That's not good. It's for you to establish what could be defined as blasphemy, I would suggest, and avoid that.Seleucus wrote:Where I'm at at the moment is when I discuss philosophically with a close colleague, we make sure the door is closed so we aren't overheard. I use TOR and proxy services to be able to access government blocked websites. I support non-Islamist political candidates and I support private non-religious educational institutions. I wouldn't talk publicly or on a popular online platform about atheism and religion, in today's news:
"“Uploading & sharing of blasphemous content on Internet is a punishable offence under the law. Such content should be reported on info@pta.XXX.pk for legal action,” read the SMS sent by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to all mobile phone subscribers."
Yes. It is this view that seems to be prevailing and 'bi'dah', or progressive Islam, which seemed to adapt Islam to cultures outside of Saudi Arabia, has been halted in its tracks, particularly, since 9/11, as people have made the choice not to hide a faith that is under attack, for the wrong reasons. The Salafi way seems to have taken influence.Seleucus wrote: Sometimes this is called Arabization. Fifty years ago almost no women wore headscarves outside of a few Salafist enclaves, today it is ubiquitous. Ten years ago you couldn't see a niqab, today at parks and malls it is quite common to see women totally covered up. (Wahhabism is the outsider term for Salafism, Salafists consider the word Wahhabi derogatory. I personally use the word Salafi because its the word I'm used to, not because I'm a Salafist.)
Here in the UK, I only hear complaints about Wahabi-ism. It's good to get a balance with regards to terms.
There's a huge difference when comparing these two ideologies. Naziism is about the supremacy of an Aryan race which seeks to either cleanse and eradicate, or enslave, those of other races. Islam is a faith, a practise that also teaches peace, love and compassion., alongside the more 'eye for an eye' stuff that can be found in both Judaism and Chritianity.Seleucus wrote:Generally it is magnanimous to 'live and let live'. On-the-other-hand, nazi arm-bands are symbol of fascism, symbols are on some level not real but they can have a lot of power, so it isn't very nice to see people going around with nazi arm-bands. We mostly want to reject everything about nazism, even though an arm-band is just a piece of cloth. People who say things like, "not all nazis were mass-murders, don't you know that nazis were leaders in the vegetarian and environmentalist movements" are going to get cock-eyed looks. Similarly, when people say, "not all Muslims are mass-murderers, don't you know that Muslims were leaders in calligraphy and geometric art", that's suspicious. Obviously a combination of rejection and reform is inevitable, assuming that Islam doesn't take over and become an eternal global caliphate.
People's hatred of Islam, based on current events, is irrational. They base the sympathies of the many as lying with the actions of a few. They don't seek to understand, in the case of America, their own nations responsibility for creating this situation, and they assume many, if not ALL Muslims ally themselves to terrorism.
No, Muslims ally themselves to Islam and some even get the freedom to interpret Islam, outside staunchly Islamic countries. No one seeks to even understand actual Muslim ideology before they criticise. They think they know Islam, based on what media reports of terrorist ideology.
That's distinctly different to Nazis and the ideology they follow. Most people know what Nazi ideology represents and calls for.
Islam isn't calling fur a global caliphate. The press sometimes report the lunacy of isolated Ayatollahs or Imans. If Islam wanted a global caliphate, several countries, long ago, would have created an alliance akin to the Catolic church, with its own Vatican, probably in Saudi Arabia, and some leader possibly drawn from the Sayed line of descendancy from the prophet. There's no unity amongst Muslim nations, so imposing a global caliphate would be an impossibility. There is no wish, on the part of Muslims I know, to take over the world by force or to impose Islam on others. This is a nonsense.
Now this part of the discussion I find extremely dodgy.Seleucus wrote:Below the level of jihad, apostasy, blasphemy and miscegenation laws and such things, but still important problems are: (1) circumcision of boys and also girls (FGM), (2) animal sacrifice, and (3) megaphones on mosques. The loudspeakers on minarets is a really serious issue that I don't believe most people in the West are even aware of. There is a mosque on every block that blares Arabic chanting for hours on end, even in the middle of the night, even for whole days continuously. Given the established relationship between sleep and intelligence, the mosque noise-pollution problem in the Islamic world is probably sufficient to explain Donald Templer's research on Muslim IQ. But the stifling of free thinking, speech, and press is probably however the real reason why only 11 out of 911 Nobel Prizes have gone to Muslims.
Just like in 'Star Trek' where the policy was not to interfere with, or impose ideology, onto alien cultures, I don't believe it is any nation's right to interfere with another nations self-determination, whether we agree with them or not. It is for their own people to do that either through the electoral system or failing that, if it comes to it, civil war. As it is , the West had constantly interfered with countries in South America, the Middle East, and Asia, and whilst it appears to have no care for wars in Africa, big corporations are placing their money where they want the politics to go.
Circumcision, whether I agree with it or not, if practised by a country, is determined as thier choice. FGM is not practised in all Muslim countries, it's practised in a few Muslim countries, in Africa, so to me it's not even a Muslim practise, unlike circumcision, which is generally accepted by all Muslims.
Kosher and halal practises are also practises I have no problems with. We rear and kill animals to eat all over the world. Stunning an animal before death, is still felt by an animal. I just ask that we eat ALL the meat. I get cross when I see plates of half eaten meat in restaurants, when the life of those animals were extinguished to feed us.
Outside of Islamic countries, these become a choice for Muslims. I know a few African Muslims, Somalian mainly, and none have chosen to elect FGM. The majority of Muslims I know have elected to have their sons circumcised, and this was once available for free on the NHS, here. Whilst its popularity is declining in the West, there Is no such backlash against circumcision, here, and I too have no problem with circumcision. It was once a standard practise in the US, seen as hygienic. Now it's a choice for Muslims and non-Muslims alike that seems to be fading in popularity as we learn to take better care of ourselves.
The way you describe Adhan, as being called from "a mosque on every block that blares Arabic chanting for hours on end, even in the middle of the night, even for whole days continuously", makes me wonder if you really are simply a lapsed Muslim, or even just an atheist in a Muslim country. You could just as easily be here to promote a bigotry of Islam by appearing to be a fearful atheist, rather than a manipulative critic.
People are aware of the sound of Adhan. Tourists often comment on how charming it is to hear these 'exotic sounds' when visiting Muslim countries. Adhan has been called for centuries in Middle Eastern countries, but they still came up with not just art and geometry, as you have pointed out, but more advanced mathematics, science architecture and philosophy, at a time when Europeans were living in the dark ages. You could just as easily, and idiotically, claim that that 'blaring chant'' was an inspiring call to thinking!
The paper you loosely cite as Donald Templar's study on Muslim IQ, "The Comparison of Mean IQ in Muslim and Non-Muslim Countries' can be found here.
And here's who he is:
It's a very dodgy academic paper', which I find scientifically questionable. It's terribly loaded and, despite his accreditations, I wouldn't be surprised if the chap was a bit of a right wing, Nazi sympathiser, just from his lack of neutrality in the language he uses.
You often seem to bring up obscure studies or academics, in your posts, as if they lend credence to what you are saying. If no one knows who they, or what their accreditations, are, and their research is obscure, on unsupported, it's pointless you citing them, as if they are reputable. You need to provide what's obscure, if you are going to cite what's obscure, in order to allow proper examination of what it is you are saying.
I'm afraid I can see why Skip reacted the way he did, to you, and I'm now slightly suspicious of your motives, myself.
I'm confused. You suggested you feared talking about atheism and Islam, but that you have the courage of Socrates to speak as you find. You are happy to describe Adhan, in a way I find offensive, and yet you don't seem to see how this might get you into trouble, and now here you are unable to pass comment on something said by a contemporary Muslim community. Odd. By discussing their decision, with a knowledge of actual Islamic doctrine and a little careful phrasing you, you could have commented , without crossing bounds into blasphemy, instead of ducking for cover.Seleucus wrote:I would personally not engage in a debate on the level of theology any more than I would engage in a serious discussion on who would win in a fight between Mighty Mouse and Superman. This relates to the issue of blasphemy charges since even to enter into a defense against blasphemy charges acknowledges the legitimacy of such a concept.ForCruxSake wrote:saying the prophet had said that on his passing, each community should elect a community leader to help the community come to decisions, on questions of faith.
Your agenda is confusing me, perhaps you need to be clearer in what it is you would like to be discussing or what your angle is, because right now, I'm thinking you're just another clever, manipulative thinker, who wants to appear to vent spleen against Islam, and/or Muslims, in what appears to be a reputable, cogent manner.
I have my own problems with Islam's restrictions, but yours suggest your only real problem is the need to be able to be free to think and express things like: 'the Muslim IQ is lower because of the lack of sleep from the blaring noise of the call to prayer at all times of the day and night'.
Luckily, you have that freedom here. You just may not be taken very seriously for the thoughts you have.