Scott Dickerson: Here’s a link to my Cafe Society thread ( that sounds odd to me for some reason - I can probably copunt the number of threads I have started in my years at the SDMB on one hand ). Don’t know if anything on this list will be helpful to you in formulating your thoughts on this topic or not, but just in case you are interested:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198523
More and more:
Your attitude, including your certitudes based on half-baked information appears to me to be functionally indistinguishable from bigotry.
Oh, poor Jojo, having to listen to Muslims droning, why I am sure they tie you down. I rather seem to recall you having a project to convert them (or a neighbor at least) to ‘reason.’
Well, I know literally thousands of Muslims, have spent the past decade or so immersed in them. I work and live with them, I’m hardly ever bothered. The odd conversion conversation is easily handled and hardly ever occurs – I’ve gotten far more and far more annoying conversion and Religious Law blather from Born Agains trying to save my unholy soul.
Must be me, or maybe you are looking for an itch to scratch. A scab to peel. Or maybe you’re a bigot searching for something to be all up in arms about.
Well, I believe the above more or less answers the question. You’re looking to get riled up.
They, they, they.
Well, if you would start by learning something and not keep repeating the same half-baked crap, then perhaps there might be some progress. Unlikely, as it appears to be something fundamental, but one can hope.
Primo, you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the “ideology” and secundo, I couldn’t give a flying fuck if “some of my best friends” are Muslims is true or not, arguing from ignorance remains ignorant…
First, if you knew, then why did you use the present tense? I think you’re lying to cover up your embarrassment. You will deny of course, but Occcam’s razor.
As for being part of Islam, lots of things have been part of Islam in the widest sense of the word – i.e. religion as a culture and history.
Well, if one believes the Salafi extremists, then I suppose that may be the case, however since, despite their pretensions, the Salafi fundamentalists are not the only Muslims around, and indeed are probably but a minority, albeit a numerous one (but then so are Xian fundies), that’s neither here nor there.
I’ll take reality for 5, Alex, and not “No True Scotmen” arguments by someone who seems to have but a vague and unlearned acquaintance with Islam.
Then cite to them, as Tamerlane noted, the major HR organizations haven’t mentioned anything of the sort. Again, enough of the hand waving I have heard bullshit.
Considered actually, they didn’t quite get around to applying it in the end, ran out of time. However, insofar as you have thinkers like Qardaouie, himself not a liberal, and the Iranian clerical establishment or ulema condemning the Taleban as backward fucks, your argument rather looks sad and peevish.
Well, first let me remind the readers of (a) your bullshit translation of the phrase, (b) that the demands are not by Egyptian “Muslims” or the state, but rather along the lines of extortion rackets. In the same way the Russian mafia, the Italian mafia, etc. do such. So it’s dressed up in religious terms, nothing unique there either, despite your attempts to paint this in gibbering fear mongering terms.
In any event, the issues in the Saed region of Egypt revolve around a declinging economy, failing land and immense social pressure. Some of it bleeds off into Xian versus Muslim, but as much into Muslim versus Muslim. In short, humanity scrabbling over a declining share of the pie, brings out the ugliness.
And? Egypt is a big place. In the Saed, the government has a hard time enforcing the law – the rule of clan and vengeance – sometimes married with Islamic extremism – rules more than the State. It’s great to visit. Westerner or not, you have to go in an armed convoy. Yup, armed convoy, nice guys with machine guns mounted on their truck, and one’s driver doubles as a body guard. Doesn’t matter if you’re Muslim or Budhist, the folks just don’t like outsiders.
And this area is a world of difference from Cairo and the North, indeed in Cairo, the Xians are the heart of the private sector and generally pretty wealthy.
Are there problems, yes there are, but I see no reason to be using it as a flag against Islam, except for bigotry looking for handles.
If you had a genuine interest, you would find it easy enough to find out, they’re against inter-communal violence, and there is no way in the world Mubarek and the Generals are for imposing medieval rules. Mubarek et al have numerous faults, they’re corrupt fucks, but they’re not bigots.
Why don’t we have some actual numbers instead of the simple hand waving. Nevermind, I’ll do it for you:
AI 2001 figures:
China: noted as incomplete data, at least 2468
Iran: 139
Saudi Arabia: 79
USA: 66
The aforementioned accounting for “90 percent” of all known executions. I have no idea how fiable these figures are in really capturing the real number of executions in the world, but we can see three countries where fundie religion drives executions – perhaps you should be equally excited that in the US – where zapping people is exceedingly popular, the religious right is positively overjoyed by the thought of more executions and wants to limit rights of appeal.
I also note the majority of the Islamic world doesn’t pop up. Of course, Jojo the learned scholar of Islam simply declares them not real Muslims, you know “No True Scotsman.”
The observation might be worthy of comment if it was made by someone who reflected a real learning in the subject. Observations from pure bigotry are fundamentally uninteresting.
No, I don’t believe you, you’ve shown no sign of being anything more than someone very frightened of the Muslim who will go boo under the Bed.
As for your CAPITAL letter declaration that the Quran is not the work of God, well as non-believers, why do we care? I don’t particularly believe any of the books, Torah, Bible nor Quran are necessarily divinely inspired, but then I don’t run around commenting ignorantly on Judiasm and telling CD Dexter Haven, Zev, and other Board jews, above all the Orthodox among them, that their book is shite, that Mosiac law is crap, holding Kosher rules strictly shows how backward they are and and that none of it is “REALLY” inspired by God, and oh yes, you’re not “REALLY” (in case they missed it, the capital letters should help) God’s chosen people which only shows how bigoted and close minded Jews are against all other religions, etc.
Lucky me, if I did I would be rightly labeled a bigot. The same goes for the Boards Xians, believers of whatever stripe.
hmm…was going to let this thread die but then I decided not to.
First this by Scott:
If you’re talking about me and collounsbury then don’t worry about us, we go way back and in fact love each other in a very deep way that may not be obvious to outsiders. But I would like to stress that our love is a purely sexual thing.
Tamerlane,
You compared the Egyptian boys to the mafia but surely the mafia don’t use religious scripture to justify their extortion?
Re: the cutting off of hands issue. I don’t know whether I’m being dumb here or you’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe I haven’t explained myself clearly enough:
There are some people in America who support the death penalty. These people support the death penalty because they are persuaded by the arguments in favour of it - deterrent, just punishment, cheaper than prison etc etc.
I personally don’t agree with their arguments but I can see where they are coming from. If these people could be persuaded that their arguments are erroneous then they would change their minds.
They are open to persuasion.
Not all interpretations of islam provide for the cutting off of hands but some muslims do belong to branches of islam that advocate hand-lopping. These muslims, that belong to the hand-lopping school, only advocate hand-removal because that is what the holy book says.
They don’t believe in hand-removal because they think it’s a deterrent or because they think it’s a just punishment. They advocate hand-removal because they think that’s what God says we should do.
They aren’t open to persuasion. It is possible that they could be persuaded that they have misunderstood the book and that the book doesn’t really say “remove the hands”. In this case they would move to a different version of islam, a “keep the hands” version.
But they haven’t been persuaded by force of argument that chopping off hands is bad idea. All they’ve been persuaded of is that the book says something slightly different to what they thought. But they are still obeying the book to the letter.
The death penalty is something that is continually being debated - should we do it, shouldn’t we. Different countries arrrive at different verdicts but at least they arrive at their verdict after debating the merits of such a punishment.
In islam the argument just seems to be - does the book tell us to do it or not? No discussion as to whether we should do it, just, does the book tell us to do it?
Chopping off hands is probably a bad example because I don’t think any countries (outside SA) actually do it but the principle is the same. When considering any course of action there should be some thought as to the inherent merits of that action not just argument as to whether the book recommends it or not.
You say:
Is this true? Can you give me any examples? I’m not talking about debate as to what the book says, I’m talking about debate about the inherent merits of any given seemingly “islamic” course of action.
Collounsbury,
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be an expert on Islam. You’ll notice I hardly ever argue with you or Tamu. I raise questions or criticisms. If I’m still not sure what you mean I may come back to you but so what?
In any case I’m too scared to argue with Tamu (all those skulls).
Anyway:
Maybe you should get out more?
Yes I don’t like to listen to anyone droning. Maybe you do?
Yes I would like to convert them but then everyone wants to convert people. You want to convert people to the “collounsbury world view” I want to convert people to the “jojo world view”. Nothing wrong with that.
If everybody in the world thought like me then there would be no war.
No, I don’t think you do know them. You know them but you don’t know them. I don’t think you really know a person until you reach the point where you can start insulting each other.
example - one guy was calling me gondhu for about a year before I got round to looking up what it meant. I thought it would be something respectful, turned out it means “donkey-shagger”.
Now that I’m armed with that info I’ve taken to calling him soodu which (I think) means fuckface or somesuch.
The muslims I know and I have been through a lot together. When 9/11 happened one guy I know (who is a mullah) got chased down the street because he bears an unfortunate resemblance to OBL. When Iraq came along I had to bear the brunt of their displeasure since I am the only white person they know who they feel comfortable enough to argue with.
I reckon you kept your head down and tried to keep a low profile. I had stand up rows with them (friendly ones) and we’re all still together. I reckon my relationship with the muslims I know is healthier than your relationship is with the muslims you know.
You (I think) are probably all respectful and fawning whereas if I think something’s bullshit, I tell them. Works two-ways, they tell me if they think somethings bullshit.
No, maybe you go around looking for putative bigots to get up in arms about.
Hmm…so I was right about Iran then. Second to China. I also seem to recall that the Taliban were executing 20 people a day at one point.
I (obviously) don’t much like religious fundamentalism whether it’s islamic or any other kind but islam seems to lend itself to harsh interpretations. As regards the US, I agree. I’ve already said I don’t agree with the death penalty and in any case I’m not American so if you want to get into criticising America then I have no problem with that.
Muslim Heaven is so obviously the heaven of a 7th century arab man sitting out in the desert. When he goes to heaven there will be the shade of palm trees, oases of water and virgins.
Well, where I’m from, I would rather have slightly less rain not more. The only reason I would want a tree to stand under is to protect me from the rain and as for virgins…well I’ll keep them. Although, to be honest, I would prefer women that weren’t virgins really.
If Mohammed had been born in the UK I think Islamic heaven would look somewhat different.
And as for women in Islamic heaven, well ain’t much there for them. Also re the virgins - are they only virgins until the first time you have sex with them and after that you’ve just got 72 non-virgin women to deal with or do they keep getting replenished so that you are continually getting new batches of virgins?
To be honest, although I am sexual dynamite, I think I could get bored with all these virgins every night wanting me to perform. And in any case, islamic heaven offers you alcohol as well. After a lifetime of abstinence I would really hit the bar when I reach heaven so I’m not sure I would be in any state to keep these virgins going.
In fact, wouldn’t islamic heaven be full of alcoholics?
In any event, islam proves itself wrong by means of a fatal internal contradiction ie God made Jesus “resemble another” on the cross. By doing this God made everyone think that Jesus was crucified when he wasn’t. This started Christianity.
So, on the one hand, Islam says that Christianity is wrong and yet, on the other hand, Islam says that God started Christianity.
Uh?
Question for you: Who’s “they”? Is it all Muslims, most Muslims, just those in SA, Muslims from the 7th century, Muslims you know or…? If most don’t subscribe to it, why do you think they don’t?
I also know a lot of Muslims and I don’t think anybody among them believes in this. What do they say about literal interpretation of a holy book? Especially one which is extremely difficult to interpret?
I don’t know why you keep punding on this and force people to take your point of view when Coll and Tamerlane pointed out that you used past tense and when challanged you mentioned practices in SA. You know as well as I do that most Muslims (by a very very long mile) live outside of SA. In fact, most live outside of MidEast.
Just curious, do your Muslims friends agree with your POV?
Sure they can and do.
On executions and the like.
Wonderful, some are, some are not. Depends on who we’re speaking to, but in the end quite evidently most Muslims are open to persuasion since the hand chopping thing is of great rarity nowadays in the Islamic world.
Some… some… Well some Xians in the state believe zapping people is all well good and holy, so what does this argument get us.
Further you make the assertion, again based off of Jojo logic, such as it is, that those Muslims who support cutting off do so solely because of the holy book.
Strong and sweeping assertion - again part of your continued use of the No True Scotsman fallacy to promote a shrill bit of panic mongering – I have no idea where you develop your assertions from, for example in Northern Nigeria interviews and reporting in the BBC, Washington Post and New York Times, to name but the English language reporting, all consistently found and report that the major impetus (aside from political power plays) for popular support was a desire for law and order. Secular courts are corrupt and inefficient, Nigerians reported a hope/belief that Sharia courts would be more efficient and help establish law and order.
But one example, but pertinent for showing that this rant of yours is fact free and driven by phobia.
Assertions, based off of your own rather impoverished understanding of things.
I fail to see an issue for debate, you make a great deal of hand waving assertions about Muslims not being open to assertion (or in your back scuttling, “some Muslims”) – I see no engagement with fact.
You continually raise the same arguments and the same fact free panic mongering regarding Islam and Muslims. Bigotry.
The paragraph above should read as follows::smack:
I don’t know why you keep pounding on this and force people to take your point of view when Coll and Tamerlane pointed out that you used present tense to describe past events (doubtful even if it was as widespread as you implied) and when challanged you mentioned practices only in SA.
Jojo: Well of course the thing is, is that religion, as a historical entity, doesn’t really work that way. Not Islam and not any religion. That much is true. However that is not the same as saying Islam is not open to persuasion.
A good Muslim will tell you that the Qur’an is immutable and that their religious precepts stem from this immutable text. But immutable or not it is also an interpretive text and interpretations change all the time. Constantly, in fact. Now these interpretation are bounded to be sure. But a lot less tightly than I expect you think. Your argument that Muslims are not open to suasion and evolution of their faith just doesn’t hold up. An example I’ve brought up before:
The Qur’an says a man may have up to four wives. It also says he must treat them all the same. Okay, fine - That was actually a moderately progressive view by the standard of 7th century mores. As it was relatively few men could afford multiple wives, especially in urban setting, so polygamy wasn’t exactly rife throughout the Arab world. Nonetheless, it did occur and appeared to be sanctioned religiously. Well the 18th and 19th century rolls around and western notions start seeping into the Middle East. One of these, whether from moral or practical reasons, is the notion of monogamy as a superior instituition. This filters to theologians who start thinking on the issue of polygamy and then some of them suddenly come to the conclusion that the Qur’an actually says the opposite of what they thought. Because no man can truly treat all of his wives exactly the same, could they? Muhammed and other perfect prophets perhaps excepted. So what the Qur’an is actually saying is that de facto most Muslims are banned from having multiple wives, unless they can live up to near impossible standards.
Somewhat tortured reasoning? Sure - but the history of religion is full of tortured reasoning ( ObL’s reasoning for believing he is sanctioned to kill civilians is far more tortured ). The fact of the matter is that the major, poly-cultural faiths always adapt themselves to reflect changing society. They also work in the other direction as well, of course. But there is always a synergy. The “clergy” in Iran, once determindedly apolitical, gradually became more politically active in reaction to changing events in Iran - they ( and their opposition within clerical circles ) found ammunition for this change in status within scriptural texts to justify this, yet somehow those same texts were perceived to have said something different to them generations earlier. I can cite innumerable examples of philosophical debates from within Islam over fairly large and fundamental, but also small and practical, issues. But frankly you’d better off reading a book than some post I composed for this message board.
If you like one can draw an analogy to the U.S. Constitution and the constant interpreting and re-interpreting of its actual message. Does an 18th century document still actually reflect a working 21rst century society? Some would say no, but many would say yes. Now of course the counter-claim is that the Constituition is flexible because it can be amended. But insomuch as the Qur’an ( not even to mention the hadith ), like the Bible, are several orders of magnitude more complex and open to interpretation than even the Constitution, the re-interpretation can almost be functionally equivalent to amending ( see example above ).
I’m not a Muslim and I believe that it can be a very dangerous force at times. However it can also be pretty peaceable and humanistic. And to call it unchanging and unopen to persuasion ( from a cultural standpoint, at the very least ), is simply erroneous.