If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[CiG]

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":

But I'm only speaking of objectivity in the sense that, right now at this very moment and quite especially I would say starting with the fatwah against Salman Rushdie and the subsequent random murders of those associated with him (so since the 1990s) Islam is the religion causing the most amount of trouble, globally.

I'm not, nor have I ever said, that Islam is objectively the worst since the beginning. Christianity I would say has likely caused the most problems historically.

We can play the ping pong game of religious retardation all day, but I see quite clearly which faith is the global threat right now and it certainly isn't Christianity. Ask the apostates fleeing to the west.

I've not made a historical argument. It's entirely based on the present.

Evangelicals may preach intolerance, but they don't throw acid in women's faces, commit honour killings, convince rape victims to go through Sharia rather than the police (which fundamentally means no justice for the victim), mutilate the genitals of girls, marry off children to older men, hide terrorism suspects from police, there are even stories of women going to mosques in western dress and being bullied into covering up by the men.

This argument here^ I made has very little to do with what's in the books but rather how Muslims act culturally.

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.

Now, you didn't respond when I brought up problems in Indonesia, which does not fall in line with your idea that I'm conflating religion with geography. So I'm bringing it up again.

Also, you don't seem to consider that in the west you pretty much don't see any Christian honour killings or rapings. With Christianity and Judaism, rape is for lack of a better phrase, secular. It's not justified religiously. Whereas there are rape cases in the west with Muslims who claim to be justified doing it because the victim is kafir, inhuman etc. Often the victims are Sikh unfortunately.

In the U.K. they're experiencing a new phenomenon of rapists and pedophiles sharing victims and this is not a network of disgusting people meeting online but often Muslims sharing the victims with male family members, Muslim friends and Muslim co-workers.

Even Muslim taxi drivers are getting involved in this strange phenomenon.

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."

Not over their religion, over their culture. Especially in the west, where if you abandon your community in any sense (whether it be by leaving the religion or by speaking out against some injustice and being ostracized) you're trapped in a hostile, lonely environment, maybe you can't speak English very well to top it all off. So many Muslims become compliant via silence.

It happens on a very micro-scale in Amish and Mennonite communities for example. Community silence protects the bad apple in order that the whole apple-cart doesn't fall apart.

When I resist your appeals to objectivity

I think I only actually made one appeal to objectivity didn't I? That the penalty in Islam for apostasy is death in extreme cases and shunning/being an outcast in moderate cases.

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.

That's a false comparison though, as we see patterns among Muslim criminals that suggest religiosity and we do not see patterns among Christian criminals. Someone committing a crime who just happens to be a Muslim (eg robbing a store, mugging someone, gang violence etc) is not a factor in my argument, it's when many of the victims have either been decapitated or decapitation was attempted, notes or videos are left behind indicating allegiance to some radical Islamist group, anti-Semitism plays a big role and so on.

Yes there are times when we must take the nature of a crime into account before we label it Islamic or Christian, this doesn't take away from anything I've said so far.

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.

I think this comment especially indicates what's gone wrong, as you think you've found an inconsistency in my position, that you seem to think I'm using Islam in the current to say that it is objectively worse than all other religions absolutely. I'm not, I've stated that Islam is objectively the worst right now.

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).

I would agree with this if we're talking historically.

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.

Again, agreed. But are you suggesting I'd have to wait a few hundred years for Islam to "catch up" before I can say, that period between 1990 and 2020 man Islam was the worst...?

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 appreciate the time and effort, I know we probably won't agree though and that's fine.

 

[no country for old wainds]

 

[Dak]

The idea of gender is a lie too. I have some schadenfreude with all the transwomen destroying "ciswomen" at "women's sports".

 

[rms]

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/27/1...ckey-team-boycott-pay-iihf-explained-timeline

"No one wants to pay women to play professionally so, we want the government to do so"

and they have the audacity to say equitable pay!

 

[Dak]

Women make up a slight majority of the population, and recent data suggests that younger women are outearning their male peers. Let them support women's sports.

 

[arg]

Even if different genders are playing the same sport, that does not mean they should be paid the same.

Athletes are paid proportionately to the amount of business they generate, not how "hard" their work is.

 

[CiG]

The never-ending quest to annihilate competition.