How can one even hope to reason with this kind of Muslim?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I would appreciate hearing other opinions on how to deal with this. The following is the text of an internet dialogue I have been having on YouTube with what appears to be a young Muslim living in Canada, concerning the barbaric killing and torturing of religious dissidents like Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. While his English is not perfectly fluent, I think you can get the gist of his arguments. He essentially defends the killing of apostates from Islam.

When I read his comments, two frightening facts spring to mind. One is that he and I are like people speaking two different languages, since we are based on two different and diametrically opposed value systems. I cannot understand how he can defend the torture and murder of dissidents and apostates, and he, with equal sincerity, obviously cannot understand why we do not all submit to the Allah who made us and created the world, and immediately submit to his law.

The **really creepy thing **is this: when I put myself in his shoes and imagine for a second that I subscribe to his values, I can actually see the internal logic of his thought system. For example, in one posting he seems to say that the western concepts of human rights are not based on anything concrete. He says specifically: " I also read some of the human rights which are open source you can check them, and laughably they just say “this and that should not be so and so, this and that should be so and so” there is not even a philosophical argumentation behind it, just pure doctrine of the secular world order."

Do you know something? He is consistent within his value system! How do we know human beings have freedom of religion and have the right to leave their religion. Just because people say so? IF there really is an Allah who has given us explicit instructions, should we not obey His commend to kill apostates rather than declare they have rights based on no authority?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do not agree with this person, Benihoua. But how on earth do you talk to a person like that? Any ideas?

Here is our dialogue thus far:

Me I find it interesting that you live in Canada. You live in a western country that protects your right to believe as you wish, and yet you hypocritically support Saudi Arabia in its barbaric torture of Raif Badawi for peacefully expressing his religious views in a blog.
Benihoua: +Valteron8 I never said that the western values and laws are all right , do you think that I can change them now? So given the fact that I have to abide by the law I can preach the truth wich is backed by evidence, that doesn’t mean it’s hypocritical at all since you are not allowed to spread everything you want, if I would preach everything I want I would be arrested in the west , now this man has apostated from Islam and must be put to death by the Saudi Goverment, in addition to that he spread irrational lies.

Me: If you think it is all right to murder another human being because he decides to leave your religion you are barbaric idiot who should get the hell out of Canada. People have the right to join or leave any religion they like.

Benihoua +Valteron8 God says they don’ have a right to leave the truth in an country wich implements the devine, law, so you want to drink from God’s planet eat from God’s planet and breaths His air and then tell Him in His universe what is juste and what not?

Me: It is impossible to explain the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech to a person like you. You are truly frightening. I wonder why you were admitted to Canada in the first place, Please get out. You simply cannot understand democratic values and you do not belong here.

*Benihoua: +Valteron8 I’ve studied the fathers of the thoughts behind it and the key different pghilosophical approaches, and was best in my highschool (german) , I also read some of the human rights wich are open source you can check them, and laughably they just say “this and that should not be so and so, this and that should be so and so” there is not even a philosophical argumentation behind it, just pure doctrine of the secular world order.

Benihoua: +Valteron8 So I understand the values better than almost anyone I saw, including modern western philosophers and politicians.

But I reject them and I submit completly to God, and accept the superior moral code, the universal objective moral code which can only be legislated by someone outside the universe since anything inside the universe is subject to the system.*

So what would YOU Straight Dopers say to this person???

2

I wouldn’t feel called upon to say anything to this person.

Regards,
Shodan

3

But you must realize that we are facing a clash of civilizations in which at least tens of millions (more likely hundreds of millions) of Muslims agree with these ideas. And this guy is living right in my country, Canada. Does that not upset you?

4

Of course I don’t like the idea of a fifth column. But when push comes to shove, the West is stronger than radical Islam and will prevail. We don’t need to change these peoples minds if we can win the fight. The only question is whether we’ll have the guts to do so if the time comes.

I don’t really buy people who say things like “you can’t change minds by force – only by giving them lots of stuff so they see how great America is.” We tore down Germany and Japan in World War II and built them up as peaceful, strong and non-militaristic allies. If we need to, we can do the same with the Islamic world.

Not really politically correct to say, but you have to fight fire with fire. Not that we should abandon our work to change hearts and minds, only that we have a strong contingency plan in case we can’t.

5

Of course, the key element to the story is that Valteron’s and Benihoua’s conversation is attached to a video of a kitten snuggling with a puppy, proving that religion and politics invade, like, everywhere, man!

6

People exist that don’t agree with me?

If I got upset over that, I’d never sleep again.

7

It’s pretty disingenuous to conflate disagreement with advocating and, in some cases, materially supporting genocide.

8

I’m not entirely sure you did reason with this person. Your first message, no problem (other than that you also appear hypocritical). The other ones, no.

Anyway. I suppose the approach I personally would take would be to try and reason with this person on their worldview and the basis for their opinion.

9

No, we should not. We should tell him to fuck off, because being more powerful or being our father’s father, so to speak, does not make him right.

10

Well, since you ask, my two big observations are:

  1. Many religions teach things on some kind of divine authority, things which if logically drawn upon lead to all kinds of horrible outcomes.

  2. You didn’t really do much reasoning, you called him a frightening barbaric idiot and told him he should get out of your country.

I think religions overall are the biggest problem in this picture, and they drive the worst kinds of behaviors. But, given that some people within a religion profess belief in the teachings, inside of the conversation you had with such a person I think he looks more reasonable. He was reasoning with you on the basis of the (bizarre and incorrect) given teachings. I think what you said was more angry and insulting than anything else. Since you don’t believe in those teachings and aren’t going where they can lead, I’d rather have you in my country than have him, but I’d try to say something different, if anything.

11

It is no different from the arguments I frequently have here about Judicial Killing.

I feel Judicial Killing is wrong in the same way that most Westerners believe that killing someone for apostasy is wrong.

I hold that killing someone without overweening empirical necessity is wrong. Others have less concern over the sanctity of human life.

There is no difference between the cases save the basic beliefs concerned. On one side are those that believe unnecessary killing is wrong (me and other lily livered liberals and many real Christians, Buddhists and Jains.) And on the other side are those willing to engage in unnecessary killings for their own axiomatic beliefs- death penalty advocates and Islamic fanatics killing apostates.

12

I think the only reasoning I would try is to point outthat his values are also only the result of “someone saying such and such is so.” He has been told these things are right by authority figures and a text which he considers divine. However, he himself has never been to Paradise or seen Allah in person (presumably) so his beliefs have no more claim to levitimacy than ours, namely they are written by humans. He will disagree, no doubt, but he apparently doesn’t understand why his beliefs are not self-evidently correct to everyone who hears of them. At least you have told him why.

13

You can’t hope to reason with a person like that no matter what their religion or whatever else they base their hatred on.

14

What beliefs ARE “self-evidently correct”?

15

You cannot reason with anyone who does not subscribe to the same axiomatic belief system.

16

It’s delusional to suggest that Western secular morals are based on hearsay and the ethics of any traditional organized religion are based on some sort of objective truth.

He’s a religious acolyte. His moral system may be consistent, but so was that of the Nazis. Consistency is, in some ways, a flaw in moral (and legal) philosophy. Not every situation is the same.

17

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that your interlocutor is likely a sexually frustrated, low-achieving young man who wouldn’t have to find purpose in crass fundamentalism if he had a girlfriend and a satisfying job. It’s less a clash of civilizations than the fact that there are some real fuckin’ losers in the world, always have been, and always will be.

An appeal to logic is futile if all of this nonsense serves above all to fill an emotional void in this loser’s miserable life.

18

I would LOVE to agree with your contention that this guy represents a very marginal, unrepresentative slice of Islam. Unfortunately, the ideas he is bringing forth would to some extent be agreed with by somewhere between tens of millions and hundreds of millions of Muslims. I am purposely being vague about the number because it is a very difficult concept to measure. But I have trouble believing he is just a rare nut-job. We know for example that some 30 or more Muslim countries have penalties up to and including death for apostasy. We know from PEW research that over 80 per cent of Egyptians believe in death for apostate Muslims.

We have the examples of death fatwas against authors like Salman Rushdie, the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, etc. etc. etc.

The desire to murder apostates may be associated with more radical Islam, but never make the mistake of believing that “radical” is a synonym for “marginal and negligible.”

19

I have trouble believing that 80%+ of Egyptian Muslims who believe in killing apostates are sexually frustrated, low-achieving losers. Ditto for the thousands of young Muslims in the west who have gone to join ISIS. As British commentator Donald Murray has noted, there are more young Brit Muslims who have joined ISIS than have joined the British Armed Forces.

20

Okay then, the ball is in our court. The last thing my Muslim-Canadian friend said was:

***I’ve studied the fathers of the thoughts behind it and the key different philosophical approaches, and was best in my high school (German) , I also read some of the human rights witch are open source you can check them, and laughably they just say “this and that should not be so and so, this and that should be so and so” there is not even a philosophical argumentation behind it, just pure doctrine of the secular world order.

So I understand the values better than almost anyone I saw, including modern western philosophers and politicians.

But I reject them and I submit completely to God, and accept the superior moral code, the universal objective moral code which can only be legislated by someone outside the universe since anything inside the universe is subject to the system.***

To my knowledge, Benihoua does not know I am discussing our conversation on SDMB. So how about it, friends? Propose an answer to what he says above and submit it (not too long, please) on this message board and I will copy the answer or combination of answers to Benihoua on YouTube.