The News Thread

[rms]

why do I feel like Ein heard one fact about the Mughal Empire and it's muslim leader(s) and it now forms his entire perspective on the historical influence of Islam globally?

 

[Einherjar86]

What of the polling data I referenced?

I didn’t see it.

And your first attempt to reveal how bullshit it is will be to retreat to history? Bad move, especially because most people alive today who say Islam is the most intolerant religion mean it in the current sense.

You can’t make a qualitative assessment of an entire religion based on recent quantitative data that apply to specific geopolitical regions. You’d use the current status of Islam in the non-Western world to demonize it, presumably for all time. That’s an ahistorical analysis of data being used for a historical purpose. Maybe that’s not what you intend with the data; I’m not accusing you of wanting to ethnically cleanse or anything like that. But this rhetoric feeds a belief that Islam is essentially incompatible with modern values; and if it’s incompatible, then why shouldn’t nutcases go on shooting sprees to get rid of Muslims? Again, I’m not accusing you of suggesting that, but you have to see how the rhetoric is connected.

Not to mention that Muslims who emigrate are often trying to flee the persecution of their home countries so they can practice their religion the way they want to. The NZ shooter basically slaughtered the Muslims who were actually practicing their religion peacefully and “compatibly” with the West.

When you focus on what you call “modern Islam”—or rather, 21st-century radical Muslim countries—you universalize what Islam is. And this informs historical arguments (historical meaning future-oriented, because the future is history too) about how Islam should be eradicated (or at least shouldn’t be allowed in Western countries). This is a fallacious strategy that allows you to ignore historical counterexamples that blow any notion of an essential or pure Islam out of the water. It may be the case that modern Islamic countries are more intolerant; but this doesn’t translate into an argument for its essential incompatibility with modern values, since history has shown that Islam can coexist with modern values.

EDIT: sorry for typos, I’m on my phone

 

[CiG]

You can’t make a qualitative assessment of an entire religion based on recent quantitative dat that apply to specific geopolitical regions. You’d use the current status of Islam in the non-Western world to demonize it, presumably for all time. That’s an ahistorical analysis of data being used for a historical purpose. Maybe that’s not what you intend with the data; I’m not accusing you wanting to ethnically cleanse or anything like that. But this rhetoric feeds a belief that Islam is essentially incompatible with modern values; and if it’s incompatible, then why shouldn’t nutcases go on shooting sprees to get rid of them? Again, I’m not accusing you of suggesting that, but you have to see how the rhetoric is connected.

For me personally, looking at modern representations of Islam and coming to the conclusion that Islam, broadly speaking, is incompatible with modern Western values isn't a justification of ethnic cleansing, massacres or anything else that falls entirely outside of the realm of civilized politics but is rather a means to try and convince the powers that be to moderate the intake of Islam both culturally and in the form of people who bring it with them so as to better ensure that they integrate into our societies.

What we see a lot of the time is that the most incompatible elements germinate in non-integrated communities, this is a big part of why American Muslims are more moderate than European and British Muslims, because when you take in large amounts of immigration they're all shoved into areas where they don't have to learn English, respect the rights of their women, engage in the practice of child brides etc because they essentially self-govern. This is also why Sharia courts are growing in popularity in the U.K.

Not to mention that Muslims who emigrate are often trying to flee the persecution of their home countries so they can practice their religion the way they want to. The NZ basically slaughtered the Muslims who were actually practicing their religion peacefully and “compatibly” with the West.

Muslims usually flee other Muslims, whether in the form of radicalist groups or established Islamic governments. I agree about the disgusting irony of the Christchurch Massacre, New Zealand practice fairly sane immigration and have avoided these problems that places like the U.K. haven't. It's the same case here in Australia, where the shooter was actually from, our Muslims are integrated and therefore we manage to avoid some of the worst elements the "nation within a nation" phenomenon can create.

This however doesn't mean Islam is compatible with modern Western values, it's simply that individual Muslims have integrated with non-Muslims and this tends to mitigate Quranic literalism. We do have no-go zones though, unfortunately.

When you focus on what you call “modern Islam”—or rather, 21st-century radical Muslim countries—you universalize what Islam is. And this informs historical arguments (historical meaning future-oriented, because the future is history too) about how Islam should be eradicated. This is a fallacious strategy that allows you to ignore historical counterexamples that blow any notion of an essential or pure Islam out of the water. It may be the case that modern Islamic countries are more intolerant; but this doesn’t translate into an argument for its essential incompatibility with modern values, since history has shown that Islam can coexist with modern values.

But I specifically talked about Indonesia which is widely considered to be one of the more if not the most moderate and successful majority-Muslim countries. They're hardly a radical country relatively speaking. I question how you could point to pockets of Islam within our societies, or point to rather anomalous periods of historical Islamic rule, and say these examples supersede what is the rule rather than the exception in the 21st century when it comes to Islamic countries.

Regarding the future, do we see Islamic countries trending towards reform and small 'L' liberalism?

 

[CiG]

You can’t make a qualitative assessment of an entire religion based on recent quantitative data that apply to specific geopolitical regions.

Just wanted to address this specifically; I agree, but as you say, much of the turmoil in the Islamo-sphere (is that a term? It is now lol) is due to Western foreign policy and military molestation of the regions. We probably all agree on that here, both left and right, but what I don't get is why you would believe that while simultaneously believing that Islam is compatible. If I personally blew up a family, destroyed their home and robbed them of their resources, it would make very little sense to then go ahead and invite the remaining family members to stay in my home without expectation of retaliation.

This can be viewed in the trend of British Muslims going off to fight for ISIS (even though in many cases these men were born and raised in the U.K. and so their only allegiance to ISIS is some kind of regional patriotism and religious duty) where they often are fighting against British military personnel.

That aside, we can also quite easily look to the actual text of the Quran and the teachings and life of Muhammad to determine whether we think Islam is compatible. Philosophically, without even advocating for any policies of any kind, we can use the texts to dismiss Islam as incompatible.

Combine these two points with the ratio of illiberal Muslim-majority countries vs liberal Muslim-majority countries in the 21st century and you have a pretty strong case for the original claim of incompatibility with modern Western values.

And a thought experiment; reverse the question, do we think westerners are compatible with the values of a Muslim-majority country, if yes, why do we not see more westerners moving to these places without also converting to Islam beforehand? Is an openly homosexual uncovered woman compatible with the values of an Islamic country?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm at my office, so apologies for the scattershot response. But a lot of what you say isn't objectionable, so I'll try to focus on where I'm suspicious.

Just wanted to address this specifically; I agree, but as you say, much of the turmoil in the Islamo-sphere (is that a term? It is now lol) is due to Western foreign policy and military molestation of the regions. We probably all agree on that here, both left and right, but what I don't get is why you would believe that while simultaneously believing that Islam is compatible.

I think (hope) I can respond to this and it gives a sense of what I'd say to the rest of this post.

"what I don't get is why you would believe that while simultaneously believing that Islam is compatible."

In short, I don't perceive what's incompatible to actually be Islam. It's true that these countries practice Islamic law and policies of religious persecution; but I see that less as being Islam tout court (i.e. Islam at its core, pure Islam, essential Islam, etc.) and more as a result of Western foreign policy and intervention in the region. I don't lay the blame at Islam's feet, is what I'm saying.

I don't think the history of Western intervention in the Middle East and other Islamic regions somehow extracts the purest form of Islam, or some such. I think it fuels political rivalry and disparity, and that the ensuing unrest gives rise to religiously motivated violence. I separate that from any concept of Islam "as such."

Also, building on that point, I don't believe Islam "as such" or tout court actually exists, same as I don't believe Christianity tout court exists. There is no original version of any religious system.

Regarding your thought experiment, again I don't think it's religion that's to blame for the lack of Westerners emigrating to Islamic countries. It has far more to do with economic opportunity as a result of cultural development beyond religion than it has to do with the inability of Christians and Muslims to coexist.

For me personally, looking at modern representations of Islam and coming to the conclusion that Islam, broadly speaking, is incompatible with modern Western values isn't a justification of ethnic cleansing, massacres or anything else that falls entirely outside of the realm of civilized politics but is rather a means to try and convince the powers that be to moderate the intake of Islam both culturally and in the form of people who bring it with them so as to better ensure that they integrate into our societies.

The problem of pragmatic policy vs. deterministic imposition. I understand.

What we see a lot of the time is that the most incompatible elements germinate in non-integrated communities, this is a big part of why American Muslims are more moderate than European and British Muslims, because when you take in large amounts of immigration they're all shoved into areas where they don't have to learn English, respect the rights of their women, engage in the practice of child brides etc because they essentially self-govern. This is also why Sharia courts are growing in popularity in the U.K.

I agree, immigration policies that end at "let them in" are shortsighted and problematic. If societies don't make room for those they admit, except in isolated areas, then you won't have integration.

Integration cannot happen entirely peacefully, but it can happen. It does happen. But it's not an easy process.

Muslims usually flee other Muslims, whether in the form of radicalist groups or established Islamic governments. I agree about the disgusting irony of the Christchurch Massacre, New Zealand practice fairly sane immigration and have avoided these problems that places like the U.K. haven't. It's the same case here in Australia, where the shooter was actually from, our Muslims are integrated and therefore we manage to avoid some of the worst elements the "nation within a nation" phenomenon can create.

This however doesn't mean Islam is compatible with modern Western values, it's simply that individual Muslims have integrated with non-Muslims and this tends to mitigate Quranic literalism. We do have no-go zones though, unfortunately.

To return to my first point, I don't see this as meaning that Islam is incompatible. By this logic, no Abrahamic religion is compatible with modern values; it's all just individuals who have adapted and integrated. The West is predominantly Judeo-Christian in form, but the practices and values of these religions had to adapt to other cultural developments. If Islam is incompatible with modernity, then so are the other Abrahamic religions; they've just had the benefit of evolving gradually away from their more archaic practices.

Islam evolved perfectly fine with Western values in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. It wasn't until political destabilization sent Muslim countries spiraling into disarray. Again, I don't see Islam as responsible for this.

But I specifically talked about Indonesia which is widely considered to be one of the more if not the most moderate and successful majority-Muslim countries. They're hardly a radical country relatively speaking. I question how you could point to pockets of Islam within our societies, or point to rather anomalous periods of historical Islamic rule, and say these examples supersede what is the rule rather than the exception in the 21st century when it comes to Islamic countries.

The rule we're arguing over isn't whether Islamic countries and legal systems in the twenty-first century are incompatible with modern Western values--they certainly are incompatible in many ways. The rule we're discussing is whether Islam as such, in itself, is incompatible; and that means not just Islam as it appears today, but as it's existed in the past and as it might exist in the future. So in my perspective, contemporary examples from regions with highly charged political histories, whose governmental structures and organizations directly result from Western occupation and intervention, aren't exemplary of Islam as such--i.e. that Islam is incompatible with Western values. They're exemplary that modern Islamic law and governance is largely incompatible with Western ethics and values.

But if we're discussing a rule that Islam as such is incompatible with Western ethics and values--a claim to Islamic universality--then I point to the exceptions as proof that this rule isn't actually a rule.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What of the polling data I referenced?

And your first attempt to reveal how bullshit it is will be to retreat to history? Bad move, especially because most people alive today who say Islam is the most intolerant religion mean it in the current sense. Yes, as all apologists of Islam are want to repeat ad nauseam, Christianity was also intolerant and violent and was party to many atrocities etc etc etc etc.

This is practically irrelevant to the comparison of modern Christianity to modern Islam. The supposed golden standard of a Muslim-majority country is Indonesia and here we can see many cases of Muslims persecuting homosexuals, atheists and Christians.

From Wiki:

In 2017, the Chinese Christian governor of Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of blasphemy. LGBT issues have recently gained attention in Indonesia. While homosexuality is legal in most parts of the country, it is illegal in Aceh and South Sumatra. LGBT people and activists have regularly faced fierce opposition, intimidation, and discrimination, launched even by authorities.

Just for context, here's some information on Aceh:

Aceh is a religiously conservative territory and the only Indonesian province practicing Sharia law officially. There are ten indigenous ethnic groups in this region, the largest being the Acehnese people, accounting for approximately 80% to 90% of the region's population. Aceh is the place where the spread of Islam in Indonesia began, and was a key factor of the spread of Islam in Southeast Asia.

And here's some information on South Sumatra:

Beginning in the 16th century, Islam began to spread in the region, effectively replacing Hinduism and Buddhism as the dominant religion in the region.

Homosexuality was more or less only legalized in the west after WW2. It's not like Luther's protestant reformation was this sudden explosion of tolerance in all facets of life. Might as well cherry-pick modern-day Christian African nations, many of which are hardly any nicer.

 

[CiG]

Homosexuality was more or less only legalized in the west after WW2. It's not like Luther's protestant reformation was this sudden explosion of tolerance in all facets of life. Might as well cherry-pick modern-day Christian African nations, many of which are hardly any nicer.

This is why "Western values" this whole time was prefaced by "modern" you silly cunt.

 

[CiG]

I'm at my office, so apologies for the scattershot response. But a lot of what you say isn't objectionable, so I'll try to focus on where I'm suspicious.

I'll get back to you after work.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This is why "Western values" this whole time was prefaced by "modern" you silly cunt.

So why are you comparing modern Christians and non-modern Muslims? There are millions of Muslims that live in Western nations and follow Western values.

 

[CiG]

So why are you comparing modern Christians and non-modern Muslims?

Where did I do that? Why is it that every time you spout off some bullshit it always involves having to do searches to see if you're either lying, misinterpreting or misremembering?

The fact that we're talking about westerners and you bring up African Christians... just sit the fuck down dork.

There are millions of Muslims that live in Western nations and follow Western values.

This is why I cited the polls showing that large amounts of British Muslims DON'T follow Western values on things like homosexuality and women's rights and this is a problem on the uptick due to massive amounts of immigration, because it creates the "nation within a nation" effect that allows more conservative forms of Islam to permeate.

Anyways I don't want to go off on a HBB tangent where everything has to be re-explained because you're so much of a dense contrarian cunt you thought you'd try to make some shit point without actually reading everything.

Go neck yourself with a Saudi sword.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Where did I do that? Why is it that every time you spout off some bullshit it always involves having to do searches to see if you're either lying, misinterpreting or misremembering?

The fact that we're talking about westerners and you bring up African Christians... just sit the fuck down dork.

This is why I cited the polls showing that large amounts of British Muslims DON'T follow Western values on things like homosexuality and women's rights and this is a problem on the uptick due to massive amounts of immigration, because it creates the "nation within a nation" effect that allows more conservative forms of Islam to permeate.

Anyways I don't want to go off on a HBB tangent where everything has to be re-explained because you're so much of a dense contrarian cunt you thought you'd try to make some shit point without actually reading everything.

Go neck yourself with a Saudi sword.

You're discussing religion, correct? Therefore, I took exception to your naming of Malaysia as a gold standard of Islamic liberalism when you could do much better and look at Muslims raised in Western nations. Malaysia is a nation, not a religion, its laws are informed not only by its religion but also its history and culture. These are cultural differences, not religious differences. I brought up Christian Africa as an example of non-Westernized Christians that practice many of the same things that non-Western Muslims practice.

I only read this last page so I didn't see the UK polls on the previous. Regardless, doesn't change much. About a fifth of Americans think homosexuality should be illegal, and if you focus in on the Deep South that percentage would probably come even closer to that UK Muslim number. More importantly, a large chunk of those UK Muslims are recent immigrants, refugees, etc. Studies and polls also show that second- and later-generation Muslims tend to have more liberal values than their parents and grandparents.

 

[CiG]

Malaysia? What the fuck are you on about? Can you just fuck off you dunce?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Malaysia? What the fuck are you on about? Can you just fuck off you dunce?

OK, Indonesia, my bad (which is an even worse example to cherry-pick).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Also, if you're going into state-level resolution, the USA only legalized homosexuality after Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003.

 

[CiG]

OK, Indonesia, my bad (which is an even worse example to cherry-pick).

The point of "cherry picking" Indonesia is that it's commonly used as an example of a Muslim-majority country being free and functional to some degree that is beyond the rest. It wasn't me randomly deciding to talk about Indonesia, it was based on years of seeing it referenced in debates like these.

Yes it's a nation brainlet and it was brought up in the context of talking about Muslim rulers who do or don't persecute religious minorities and other minority groups like Chinese people and homosexuals. If you haven't read this from the beginning just go ahead and do that so I don't have to navigate your idiocy, or just fuck off. Either works.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The point of "cherry picking" Indonesia is that it's commonly used as an example of a Muslim-majority country being free and functional to some degree that is beyond the rest. It wasn't me randomly deciding to talk about Indonesia, it was based on years of seeing it referenced in debates like these.

Yes it's a nation brainlet and it was brought up in the context of talking about Muslim rulers who do or don't persecute religious minorities and other minority groups like Chinese people and homosexuals. If you haven't read this from the beginning just go ahead and do that so I don't have to navigate your idiocy, or just fuck off. Either works.

The context wasn't Muslim rulers:

Even if it weren't untrue, the claim that Islam is incompatible with Western modernity isn't even close to factual (i.e. it can't be a claim of facticity).

You're talking about Islam in general. The thing about rulers was you citing open warfare as an example of Islamic brutality (which was easily refuted by Einherjar and anyone that knows anything about the history of war between nations of different religions).

 

[CiG]

You're talking about Islam in general. The thing about rulers was you citing open warfare as an example of Islamic brutality (which was easily refuted by Einherjar and anyone that knows anything about the history of war between nations of different religions).

It wasn't refuted by Ein, he made a vague comment into a more specific comment thus rendering my "bloodiest time in history" quote irrelevant to his originally intended point. However I went on to point out that he was focusing on just one empire who ruled over India and that there were many others which fit into his context of "before WW1" that contradict this claim that Muslim rulers didn't persecute religious denominations (eg Sikandar Butshikan).

Indonesia was brought up in this context of Muslim rule over a country, retard.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It wasn't refuted by Ein, he made a vague comment into a more specific comment thus rendering my "bloodiest time in history" quote irrelevant to his originally intended point. However I went on to point out that he was focusing on just one empire who ruled over India and that there were many others which fit into his context of "before WW1" that contradict this claim that Muslim rulers didn't persecute religious denominations (eg Sikandar Butshikan).

Indonesia was brought up in this context of Muslim rule over a country, retard.

In your first two posts on Indonesia, you only used that meaning of "rule" once. At that point you were talking about "Muslim majority" nations, e.g. attributing the religious beliefs of the nation to their conservative values, while neglecting to mention how it was really an influx of progressive liberals around the early 20th century that eventually led to making homosexuality tolerated in the West.

 

[CiG]

In your first two posts on Indonesia, you only used that meaning of "rule" once. At that point you were talking about "Muslim majority" nations, e.g. attributing the religious beliefs of the nation to their conservative values, while neglecting to mention how it was really an influx of progressive liberals around the early 20th century that eventually led to making homosexuality tolerated in the West.

Indonesian Islamic rule directly lead to a Christian politician being imprisoned for blasphemy. This is government rule persecuting a religious minority, and just a very visible example of something that happens a lot there. The context is rule.

while neglecting to mention how it was really an influx of progressive liberals around the early 20th century that eventually led to making homosexuality tolerated in the West.

It's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Indonesian Islamic rule directly lead to a Christian politician being imprisoned for blasphemy. This is government rule persecuting a religious minority, and just a very visible example of something that happens a lot there. The context is rule.

It's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

And in Poland, death metal bands are arrested for blasphemy and Muslims are frequently beaten by roaming Polish groups as the police turn a blind eye.

It's totally relevant. It shows that personal values can change rapidly without requiring concomitant change in religion.