I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by attofishpi »

Greta wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 10:39 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:39 pmLet me get this right - you consider the US motives as Christian directed right? Just because some of the US politicians and military are 'Christian' doesnt mean they are claiming it is Christian inspired or motivated.
But it's true:
George W Bush: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Fighting the Taliban and the tyranny of Hussein..ok
Greta wrote:And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
A state for the Palestinians good. Security for Israel good.

Cite other examples.

Because i'm still misunderstanding where Christianity causes people to purposely kill children.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:18 pm
I would think I was not. I would rather say I don't know what issue you're trying to make clear...
Seleucus wrote that 'Islamic suicide attacks go back to the tradition of assassins from the time of the early caliphs.' I suggested that suicide attacks were not peculiar to Muslims and gave examples. Then you came in, to say...I'm not sure what.
Me: It seems the bomber was somewhat weak minded
Once, that excuse is plausible. Twice, it's an interesting coincidence. Three times, it needs a proper explaining...where are all these "weak minded" individuals coming from, and why are they committing terrorist acts. But when thousands, or millions of people subscribe to the same homicidal methodologies, then "weak minded" simply becomes a weak-minded explanation.
It isn't an 'excuse', it appears to be the fact. I mentioned it because he might not have been a suicide bomber at all and because the non-Muslim IRA also used such people to commit similar acts i.e. it relates to the point about whether this sort of thing is particularly Islamic.

The incident before that (Westminster) was carried out by somebody who had a history of violence and attacks on police that predated their conversion to Islam. You rightly point out that the 9/11 attacks were well organised, but the motives that attackers gave were conventional political ones, not religious.

I mention these things because you want to insist on a one-size-fits-all theory where every Muslim is alike and 'millions' are religiously inspired dedicated terrorists. As I keep telling you, your idea of Muslims could not survive any exposure to real life. It as absurd as my insisting that all Americans are cowboys who carry six-shooters.

But we have had this argument before, so I will leave it at that.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by attofishpi »

Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:10 pmIt isn't an 'excuse', it appears to be the fact. I mentioned it because he might not have been a suicide bomber at all and because the non-Muslim IRA also used such people to commit similar acts i.e. it relates to the point about whether this sort of thing is particularly Islamic.
Let me just point out a few facts about the IRA.

1. They didn't purposely target children.
2. They would phone the authorities and WARN that they were targeting a particular region.
3. They could be REASONED with - hence - they are no longer bombing anyone.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Greta »

attofishpi wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 10:59 pm
Greta wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 10:39 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:39 pmLet me get this right - you consider the US motives as Christian directed right? Just because some of the US politicians and military are 'Christian' doesnt mean they are claiming it is Christian inspired or motivated.
But it's true:
George W Bush: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Fighting the Taliban and the tyranny of Hussein..ok
Greta wrote:And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
A state for the Palestinians good. Security for Israel good.

Cite other examples.

Because i'm still misunderstanding where Christianity causes people to purposely kill children.
I also can't understand how atheism causes people to bite the heads off babies. No, wait - that's right! - it's because no one said or implied it! Phew. Good that that's cleared up now.

Meanwhile GWB's God-inspired invasions, with disastrous consequences, remain on public record.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 11:10 pm Then you came in, to say...I'm not sure what.
I'm simply pointing out that fundamentalist Islam is intrinsically murderous. With Islam, it's only the liberals and Westernized ones that are any degree of safe, and the majority supports Sharia. But these are facts that are very easy to verify.
You rightly point out that the 9/11 attacks were well organised, but the motives that attackers gave were conventional political ones, not religious.
If you think that, you don't understand Islam at all. In Islam, there is no divide between personal piety and the political. Islam is a political conqueror, or, on its own terms, its a loser in every dimension. That's why they are so committed to political conquest.

But your 9-11 bombers were also distinctly self-declared, madrasa-raised Muslims. To ignore their self-identification and declared motives, which square perfectly with Islam, is absurd.

By the way, what do you think the "I" in "ISIL" stands for? "Ice cream"?
I mention these things because you want to insist on a one-size-fits-all theory where every Muslim is alike and 'millions' are religiously inspired dedicated terrorists.

Straw man. I have said repeatedly, and again above, that the minority, the Westernized, modern Muslims are not the danger that the fundamentalists are. They may all be addicted to a bad ideology, but thank God, the Westernized, modern ones generally (though their children are often different) tend not to act on the dictates of that bad ideology.
But we have had this argument before, so I will leave it at that.
Your choice. It'll probably come up again, right after the next homicidal Muslim kills a bunch of innocents.

In other words, talk to you tomorrow or the next day.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 5:47 pm
Seleucus wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 4:36 pm The morality in it is the destruction of the enemies of Western civilization. Defending you family and your people. Defending the apotheosis of civilization from heathens. As Jesus, the supreme warrior said, "I did not come to bring peace, I've brought the sword" (Matthew 10:34), or less well known: "if you own anything, sell it and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36). Deus vult!
That rather begs the question of what western civilisation is.
Very good question. I promise to return to your point here on Sunday when I have more time.
Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 5:47 pm
Me: Any threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial
You are perhaps not aware that whole countries which had been secular, are slipping under Islamic dictatorship? For example Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, the South of the Philippines, Pakistan, Turkey, the interior of Nigeria, the coastal region of Kenya, the East of Ethiopia (Eritrea); not to mention of course Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Libya...
I am aware of those countries; they certainly were never entirely secular and neither are they Islamic dictatorships. Several of them are going in the opposite direction. Besides, where Islam is having a revival it is because of Saudi promotion, and you say the USA runs Saudi Arabia, so...?
Let me just very quickly sketch the deteriorating situation in Indonesia, a so-called moderate Muslim country and you can decide for yourself. I'm drawing this information from the scholarly work of Anies Baswedan produced while at North Illinois and John Hopkins University and soon to be governor of Jakaarta, his mentor Dwight King, and back issues of the Jakarta Post. There are a minority of upper and middle-class Indonesians who are becoming more secular, however, the larger dynamic is that Muslims are becoming more pious. Anies recently swept to victory, backed by Islamist parties, the defeated (Christian) governor has been jailed for two years on charges related to blasphemy for comments he made about the Qur'an. His election was widely called solid proof of a slide away from tolerance and towards Islamism in reporting both local and abroad. Anies defines Islamists somewhat vaguely as those who peruse Muslim aspirations, in his writing he tries to connect, not distance, so-called moderate Muslims and Islamists. At the time of publication of his work "Political Islam in Indonesia: Present and Future Trajectory" fifteen years ago, he cites surveys showing 70% of Muslims support sharia. That number has since risen to 80%. Anies sketches the struggle of Islamist briefly as follows, after the settlement of the constitution, called Pancasila, which was secular and guaranteed religious freedoms, and the successive dictatorship periods of Sukarno and Suharto, Islamists realized that creating a sharia state would not be immediately possible and instead a broad Islamification of the society should be perused. The genocide of the 1960s was Muslim perpetrated. Government ministries, for example the ministry of Agriculture, have no non-Muslim staff at all. Permits to build churches or temples are impossible to get, mobs raze non-Muslim religious building and even spas and art galleries and rampage immune from prosecution. Islamist suicide bombings and bomb and gun attacks are daily. Heavy fighting occured between the Indonesian millitary and Islamists in Central Sulawesi over 2016. Religion was expanded in the school curriculum to the detriment of foreign languages, science and history. Increasingly homosexuals and trans-people are arrested in mass. The Internet has become heavily censored under the Ministry of Culture. Pro-sharia teachers hold almost all religion teacher positions, about 20% of students attend madrasahs, not schools. Only a Muslim can marry a Muslim woman. One must pass a "religious sanity" test to adopt a child and pass a religion course to be issued a university degree. Islamists put increasing pressure on the political parties so that at the time of Anies's article being published all but one of the parties was either Islamist or Islamist-inclusive. Today all parties are; in fact, Anies himself served as minister of education in the ruling and previously final hold-out secular party, the PDIP, until Islamist pressure led to an even more radical Islamist being given his post. Since the northern province of Aceh, following a long Islamist civil war, and numerous cities are already under Islamic law, the result for the country can easily be predicted, that is, banning of alcohol, no eating or purchasing food during the daytime during Ramadan, caning for homosexuals and sex outside marriage, men and women cannot ride the same motorcycle together, and so on. Stoning was attempted to be introduced into Aceh law in 2009 but did not pass. It can is anticipated based on trends that Indonesia will become increasingly a de facto Islamic state, and only a mater of time until a new sharia constitutional challenge is raised and wins. While influence from Saudi Arabia did kick-start Islamism in the 1800s in Indonesia, Anies sees today's Islamism as a homegrown phenomena fertilized by the hopeless poverty of the Muslim majority. I hope this gives you some leads and information to decide if the "threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial"?
Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 5:47 pm
Me: But again, there were plenty of non-Islamic societies that considered suicide attacks were praiseworthy too.
Please cite historical examples.
Of the opinion that they are praiseworthy? Here is some poetry to that effect:

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods...
Recall that my claim was that the origin of Muslim suicide attacks may be in the assassins who were a well known part of Islamic consciousness back to the original caliphs.

The poem you quote is a defense of Rome against hostile invaders. It's not an attack. It's quite different from massacring innocent civilians.
Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 5:47 pmCannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred
This is an episode of the Great Game. Professional soldiers meeting. Again not analogous.
Londoner wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 5:47 pmDulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
Again nothing here about massacring innocents. I expect the better analogy with Islamic suicide bombing is actually with spree and serial killers.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:18 pm It'll probably come up again, right after the next homicidal Muslim kills a bunch of innocents.

In other words, talk to you tomorrow or the next day.
My sincere apologies. It wasn't even one day.

I presume you've been hearing or reading about events in Egypt? Whom do you blame there? Was it the Quakers? Did the Anabaptists and the Mennonites rise up and slaughter the Copts? Was it a bloody group of wandering Buddhists, an aggregation of Zoroastrians, or perhaps a marauding gang of Western secularist liberals?

Who did it, and why?

Now, were all these murderers just "weak minded" types, perhaps isolated lunatics, who, through some unbelievable twist of chance, happened to flock together at just the precise moment to be able to attack that caravan of Coptic Christians and slaughter their children? Or could you possibly believe that their ideology motivated and united them, and that their actions were not random but rationalized carefully, planned and executed with deliberate cruelty, in the belief that they were performing some sort of admirable action?

How would you explain this to yourself?
User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Vendetta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 2:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:18 pm It'll probably come up again, right after the next homicidal Muslim kills a bunch of innocents.

In other words, talk to you tomorrow or the next day.
My sincere apologies. It wasn't even one day.

I presume you've been hearing or reading about events in Egypt? Whom do you blame there? Was it the Quakers? Did the Anabaptists and the Mennonites rise up and slaughter the Copts? Was it a bloody group of wandering Buddhists, an aggregation of Zoroastrians, or perhaps a marauding gang of Western secularist liberals?

Who did it, and why?

Now, were all these murderers just "weak minded" types, perhaps isolated lunatics, who, through some unbelievable twist of chance, happened to flock together at just the precise moment to be able to attack that caravan of Coptic Christians and slaughter their children? Or could you possibly believe that their ideology motivated and united them, and that their actions were not random but rationalized carefully, planned and executed with deliberate cruelty, in the belief that they were performing some sort of admirable action?

How would you explain this to yourself?
If terrorist acts in the name of Islam are only due to the presence of specific insane individuals, you'd think that they wouldn't be as frequent as they are (especially recently), and as isolated to members of that specific faith.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 4:08 am Let me just very quickly sketch the deteriorating situation in Indonesia, a so-called moderate Muslim country and you can decide for yourself.... I hope this gives you some leads and information to decide if the "threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial"?
If Indonesia is becoming more Muslim I do not see that as a threat as such. It is certainly bad news for non-Muslims in that country, and I regret that on principle, but no more than I regret the similar repression of other minorities in other countries. One might equally point to the oppression of religion (including Muslims) in China, but that fact in itself does not make China a threat or make me expect the Chinese will be sending terrorists to target the religious in other countries.

I think the article was spoilt by the inclusion of the bare sentence:
The genocide of the 1960s was Muslim perpetrated.
It was also perpetrated with the complicity of the CIA and (possibly) the active assistance of the US military, because in those days the threat we saw in Indonesia was communism. The article conclude with what I think is the key:
While influence from Saudi Arabia did kick-start Islamism in the 1800s in Indonesia, Anies sees today's Islamism as a homegrown phenomena fertilized by the hopeless poverty of the Muslim majority.
That is my position. If you have societies where there is poverty and hopelessness you will get inter-communal violence, repressive dictatorships and all the rest. The particular colour of those societies will reflect their backers. In the 1960s this might have been China or Russia, so that revolutionaries would be communists. With the eclipse of Communism, revolutionaries will now seek backing from Muslim powers and be Islamist. (And of course the USA and its allies will also back its own set of revolutionaries and dictators).

The ideological colour changes but the cause is always the same. If Islam disappeared tomorrow, it would be replaced by something else, both as a perceived threat and as the subject of western paranoia.

(And if by 'threat' we only mean 'threat to us', again that is going to be the result of normal political factors. North Korea is a threat to our interests, Saddam's Iraq was a threat to our interests...but Saudi Arabia is not. Many African countries are a threat to their neighbours. The Latin American drugs trade is a serious threat to the USA. Russia is a threat to the Ukraine. At times, the main direct threats to me personally have been from Ireland!)
Recall that my claim was that the origin of Muslim suicide attacks may be in the assassins who were a well known part of Islamic consciousness back to the original caliphs.

The poem you quote is a defense of Rome against hostile invaders. It's not an attack. It's quite different from massacring innocent civilians.
So when you write of 'Muslim suicide attacks', what is meant to be the distinctive factor that is peculiar to Muslims?

It isn't the 'suicide' bit, since I take it you would accept that Horatius is willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause - and we consider that praiseworthy.

But it cannot be 'massacring innocent civilians'. We can hardly pretend that nobody except Muslims have ever massacred innocent civilians. So what is it?

Regarding my example of 'The Charge of the LIght Brigade' you write:
This is an episode of the Great Game. Professional soldiers meeting. Again not analogous.
Is that the difference? That (some) Muslim suicide bombers are not regular soldiers? But again, we would not condemn a member of the French Resistance who accepted death in their fight against the Nazis just because they were not a regular soldier. Surely it would be the other way round; we would especially admire them as ordinary people, who were not just 'following orders'.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
Again nothing here about massacring innocents. I expect the better analogy with Islamic suicide bombing is actually with spree and serial killers.
As I write above, there is nothing uniquely Islamic about massacring innocents. And if that was the analogy, then I do not see why we would argue it originated with the Assassin sect. I do not think Lanza (Sandy Hook) or Bundy were Muslims inspired by a 12th century Ismaili sect!

So, I think this last analogy is far closer to the mark. Some people get into a mental state where they are prepared both to die and to kill others, including the innocent. In the USA, they buy a gun and kill random people. In Syria, they join IS and are given an explosive belt. The common factor here is the mental state...anger, feelings of inadequacy, desire for revenge, hormonal imbalance...there will probably always be such people and where guns or suicide belts are available they will use them.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Vendetta wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 7:07 am If terrorist acts in the name of Islam....
When the US military kill somebody, are they acting 'in the name of' something?

The answer could be; 'no'. That it is purely pragmatic, in furtherance of the material interests of the USA, that there is no moral consideration involved. That does not seem to be the case; we certainly hear of fighting to defend values. When there is 'collateral damage' it is explained that this is regrettable and un-intentional, which indicates there is meant to be a moral framework.

(For some Islamist, that is indeed their claim. That the US have no morality at all)

If the answer is 'yes', then the US military must also be acting 'in the name of' some set of values. Let us suppose it is 'democracy', for example. Then, if a US soldier kills somebody, would it be right to say that they 'kill in the name of democracy'?

I think we would argue that was not quite right. 'Democracy' is not the same as 'killing people'. Rather, we would that although killing people is not in itself good, it can be justified in a good cause i.e. democracy. That if we achieved democracy, that would result in the long term in less killing. So the name with which we do the thing, in this case 'democracy' stands for a bundle of moral goods; less killing, less tyranny etc.

So just to say the terrorist acts 'in the name of Islam' suggests they only have some weird theological motive, whereas from their point of view Islam stands for a set of moral goods that are good for everyone, not just Muslims. And when asked why they commit particular acts they will quote the same moral goods as everyone else (fight the oppressors, aggressors etc.). Obviously, what they interpret as instances of oppression, aggression etc. are different to what we do; where we 'liberate', they 'resist foreign domination' and so on. And they will explain this; even IS will say that they are responding to attacks from us, they are the victims, we are the aggressors.

I do not see this as any different to any other conflict. I cannot think that any side in any war has ever thought of themselves as the immoral one. When two Christian nations fight each other, both will claim to be acting 'in the name of God' in that both will claim (and believe) that their own cause is morally just.

So sure, the idea that the motivation for Muslim terrorists is purely 'Islam' and thus they are beyond all reason makes for a good soundbite. It also means we do not have to worry our heads whether some of their moral claims against us might even have a degree of justification....But these are philosophy boards! Surely we can think about these things on a higher level?
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 amIf Indonesia is becoming more Muslim I do not see that as a threat as such.
For myself I see it as a tragedy, I have sketched my timeline of Islamic history here, I hope you will have looked at it,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870

As you see, I have presented a narrative in which dogmatism, superstition and inequality saps the morale of the people, degrading the Near East from the apotheosis of human civilization to a war zone of ignorance and poverty. I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one...
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 ambad news for non-Muslims in that country, and I regret that on principle
Bad news for Muslims too. Due to apostasy laws it is virtually impossible to get Muslim off your documents once it is on. For example, in one state in Malaysia in 2005 where conversion of Muslims is permitted, Negeri Sembilan, (Muslims in Malaysia are under Sharia law), 1000 petitioned, only 60 requests were granted. Apostacy is penalized in almost all other states with fines and years of imprisonment being the penalty. Take the not unusual case of Lina Joy who petitioned to convert from Islam to Hinuism and married a Hindu, (marriage across religious lines is barred by Islamic miscegenation laws), her marriage was annulled and she was jailed. Just to drive this home: I have "Muslim" on my documents.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 amI think the article was spoilt by the inclusion of the bare sentence:
The genocide of the 1960s was Muslim perpetrated.
Facts can be inconvenient to the stories we tell ourselves:

Genocidal massacres were committed by Muslim vigilante groups (Lee, 2013), supported by the largest Muslim organization in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama (Adam, 2015).

Lee, M.B.P. (2013). Genocide of Non-Muslims in Indonesia.

Adam, Asvi Warman. (2015). How Indonesia’s 1965-1966 anti-communist purge remade a nation and the world.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 amThe article conclude with what I think is the key:
While influence from Saudi Arabia did kick-start Islamism in the 1800s in Indonesia, Anies sees today's Islamism as a homegrown phenomena fertilized by the hopeless poverty of the Muslim majority.
That is my position. If you have societies where there is poverty and hopelessness you will get inter-communal violence, repressive dictatorships and all the rest.
"The article"? I wrote that, for you.

But we don't too often see impoverished Thai Buddhists blowing anyone up, nor are the atheist poor of Moldova, and so on. As Sam Harris points out, there are no Jain or Amish terrorists. It's something about Islamic culture and dogma.

A philosopher, a free-thinker, opposes all dogma right? Communist, PC, Islamism, they are all contemptible. So why are you defending Islamic culture when you wouldn't defend any other dogmatic and oppressive order?

If I said, "most Nazis are anti-Semitic" that would be obvious, but if I say "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are anti-Semitic" then the leftist response is a pivot to: "oh Americans are also anti-Semitic, and so are Koreans, and so was Dylan Roof, in fact it is the tragedy of poverty and American world domination" and such mumbo jumbo.

I'm not saying Islam doesn't have anything of worth in it, I consider myself relatively well read in Islamic religious text, philosophy, poetry and history. The problem is the culture. Lot's of people can take the Qur'an, as Sufis do, and read it as a metaphor for enlightenment. But when what is today Muslim culture picks up the Qur'an, it gets read in very destructive ways. We know that this dogmatic and dangerous culture is in fact the mainstream majority of Muslims; first of all if we live in Muslim society it is obvious, but for those who don't, Pew Research's 2013 report on attitudes demonstrates it, the full document is easy to find online and is titled "The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society".
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 amSo when you write of 'Muslim suicide attacks', what is meant to be the distinctive factor...?
Islam of course.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 10:17 amSome people get into a mental state where they are prepared both to die and to kill others, including the innocent.
Yes. We acknowledge most child molesters are male. Therefore we take certain precautions, we analyzing and critique the male culture and look for the beliefs that legitimize molestation, we don't let any man just volunteer for Big Brothers, we interview him first, we check out his past to make sure he isn't a molester. The same with Muslims, we acknowledge most terrorists are Muslim. Therefore we take certain precautions, we analyzing and critique the Muslim culture and look for the beliefs that legitimize terrorism, we don't let any Muslim enter America, we interview him first, we check out his past to make sure he isn't a terrorist.

I'm just about to sit down with a gin and tonic in celebration of the second night of Ramadan and to help drown out the blaring of the Mosques while I read an article on von Humboldt and ethno-linguistic nationalism and another oldie but I hope goodie, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, I anticipate these will help to inspire me about your very excellent question above regarding what is Western Civilization. Certainly the most relevant question for us here is, Is Islam a part of Western Civilization? Catch you up soon!
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 2:42 pm
As you see, I have presented a narrative in which dogmatism, superstition and inequality saps the morale of the people, degrading the Near East from the apotheosis of human civilization to a war zone of ignorance and poverty. I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one...
I would point out that at certain periods the Islamic world has been a more stable, more prosperous and more civilised place than its neighbours, so it cannot be simple cause and effect.

I do not think it makes sense to create narratives where just one factor explains anything, that does not seem to me to be how the world works.
Bad news for Muslims too. Due to apostasy laws it is virtually impossible to get Muslim off your documents once it is on....
As I have said, nobody would dispute that Muslim regimes can be repressive, but so can non-Muslim ones. So, it cannot follow that one is caused by the other.
Facts can be inconvenient to the stories we tell ourselves:
There was a story about Northern Ireland, it was suggested that what was needed in order to create peace were the facts. But one of the politicians responded that both sides already had the facts, and they really were facts, but they were selected facts. And that is what happens here; all the things we might say about Muslims may be true, but they are not the whole truth.
Genocidal massacres were committed by Muslim vigilante groups (Lee, 2013), supported by the largest Muslim organization in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama (Adam, 2015).
And the question is - why? I have explained that one reason is that they were encouraged and supported to do so, as a way of getting rid of the communists. Another is that they were comparatively poor. We know they did not do it simply because they were Muslims. We know that because (a) non-Muslims have done the same things and (b) not all Muslims have done such things.
But we don't too often see impoverished Thai Buddhists blowing anyone up, nor are the atheist poor of Moldova, and so on. As Sam Harris points out, there are no Jain or Amish terrorists. It's something about Islamic culture and dogma.
I would argue that you have had to be so selective with your examples because there are very few such exceptions, and even in that short list Thai Buddhists are not exclusively non-violent. As for Moldova, sadly the violence seems to be mostly expressed in the repression of women, but in terms of inter-communal violence you will be aware that the whole of the Balkans has been racked by ethnic wars.

If we go round the world, country by country, we would have a hard job finding one that doesn't have a religious war, 'ethnic cleansing' or racial repression somewhere on its historical conscience. So it really can't just be something about Islamic culture and dogma.
A philosopher, a free-thinker, opposes all dogma right? Communist, PC, Islamism, they are all contemptible. So why are you defending Islamic culture when you wouldn't defend any other dogmatic and oppressive order?
I am not defending Islam, my argument is that it is no better or worse than anything else. I think that when any society is put under certain economic and social pressure it will respond in similar ways.
If I said, "most Nazis are anti-Semitic" that would be obvious, but if I say "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are anti-Semitic" then the leftist response is a pivot to: "oh Americans are also anti-Semitic, and so are Koreans, and so was Dylan Roof, in fact it is the tragedy of poverty and American world domination" and such mumbo jumbo.
But Christian Americans and Europeans certainly have been anti-Semitic in the past - nobody could deny that. Indeed historically the middle-east was far more tolerant of Jews than Europe. But that has changed. So - the fact that change can taken place in both communities shows that anti-Semitism (or liberalism) cannot be intrinsic to either Christianity or Islam.
Yes. We acknowledge most child molesters are male. Therefore we take certain precautions, we analyzing and critique the male culture and look for the beliefs that legitimize molestation, we don't let any man just volunteer for Big Brothers, we interview him first, we check out his past to make sure he isn't a molester. The same with Muslims, we acknowledge most terrorists are Muslim. Therefore we take certain precautions, we analyzing and critique the Muslim culture and look for the beliefs that legitimize terrorism, we don't let any Muslim enter America, we interview him first, we check out his past to make sure he isn't a terrorist.
That would be fair enough, provided it is done rationally. We are careful of child molesters getting jobs in schools, but we do not require all men to be tested before they are allowed on the bus. For non-Americans, we find it baffling that they put so much effort into preventing terrorists sneaking in, but doing anything to prevent lunatics from freely buying automatic rifles is a terrible breach of their rights...but we all have our own eccentricities!
I'm just about to sit down with a gin and tonic in celebration of the second night of Ramadan and to help drown out the blaring of the Mosques while I read an article on von Humboldt and ethno-linguistic nationalism and another oldie but I hope goodie, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, I anticipate these will help to inspire me about your very excellent question above regarding what is Western Civilization. Certainly the most relevant question for us here is, Is Islam a part of Western Civilization? Catch you up soon!
Enjoy your gin and tonic...before you are forced to swap it for mint tea!
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pm
Seleucus wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 2:42 pm As you see, I have presented a narrative in which dogmatism, superstition and inequality saps the morale of the people, degrading the Near East from the apotheosis of human civilization to a war zone of ignorance and poverty. I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one...
I would point out that at certain periods the Islamic world has been a more stable, more prosperous and more civilised place than its neighbours, so it cannot be simple cause and effect.
I've unpacked my narrative here,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870

My narrative is existentialist, I contend that suppression of freedom of the person (inequality) and freedom of thought (dogma and superstition) drained the morale of the society, taking it from the apotheosis of human civilization to a war zone of ignorance and poverty. I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pm
Genocidal massacres were committed by Muslim vigilante groups (Lee, 2013), supported by the largest Muslim organization in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama (Adam, 2015).
And the question is - why? I have explained that one reason is that they were encouraged and supported to do so, as a way of getting rid of the communists. Another is that they were comparatively poor. We know they did not do it simply because they were Muslims. We know that because (a) non-Muslims have done the same things and (b) not all Muslims have done such things.
I wouldn't dispute that Western secret services were involved. It's a cliche and simplistic to blame America. Taking time to investigate the history reveals a different picture. I'm pointing out, and which I believe is something not known to most Western people who of course know little about the history of Indonesia or Islam, that one the ground, the initial coup was led by Muslim generals, and the genocide was carried out specifically by large and small Islamist Muslim organizations. Islamists and the TNI (Indonesian armed forces) conspired. The genocide wasn't only against non-Muslims but also those deemed heretics, it is believed that the majority of the victims of the genocide in central Java were actually Abangan Muslims. After the Armenian and Greek Genocides, this is the third largest genocide perpetrated by Islam in the 20th Century. As Suharto's dictatorship went on and his power declined, he became increasingly willing to accept more and more support from Islamists, leading to the undermining of the initially secular state and the infiltration of all political parties by Islamists. There is no secular political party today which is why now jailed former Jakarta governor Basuki ran as an independent and couldn't run even as PDIP (Sukarno's party). I'm open to hearing other narratives of Indonesian history should you care to present one.

These problems are exasperated by leftist useful idiots who apologize for Islam, for instance the leftist ideologue already mentioned above, Dwight King, of North Illinois University, who mentored and legitimized Anies, or a recent article by the leftist paper The Huffington Post (2017) by journalist Stanley Weiss who calls Anies "brilliant and thoughtful". Anies is the leader of the political Islam movement in Indonesia that is threatening to turn a hold out of secularism into an Islamist caliphate. Not praise but concern is the sensible attitude to take towards him
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pmIf we go round the world, country by country, we would have a hard job finding one that doesn't have a religious war, 'ethnic cleansing' or racial repression somewhere on its historical conscience.
The world is a gangland turf war fought over money and bitches. There is a clash of civilizations. I'm personally not a pacifist.

Only a fool would extend tolerance to those who will not reciprocate it.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pmI am not defending Islam, my argument is that it is no better or worse than anything else.
Western civilization is far superior to Islam.

Not all cultures are equal.

Islam offered an improvement in women's rights as compared to pagan society in the case of Hindus with their sati rituals which sacrificed widows and even whole estates worth of slaves and servants to fire and the blade in horrifying murder rituals. Islamic treatment of women however is horrifying compared to the standards achieved in Western and Oriental societies in the 21st Century.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pmI think that when any society is put under certain economic and social pressure it will respond in similar ways.
There are more and less effective ways of dealing with stress.
Londoner wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 5:32 pm
If I said, "most Nazis are anti-Semitic" that would be obvious, but if I say "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are anti-Semitic" then the leftist response is a pivot to: "oh Americans are also anti-Semitic, and so are Koreans, and so was Dylan Roof, in fact it is the tragedy of poverty and American world domination" and such mumbo jumbo.
But Christian Americans and Europeans certainly have been anti-Semitic in the past - nobody could deny that. Indeed historically the middle-east was far more tolerant of Jews than Europe. But that has changed. So - the fact that change can taken place in both communities shows that anti-Semitism (or liberalism) cannot be intrinsic to either Christianity or Islam.
QED!

The most likely explanation for that ideologically delusional line is simply a lack of awareness of history. Jews were not treated well under Islam, in fact, the early Muslims, a pirating and pillaging civilization as they are, grew rich off the genocide of Jews in the Arabian peninsula during Muhammad's life, the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza massacres being described at 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 in the Qur'an. Jews lived as second class citizens in the caliphates, codified in the Pact of Umar, continually the victims of Islamic pogroms: the 1033 Fez massacre, the 1066 Granada massacre, the 1465 Moroccan revolt, the 1517 Hebron attacks, the Allahdad and so on and so on. Not a single Jew can live in any Muslim country today.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 5:00 am
I've unpacked my narrative here,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870

My narrative is existentialist, I contend that suppression of freedom of the person (inequality) and freedom of thought (dogma and superstition) drained the morale of the society, taking it from the apotheosis of human civilization to a war zone of ignorance and poverty. I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one.
I do not feel up to presenting an alternative narrative of Islamic civilisation this morning! But besides, I think that might rather beg the question. Religion is only one factor of many, so to construct a comprehensive narrative around it must inevitably be misleading. As I wrote before, Europe has had periods of ignorance, poverty, repression, civil wars, genocides....but we would not look to religion to explain them. I think it is more the case that the character of a religion is shaped by the society in which it operates, either directly (because it is an arm of the state) or as a way of mental release from forms of oppression.
I wouldn't dispute that Western secret services were involved. It's a cliche and simplistic to blame America. Taking time to investigate the history reveals a different picture. I'm pointing out, and which I believe is something not known to most Western people who of course know little about the history of Indonesia or Islam, that one the ground, the initial coup was led by Muslim generals, and the genocide was carried out specifically by large and small Islamist Muslim organizations....
Absolutely, but on the other hand, how do we explain the situation before that time? If one community turned on another, it must have been the case that until that time they had previously managed to live alongside each other. If it was the case that Muslims are always inclined to attack other communities, such mixed communities could never have arisen in the first place.

One feature of Muslim societies is that even when the rulers were Muslim they tended to tolerate other religions. That was not usually true of Christian ones. That in modern times we have (sadly) seen inter-communal violence is a consequence of this past tolerance. When we hear of ancient Christian communities being persecuted in modern Iraq, we should reflect on the fact that they have survived for many centuries in a majority Muslim state. They could not have done that in Christian Europe; being unorthodox they would have been stamped out long ago.
Jews lived as second class citizens in the caliphates, codified in the Pact of Umar, continually the victims of Islamic pogroms: the 1033 Fez massacre, the 1066 Granada massacre, the 1465 Moroccan revolt, the 1517 Hebron attacks, the Allahdad and so on and so on. Not a single Jew can live in any Muslim country today
.

Yes 'today'. But they had been allowed to live in those Muslim countries for well over a thousand years. That was not true in 'Western Civilisation'; we killed or expelled them. And when Jews were allowed back in Europe, they were treated as second class citizens there too. When European Jews began to approach some sort of equality, we turned on them and attempted to exterminate every single man, woman and child.

If the argument is that Islam is intolerant by its nature it would have to be the case that (a) it is always intolerant and (b) it is more intolerant than the norm. Neither is the case, so it cannot be that when Muslims are intolerant the cause is 'being Muslim'.
The world is a gangland turf war fought over money and bitches. There is a clash of civilizations. I'm personally not a pacifist.

Only a fool would extend tolerance to those who will not reciprocate it.
If we see the world in that way, then presumably we do not extend tolerance to anyone ; and we would think that anyone who appears to be extending tolerance would either be a fool or trying to deceive us.
Western civilization is far superior to Islam.

Not all cultures are equal.

Islam offered an improvement in women's rights as compared to pagan society in the case of Hindus with their sati rituals which sacrificed widows and even whole estates worth of slaves and servants to fire and the blade in horrifying murder rituals. Islamic treatment of women however is horrifying compared to the standards achieved in Western and Oriental societies in the 21st Century.
But you do not believe in 'women's rights'! Remember, you say 'The world is a gangland turf war fought over money and bitches'!

On one hand you use all these value laden terms; 'civilisation, repression, ignorance, equality, freedom...' and on the other you say it is all just a brutal power struggle. You cannot have it both ways!

I would argue that the Islamic fundamentalists and their opponents are usually two sides of the same coin. Both want conflict; both want to argue that the other side is beyond reason, evil by nature, impossible to trust. For both, their real enemy are the moderates, the vast majority of people who do not see society as a 'gangland turf war' or a 'clash of civilisations'. In my opinion, 'civilisation' is the property of neither Islam or 'the West' but the moderates.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amReligion is only one factor of many, so to construct a comprehensive narrative around it must inevitably be misleading.
We absolutely would analyze a history in terms of the political and religious structures: the affect of Indo-European religion, the affect of American democracy, of the arrival of Buddhism in Japan.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amEurope has had periods of ignorance, poverty, repression, civil wars, genocides....but we would not look to religion to explain them.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amI think it is more the case that the character of a religion is shaped by the society in which it operates, either directly (because it is an arm of the state) or as a way of mental release from forms of oppression.
Agree. As I say in my grand narrative,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870

The four-thousand year history of imperialism had drained the morale of the region. That Arabs were a very backwards people who's society was heavily dependent on raiding and looting, and largely repressed rather than embraced the more sophisticated political and metaphysical ideas of the region had a devastating effect on the Near-East.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 am
I'm pointing out, and which I believe is something not known to most Western people who of course know little about the history of Indonesia or Islam, that one the ground, the initial coup was led by Muslim generals, and the genocide was carried out specifically by large and small Islamist Muslim organizations....
Absolutely, but on the other hand, how do we explain the situation before that time? If one community turned on another, it must have been the case that until that time they had previously managed to live alongside each other. If it was the case that Muslims are always inclined to attack other communities, such mixed communities could never have arisen in the first place.
Basically, in Indonesia Islam was adopted by the costal kingdoms who eventually invaded the interior and forced the Hindus and Buddhists to covert. While there were several attempts to invade, Bali was too powerful and resisted the Muslims. When the Dutch and British showed up, minorities flocked to their ports and colonies for protection. After colonization ended, the Christians, Chinese and to some extent Hindus were a privileged minority having received Dutch favors giving them significant bargaining power in the negotiation of the 1945 constitution. In a democracy however, the majority rules and the situation for religious and ethnic minorities has deteriorated, particular rapidly in the '65 to '66 genocide and again in the period of chaos in 1988.

Any account of Islamic history could only be interpreted in terms of "always inclined to attack other communities". Islamic civilization is the history of its pillaging and looting as I have described in my narrative,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870

I'm open to hearing other narratives of Islamic civilization should you care to present one.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amOne feature of Muslim societies is that even when the rulers were Muslim they tended to tolerate other religions.
No. The reason why the Near-East is Muslim today is because non-Muslims lived under persecution and by attrition eventually converted rather than continuing to live under oppression, or else fled.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amThat was not usually true of Christian ones. That in modern times we have (sadly) seen inter-communal violence is a consequence of this past tolerance. When we hear of ancient Christian communities being persecuted in modern Iraq, we should reflect on the fact that they have survived for many centuries in a majority Muslim state. They could not have done that in Christian Europe; being unorthodox they would have been stamped out long ago.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 am
Jews lived as second class citizens in the caliphates, codified in the Pact of Umar, continually the victims of Islamic pogroms: the 1033 Fez massacre, the 1066 Granada massacre, the 1465 Moroccan revolt, the 1517 Hebron attacks, the Allahdad and so on and so on. Not a single Jew can live in any Muslim country today
Yes 'today'. But they had been allowed to live in those Muslim countries for well over a thousand years.
Jews were not treated well under Islam, in fact, the early Muslims, a pirating and pillaging civilization as they are, grew rich off the genocide of Jews in the Arabian peninsula during Muhammad's life, the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza massacres being described at 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 in the Qur'an. Jews lived as second class citizens in the caliphates, codified in the Pact of Umar, continually the victims of Islamic pogroms: the 1033 Fez massacre, the 1066 Granada massacre, the 1465 Moroccan revolt, the 1517 Hebron attacks, the Allahdad and so on and so on. Not a single Jew can live in any Muslim country today.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amThat was not true in 'Western Civilisation'; we killed or expelled them. And when Jews were allowed back in Europe, they were treated as second class citizens there too. When European Jews began to approach some sort of equality, we turned on them and attempted to exterminate every single man, woman and child.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amIf the argument is that Islam is intolerant by its nature it would have to be the case that (a) it is always intolerant and (b) it is more intolerant than the norm. Neither is the case, so it cannot be that when Muslims are intolerant the cause is 'being Muslim'.
It is the case. As the Pew survey on attitudes (2013) shows, about a quarter of Indonesian Muslims support stoning of adulterers and death for those who convert out of Islam. The number is much higher in the Middle East and North Africa. The number of people who would respond YES to those questions should be only a tiny fraction of a percent of insane people in mental hospitals. But of Muslims world wide it ranges from a quarter to more than half.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 am
The world is a gangland turf war fought over money and bitches. There is a clash of civilizations. I'm personally not a pacifist.
Only a fool would extend tolerance to those who will not reciprocate it.
If we see the world in that way, then presumably we do not extend tolerance to anyone ; and we would think that anyone who appears to be extending tolerance would either be a fool or trying to deceive us.
We don't extend tolerance to those who won't reciprocate it unless we want to be beheaded and have our loved ones sold into slavery. This is sometimes called "the paradox of tolerance", being tolerant doesn't include tolerating intolerance.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 am
Western civilization is far superior to Islam.

Not all cultures are equal.

Islam offered an improvement in women's rights as compared to pagan society in the case of Hindus with their sati rituals which sacrificed widows and even whole estates worth of slaves and servants to fire and the blade in horrifying murder rituals. Islamic treatment of women however is horrifying compared to the standards achieved in Western and Oriental societies in the 21st Century.
But you do not believe in 'women's rights'! Remember, you say 'The world is a gangland turf war fought over money and bitches'!
I certainly do believe in women's rights. That's why I support Western civilization and believe it is worth killing and dying for.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:47 amBoth want conflict; both want to argue that the other side is beyond reason, evil by nature, impossible to trust.
No. Western civilization is the most amazing accomplishment in human history, Islam is dogmatic, oppressive and superstitious.
Post Reply