over other faiths and have them kneel at the feet of your own. It comes across as incredibly arrogant.

 

[Maya Kaath]

While I agree that what you describe above happens, I think it's a red herring. I for one am concerned about Islam because of what Muslims themselves tell us they believe in. It matters very little to me whether modern Muslims are staying true to "historical context". It matters very little to me what a few people think the "correct interpretations" ought to be. What matters is how Muslims tell us they believe their faith to be. And what they say is in harsh contrast to humanism and secularism. This is not "theoretical Islam", this is about what Muslims believe in 2016.

I don't know what Muslims have told you about what they believe, but the Muslims that I know and work with believe that the heart of their faith is exemplified by that verse I cited. And by the verse that tells them that Allah created us of different tribes and nations that we might know each other not despise each other. And the verses that enjoin them to practice mercy and justice and warn that they must "Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Surih 5:8)

That's what the vast majority of Muslims believe in 2016. There are sects within Islam that ignore those verses and teach something other than that, just as there are extremist Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other religionists who somehow manage to sanctify what their religion teaches are sins: greed, lust for power, hate, violence, you name it.

If we were facing a majority of Muslims who felt that they were at war with any other philosophy or faith, then you could say it was a "red herring" and we would not be having polite discussions about it. We would be facing something far more powerful than an extremist cult whose members have to force people to shelter and serve them, and who hide in the desert and hope their philosophical ramblings inspire individuals to do to their enemies what they cannot.

 

[icehorse]

I don't know what Muslims have told you about what they believe, but the Muslims that I know and work with believe that the heart of their faith is exemplified by that verse I cited. And by the verse that tells them that Allah created us of different tribes and nations that we might know each other not despise each other. And the verses that enjoin them to practice mercy and justice and warn that they must "Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Surih 5:8)

That's what the vast majority of Muslims believe in 2016. There are sects within Islam that ignore those verses and teach something other than that, just as there are extremist Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other religionists who somehow manage to sanctify what their religion teaches are sins: greed, lust for power, hate, violence, you name it.

If we were facing a majority of Muslims who felt that they were at war with any other philosophy or faith, then you could say it was a "red herring" and we would not be having polite discussions about it. We would be facing something far more powerful than an extremist cult who have to force people to shelter and serve them, and who hide in the desert and hope their philosophical ramblings inspire individuals to do to their enemies what they cannot.

You and I both know a relatively small number of Muslims personally. Even if you know 200, it's a small number. I'm referring to worldwide polls of tens of thousands of Muslims.

As far as a majority goes, I'm not sure I agree. What if we were to conclude that 30% of the world's Muslims hold beliefs that are in harsh contrast to humanism and secularism? Would you conclude that those 500 million Muslims don't count because they're not the majority?

 

[Maya Kaath]

Islam on the other hand matches the orthodoxy that Christianity had in the past, rath than present day liberalised Christianity. We both know that Islam is less compatible with the UK compared to Christianity in its current state. If Islam wants to be more compatible it will have to undergo the same declawing process Christianity has been through, and it can start by not viewing criticism as "Islam bashing".

Islamic victim complex confirmed.

The problem, Aquitaine, is that there isn't one monolithic mellowed out Christianity and one Shariah-loving Islam. There are sects of Christianity here in the US and in other parts of the world whose beliefs are every bit as exclusionist, violent and clawed as radical Islamists. They have been in hiding for the most part, with the exception of brief outbursts in various parts of the US, though in Africa—significantly the Republic of Congo—where Christian militias kill and rape and maim quite as effectively as ISIS. Conversely, here in the states, you'd be hard pressed to find Muslims who are not peace-loving, community minded people who are perfectly happy to work shoulder to shoulder even with Bahá'ís, whom the Muslim authorities in Iran believe are Zionist spies and worse—heretics.

Neither faith is monolithic or proof to corruption because we humans are tricksy and can justify about anything in the name of faith—even attitudes, words and actions that run completely counter to the clear teachings of our Prophet.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think this 'declawing' would involve and how it might look in practice.

 

[Aquitaine]

The problem, Aquitaine, is that there isn't one monolithic mellowed out Christianity and one Shariah-loving Islam. There are sects of Christianity here in the US and in other parts of the world whose beliefs are every bit as exclusionist, violent and clawed as radical Islamists. They have been in hiding for the most part, with the exception of brief outbursts in various parts of the US, though in Africa—significantly the Republic of Congo—where Christian militias kill and rape and maim quite as effectively as ISIS. Conversely, here in the states, you'd be hard pressed to find Muslims who are not peace-loving, community minded people who are perfectly happy to work shoulder to shoulder even with Bahá'ís, whom the Muslim authorities in Iran believe are Zionist spies and worse—heretics.

Neither faith is monolithic or proof to corruption because we humans are tricksy and can justify about anything in the name of faith—even attitudes, words and actions that run completely counter to the clear teachings of our Prophet.

I'd be interested in knowing what you think this 'declawing' would involve and how it might look in practice.

I'm relating specifically to the UK, where Christianity has been somewhat liberalised, especially compared to Islam in the UK.

The declawing? That's the process which results in allowing us to draw cartoons of Mohammad without creating an ensuing hailstorm and someone, somewhere ending up dead - basically what happens when we draw cartoons of Jesus.
It's the process which allows us to harshly criticize the ideology without being branded Islamophobes or racists.
Tell me, when was the last time you heard someone legitimately use the word "Christianophobe"?

 

[Maya Kaath]

@icehorse: The Muslims I know are members of very large congregations here in the San Francisco Bay Area. So, I can safely say that I know of thousands of Muslims through contact with the leaders of their congregation and some of their members, what their core beliefs are. I also know from my engagement with Muslim organizations at the national level and through my reading from a variety of Muslim sources the nature of Muslim communities here and in other countries where those organizations operate.

From what I've seen from those and government sources, 30% is way too high. Certainly there are thousands of Muslims who are actively engaged in fighting what they perceive as their infidel enemy and millions who are made uncomfortable by what they see as western overreach into their lands and lives. But of those millions, only a small subset is going to act on their fear and anger. But when we treat all Muslims as if they were the enemy, we cause that subset to grow. We provide an object lesson for any fence-sitters that the zealots were right all along. Westerners hate Muslims and wish to annihilate them, just like the infidels about which those verse in the Qur'an were written and perhaps groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are right in taking up weapons.

A very good source of information on the dynamics of terrorism is the work of anthropologist Scott Atran, who worked with the American government for some time in researching extremist ideologies and how they were fed. He interviewed the families of suicide bombers and failed suicide bombers and found that the causes of radicalization had less to do with religion than they did with fear, impotent rage, and despair.

 

[icehorse]

Maya,

I'm not talking about terrorism, that's another common red herring. I'm not talking about "annihilating" anyone. (BTW, I think Atran's research methods are dubious.)

I'm talking about the 500 million or maybe 700 million Muslims worldwide, who think the world should be ruled in Sharia-led, misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic, supremacist theocracies.

 

[Maya Kaath]

The declawing? That's the process which results in allowing us to draw cartoons of Mohammad without creating an ensuing hailstorm and someone, somewhere ending up dead - basically what happens when we draw cartoons of Jesus.
It's the process which allows us to harshly criticize the ideology without being branded Islamophobes or racists.
Tell me, when was the last time you heard someone legitimately use the word "Christianophobe"?

It sounds to me like the declawing needs to be mutual. In a world where everyone was declawed, I think, people would not feel it necessary or productive or rational to draw obscene cartoons of either Jesus or Muhammad or to harshly criticize someone's faith. In a truly declawed world, we would consider kindness more important than expressing an opinion that could deeply wound another human being.

I am not saying that we should never acknowledge our differences, but we get much further and closer when we can emphasize our commonalities. It is possible to disagree with someone—even on points of doctrine or faith—and not savage them. What you seem to be saying is that declawed Muslims should be willing to take whatever vitriol the people around them dish out without taking offense. Indeed, there are verses in the Qur'an that indicates that would be preferable to fighting. But while I agree that no cartoon or insult is worth killing over, I also think that the Golden Rule applies. We should ALL treat others as we would like to be treated, not sling insults then expect them to have no effect.

As to the term "Christianophobe", I doubt I've ever heard it used. I have, however, heard the term "anti-theist" or "militant atheist" used occasionally and have seen what amounts to Christianophobia in action. The difference here and in the UK is that Christianity seems the "norm", as you say and Islam seems "other". I've repeatedly heard Christianity referred to as a "western religion" and Islam (and most others) as "eastern religions" when they are all from the same part of the world. Certainly, Christianity has become "westernized" and since there is no habit of dress that goes with the faith other than for some clergy, they do not stand out in a crowd. In the middle-east, of course, or in north Africa where I lived as a child, it is the western Christian who is "other".

To me, the ideal, is that we grow into a global community in which differences that are not malign are accepted and where we do not aim to force our ideologies on others or demand that they change unnecessarily simply because it seems "other" to us.

 

[Aquitaine]

It sounds to me like the declawing needs to be mutual. In a world where everyone was declawed, I think, people would not feel it necessary or productive or rational to draw obscene cartoons of either Jesus or Muhammad or to harshly criticize someone's faith. In a truly declawed world, we would consider kindness more important than expressing an opinion that could deeply wound another human being.

I am not saying that we should never acknowledge our differences, but we get much further and closer when we can emphasize our commonalities. It is possible to disagree with someone—even on points of doctrine or faith—and not savage them. What you seem to be saying is that declawed Muslims should be willing to take whatever vitriol the people around them dish out without taking offense. Indeed, there are verses in the Qur'an that indicates that would be preferable to fighting. But while I agree that no cartoon or insult is worth killing over, I also think that the Golden Rule applies. We should ALL treat others as we would like to be treated, not sling insults then expect them to have no effect.

As to the term "Christianophobe", I doubt I've ever heard it used. I have, however, heard the term "anti-theist" or "militant atheist" used occasionally and have seen what amounts to Christianophobia in action. The difference here and in the UK is that Christianity seems the "norm", as you say and Islam seems "other". I've repeatedly heard Christianity referred to as a "western religion" and Islam (and most others) as "eastern religions" when they are all from the same part of the world. Certainly, Christianity has become "westernized" and since there is no habit of dress that goes with the faith other than for some clergy, they do not stand out in a crowd. In the middle-east, of course, or in north Africa where I lived as a child, it is the western Christian who is "other".

To me, the ideal, is that we grow into a global community in which differences that are not malign are accepted and where we do not aim to force our ideologies on others or demand that they change unnecessarily simply because it seems "other" to us.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are free to draw cartoons of each other.
It's one thing to prohibit cartoons of religious figures, what may follow then is the prohibition of drawing political figures.
Ridicule, criticism and mockery are essential tools to be used on structures of authority, whether they be government, corporate or religions. Imagine a world where political satire cartoons mocking (say for example George Bush) were forbidden.

I'd also like to point out that sometimes the very content of a religion can offend others, just look at some of the claims in this thread about how Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are prophecised to form under the banner of Islam. It's stuff like this which makes people want to mock such extraordinary and bizarre claims.

 

[Maya Kaath]

I'm not talking about terrorism, that's another common red herring. I'm not talking about "annihilating" anyone. (BTW, I think Atran's research methods are dubious.)

I'm talking about the 500 million or maybe 700 million Muslims worldwide, who think the world should be ruled in Sharia-led, misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic, supremacist theocracies.

Red herring again. You keep using those words. Are you sure it means what you think it means?

My point is that there are plenty of people who both equate Islam and Muslims with terrorism and who at least think (in the blockbuster movie version of reality) that they would very much like to see them annihilated. Because deep down inside they know that hatred and distrust doesn't ever lead anywhere but to more hatred and distrust. To be well and truly rid of an enemy you either have to wipe them out to the last man, woman and child or you have to make allies or even friends of them. I have personally always found the latter to work.

I don't know that there are 500 million to 700 million Muslims world wide who think the world should be ruled as you suggest. I'm not sure they could even agree on what version of Sharia they would use.

I may be stating the obvious, but I'm merely suggesting that it would be inhumane, irrational, and unwise to treat all the Muslims we encounter as if they were extremists or to treat Muslims as a group at the institutional level as if they were all dangerous.

What do you find dubious about Scott Atran's research methods?

 

[Maya Kaath]

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are free to draw cartoons of each other.
It's one thing to prohibit cartoons of religious figures, what may follow then is the prohibition of drawing political figures.
Ridicule, criticism and mockery are essential tools to be used on structures of authority, whether they be government, corporate or religions. Imagine a world where political satire cartoons mocking (say for example George Bush) were forbidden.

I'd also like to point out that sometimes the very content of a religion can offend others, just look at some of the claims in this thread about how Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are prophecised to form under the banner of Islam. It's stuff like this which makes people want to mock such extraordinary and bizarre claims.

Here we simply disagree. I'd rather lie in a world where people are free to draw cartoon and use ridicule and mockery, but don't because they understand the effects of it on others. It's possible to speak truth to power and not resort to hurtful mockery. And there is a difference between speaking truth to power and punching down.

As to the prophecy, all of those faiths teach that there will be a time in which a world-uniting Prophet appears (the Spirit of Truth, the Messiah, the Mettreye Buddha Amit-abha, the Kalki Avatar, Vishnu Yasha respectively) to—as Christ put it—cause there to be "one fold and one Shepherd." As a Christian, I naturally, expected that Christ would return to bring that about. Muslims believe (because Muhammad taught it) that Islam was the organic continuation of the earlier faiths. Or put another way, that those faiths were also Islam (submission to the will of God) in earlier times for other peoples. So, it seems logical, from that perspective to believe that Muhammad was the "one Shepherd" Jesus spoke of. To someone standing outside the faith, it might not, but why is the idea offensive or bizarre? Why does it deserve to be mocked?

All of the revealed religions have the same basic set of spiritual principles at the core. All of the Revealers connected their revelation back to a previous one and forward to a future one. It seems logical, too, that if there is a single God, He wouldn't speak once, then never again. So the idea that the world has seen a succession of Prophets seems logical. We don't abandon our children's education after kindergarten or the third grade and expect then to grow to adulthood as fully integrated beings. Why would God expect that of mankind?

 

[Aquitaine]

Here we simply disagree. I'd rather lie in a world where people are free to draw cartoon and use ridicule and mockery, but don't because they understand the effects of it on others. It's possible to speak truth to power and not resort to hurtful mockery. And there is a difference between speaking truth to power and punching down.

As to the prophecy, all of those faiths teach that there will be a time in which a world-uniting Prophet appears (the Spirit of Truth, the Messiah, the Mettreye Buddha Amit-abha, the Kalki Avatar, Vishnu Yasha respectively) to—as Christ put it—cause there to be "one fold and one Shepherd." As a Christian, I naturally, expected that Christ would return to bring that about. Muslims believe (because Muhammad taught it) that Islam was the organic continuation of the earlier faiths. Or put another way, that those faiths were also Islam (submission to the will of God) in earlier times for other peoples. So, it seems logical, from that perspective to believe that Muhammad was the "one Shepherd" Jesus spoke of. To someone standing outside the faith, it might not, but why is the idea offensive or bizarre? Why does it deserve to be mocked?

All of the revealed religions have the same basic set of spiritual principles at the core. All of the Revealers connected their revelation back to a previous one and forward to a future one. It seems logical, too, that if there is a single God, He wouldn't speak once, then never again. So the idea that the world has seen a succession of Prophets seems logical. We don't abandon our children's education after kindergarten or the third grade and expect then to grow to adulthood as fully integrated beings. Why would God expect that of mankind?

I'm pretty sure Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Zoroastrians would be offended with the idea that eventually they will fold under the wing of Islam as intended by God, and that Islam is the actual "true" religion.
Religions can offend one another and challenge each other's legitimacy by their mutually-exclusive claims alone, no faith argues that other faiths are the correct ones: they're essentially competing with one-another to convince the masses of who's prophet/scripture/god is correct.
This explains why we've had so many religious wars in the past, the "other" religions are seen as blasphemy and offensive. All religions must learn to handle other points of view and accept criticism and mockery, since the mere claims of other faiths could be interpreted as mockery/blasphemy and thus conflict arises.

I'm curious, do you think it is wrong for us to mock Kim Jong Un, or should we bow to the wishes of the North Koreans and refrain from making fun of and criticizing him?

 

[icehorse]

Red herring again. You keep using those words. Are you sure it means what you think it means?

My point is that there are plenty of people who both equate Islam and Muslims with terrorism and who at least think (in the blockbuster movie version of reality) that they would very much like to see them annihilated. Because deep down inside they know that hatred and distrust doesn't ever lead anywhere but to more hatred and distrust. To be well and truly rid of an enemy you either have to wipe them out to the last man, woman and child or you have to make allies or even friends of them. I have personally always found the latter to work.

I don't know that there are 500 million to 700 million Muslims world wide who think the world should be ruled as you suggest. I'm not sure they could even agree on what version of Sharia they would use.

I may be stating the obvious, but I'm merely suggesting that it would be inhumane, irrational, and unwise to treat all the Muslims we encounter as if they were extremists or to treat Muslims as a group at the institutional level as if they were all dangerous.

What do you find dubious about Scott Atran's research methods?

And earlier you said "where differences are not malign".

So first off, I think that for the 500 to 700 million I'm describing, the differencess are - in fact - malign. They are - at the least - deeply misogynistic. We're not talking "you say potato, I say patato" sorts of differences. We're talking "death to apostates" sorts of differences.

I say "red herring" because while it's true that some people are worried about terrorism, I think that terrorism is - in reality - a very small risk, on the scale of risks. So when people say words to the effect "Not all Muslims are terrorists, and it's Islamophobic to say so", they are propagating a red herring argument. The real risk is to secularism. The real risk is to secular values.

As far as "they couldn't all agree which version of Sharia", I'm sure that that's true. But it's off the main point. It's a simple conflict between any version of Sharia vs. secularism.

So I don't think that all Muslims are dangerous - but I think that many Muslims interpret Islam - quite naturally - in dangerous ways. So we have a boatload of people who were indoctrinated at an early age to believe in very dangerous ideas. We have to find friendly, compassionate ways to marginalize these ideas. Not the people, the ideas.

As far as Atran goes... I'd have to go back and dig up earlier citations. I'd rather not. If you feel it's essential I might, but I'd prefer to move on.

 

[Maya Kaath]

I'm pretty sure Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Zoroastrians would be offended with the idea that eventually they will fold under the wing of Islam as intended by God, and that Islam is the actual "true" religion.

From a Muslim point of view they would ALL be the actual true religion. I don't know about Hindus (though some do accept Muhammad as an Avatar), or Buddhists, but I do know that many Zoroastrians converted to Islam precisely because their Holy Book contained prophecies they felt Muhammad fulfilled. I also know that Christians are very offended by the idea of a "different" or "later" religion being the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy of one fold and one Shepherd. I know I was. But I chose to take offense. When I had become a Bahá'í and Christians told me I was going to hell or that Bahá'u'lláh was the anti-Christ or a false prophet, I could have taken offense at that, but chose not to. I understood where they were coming from for one thing.

Religions can offend one another and challenge each other's legitimacy by their mutually-exclusive claims alone, no faith argues that other faiths are the correct ones: they're essentially competing with one-another to convince the masses of who's prophet/scripture/god is correct.

I beg to differ. Religious people offend and challenge and claim exclusivity. The religions themselves—as a body of teachings—not so much. Krishna, for example, said that "Whenever wisdom falleth short and faileth, and vice and injustice mount the throne, then cometh I, the Lord and visit my creation in visible form, and mingleth as a man with men, and by My influence and by My teachings do I destroy the evil and injustice and re-establish virtue and righteousness. Many times have I thus appeared; many times, hereafter shall I come again." —Bhagavad Gita 4:9 Thus, Hindus accept that Avatars will continue to come as long as mankind needs them.

Buddha linked himself to prior revelations by saying that there had been three auspicious leaders in the age. "The Buddhas who have been and who shall be: of these I am and what They did, I do." (I think that's from the Anagata-Vamsa.) Then He prophesied that in due time there would come a great world-uniting Buddha—Mettreye. Moses prophesied the coming of Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:15 and Christ claimed to be the fulfillment of that prophesy. He then gave prophecies of a future revelation. So this concept of an ongoing dialogue that changes according to our capacity to understand it is written into the holy books of all revealed religion. As a Bahá'í, I view all of the previous manifestations of religion as correct. My daughter is going to high school next year. I assure you, she will not view her new teachers as true and her past teachers as false. Why should we view the Prophets in that way?

This explains why we've had so many religious wars in the past, the "other" religions are seen as blasphemy and offensive. All religions must learn to handle other points of view and accept criticism and mockery, since the mere claims of other faiths could be interpreted as mockery/blasphemy and thus conflict arises.

Alas, I'm afraid when it comes to religious wars, the buck has to stop with us. If you read the scriptures carefully, you see that the Prophets themselves did not see themselves as being in competition. Christ certainly didn't view Himself as being in competition with Moses, Muhammad with Christ, or Bahá'u'lláh with Muhammad. It's OUR perspective that warps the lens. Our desire to be identified as part of a unique group, to inherit heaven while others are left out, is part of what causes us to view these Revealers of faith as competitors. The scriptures clearly show a continuum of divine education at the center of which is a commandment to love one another. The social teachings may change, but this idea—that the most fitting worship of God is to love and care for our fellow beings—is eternal.

I'm curious, do you think it is wrong for us to mock Kim Jong Un, or should we bow to the wishes of the North Koreans and refrain from making fun of and criticizing him?

My, are those our only choices? Bow or bray? I'm afraid I just don't see life in ones and zeroes. We can reject the ideology of Kim Jung Un without making fun of him. And we can refrain from mockery with out bowing to anyone. In fact, I think mockery in some cases simply degrades the mocker as much or more than it does the thing or person being mocked. I'm not saying it's easy. Satire is damn funny, and I'm a writer by trade, so I have words and I know how to use them as pointy little weapons. But I prefer, for reasons having to do with my own spiritual well being, not to.

Also, there's a difference between mocking something in private among a like-minded group and walking up to someone—a Muslim, say—and showing mean-spirited disrespect for something or someone they love. I'm not saying that backbiting is cool, but you have to start with baby steps.

In the real world, nothing good can come of a mean-spirited attack on something another person holds sacred. It might make the mocker feel powerful or good or excited, but in the end, it only causes ill-will and division. I had an interesting discussion about this with an atheist on another forum who started out saying that mockery was a powerful tool to pry the faithful away from their insipid beliefs. I asked if that's what he'd observed in the forum. He had to admit it wasn't. The "true believers" had pretty much fled the discussion because they were being barraged with abuse no matter what they said.

"Well, nothing can change their minds," he told me. "We're really preaching to the fence-sitters. The mockery will help them come over to the side of reason."

An agnostic spoke up to say that he was thinking of leaving the group too because of the level of vitriol and meanness against the religious people in the group. "I like to have a dialogue, but that's not what was happening here," he said and vanished.

"Well," said my atheist friend, "I guess we're really just preaching to the choir. Even atheists need to pump each other up."

So, for him, it was worth alienating people he might have had a rational discussion with, to vent his disrespect for their beliefs through mockery. Saddest thing was, that the mockery was misdirected; the people didn't hold the beliefs he assumed they did but he had no way of knowing that because he didn't listen to what they were saying. He might have learned something about those beliefs if he had asked questions and actually allowed the person he was asking to answer them. And they might have learned from him why he questioned some of their beliefs if he hadn't been so intent on showing his disrespect.

In the end, I was the last religious person on that thread. I didn't take offense when he kept misspelling the name of the Prophet of my faith or referred to me as a Bahooey, because I wanted to understand him and if I walked off in a huff, I never would.

 

[icehorse]

Maya said:

In the real world, nothing good can come of a mean-spirited attack on something another person holds sacred.

When it comes to the leaders of NK, we should use every tool at our disposal to unseat these a-holes.

When it comes to oppressors in general, satire and mockery are useful tools.

 

[Maya Kaath]

So first off, I think that for the 500 to 700 million I'm describing, the differencess are - in fact - malign. They are - at the least - deeply misogynistic. We're not talking "you say potato, I say patato" sorts of differences. We're talking "death to apostates" sorts of differences.

I'm not clear on where you're getting those numbers. I refer you to the Pew Research Center's findings here http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ From the study: "...a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law." Of special interest is the data at the end of the article that shows how non-Muslims perceive Muslims and vice versa.

The imam of one of our local mosques, who is very active in a coalition of national Muslim organizations aimed at collaborative and cooperative outreach in the community at large, has said that many Muslim scholars in the west believe that Sharia cannot and should not ever be practiced as it was during the early days of the faith because it was intended for that people in those circumstances and not for this vastly different world. The legal code of Sharia was built for a people that had none to speak of before. That is not the case in a developed nation like the US. Other imams may disagree and feel that someday a majority of the world will be Muslim and make Sharia practicable again, but then rabbis from different schools of judaism disagree about legal matters too. In Israel, for example, a woman has to have her husband's permission to divorce him. That practice in the US might be unconstitutional. In Israel, it is religious law.

I say "red herring" because while it's true that some people are worried about terrorism, I think that terrorism is - in reality - a very small risk, on the scale of risks. So when people say words to the effect "Not all Muslims are terrorists, and it's Islamophobic to say so", they are propagating a red herring argument. The real risk is to secularism. The real risk is to secular values. ... It's a simple conflict between any version of Sharia vs. secularism.

Is it? It's not as if radical Islam is in direct and continual opposition to secularism alone with no other mitigating factors. It's also in conflict with other versions of Sharia, with much of Muslim belief, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Bahá'í belief, and the beliefs of people who have no formal religion or no religious beliefs at all. There are billions of people who hold their own beliefs in the face of—if your numbers are correct—500 million. If those people stand in solidarity for a tolerant society then we shall have a tolerant society and those 500 million Muslims will also benefit from.

So I don't think that all Muslims are dangerous - but I think that many Muslims interpret Islam - quite naturally - in dangerous ways. So we have a boatload of people who were indoctrinated at an early age to believe in very dangerous ideas. We have to find friendly, compassionate ways to marginalize these ideas. Not the people, the ideas.

Then we agree: all Muslims are not dangerous and our approach to them must be, as you say, friendly compassionate and aimed at the ideas, not the people.