If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

You're still making the error of conflating difference in religion and difference in geography. I'm saying that in the West, Muslims are no worse than any given subset of Christianity. In the West, you don't find rampant honor killings or rapings. Does that mean they don't happen? Of course not--but then, Christians commit crimes as well.

My point is that in the Western world, Muslims refute the notion that Islam is worse than Christianity.

No they don't. Not even close. Simply look at statistics from Germany showing that immigrants from Islamic countries dominate the top 3 positions in pretty much all crime statistics.

Yes Christians commit crimes, but I notice you purposely used vague language there, do they commit crimes that are specifically Christian in nature or culturally typical of Christians in nature? Are you conflating murdering apostates with a Christian stealing a purse?

Btw, another objective standard with which to say Islam is worse; there are penalties for leaving Islam ranging from extreme shunning (also practiced by radical cults like Jehovah's Witnesses) to actual murder.

And many current Muslims disagree with you. Neither of those arguments hold much sway.

Well of course Muslims would say that, they aren't trying to leave Islam or defy Sharia or be queer etc. That's when the trouble starts. Also I don't think many Muslims would disagree that Muhammad was a warrior and it would be strange for a Muslim to denounce Muhammad as the central figure of Islam, so... How would many Muslims disagree with me when I say that Islam is a warrior faith?

Over 90% of references to jihad in the Qu'ran and Hadith refer to it as a means of holy war against non-Muslims, the rest refers to inner struggles. So again, warrior faith.

The Hadith was compiled over a century after Mohammad's death. It's about as rational to equate the Hadith with the actual utterances of Muhammad as it is to equate the Gospels with the biography of Jesus Christ. You ever play the game "Telephone"?

See, this is a fundamental problem with debating you on religion. You're speaking about religion as if the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world agree with you and also think the Hadith probably isn't the actual teachings and life of their prophet. I'd dare you to go to a Muslim neighbourhood even just in the west and say something that naive.

Of course it's probably inaccurate bullshit, but that's totally irrelevant to the believers obviously. Shouldn't have to point out something that obvious.

In almost every single Islamic nation the Hadith is used as a guide in how to interpret things that aren't directly addressed by Sharia. If a crime happens but there is no precedent in Sharia for punishment already, they go to the Hadith and find an interpretation no matter how small to find the outcome they should see realised. Hence the often disgusting and bizarre punishments.

It doesn't make sense, I'm sorry, because you insist on universalizing the examples of non-Western countries as the standard of "true Islam," or some such nonsense. You cannot prove to me that this is accurate, nor even begin to put forth a convincing argument. If you think you have an argument that there's a "true" Islam, then I have an argument for you that Westboro Baptism is "true" Christianity.

Feel free to make that argument, you'll only be embarrassing yourself honestly. I haven't said anything about a true Islam so I'm not sure where you're yanking that from. It doesn't have to be a true or false anything. Hell, it's the Shiites and Sunnis that call each other fake Muslims, yet whenever a Muslim is offended apparently they speak for all 1.6 billion. Convenient.

What matters is how the average Muslim globally views things and does things. This includes what they're enabling via silence or even often knowingly harbouring terrorists. Take for example every left-wing Islamic apologists favourite example; Indonesia, home to the largest population of Muslims. Are there no problems of radical Islam in Indonesia? The Christmas Day massacre? The church bombings? The thuggish suppression of Christians and atheists? The fact that shelters specifically for LGBT people had to be set up because they were being harassed and beaten up by Muslims in the streets?

Even in the best examples of Islamic society, the culture of Islam terrorises and oppresses people. You can't ignore it. Well I can't anyway.

Maybe I am--but if so it's because I have problems with shoddy arguments and online videos that appeal to pathos.

If this is truly the case how do you sleep at night knowing you apologise for a fascistic and repressive faith with such shoddy classics as "that's like saying WBC represents Christianity" lol?

 

[CiG]

*Link for statistics, that link I added is weird. Scroll down for graphs.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/immigrant-crime-in-germany/

 

[Einherjar86]

No they don't. Not even close. Simply look at statistics from Germany showing that immigrants from Islamic countries dominate the top 3 positions in pretty much all crime statistics.

Yes Christians commit crimes, but I notice you purposely used vague language there, do they commit crimes that are specifically Christian in nature or culturally typical of Christians in nature? Are you conflating murdering apostates with a Christian stealing a purse?

Have you bothered to look at the statistics across Europe, not just in selected countries like Germany and Sweden?

And as far as violent crime in America goes, I believe that it's committed at higher rates by domestics than by immigrants.

Btw, another objective standard with which to say Islam is worse; there are penalties for leaving Islam ranging from extreme shunning (also practiced by radical cults like Jehovah's Witnesses) to actual murder.

Apostasy is a crime in certain countries. Are American or European Muslims legally shunned or murdered for renouncing their religion? If not, then it doesn't seem very objective to me.

Well of course Muslims would say that, they aren't trying to leave Islam or defy Sharia or be queer etc. That's when the trouble starts. Also I don't think many Muslims would disagree that Muhammad was a warrior and it would be strange for a Muslim to denounce Muhammad as the central figure of Islam, so... How would many Muslims disagree with me when I say that Islam is a warrior faith?

Because it arose in a time of turmoil? Sure, it was born in violence and dissent. But that doesn't make the Hadith an accurate account of Muhammad's words and life. It's a political document associated with the foundation of the then-legitimate caliphate.

I'm not denying the violent history of Islam, no more than I would deny the violent history of Christianity. I am insisting that, in both cases, documents such as the Hadith, or the Nicene Creed, are as much political documents as they are religious.

See, this is a fundamental problem with debating you on religion. You're speaking about religion as if the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world agree with you and also think the Hadith probably isn't the actual teachings and life of their prophet. I'd dare you to go to a Muslim neighbourhood even just in the west and say something that naive.

I'm sure plenty of Muslims do think that, just like plenty of Christians believe the Gospels are the accurate account of Christ's life. I'm not naive in that regard.

I also believe, however, that plenty of Muslims view the writings of the Hadith, even if they are the accurate statements of Muhammad, to be historically and culturally conditioned beliefs--that is, to perhaps be irrelevant for a more modern time and place. Christians and Jews are able to do this with their holy books.

I think it's possibly naive of you to assume that all Muslims are mindless drones that don't question certain passages of their faith.

In almost every single Islamic nation the Hadith is used as a guide in how to interpret things that aren't directly addressed by Sharia. If a crime happens but there is no precedent in Sharia for punishment already, they go to the Hadith and find an interpretation no matter how small to find the outcome they should see realised. Hence the often disgusting and bizarre punishments.

Again, turn your gaze on Western Muslims for a moment (not to mention the millions of Muslims in Muslim countries who also disagree with the institution of sharia law).

You demonize a religion yet simultaneously acknowledge that millions of Muslims disagree with its various practiced forms. You seem to think that apostasy is the only way of relieving ourselves from Islamic terrorism. Do I really have to tell you that this isn't true? Do you really think it's impossible for a Muslim to believe while actively augmenting her faith in specific articles? Are you really so fearful that any faithful Muslim scares the shit out of you?

Because that's what you sound like.

Feel free to make that argument, you'll only be embarrassing yourself honestly. I haven't said anything about a true Islam so I'm not sure where you're yanking that from. It doesn't have to be a true or false anything. Hell, it's the Shiites and Sunnis that call each other fake Muslims, yet whenever a Muslim is offended apparently they speak for all 1.6 billion. Convenient.

What matters is how the average Muslim globally views things and does things. This includes what they're enabling via silence or even often knowingly harbouring terrorists. Take for example every left-wing Islamic apologists favourite example; Indonesia, home to the largest population of Muslims. Are there no problems of radical Islam in Indonesia? The Christmas Day massacre? The church bombings? The thuggish suppression of Christians and atheists? The fact that shelters specifically for LGBT people had to be set up because they were being harassed and beaten up by Muslims in the streets?

Even in the best examples of Islamic society, the culture of Islam terrorises and oppresses people. You can't ignore it. Well I can't anyway.

You've constructed an implicit spectrum in your argument of either total apostasy or fanatic belief. You've left no middle ground. Any argument that acknowledges the existence of progressive Muslims in the "non-Muslim world" (since this is how we talk about these things) is automatically irrelevant because it forces you to reconcile with the problematic reality that Muslims can in fact be tolerant, peaceful individuals, and that there's nothing conflicting for them about feeling this way (and I do know Muslims, so I know this to be true).

Maybe you'll say "of course it's true, no need to point out such a blatantly obvious point"--but it is necessary because you're refusing that it's a possibility, even if you don't realize you're doing that.

If this is truly the case how do you sleep at night knowing you apologise for a fascistic and repressive faith with such shoddy classics as "that's like saying WBC represents Christianity" lol?

Oh, another classic! "How do you sleep at night?" I sleep knowing that there are so many exceptions to the absolutist nonsense you trod out when it comes to Islamic violence.

 

[arg]

Many muslims are good, but of those that are bad, many are because of Islam.

There are many people who happen to be Christian that are bad, but few because of Christianity.

 

[CiG]

Have you bothered to look at the statistics across Europe, not just in selected countries like Germany and Sweden?

And as far as violent crime in America goes, I believe that it's committed at higher rates by domestics than by immigrants.

Okay great, I'm happy to hear it. Not sure how it's relevant, as I never said Muslims are more criminal than everyone else.

Why is it that Germany and Sweden are discounted? If I bother to find another EU country to back up my position will that also be discounted?

Apostasy is a crime in certain countries. Are American or European Muslims legally shunned or murdered for renouncing their religion? If not, then it doesn't seem very objective to me.

Uh, legally? What are you on about? In most Muslim countries shunning or murder for apostasy isn't legally enforced (or if it is, it's irrelevant as these things hardly ever reach the courts due to embarrassment on the part of the family) but culturally enforced and yes it happens in the west, the murdering less so (but still it happens, in fact there are cases of people fleeing to the west only to be murdered later by family members who fly to the west just to do so) but the shunning most certainly is very common. I have a Muslim friend who hasn't spoken to his parents and older siblings in nearly a decade.

Because it arose in a time of turmoil? Sure, it was born in violence and dissent. But that doesn't make the Hadith an accurate account of Muhammad's words and life. It's a political document associated with the foundation of the then-legitimate caliphate.

Again, a useless point. Tell the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide that the Hadith isn't an accurate account of Muhammad's words and life. They're the ones that believe it is so.

I'm not denying the violent history of Islam, no more than I would deny the violent history of Christianity. I am insisting that, in both cases, documents such as the Hadith, or the Nicene Creed, are as much political documents as they are religious.

Yes, and...? Islam overwhelmingly still grants supreme authority to the Hadith, which is a major part of the problem with Islam. As a faith it is entirely unwilling to shed it's more barbaric customs and traditions. Any attempt to actually reform Islam has always been met with violence.

I also believe, however, that plenty of Muslims view the writings of the Hadith, even if they are the accurate statements of Muhammad, to be historically and culturally conditioned beliefs--that is, to perhaps be irrelevant for a more modern time and place. Christians and Jews are able to do this with their holy books.

Well, feel free to actually prove that, because that's news to me and religion has been my principle interest for over a decade now and I've never heard of any great amount of Muslims that essentially dismiss the Hadith as an important component to practicing Islam. Personally I think you're pulling that our of your ass, which is why you prefaced it as a belief on your part.

I think it's possibly naive of you to assume that all Muslims are mindless drones that don't question certain passages of their faith.

When have I said anything to that effect? I said and have said before specifically that the main source of terror in the Muslim community is other Muslims. Muslim women who want to engage in liberal fashion, goes to a mosque and is bullied by the men there. OF COURSE I know that there are Muslims who question bits of the Qu'ran and Hadith, but the point is they're trapped by a culture into either silence or enablism. If they leave? Their life is shattered and even ended.

Again, turn your gaze on Western Muslims for a moment (not to mention the millions of Muslims in Muslim countries who also disagree with the institution of sharia law).

You demonize a religion yet simultaneously acknowledge that millions of Muslims disagree with its various practiced forms. You seem to think that apostasy is the only way of relieving ourselves from Islamic terrorism. Do I really have to tell you that this isn't true? Do you really think it's impossible for a Muslim to believe while actively augmenting her faith in specific articles? Are you really so fearful that any faithful Muslim scares the shit out of you?

Because that's what you sound like.

Well, I'm not particularly interested in how you're interpreting how I talk, let that be known. You see fear in others where you feel passion yourself.

I do believe in Islamic reformation personally and actually faithful religious people in general alarm me to some degree, but Islam is objectively the main global religious problem. Objectively. Christians and Jews are not driving trucks through crowds or beheading priests in cathedrals on behalf of Allah. I'm sorry that your post-modernist worldview won't allow you to see things clearly.

I wish individuals like Zeba Khan, Tariq Ramadan or Maajid Nawaz were the voices that held sway over the Islamic world, but it's not the case.

Instead you have Muslims mobilised in large numbers by radical Imams and community agitators (as well as genuinely reactionary Muslims acting on their own) when things like the Muhammad drawing controversies happened. Charlie Hebdoe, the Danish cartoonist, Theo van Gogh and so on, actions often committed because voices of influence aren't moderate.

*Sharia law is a double-negative btw, not to be that guy but...

You've constructed an implicit spectrum in your argument of either total apostasy or fanatic belief. You've left no middle ground. Any argument that acknowledges the existence of progressive Muslims in the "non-Muslim world" (since this is how we talk about these things) is automatically irrelevant because it forces you to reconcile with the problematic reality that Muslims can in fact be tolerant, peaceful individuals, and that there's nothing conflicting for them about feeling this way (and I do know Muslims, so I know this to be true).

Maybe you'll say "of course it's true, no need to point out such a blatantly obvious point"--but it is necessary because you're refusing that it's a possibility, even if you don't realize you're doing that.

Uhh. How is that true at all? I haven't created that dichotomy, you have. You're projecting some kind of bigoted "muh Islamophobia" narrative onto me when I haven't once done so myself.

Let's not forget that the main source of terror for Muslims living in the west are other Muslims

I said that^ in my earlier response. Did you think I was implying that radical Islam oppresses itself there? The moderates are always oppressed by the rest, it's true of any violent ideology.

Well of course Muslims would say that, they aren't trying to leave Islam or defy Sharia or be queer etc. That's when the trouble starts.

Then I said this^ did you think I was saying radical Islamists are defying Sharia? That wouldn't make sense, unless you consider that I was talking about moderates.

Oh, another classic! "How do you sleep at night?" I sleep knowing that there are so many exceptions to the absolutist nonsense you trod out when it comes to Islamic violence.

What absolutism? You don't seem to have actually read anything I've written and are just operating based on how your emotions project onto my position. What the fuck? I hate to keep bringing up your emotions here but nowhere have I created a dichotomy of apostate vs radical.

Islam would do good to study the models of Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo imo.

 

[CiG]

Simply put, if you cannot leave the religion, it is shit and as it stands you can leave all other monotheistic faiths and so Islam ranks as the worst. For to not be able to leave is to be trapped. It's the total and fundamental negation of consent and therefore freedom.

Weird that I should have to point this out to an academic leftist --- oh wait not really.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've read everything you've written, and many of your comments implicitly construct Islam along a binary spectrum of fanaticism or apostasy. You don't appear to even think about Western Muslims, and your perspective of Muslims in non-Western countries is one of total victimization. You leave room for only faith or apostasy, nothing more.

It's weird that I have to explain this to you--oh wait, not really.

You simplify the notion of objectivity to an absurd degree, and it's completely worthless trying to challenge you on it. I know this, so I'm not sure why I bother.

Also, you should maybe look more into historic criticism of the Hadith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith

 

[CiG]

You bother because you're severely uneducated and naive about Islam. That, as well as you being an apologist, is all I've taken from this debate.

You've ignored everything I've said, but I'm more than happy to continue this if you actually want to respond to what I've said in my last reply. Feel free to mischaracterize my position though.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm uneducated on Islam. But you're not b/c YouTube videos.

You've probably done more than that, to be fair; but I read a lot of stuff about Islam and terrorism. Apparently I'm reading all the wrong things. Too bad.

 

[CiG]

You're not taking any of this seriously so yes, why are you bothering? You have a superiority complex. You're reducing my position to a false dichotomy which I haven't actually created and I've pointed that out, yet you're still banging on about it.

Edit: In 2014 in the U.K. alone, 137,000 females with mutilated genitals. 0 convictions by 2014 after 30 years of it being illegal to do so. How many Christians and Jews are illegally mutilating the genitals of women in the west?

 

[Einherjar86]

You're not taking any of this seriously so yes, why are you bothering? You have a superiority complex. You're reducing my position to a false dichotomy which I haven't actually created and I've pointed that out, yet you're still banging on about it.

Okay, I'll address some specifics (which I've already done, and you just say "so what???", so whatever).

First, my comment about Germany and Sweden was intended to illuminate a generalization. You focus on disparate statistics from two countries and extend those statistics to an epidemic about Europe. As far as I know, there is no epidemic of Islamic violence throughout Europe; the platforms that say there is an epidemic consist of Infowars, Breitbart, Jihad Watch, American Thinker, etc. These aren't really reliable sources. That's why I asked about stats from other countries.

Again, a useless point. Tell the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide that the Hadith isn't an accurate account of Muhammad's words and life. They're the ones that believe it is so.

You first stated that we can appeal to the Hadith as evidence for the objective maliciousness of Islam (or that it's "the worst religion"). This is an appeal to the document itself. I commented that it's unlikely that we can pursue it as an authentic account of Muhammad's life and words, and I included a link above that reflects Islamic criticism of the Hadith. You then said that it doesn't matter whether it's authentic because it's about what Muslims believe. This undercuts your previous claim to objectivity because now the authenticity of the document, as Muhammad's own words, is irrelevant. So you can no longer appeal to the Hadith as evidence for the objective maliciousness of Islam because you've admitted that it might be inauthentic.

Furthermore, you talk about the "vast majority" of Muslims believing in the Hadith, as though that in and of itself is awful because of what's said in the document; but the "vast majority" of Muslims in the entire world aren't committing atrocities, and many of them don't support such atrocities. Do you not agree with this?

Simply put, if you cannot leave the religion, it is shit and as it stands you can leave all other monotheistic faiths and so Islam ranks as the worst. For to not be able to leave is to be trapped. It's the total and fundamental negation of consent and therefore freedom.

You can leave the religion though--just not in certain countries. We're dealing with a distinction between law and faith, and, even admitting that Islam is a highly political religion, you can't reduce the dilemma of apostasy in Muslim countries to a flaw of Islam itself, given that practicing Muslims in other countries have no problem with apostasy (beyond, perhaps, familial disagreements).

Edit: In 2014 in the U.K. alone, 137,000 females with mutilated genitals. 0 convictions by 2014 after 30 years of it being illegal to do so. How many Christians and Jews are illegally mutilating the genitals of women in the west?

Why don't statements like this matter to you? What am I not understanding? https://www.theguardian.com/society...tion-muslim-council-britain-unislamic-condemn

I am taking this seriously, but not when you say things like "It's weird that I have to explain this to an academic" or "you're uneducated about Islam." When those things come out, then I'm a comedian. You are very, very emotional about this topic, and that's fine; but you talk about the "vast majority" of Muslims believing certain things, and equating this with the damaging influence of Islam. I find this to be a questionable assumption, and logically untenable. Plenty of Christians believe that gays will not go to Heaven, but they don't go around castrating them (or whatever). Now, maybe more Muslims do commit horrible crimes against gays in predominantly Muslim countries, but my point is that a lot, a fucking lot, of Muslims don't do this, even if they believe gays are sinful.

 

[Dak]

I think the question CIG is pushing is would they if the liberal order wasn't suppressing that behavior?

 

[Einherjar86]

And I think the answer is no, they wouldn't. Because that would imply some essentially corruptive element of Islam.

 

[Dak]

Well "essentially" may be setting the bar too high. Unfortunately, I see the likelihood of some relatively unbiased research into what degree (in social sciences we pretty much exclusively have to talk in terms of degree or factor) Islam (or any other religion) is "corrosive" as being roughly zero. So instead we get memes, snarky or shock videos, and long arguments based on differently picked and/or interpreted data.

 

[Einherjar86]

Saying that just Muslims would suddenly begin acting out jihadist fantasies is the Western liberal order were to suddenly lift its restrictions is to attribute some kind of essentialism to that faith, even if it doesn't manifest in every single person.

The truth is, if the Western liberal order lifted its restrictions, a whole hell of a lot of people would begin acting out their own personal violent fantasies--Christians, Neo Nazis, atheists, African Americans, gays, women, etc. etc. It wouldn't be reducible to particular groups or communities, even if people might organize themselves that way (i.e. The Purge: Culture Wars).

 

[Dak]

Saying that just Muslims would suddenly begin acting out jihadist fantasies is the Western liberal order were to suddenly lift its restrictions is to attribute some kind of essentialism to that faith, even if it doesn't manifest in every single person.

The truth is, if the Western liberal order lifted its restrictions, a whole hell of a lot of people would begin acting out their own personal violent fantasies--Christians, Neo Nazis, atheists, African Americans, gays, women, etc. etc. It wouldn't be reducible to particular groups or communities, even if people might organize themselves that way (i.e. The Purge: Culture Wars).

Whether or not individuals would engage in violence for various reasons is a separate question from whether or not Islam provides some degree of provocation that is a separate factor to be considered outside of other factors (like socioeconomic, minority/majority status, etc). It's also a separate question from whether or not other religions, ideologies, etc also have their own levels of provocation.

I would submit that it's rather obvious that mere differences of opinion are a provocation, but that makes people rather mad.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whether or not individuals would engage in violence for various reasons is a separate question from whether or not Islam provides some degree of provocation that is a separate factor to be considered outside of other factors (like socioeconomic, minority/majority status, etc). It's also a separate question from whether or not other religions, ideologies, etc also have their own levels of provocation.

Sure, but that raises skepticism as to whether Islam is "worse" than any other group or community.

 

[Dak]

Sure, but that raises skepticism as to whether Islam is "worse" than any other group or community.

Well I love me some skepticism , but I don't see much skepticism going on in society generally speaking. It's either badthinkful to suggest there might be some problem in Islam or on the other hand it's blatantly obvious. I understand one tack is to just suggest that Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity (thinking back to the wars between Protestants and Catholics, or "Christendom and the rest of the word") and that the tactics are merely changing for a different era. But it does seem odd that the tactics can update but not the level of enmity to outgroups based on religious differences. Even if it is true that it's simply that Islam hasn't "evolved" enough, there are still legitimate questions about how safe it is to be in proximity during the evolution.

 

[CiG]

Okay, I'll address some specifics (which I've already done, and you just say "so what???", so whatever).

I haven't done that.

First, my comment about Germany and Sweden was intended to illuminate a generalization. You focus on disparate statistics from two countries and extend those statistics to an epidemic about Europe. As far as I know, there is no epidemic of Islamic violence throughout Europe; the platforms that say there is an epidemic consist of Infowars, Breitbart, Jihad Watch, American Thinker, etc. These aren't really reliable sources. That's why I asked about stats from other countries.

I'll skip over this part, for obvious reasons. Hopefully the rest of my response is clear and concise though.

You first stated that we can appeal to the Hadith as evidence for the objective maliciousness of Islam (or that it's "the worst religion"). This is an appeal to the document itself. I commented that it's unlikely that we can pursue it as an authentic account of Muhammad's life and words, and I included a link above that reflects Islamic criticism of the Hadith. You then said that it doesn't matter whether it's authentic because it's about what Muslims believe. This undercuts your previous claim to objectivity because now the authenticity of the document, as Muhammad's own words, is irrelevant. So you can no longer appeal to the Hadith as evidence for the objective maliciousness of Islam because you've admitted that it might be inauthentic.

No, it's not an appeal to the document itself.

I was appealing to the fact that regardless of the Hadith's authenticity, billions of Muslims take it seriously. In the same sense, L. Ron Hubbard's writings are total nonsense and the things he wrote about his own life are greatly embellished and even outright fabricated, but Scientologists take it for truth. Now, if those writings by Hubbard promote very problematic things, does it matter that its authenticity is in question or does it matter that his followers believe it?

The objective maliciousness of Islam is not encompassed in the document, but the interpretation and belief attached to the document. If majority of a group of people hold a document to be true and in many cases violently oppose those that criticise said document, I think you have to admit I have a point here.

Furthermore, you talk about the "vast majority" of Muslims believing in the Hadith, as though that in and of itself is awful because of what's said in the document; but the "vast majority" of Muslims in the entire world aren't committing atrocities, and many of them don't support such atrocities. Do you not agree with this?

I do agree.

As I've stated earlier (I think), I don't say that all or even majority of Muslims are the problem, but rather the Islamic culture in its many different forms is the problem. Western Islam is a great project but culture creates pressure to conform, especially the cultures of people who are living in new host countries and are shut off from the outside. Relatively speaking, terrorism isn't such a big issue. The big issue is the cultural baggage these people bring with them. To add to this, we aren't harboring a conversation, frank and free, about Islam but rather a dichotomous narrative that it's either all Muslims who need to go vs. all Islamic violence and barbarism is un-Islamic.

If you tell millions of Muslims that, to this small group of Muslim intellectuals and self-appointed community leaders, you aren't true Muslims, you're more likely to just create a wedge. True Muslims vs. true Muslims.

You can leave the religion though--just not in certain countries. We're dealing with a distinction between law and faith, and, even admitting that Islam is a highly political religion, you can't reduce the dilemma of apostasy in Muslim countries to a flaw of Islam itself, given that practicing Muslims in other countries have no problem with apostasy (beyond, perhaps, familial disagreements).

Except I don't believe that is true. Every single Muslim apostate in the west is not murdered, of course, but this does happen in the west and it doesn't happen with ex-Christians or ex-Jews, that's the point. When it does happen outside of the west, it is usually very violent if not fatal but that is not usually done via Sharia because the families are often too embarrassed and ashamed to put it before the courts.

Ie, it's just as, if not more so, enforced culturally.

It's usually carried out in a vigilante manner. But of course Sharia also plays a role when it is brought to courts. Islam is a religion yes, but it also carries with it many cultural aspects and these cultural aspects are only eroded and replaced in the west among Muslim immigrants if they're able to integrate properly.

Mass immigration makes this process much harder to accomplish and so we are starting to see a rise in honour killings in the west. Not a big rise in America as they have very different Muslim immigration elements, but in Germany, Sweden, the U.K and so on.

FOX I know, but it cites the actual studies inside too.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/1...ment-mulls-guidelines-as-grim-toll-rises.html

Now, maybe more Muslims do commit horrible crimes against gays in predominantly Muslim countries, but my point is that a lot, a fucking lot, of Muslims don't do this, even if they believe gays are sinful.

Let's not also forget about the Pulse nightclub massacre. All it takes is a handful, it's not like I'm speaking from a position of pro-Christianity or pro-Judaism here, I'm still an atheist. My position is simply that Islam is the religion responsible for the most amount of violence and terror today. It was a different religion in the past. It's simply a statement of mathematics to be frank.

The reason I prefaced my link with a comment about Christians and Jews was as a dig at TechBarb who has made statements in the past about Christians and Jews being more violent than Muslims and preferring Muslims to the latter and so on. I think I explained this already.

Why don't statements like this matter to you? What am I not understanding? https://www.theguardian.com/society...tion-muslim-council-britain-unislamic-condemn

They do matter, but the details also matter. I wish them the best of luck in convincing as many Muslims as possible that FGM is un-Islamic, but that's also part of the problem. That something horrid which is practiced by many Muslims (more specifically Sunni Islam of which there are roughly 2.3 million in the U.K. alone) must first be re-categorized as un-Islamic before they can condemn it.

It's good for people like myself who want to see Islam reformed, but what it also does is tell millions of Muslims that they're not true Muslims and we both know that is problematic in making progress.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was appealing to the fact that regardless of the Hadith's authenticity, billions of Muslims take it seriously. In the same sense, L. Ron Hubbard's writings are total nonsense and the things he wrote about his own life are greatly embellished and even outright fabricated, but Scientologists take it for truth. Now, if those writings by Hubbard promote very problematic things, does it matter that its authenticity is in question or does it matter that his followers believe it?

The objective maliciousness of Islam is not encompassed in the document, but the interpretation and belief attached to the document. If majority of a group of people hold a document to be true and in many cases violently oppose those that criticise said document, I think you have to admit I have a point here.

But plenty of Christians and Jews "believe" in the Bible, yet are able to resist amplifying its violent, homophobic, or misogynistic portions. I'm not familiar with the Koran, so I can't make any kind of textual claims beyond what I've heard Muslims say. None of what you're describing conveys "objective maliciousness." It conveys that Islam is perhaps the most convulsive and troubled modern monotheistic religion, but there's nothing objectively malicious that underlies every form of belief that Islam takes. This is what I mean by your tendency to absolutize or universalize, which you express here with the notion of "cultural baggage":

As I've stated earlier (I think), I don't say that all or even majority of Muslims are the problem, but rather the Islamic culture in its many different forms is the problem. Western Islam is a great project but culture creates pressure to conform, especially the cultures of people who are living in new host countries and are shut off from the outside. Relatively speaking, terrorism isn't such a big issue. The big issue is the cultural baggage these people bring with them. To add to this, we aren't harboring a conversation, frank and free, about Islam but rather a dichotomous narrative that it's either all Muslims who need to go vs. all Islamic violence and barbarism is un-Islamic.

What you're saying here, as I understand it, is that all Muslims experience some kind of internal torment over their religion. I don't see any reason to agree with this, and this is where I'm getting hung up on your sense of "objective maliciousness."

What I think you're talking about when you discuss its objective maliciousness is something more like the contemporary tumult of Islamic belief in the (primarily) non-Western world. There's nothing objectively malicious about Islam itself, since Islam takes many forms and there is no possible way for you to verify inherent defects or crises in the personal faith of every single Muslim.

When I resist your appeals to objectivity, I'm not trying to deny that Islam tends to exhibit violent and oppressive tendencies, particularly in non-Western countries, or that there are Islamic criminals abroad. I'm simply denying that you can attribute this to the "cultural baggage" of Islam itself. Many, many, of these crimes (especially in the West) are just as likely crimes of passion or personal matters in which Islam is invoked retroactively as a cause, or contribution. A Christian might commit a violent crime, but that doesn't make the crime itself Christian in nature; and the same must be said for Islam.

I don't have time to respond to all your comments, so I apologize; and I appreciate the link. But I honestly hope that most of what I'm saying here expresses my general perspective on your position. I did want to address this though:

Let's not also forget about the Pulse nightclub massacre. All it takes is a handful, it's not like I'm speaking from a position of pro-Christianity or pro-Judaism here, I'm still an atheist. My position is simply that Islam is the religion responsible for the most amount of violence and terror today. It was a different religion in the past. It's simply a statement of mathematics to be frank.

Sure, we can say that it's a different religion in the past--same goes for Christianity and Judaism. But the problem is that you're focusing solely on Islam in the present and using that example to claim its "objective maliciousness" as being worse than Christianity or Judaism.

If you're making appeals to the objective maliciousness of a religion, then you cannot isolate your examples strictly to a given historical moment--you need to take all of its historical development into account. This is why, when you have this debate, many of us try and introduce historical variances, which you always reject. You can't reject these details if you're going to claim objectivity. At that point you're simply making a category error.

I could make an argument that Christianity is the most objectively malicious religion because it has committed more atrocities throughout its long history (I have no idea if this is true, I'm just making a point). Your rejection of history doesn't work in this argument.

And if you say that you're talking only about modern Islam--or Islam after the Great Divergence, or something like this--then I would say that history moves at different speeds in different places. Which is an entirely separate argument.