I was surprised in the wake of this newest attack the even larger numbers of people saying ISIS is akin to the KKK or the WBC. I understand the need to protect Islamic people from reactionary attacks, but since when has it become wrong to decry the religion of Islam? Should it not be done? I have strong feelings towards Islam for being a religion at all and would have no problem replacing “Islam” with “Christianity” in any of my attacks on it…but the second I express these viewpoints, I’ve suddenly been described as a bigoted asshole, even when I thoroughly say I don’t hate Islamic people but I just do not appreciate the religion they follow. One even related it to me saying “im not homophobic, i just hate gay people.” Is Islam above reproach? Are we going to pretend like it’s a super amazing religion that doesn’t in any way endorse violence and is above reproach?
Note: I make a strong distinction from Islamic people and their passive worship from IslamISM, the Koran as written in a literal interpretation, the tenants of Islam as instituted as law, and the extremism that follows
My main problem with religion is when it crosses over into politics. Short of that, I have a live and let live attitude with religion and religious people as long as they don’t try to convert me.
When it does cross over, reproach away.
It goes to far when you take the views of certain sects of Muslims and assume those beliefs are shared by all Muslims.
The same holds true for Christianity. While it is the case that Many Christians use their religion as a pretext to persecute gays, it is unfair to assume that any given Presbyterians will hold the same views as the Westboro baptists.
I’ve been turning around in my head the extent to which I think it is valid to separate a religion from its more extreme sects. Since I “believe” all forms of Islam (and christianity, and judaism) are bullshit, I see no reason to consider a violent manifestation any more or less legitimate than a peaceful one.
In a weird way, I wonder if mainstream believers ARE to some extent responsible for their more violent minority brethren. After all, the mainstream is pushing the same underlying playbook. In an analogy to product liability, oughtn’t they bear some responsibility if their “product” is misused in a reasonably anticipated manner?
Haven’t decided what I personally feel about any of this. Just wanted to toss out some things that have been bouncing around in my cranium.
Let’s assume ISIS does equal all Muslims. So you’d be at war with a billion people. Then what? Is the West going to collectively kill a billion people, bomb every ME country except for Israel, take the campaign to Africa and Southeast Asia, occupy hundreds of thousands of square miles for who knows how long?
At some point, it just becomes impractical and logistically impossible. We cannot go to war with all Muslims so it doesn’t matter if ISIS represents Muslims, we cannot fight that. Therefore, we have to restrict our opponent to the smallest possible fringe group that we have a chance against and isolate them from the rest and hope they moderate.
Why do you think all Muslims are terrorists?
A more serious answer is, some people are idiots. And if an idiot is determined to take offense, there’s nothing you can do about it.
At least, in the West, if you dis the Prophet they just call you an Islamophobe or a bigot. ISIS would cut off your head or crucify you, so count your blessings.
Regards,
Shodan
My argument would be that I argue against primarily the holy scripture supposedly handed down from God to Muhammad who then wrote those down. I believe that this holy scripture allows for and gives backing to ISIS and to Arabic states who use the Koranic principles to create laws. If anything, I argue that moderate Muslims, all in all, don’t really follow the principles of the book and pick and choose what they want to follow. This is why they don’t think it’s a good idea to kill those who leave Islam or decry Muhammad. The EXACT same goes for Christianity and I believe the EXACT same about them. The problem is that everyone is coming to the rescue of “islam” when they’re really just trying to protect Islamic people from Xenophobic backlash - but, in my eyes, by protecting “Islam” they’re protecting the utterly wrong holy scripture that is the Koran which in no way needs to be protected.
quick edit: I don’t think there should be any war. I just don’t think it should be especially protected in common discourse or that the principles of Islam as written in the Koran should be above reproach.
It sounds as though you may be failing to get across the point that your beef is with religion in general, not with Islam per se, since you feel that your attacks would apply to other religions just as much as to Islam.
So try substituting “religion” for “Islam” in your critiques, as in “I believe that religious holy scriptures give backing to terrorists and fundamentalists who use scriptural principles to create laws”, or “moderate believers don’t really follow the principles of their scriptures and pick and choose what they want to follow”.
I can’t guarantee that you won’t still get called a bigoted asshole, but at least you won’t be mistaken for an Islamophobic one.
Of course you can dislike a religion. All a religion is is a collection of funny superstitions and cultural practices. Many of them borderline insane. The only issue you will have is from the zealots of the more violent strains of religion and their opportunistic apologists who exploit them as a potential voting block under a mistaken belief that an “enemy” of an enemy is a friend.
For me, it has nothing to do with the enemy of my enemy. It has to do with the consequences of accepting the idea that one religion is “the enemy,” because that will quickly be followed by two, and so on.
Who the fuck cares? As long as they’re nonviolent, what business is it of yours which imaginary sky fairy they follow, and how well they follow that sky fairy’s laws? We (as a country) have a principle of freedom of worship. As long as that worship does not interfere with secular government, it is sacrosanct.
Yes.
Out of all the major religions, I have the most animus towards Islam as it happens to be linked to the most bad behavior using the religion as the justification in the world at the moment.
But I have a great deal of admiration for people like Irshad Manji, or Majid Nawaz (sp).
I think the collection of ideas in Islam is a pile of garbage, and tilts many muslims in ways I find abhorrent, but if they reject the crap many of them can be quite wonderful people as people.
One of my relatives is not included in the latter. He was a bit of a lost soul, and turned to Islam. Now he bashes music and spouts nonsense about what Islam teaches is wrong.
I’m a gay guy, I don’t have time for that garbage and crap. And to the extent his mind has been poisoned by those shit ideas/beliefs, it make me cold towards him as a person.
You ignore the part you quoted which mentioned the threat to secular government?
A great article on ‘Criticising Islam’ by a very brave Pakistani journalist. I was pointed towards this guy by Hank Beecher. He is good throughout, but I have excerpted some relevant bits and put in emphasis
Eh? Nothing in the post I quoted mentions a threat to secular government. It mentions a basis for theocratic government, of course.
I am not a religious person. I believe the entire concept of religion is inherently flawed. I am very glad to live in a society where I can openly say that and I very much defend my and anyone’s right to do so. So if someone calls you a “bigoted asshole” for criticizing religion, I am with you.
However - I was not there and I do not know in what way you did criticize religion. You seem to agree that most religious people are fairly decent folks - including Muslims. Recently much of the “criticism” leveled at Islam that I have seen basically amounted to either throwing in all Muslims with ISIS-style extremists or asserting that the extremists actually represented the true Islam while everyone else followed a “whitewashed” version of it. I can see how someone would take offense with such an approach. So if you did that (or if you accidentally gave off the impression that you did) it might explain some heated retort.
Personally I disagree with the beliefs of religious people, but I am also convinced that in the vast majority of cases these beliefs are totally harmless. There are even cases where I believe religion to be beneficial. (Throughout history religion has caused men to kill and has caused men not to kill. More of one or more of the other? I do not know.) But there are billions of people, to whom their beliefs are dear. I reserve the right to politely disagree with them, but I see no benefit in purposefully hurting their feelings.
Good post. My beef is with those who don’t moderate their antiquated belief systems to be more compatible with at least age of enlightenment era ideals. If they don’t choose to moderate their ideology it needs to get moderated for them. And ultimately that’s what this conflict comes down to. Which group has the force and just as importantly will to compel the others to live according to a set of values they may not necessarily wish to live by.
And you can broaden that out. All religions use the same underlying playbook as each other so it’s not just moderate muslims who are partially responsible for ISIS but also moderate christians. Or believers in any religion.
Imagine if the whole world was atheist and the only religious belief in the world was a small enclave which was ISIS. So there’s just atheism and ISIS in the world. They would look a lot more isolated than they do now. That’s because they are camouflaged by all the religion around them - in the middle east and in the west.
I am curious why you feel a need to disparage Islam rather than focusing on the actual sources of problems such as Wahhabism or Salafism and so on. What is the point?
Islam has simply replaced “communism” as the current boogeyman in our society. Where we used to equate the abuses of Stalin or Pol Pot to any reference to “communism,” using that to rationalize our support for the violent overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende, the efforts to re-establish the Somozan dictatorship in Nicaragua, and the numerous authoritarian regimes we created or supported that spent more effort persecuting their own people than actually “fighting communism,” (Iran, Philippines, Indonesia, San Salvador, Vietnam, etc.) Stalin and Pol Pot were monsters. Communism was an unworkable philosophical experiment. However, in our need to create and maintain Us-vs-Them viewpoints, we simply pasted “communist” on all sorts of differing socialist, (and democratic), movements, ignoring their many differences and refusing to even examine the individual states and philosophies.
With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, we lost our iconic boogeyman and many people, feeling the loss, have switched over to fearing “Islam.”
To the extent that “Islam” is a threat, it is one that we are creating. By refusing to recognize the many differences among various Muslim groups, we are re-creating the Red Scare when we could be making the effort to recognize differences and work with those who are willing to work with us to oppose the extremes of Wahhabism as demonstrated by al Qaeda and Daesh.
What is the point of "decry[ing] Islam,"aside from making one feel superior to those people?
I am frankly shocked to agree with this. No offense.
(With the caveat that I’m thinking of a subset of Islam, not the religion as a whole.)
.
Because the most intolerant aspects of the religion are actually parts of governments such as Saudi Arabia. When people are being stoned to death for adultery based on a crackpot book rational people have every right to critique the source material and those who preach and indoctrinate hundreds of millions of people.
Sure, those who disavow the most barbaric portions of that ideology/religion can be accepted into civilized company. Imagine if the Christian church still had theocratic governments that administered Old Testament punishments for adultery. I doubt that the liberal defense force would be mustered to defend that.
The veiled “dat’s racist” card shouldn’t be played in every situation in which there is a difference in fundamental ideology. No one would call anti-fascist debate or critique a belief in the inferiority of “those people”