So, you aren’t interested in debating or even sharing the case this book makes against Islam?
Ok then, I move this thread be moved to Cafe Society and then closed, since there’s obviously no discussion to be had here.
I mean, I’m no Islamophile (or -phobe), but can you at least summarize the main arguments? Link to an extended review? Or are we just supposed to intuit what we’re talking about here?
Oh, and the most devastating book on Islam was Moby Dick. “Call me Ishmael.” It’s all right there, man.
You consider “I was born into a Muslim family” to be a devastating rebuttal of Islam?
OK - my parents are fairly liberal, and very much opposed to the war in Iraq.
There - I have just devastated the anti-war stance.
This is known as the “genetic fallacy”.
The truth value of a statement is usually considered independent of the speaker. A statement which is well-founded and logically valid stands on its own, even if the biggest idiot on earth made it. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether the author of this book is Muslim or Rosicrucian - if he has valid criticisms of Islam, then they are valid regardless of whether he grew up Muslim or not.
I have to agree with you - if what you have already posted is indicative of what you consider important about a discussion of Islam, certainly any summary you type is likely to be a waste of time.
So, Lonesome Polecat, I suppose you have read the book, since you object so strenuously to anyone posting in this thread who hasn’t - perhaps you could give a precis of its main points.
Or are you just going to object to the rest of us learning something?
CYA Disclaimer: I have not read it either. Here’s part 1 of a rather lengthy Internet review in sereval parts that was printed in the (oh no here it comes) The Weekly Standard c. 1996:
I doubt if Shodan needs my help, but he has a point. The OP has framed no debate for anyone who has not read the book, which by my count is exactly two posters in this thread.
Umm… Didn’t I make that point first, Contrapuntal? :dubious:
However, here is a proposed claim. It is impossible to separate criticism of Islam, from the culture that exists based on Islam. (In other words, blame the Koran for bad things that have happened, and not just individual people who have done bad things.) The author makes it pretty clear that Islam is not a religion of peace. Of course, Pope Rap-singer is going to have his hands full with trying to show that Islam and Christianity should be at war with one another, so maybe I am not needed to offer criticism, since he will be providing enough. Nevertheless, I am game, to argue it, for the next few hours.
If you did it is not clear to me. I am often confused by what you say, so it is really not all that surprising. Pardon me if I have stepped on your toes.
What doesn’t interest me is trying to satisfy vague, open-ended demands for cites from someone who doesn’t seem to know specifically what he wants cites for–and, moreover, rather stupidly seems to think that he has somehow made some kind of point merely because he has demanded cites.
I think I’d be a little more convinced of your sincerity about learning something if you’d actually made some kind of effort on your own behalf rather than expecting the rest of us to spoon feed you. No, I will not supply you with a * precis. * And now, as you did on another thread, you have wasted enough of my time. Buh-bye.
t is based on the notion, however, that there is one single Islamic culture, and that everything in that culture came from the Q’uran. Which is debateable. For instance, I understand that the Ka’aba, which figures heavily in the pilgrimage to Mecca which is one of the pillars of Islam, existed before Muhammed received his prophetic visions. So even so central an item as that seems to have come from outside Islam.
Or even other phenomena like female genital mutiliation, widely and rightly condemned, does not occur in every single Islamic country. So also does the degree to which women are required to cover themselves.
If the author is talking about the fact that Islam has much less tradition of the separation of church and state, and posits a largely theocratic society, he might be on firmer ground. We might be able to talk, then, about the degree to which a fundamentalist view of Islam can be refuted by an appeal to outcome.
If I understand what you posted. I share Contrapunctal’s difficulty in being sure of what you say.
This is absurd.
You folks can’t have a meaningful discussion about something which virtually all of you are unfamiliar with.
Ibn warraq addresses many of the issues you raise, Shodan, in an informed way, but there’s no way could could know, especially trying to extrapolate from Scott Plaid’s post.
I suspect WeRSauron wass hoping to find a large bunch of folks who had read the book when he threw down that particular gauntlet. When it turned out that hardly anyone had, the gaunlet just lay there, inert.
It’s not fair to insist that others read this book, and get impatient if they don’t. I’ve only seen the book in a very few bookstores, and you’d probably have to order it from Amazon or Prometheus Press. If you want to discuss the book, it seems to me you ought to summarize at least one of the points you want to discuss, along with some of the evidence Ibn Warraq cites.
I quoted a part of the book which demonstrated, that despite the claim of all religions, it is possible to break away from it. The fact that it is possible for me to make just as legitamate claims as Ibn’s doesn’t matter in the court of public opinion. That fact whooshed over the heads of some.
Now, Shodan has actually asked a question about the book, and I now have an actual answer for him. He claims that my statement “is based on the notion, however, that there is one single Islamic culture, and that everything in that culture came from the Q’uran.” However, in my own mind, it is enough to say that there has been one historical period, and place which is seen as a pentacle of islam, and that causes a monoculture, preventing diversity. However, let’s see what the author has to say about it.
Yes, and that is a point against the claim that islam is unique, or separated from paganism, a point for the author.
He points out that mutilation is forbidden by the koran, and is done only because the people before them did it. Also, while the order for women to cover their selves is part of the koran, the reason why the amount of covering varies is due to the fact the book itself is unclear. Oh, and the author does talk about “the fact that Islam has much less tradition of the separation of church and state, and posits a largely theocratic society." He points out that is a major problem, incompatable with western ideals of freedom, and states that he, personally, is better of without the religion.
I suspect that by saying “degree to which a fundamentalist view of Islam can be refuted by an appeal to outcome.”, you mean we should find some way to ask fundamentalists to change for the better. I do not see how. My own view is that we should through the baby out with the bathwater. The author’s view seems to be that the whole of islam is unsustainable. Not, I suspect, what they want to hear.
Well, not all religions claim that it is impossible to break away from them. Even Islam has a great deal to say about apostasy. So does Christianity, to name another of the great Abrahamic faiths.
I don’t think a monoculture of Islam exists now, which was my point.
Which period does the author claim was the pinnacle of Islam? IIRC, the furthest Islam made it into Europe was Spain, until the defeat at Granada in 1492. Or is he talking about the Umayyad caliphate?
Which would be another factor arguing against the Islamic monoculture you propose.
Not really. I am interested in knowing more about what points the author considers devastating. If all his points are aimed at Islamic fundamentalism, then presumably the outcomes could be avoided by differing interpretations of the Qur’an, or other kinds of adaptations. The negative outcomes, in other words, are not inherent in Islam itself, but only in one interpretation of it.
And, as I would argue, other interpretations are possible.
Although for different reasons, since they’re different ideologies. Christianity’s mis-doings were justified (to christians) in different ways to the way islam’s mis-doings are justified to muslims. The two ideologies may both fall under the general topic of “religion” but that doesn’t mean they are exactly the same thing.
The significance of this is that we may have defeated christianity (as an overt political force) but that doesn’t mean that the same tactics will work in defeating islam. In order to defeat an ideology it’s a good idea to know what you’re fighting. And no two ideologies are ever the same.
The argument that “well christianity did that too…” sounds a bit like:
Person A: The fascists were awful, they killed 12 million people
Person B: Well the communists were no better, Stalin killed 30 million
And then coming to the conclusion that fascism and communism are therefore the same thing since they both fall under the general heading of “political theories”.
They may both come under the general heading of “Things We Could Do Without” but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
Just wanted to post that I will explain later in greater depth how the book is devastating to Islam. I was typing a response but the electricity just went and so I can not read from the book. (We don’t have candles and what charged lights we have are being used to illuminate the room for guests. Welcome to Pakistan.)