Okay, fine, Islam is this violent, evil religion. What do you want us to DO about it?

[Kimstu]

@Dr.Strangelove

Our modern legal systems have been in a process of continuous evolution since their first incarnations. What we explicitly have not done is declare the first iteration to be the immutable word of God and tried to continue using that in spite of societal progress. What we have also not done is declare the creators of these systems to be divinely guided or say that they had access to moral truths that we do not.

First of all, you’re moving the goalposts (as A’isha noted). You started out by declaring that the problem is trying to use in a 21st-century moral system the pre-modern “values” of someone whose behavioral norms nowadays would be regarded as criminal.

Then when it’s pointed out to you that your own legal structure depends heavily on the pre-modern values of people whose behavioral norms nowadays would be regarded as criminal, you decide that the problem you’re worried about is actually something different: namely, the practice of ascribing those pre-modern values to divine inspiration and declaring them immutable.

Secondly, interpretations of Islam, like those of modern civil law, are also in a process of continuous evolution. Just because many radical Islamist fundamentalists declare that there’s always been only one correct and immutable way to interpret Islamic doctrine (which is not necessarily the same as the alleged “original” way) doesn’t mean that that’s how the religion actually operates for most of its adherents.

@Dr. Strangelove

It’s not like I’m arguing with Islamic scholars on TV. I’m just a voice in society. I can add my voice to a particular chorus and that’s about it. I want to have a clear, unambiguous message to maximize my contribution.

Stubbornly insisting on a “clear, unambiguous message” that happens to be ignorant and incorrect is not helping your “contribution” any.

[Kimstu]

@Hank_Beecher

Muslims are not stupid, they can see these ad hoc revisions for what they are just as I can.

The point is that they’re not “ad hoc revisions”. As I already said:

@Kimstu

[M]odern moderate interpretations of Islam aren’t some kind of deliberately invented “extremism-fighting” strategy. They developed from long-standing traditions of exegetical dispute and philosophical divergence within historical Islam. They are genuine religious traditions in their own right.

You keep on insisting that the only historically or doctrinally valid interpretation of Islam is the one promoted by modern fundamentalist extremists, and you keep on being wrong.

@Hank Beecher

And many people do tell Jews, and anyone else who believes in the vengeful, manic depressive desert psychopath God, that it is stupid to base morality on Stone Age mythology and codes of conduct. And many, if not most, Jews agree.

My point is that people don’t tell those moderate Jews that they need to abandon Judaism and Jewish identity altogether because many of their co-religionists base their morality on their scriptures’ “vengeful, manic depressive desert psychopath God”.

But you and other anti-Islam advocates have no qualms about insisting that hundreds of millions of moderate modern Muslims should just give up on Islam altogether as a moral system for the modern world because many of their co-religionists advocate a repressive fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

This, as we keep saying, is just playing the repressive fundamentalists’ game for them. You are earnestly waving the banner of the repressive fundamentalists that the only “true” Islam is repressive fundamentalist Islam.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Kimstu

First of all, you’re moving the goalposts (as A’isha noted). You started out by declaring that the problem is trying to use in a 21st-century moral system the pre-modern “values” of someone whose behavioral norms nowadays would be regarded as criminal.

Then when it’s pointed out to you that your own legal structure depends heavily on the pre-modern values of people whose behavioral norms nowadays would be regarded as criminal, you decide that the problem you’re worried about is actually something different: namely, the practice of ascribing those pre-modern values to divine inspiration and declaring them immutable.

The drastic difference that renders your point moot: these values were encoded in documents that included explicit instructions on how they were to be altered, and behaviors of their originators that are now considered criminal have been explicitly criminalized using those methods.

Secondly, interpretations of Islam, like those of modern civil law, are also in a process of continuous evolution. Just because many radical Islamist fundamentalists declare that there’s always been only one correct and immutable way to interpret Islamic doctrine (which is not necessarily the same as the alleged “original” way) doesn’t mean that that’s how the religion actually operates for most of its adherents.

How the religion operates for many or most of it’s adherents is the problem, as indicated by the survey linked in the OP that shows a majority of Muslims in some of the largest Muslim majority nations still supporting barbaric punishments for crimes of conscience and consensual sex.

Stubbornly insisting on a “clear, unambiguous message” that happens to be ignorant and incorrect is not helping your “contribution” any.

It is neither stupid nor ignorant to point out that the verses of the Koran and the behavior of the Prophet, as recorded in Hadith, are an unacceptable basis for morality or law in the 21st century, unless they are first passed through a filter that excises the large portion of the teachings that are incompatible with humanism.

[Kimstu]

@Hank_Beecher

The drastic difference that renders your point moot: these values were encoded in documents that included explicit instructions on how they were to be altered, and behaviors of their originators that are now considered criminal have been explicitly criminalized using those methods.

And many modern Muslim societies now explicitly criminalize behaviors that were not considered criminal in Muhammad’s time.

The evidence simply does not support your insistence that Islam is some kind of anomalous exception to the fact that moral doctrines can change and adapt over time.

[QUOTE=Hank Beecher]
How the religion operates for many or most of it’s adherents is the problem, as indicated by the survey linked in the OP that shows a majority of Muslims in some of the largest Muslim majority nations still supporting barbaric punishments for crimes of conscience and consensual sex.

[/quote]

And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing or opposing the opinions of those particular Muslims on those subjects.

Where you repeatedly make your mistake is in extrapolating from that to the bigoted insistence that Islam as a whole must therefore be abandoned by its adherents, even the ones who espouse moderate modern interpretations of it, as a value system for the modern world.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Kimstu

Then when it’s pointed out to you that your own legal structure depends heavily on the pre-modern values of people whose behavioral norms nowadays would be regarded as criminal, you decide that the problem you’re worried about is actually something different: namely, the practice of ascribing those pre-modern values to divine inspiration and declaring them immutable.

The comparison is just utter tripe and nonsense.

There is a world of difference between a system that contains traces of its (sometimes ugly) history vs. one that continually looks back toward its origins. Again, no one cares how Julius Caesar would have ruled on a legal matter. Whereas Muslim scholars continually look at Muhammad’s teachings.

Our modern legal system does not depend on its history. It may have gotten this way due to various historical contingencies, but that did not have to be the case. Consider calculus as a comparison–although its history depends on some ugliness between Newton and Leibniz, aside from some irrelevant details in notation, our modern use does not actually depend on that history in any way. You could replace Newton with some other mathematician and we would have virtually the same product. And no one goes back to Newton’s writings every time there’s some mathematical development.

In fact, you could simply burn all of the history (whether in calculus or the west’s legal system) and everything would operate as it always had. There’s no need to reference it at all when it comes to its future development.

In contrast, if you swap out Muhammad with some other figure, you don’t have Islam any more. The whole thing is predicated on him specifically being the messenger of god and his writings being the word of god. Burn those, and you aren’t left with much.

All this interpretation and change never actually goes anywhere because it can never break free of its origins. It’s not evolution at all; it’s more like intelligent design.

@Kimstu

Secondly, interpretations of Islam, like those of modern civil law, are also in a process of continuous evolution.

I’ll ask again: where is the Islamic scholarship that wholly rejects the idea that Muhammad is divinely inspired?

Rejecting the premise that the man is more important than the idea is the first step toward any kind of legitimacy (of course, you still need a few centuries of development beyond this, but it would be a good first start).

Perhaps this thread of scholarship actually exists–it would not surprise me too much, especially when you go farther back and Islam actually had a respectable intellectual tradition. But if these traditions ever existed, they clearly never took deep root.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Kimstu

The point is that they’re not “ad hoc revisions”. As I already said:

Some certainly are. For example, the age of Muhammed’s child bride Aisha was nine at the time he raped her. This is recorded multiple times, in her own voice, in the three collections of hadith considered most authentic by Sunni Muslims. This is an obvious ad hoc revision of this. The vast amount of evidence on the side of the former claim the is adaunting obstacle to the revision. This is made all the more obvious by the fact that there seems to be no challenges to these hadith at all until the last century or two, after the young age of the Prophet’s child bride became a point of embarrassment for Muslims challenged on it by Westerners.

Also, the idea that Jihad is primarily about internal struggle rather than military conquest in the service of Islam is based on revisionist arguments. In this case both definitions have traditions as old as Islam itself, but Jihad as virtuous violence in defense of, or to advance, Islam is the primary meaning. This is no more debatable that the meaning of “crusade” or “war”, despite these terms often being used in reference to non violent endeavors

You keep on insisting that the only historically or doctrinally valid interpretation of Islam is the one promoted by modern fundamentalist extremists, and you keep on being wrong.

This keeps being repeated here, that it is only “the extremists” or “the fundamentalists”, when the discussion is based on the fact that a majority of Muslims in places as populous as Egypt favor barbaric practices such as executing people for apostasy.

My point is that people don’t tell those moderate Jews that they need to abandon Judaism and Jewish identity altogether because many of their co-religionists base their morality on their scriptures’ “vengeful, manic depressive desert psychopath God”.

My point is that Jews, to a large degree, have abandoned basing their morality on their scriptures (especially they have mostly abandoned doing so unquestionably) without abandoning their Jewish identity. In this day and age Muslims mostly have not, with some very brave and heroic exceptions.

But you and other anti-Islam advocates have no qualms about insisting that hundreds of millions of moderate modern Muslims should just give up on Islam altogether as a moral system for the modern world because many of their co-religionists advocate a repressive fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

I am insisting that they abandon the notion that it is a moral system that they give higher regard to than humanism,as does Pervez Hoodbhoy.

This, as we keep saying, is just playing the repressive fundamentalists’ game for them. You are earnestly waving the banner of the repressive fundamentalists that the only “true” Islam is repressive fundamentalist Islam.

I have never said such a thing, I have said that their interpretation logically follows from the source texts unless one first passes them through a filter of humanism.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Kimstu

And many modern Muslim societies now explicitly criminalize behaviors that were not considered criminal in Muhammad’s time.

But there is no means provided to alter the sources of justification for the behavior, that is the glaring difference that you are trying to just gloss right over. No one I know claims that the US constitution was a direct revelation from God, or that Jefferson was the perfect example of behavior on earth.

The evidence simply does not support your insistence that Islam is some kind of anomalous exception to the fact that moral doctrines can change and adapt over time.

The idea of the Koran as the “seal”, or the final word, and the Prophet as the perfect model for all time, is fundamental to Islam. This is the polar opposite of the US constitution, with it’s built in methodology for amendment.

And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing or opposing the opinions of those particular Muslims on those subjects.

Where you repeatedly make your mistake is in extrapolating from that to the bigoted insistence that Islam as a whole must therefore be abandoned by its adherents, even the ones who espouse moderate modern interpretations of it, as a value system for the modern world.

Whether altering it to something compatible with the modern world is abandoning it or not is merely a semantic one. It is Muslims themselves, not myself, who largely consider any alteration, progression, or innovation, an abandonment. The very notion of innovation has very negative connotations in Islam:

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/fiqh/bida.htm

Bid’ah - Its Meaning, Aspects, Dangers, And The Solution

The religion of Islam, the religion of Muslims, is based on only one teaching. In other words there is only one ‘true’ Islam. There is no such thing as different versions of Islam or different types or classes of this deen. The true path is only one way which lies under the shade of the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the understanding of the Companions.

As was illustrated by our beloved Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) and was narrated by Ibn Mas’ud that one day the Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) drew a straight line on the ground and He said, “This is the path of Allah.” Then he drew some lines to the left and right to it and said, “These are the erred paths and on each of these paths, there is Shaytaan calling to it.” Then he recited the following verse from the Qur’an (which means):

“Verily, this is my straight path so follow it and do not follow the other paths that will take you away from the true path.”

In fact, if we look in the Qur’an, when Allah (swt) describes the truth, it is always described as singular. For example, the word ‘al-noor’ which is singular is used for the truth, as opposed to ‘zulumath’ which is plural. It is a prime example from the Qur’an the clearly shows us that the right way is one way only. Any deviation from the true path is not an acceptable ‘branch’ of Islam but as the scholars call it, is a ‘bida’.

Unfortunately, due to several reasons, the concept of Bida is not as clear to everyone as it should be. A reason for that is a lot of people are confused about ‘good’ bida or bida-e-hasana.

Secondly, there are many things which we do now that were not done at the time of Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)). With the outset of such widespread bida, people are confused, and rightly so, as to what is actually sunnah and what in religion is not sunnah- i.e. bida.

These misconceptions call for the need to establish the fundamental step which is to know bida, the concepts of bida according to Ahl-Sunnah Wal Jamah and the aspects of bida.

Bida, Its Meaning: (Heresy, Innovation)

“Any invented act or path in the religion that is made to compete or resemble the Shari’a and that is followed for the same purpose as Shari’a is supposed to be followed.”

From this definition and from the statements of Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) about bida or innovation, we can come up with some general ideas or concepts about bida that explains this definition.

Aspects Of Bid’ah:

Some of the aspects or concepts of bida are as follow:

1. Every bida is Dalalah.

Linguistically bida is something which is new or something which was not done before, i.e., it has no precedent. From the point of view of Shari’a, every bida is Dalalah and there is no such thing as ‘good’ bida. Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) said in an hadith, “Kullo dalalatin fin naar (every dalalah is in hellfire).”

Dalalah means to be astray or to be away form the truth. If we look in the Quran, we will see how Allah (swt) used the word ‘dalalah’ or ‘dal’. It is not used for the one who commits a sin or makes a mistake with respect to the deen but it is used for those people who have gone astray form the straight path or who have divided the religion. For instance in Surah Fatiha (first chapter), the word ‘Daaleen’ is not used for mere sinners but it is used for people who have gone astray form the true path, the Christians.

So when Prophet ((may Peace Be Upon Him)) described bida, he used the harsher form of deviation, i.e. dalalah, as he said, " Kullo bidatin dalalah (every bida is dalalah)." He didn’t just say that every bida is a sin or is wrong but in fact it is something much greater than that. It is a misguidance, something that takes us AWAY from the right path.

[tomndebb]

@Hank_Beecher

The OP says nothing about ISIS or Wahhabism, regardless of how much you would like to push your narrative that the violence, and other damaging effects of Islam, only originate from some tiny minority within it.

You are very persistent in your attempts to limit criticism of Islam, I will have to give you that.

And you are very persistent in your efforts to avoid the actual topic of the thread:

@Leaper

I wouldn’t want to engage those people, especially not there, for obvious reasons. But what this brought to mind was, what do those people generally want to DO about their beliefs re: Islam? Go to war? ** Even if they were right, there are other factors at play. Ban Islam in the United States? Good luck with that. Have Islam categorized as a cult, not a religion? Ditto. Racially profile the hell out of anyone with brown skin and/or an Arabic sounding name? The problems there are obvious. ** Cut off diplomatic ties with Islamic countries? That’s the sanest possible reaction I can think of, and even then there are other issues at stake. So now what?

Related issue: given that a person has the beliefs described in my first paragraph, are they any more or less acceptable depending on what their answer to my question in my second paragraph is, or is it all equally abhorrent?

in order to simply bash the religion.

You will all address the actual question of the OP and stop the hijacks.

Go open a new thread if your desire is to ignore the OP and simply argue over the religion.

[ /Moderating ]

[Hank_Beecher]

@tomndebb

And you are very persistent in your efforts to avoid the actual topic of the thread:

in order to simply bash the religion.

You will all address the actual question of the OP and stop the hijacks.

Go open a new thread if your desire is to ignore the OP and simply argue over the religion.

[ /Moderating ]

I am not avoiding anything, this is a direct discussion of the OP.

post reported

[Hank_Beecher]

@tomndebb

And you are very persistent in your efforts to avoid the actual topic of the thread:

in order to simply bash the religion.

You will all address the actual question of the OP and stop the hijacks.

Go open a new thread if your desire is to ignore the OP and simply argue over the religion.

[ /Moderating ]

This is another obvious example of you abusing your power as mod in an attempt make up for your inability to advance your agenda with any sort of intelligent or informed arguments.

You are the one doing the hijacking. You are losing the debate, and this is your response.

[Hank_Beecher]

The way that you “moderate” discussions of Islam is *identical *to the way that the moderators of Stormfront.org “moderate” discussions of the Holocaust. Identical.

[Arcite]

@Kimstu

How could we westerners, especially those of us here in the US with its constitutional protections of civil liberties, possibly reconcile such a stance with our professed commitment to freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

We would have to revise those commitments, from the modern liberal ideas of open-ended freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to freedom of religion and freedom of speech within a traditional, historical Western context.

When Muslim fundamentalists protest instances of anti-Islamic blasphemy and denigration, we come back at them with “Ha ha suckers, freedom of speech, you don’t have any legal right never to be offended! Hee hee, look at this picture of the Prophet using his beard to wipe a pig’s ass!! Awww, u mad, bro?” and similar good-natured banter. :dubious:

I don’t come back at them that way, and the fact that that’s the first thing that comes to mind for so many people is part of the problem. Islam should be resisted not because it conflicts with modern liberal values, but because it commands the persecution of non-Muslims. And I don’t agree with gratuitously offending people by making obscene references to their most sacred prophet. The West should simply keep the Islamic world separate, not invite it in and then make fun of it.

And you suggest that we should then turn around and say “Actually, we’ll make an exception to our freedom-loving principles for your speech and your religion, because that’s something WE find offensive, and we only support freedom for stuff YOU find offensive”?!?

Sounds like a perfect way to make our whole society look like, well, like what’s being wiped with the beard in that hypothetical cartoon.

I believe in the traditional, historical, white, Christian West, so I reject your premise that a society featuring limits on freedom of speech and freedom of religion is comparable to a pig’s behind.

[drad_dog]

1 No veils in school.
2. Find the passionate anti extreme muslims and give them a visible role. We will never believe in a moderate Islam unless we hear from it. You want to let these clowns act and speak for you it’s not going to be a friendly world. But the passive aggressive defenses given are not a satisfying explanation of where we are post 9/11. A Muslim has to be really disingenuous to act like we don’t have a problem with Islamists now in our world.
3. The most important thing above all else: fuck em if they can’t take a joke. Sorry guys we speak freely here. You got to go somewhere else to bully and push people around.

[Kimstu]

@Arcite

We would have to revise those commitments, from the modern liberal ideas of open-ended freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to freedom of religion and freedom of speech within a traditional, historical Western context.

Uhhhh… exactly how far are you suggesting we take this “revision”? Should, e.g., anti-Christian forms of blasphemy be re-criminalized, as has generally been the case in the “traditional, historical Western context”?

[QUOTE=Arcite]
Islam should be resisted not because it conflicts with modern liberal values, but because it commands the persecution of non-Muslims.
[/quote]

Again, that depends on which interpretation of Islam one follows. Plenty of Muslims don’t believe that their Muslim faith requires

[QUOTE=Arcite]

I believe in the traditional, historical, white, Christian West

[/QUOTE]

That’s gonna make it a bit difficult to defend the continued existence of white-dominated Christian-majority societies in the American continents that have historically and traditionally been non-white and non-Christian. Will all we “European-Americans” have to pack up and go back to our traditional, historical, white, Christian West homelands?

And how about us white non-Christians, and/or Christian non-whites or some combination thereof, who are historically and culturally embedded in modern secular societies derived from the “traditional, historical, white, Christian West”?

Of the suggestions proposed in this thread for what we should “DO about” Islam in the modern world, this strikes me as easily one of the worst.

[Kimstu]

@drad_dog

1 No veils in school.

If by “veils” you mean face-covering, I’m fine with that requirement for public-school elementary/secondary education.

If you’re ruling out headscarves, then nope.

[QUOTE=drad dog]

2. Find the passionate anti extreme muslims and give them a visible role. We will never believe in a moderate Islam unless we hear from it. You want to let these clowns act and speak for you it’s not going to be a friendly world.

[/quote]

Well, that’s largely on the non-Muslim western media to give the “anti extreme [M]uslims” a more “visible role”. Every time a radical-fundamentalist Islamist atrocity is committed, various Muslim organizations and officials all over the world issue official condemnations of it, but they seldom get reported in news stories. In western media, the narrative of “this whole billion people is out to get us because of their fanatical devotion to evil repression” sells a lot better than “a large number of extremist fanatics commit terrorist crimes but most of their co-religionists oppose them”.

[QUOTE=drad dog]

3. The most important thing above all else: fuck em if they can’t take a joke. Sorry guys we speak freely here. You got to go somewhere else to bully and push people around.
   [/QUOTE]

Take it up with Arcite.

[drad_dog]

@Kimstu

If by “veils” you mean face-covering, I’m fine with that requirement for public-school elementary/secondary education.

If you’re ruling out headscarves, then nope.
Well, that’s largely on the non-Muslim western media to give the “anti extreme [M]uslims” a more “visible role”. Every time a radical-fundamentalist Islamist atrocity is committed, various Muslim organizations and officials all over the world issue official condemnations of it, but they seldom get reported in news stories. In western media, the narrative of “this whole billion people is out to get us because of their fanatical devotion to evil repression” sells a lot better than “a large number of extremist fanatics commit terrorist crimes but most of their co-religionists oppose them”.
Take it up with Arcite.

No that’s the passive aggressive nonsense. It is on Muslims to be passionate about their own peace. Not anyone else. Don’t blame the media. These narratives are fed by events. It only takes a few of anyone to ruin it for the rest. That’s the way it was in my grade school anyway. They or you are not victims. Look inside. It will get you further.

You cannot be treated like the Shintos or Zoroastrians of the world (by the west) if you are in this situation. You got to have something more to say about your backyard. Anyone can drum up an official condemnation. Do your people believe it is sincere and followed by actions? Or is it boilerplate, like the rest of beaurocracy in the world? We know what these things mean because we do it ourselves. It means nada. You should be able to argue your case for moderate Islam and not be afraid of your brethren. I don’t think it’s the case.

[andros]

@Hank_Beecher

The way that you “moderate” discussions of Islam is *identical *to the way that the moderators of Stormfront.org “moderate” discussions of the Holocaust. Identical.

Because I do not choose to link to that particular cesspit, I will not provide a cite. But this is factually incorrect.
.

[Kimstu]

@drad_dog

No that’s the passive aggressive nonsense. It is on Muslims to be passionate about their own peace. Not anyone else. Don’t blame the media.

If the media isn’t reporting what moderate Muslims publicly and openly say, it’s perfectly reasonable to blame the media for that failure.

[drad_dog]

@Kimstu

If the media isn’t reporting what moderate Muslims publicly and openly say, it’s perfectly reasonable to blame the media for that failure.

It is news when someone dies. It is not news when someone condemns violence. You’re supposed to condemn violence. It is your minimum human duty. You don’t get a medal for it. It’s not a failure of the media. Stop whining.

The fact that we are discussing the many violent acts is plenty example that there is something out there to worry about.

I am not convinced Islam wants to deal with this issue based on the statements I have seen. They want to put it on the media, the west and everybody elses history of cruelty. It’s not going to solve anything.

[Miller]

@drad_dog

It is news when someone dies. It is not news when someone condemns violence. You’re supposed to condemn violence. It is your minimum human duty. You don’t get a medal for it. It’s not a failure of the media. Stop whining.

Okay, now I’m confused. You want Muslims to be passionate about speaking up against Islamic violence. But you also don’t expect the media to cover Muslims who speak up against Islamic violence. Soooo… how exactly do you know if they’re speaking up against Islamic violence, if it’s not going to be covered by the media?