haider

Thank you very much. Wa alaikum assalam WR WB. I'm not disheartened, and I honestly believe that their hate is justified, given their ignorance (or what facts they choose to focus on and facts they ignore). William Scherk has already told me about you and thinks we'll have a lot to discuss. I look forward to some discussions around the forum. I don't see political correctness having a place in ideological discussions, and that's not what I'm encouraging. But "A is A" refers to a fundamental attribute of reality, not a phenomena such as Islam, which is open to a wide range of interpretations. In this discussion you're using "A" to refer to all contradictory interpretations that exist within that label. If you choose to lump Thomas Aquinas along with St. Augustine under the label "Christian" you are free to do so, but you'll have a distorted impression of reality and the role Aquinas played in paving the way towards the Enlightenment. Similarly, not all Muslims understand Islam the way you understand it. Not all of them approve of the sources you quote. The interpretation of the Koran is not as simple as quoting verses from it, no matter how reliable the translations you use. You remind me of the Muslims who say: "All Americans are the same" or "All Westerners are the same." These generalizations may seem ridiculous to you, but it's how some Muslims view the world, and it seems to me that's how you view all Muslims. If you want to have a productive discussion with Muslims about Islam, it's useful to follow Steven Covey's maxim of: "seek first to understand, then to be understood." Ask the Muslim what he thinks Islam means, rather than tell him what you think it means. That way, even if the Muslim's understanding of Islam is historically inaccurate, at least you have gained an accurate understanding of what he thinks Islam is, and you can use that as the benchmark for future discussions. Like I said, trying to insist on historical accuracy usually doesn't lead to fruitful results.

What I presented is a model that focuses on a specific point we were discussing, namely the role of ideas in social movements. I admit there are many more factors involved, but my focus led me to drop off the non-essentials. Volition determines how much attention we give to our ideas and the degree of awareness (or evasion) we exercise. The choices we are able to make with regards to the mental content of our consciousness will define the choices we make in our behavior. That's why we are able to speak of "personality types" in psychology and predict how people behave, given their mental state. We continue to exercise volition, but it's usually within a finite set of mental and behavioral possibilities, limited further by the ideas we give our attention to (and which shape our attitude). Therefore, we exercise our volition in what beliefs we form about the world. But once we form our beliefs, there are only a few values consistent with our beliefs, leading to fewer consistent ethical values and fewer possible actions to exercise. Those who act in ways inconsistent with their professed beliefs usually hold onto contradictory, fragmented beliefs. There actions they perform stem from beliefs (possibly subconsciously held) that do not align with their professed beliefs. But I digress. I was referring to beliefs held at an individual level, which a person can control. However, I do see beliefs being similar to fish in a pool. The beliefs we are able to reach are limited by the beliefs we are exposed to and can mentally deduce from those. An individual can exercise volition in forming his belief system, but will struggle to make sense of his beliefs and the world if the culture promotes dysfunctional and irrational beliefs. Even if it doesn't connect with the discussion, I found it personally rewarding. So thanks for sharing. Yes, applied epistemology is what we're talking about and my current obsession. I'd like to have more discussions about this sort of thing to improve our approach to learning. I'll probably be sending you a private message to make a case for a separate forum section for Learning. Except some PM nagging soon. It's not important to me, personally, but I believe it's a major factor in how people understand the world and their place in it. Belief in the afterlife can determine how people come to understand ethics, and so it's a major factor to consider when trying to understand a religious outlook on the world. Terrorists don't necessarily have evil intentions, but a worldview that encompasses an afterlife can alter the dimensions of their ethical principles. The death of innocent civilians in a crowded marketplace can seem justified, since they will die and go to heaven.

Define productive. It seems to me that what you mean by "productive" is: "The quickest way for Muslims to know what I think of Islam and its founder." I think it's crucial to realize that Muslims are constantly redefining what Islam means to them and how they view the prophet. I don't believe it's important to focus on historical accuracy as much as it is on the values and principles people uphold today. Even if Islam started off as a bloodthirsty war manifesto against humanity and Muslims have come to redefine it as a tolerant, peace-loving religion, then you will have to take their new impression into account. Trying to prove that Islam is hateful will lead to harsh cognitive dissonance because it would seem that you're talking about a completely different religion and your discussion with Muslims will lead nowhere (i.e. won't be productive, in the traditional meaning of the word). I would be more interested in engaging with people in discussion on how they understand the world, what role scripture has in understanding human nature and ethics, how they view violence, how they associate with others of different faiths, etc. Discussing specific issues that matter to us here and now. You will notice that many Muslims will make claims about how Islam is a peaceful religion that's compatible with science and consistent with reason, but when you get to specifics, they will advocate actions or beliefs that conflict with this claim. I am aware of this contradiction. However, this is fertile ground for Muslims to change their views on the specifics, rather than abandon science and reason. The point isn't to prove Islam as bloodthirsty, but to help Muslims embrace a better, more humane understanding of their religion. For example, within the Shia school of thought there is the idea that non-believers are physically impure. Therefore, if a Shia Muslim shakes hands with a non-Muslim, he will have to wash his hands. I discussed this with my wife and asked her how she would feel if a non-Muslim told her: "Excuse me, I will have to wash my hand after shaking yours." How would she feel if there were separate water fountains for Muslims and non-Muslims in the West? She realized that in this specific issue, it seems that the Islamic rulings conflict with the spirit of Islam in the way she understood Islam, and she changed her views about this issue, rather than abandon Islam completely. I would say that this is the sort of progress I wish to make during religious discussions. Trying to get people to change their worldview completely is often fruitless. I hope that makes sense. I'm enjoying my time so for. All thanks to you, you, you, of course! Thanks! When I have serious discussions I sometimes forget that I have a sense of humor. Thanks for pointing out how important that is.

All these years I've been working hard on better understanding people's views and presenting the most rational arguments I can think of, when what I should have been focusing on was word play. How could I have missed this?

I'm interested in promoting dialogue and understanding. No matter what I think of a person, I wouldn't resort to insulting them. It doesn't promote rational discourse, but tends to encourage defensiveness and hostility. I prefer discussing ideas and how we can make the world a better place. That's my attitude, but others might find Islam bashing more comforting to them. I think it's pretty clear which is a better approach, but I'll let you be the judge.

Good question. I try and deconstruct a situation, consider all the elements at play, then identify how the elements are connected and the nature of the relationship between them. We have atrocities in the world. Atrocities committed by groups tend to have a leader, or some sort of leadership that guides and inspires the group. If a leader is always present, is it not the case, then, that the leader is the fundamental reason for the atrocities? My deconstruction: Groups are formed of individuals. Individuals possess motives that govern actions. Motives are conditioned by values. Values are shaped by one's understanding of reality and his place and purpose in the world. Individuals possess a worldview - no matter how primitive or fragmented - that helps them tie their experiences together. This sets the groundwork for values. Beliefs are more fundamental to values. Our ethical judgments are based on our values. Therefore, values are more fundamental to ethics. Beliefs -> Values -> Ethics -> Actions. These four elements (amongst others) exist together, at the same time. But the overwhelming influence is in the direction indicated above. We can shape beliefs around the ethical principle of our culture, but that would mean that we see these ethical values as being true (part of reality), and so try and build beliefs around that ethical principle. For example, one can begin with: "Adultery is a sin punishable by death" as a primary, then build justifications and beliefs to make sense of this principle. So where does a leader come into this? How can a leader influence the way individuals think? A leader seeks to inspire people to carry out certain actions. This is not possible if he doesn't influence their ethical principles, their values or their beliefs (i.e. ideas about the world). A leader cannot persuade people to act, if he doesn't convince them that his ideas are right and true. Otherwise they're being coerced into taking action, in which case he's not acting as a leader, but a tyrant. Leaders can either work with the ideas and ideals people already possess, or influence them into changing their worldview. But he is impotent if he's unable to align people's ideas with his own. Therefore, leaders are a social factor that shape societies, cultures and civilizations, but more fundamental is the work they do on ideas, because that's what truly guides people's actions. Take all world religions and compare them to each other. You'll notice some very interesting similarities in the reasons for their division into sects or separate organizations. There's usually a dogmatist vs rationalist divide amongst the adherents of any religion. It's as though human beings can be categorized under different human templates based on their metaphysical and epistemological views, even within the same religion (because the disagreements are more fundamental. They're philosophical). Religious leaders tend to represent different religious outlooks and they appeal to those who fall under the same (or a similar) human template. In other words, they appeal to those who agree with them. I hear a lot about leaders who inspire in me nothing but contempt. Why don't they have the same influence on me as they do to their adherents? Because I disagree with them. I don't share their ideas or their values. Yes leaders are important. Yes there materialistic factors that influence the success and failure of nations. But ideas are the most fundamental factor governing human conduct. We work with what we have, but we use it based on how we think. Finally, I don't believe that bad or evil leaders are ill-intentioned. I believe many evil leaders are simply misguided. They believed their bubble of a worldview is true and what they were doing was right. They thought they were bringing about world peace, when they were pushing it towards destruction. Not every evil leader is power-hungry. Some seek power to bring about positive change. But their definition of "positive" is anything but. This applies to many religious leaders and many of those advocating theocratic rule. They don't want to rule over people, but they want what's best for people in the after-life. That's not ill-intentioned, but misguided.

Yes they are. Good ideas produce good deeds. Bad ideas produce bad deeds. Regardless of whether they come from a secular or a religious source. They don't share the same fundamental Islamic ideas. I'm saying that Islam - and every other religion - is open to a wide range of interpretations. Salafism and Sufism occupy opposite ends of the Islamic spectrum. They share common sources, but their interpretations are worlds apart. The consequences of these interpretations are evident from their actions. What distinguishes a Salafi movement from a Sufi movement isn't the intentions of their leaders, but their interpretation and understanding of Islam. Had Osama bin Laden come out one day to say: "You know what, the West isn't so bad. We should love Americans as brothers," he probably would've been shot by his followers. People saw in Osama a personification of what they regarded as a true Muslim, based on their views. That's why they chose to follow him. Again, ideas are more fundamental than leadership.

My answer would be "No" to both questions, and I still disagree with your premises. Allow me to explain: Leaders are required for any social movement, good or bad. That's just how human beings organize themselves. We cannot agree on a plan of attack if every soldier has equal say in what's to be done. There has to be a general that issues commands for others to follow for a military campaign to succeed. This is true for any movement that involves people. There's even a saying by Prophet Muhammad, I believe it's to the tune of: "If more than two of you are traveling, appoint a leader." But this doesn't mean that - fundamentally - a leader is responsible for atrocities (I avoided using "blame" here, but will get to that later ). A leader is a tool for social organization. How does a leader influence his followers? With ideas and ideals. Those who share his vision will follow him. Those who don't, won't. I don't believe that religion is the root cause of all crimes against humanity, but crimes committed in the name of religion are rooted in religious beliefs. That's because ideas are more fundamental than the leaders who preach them. To give you a recent example: A Kuwaiti Twitter user recently insulted prophet Muhammad in a tweet [truth is, he is a religious Shia Muslim, who was making fun of the Sunni view of the prophet, and said in a very vulgar way]. Many Kuwaiti Muslims were insulted, and some started calling for his execution. Some even said he should be killed "outside the law." No leader had to tell people what to think and do. Some leaders may have guided an existing anger. Others may have worked to incite more anger and fervor in this situation. But how people view the prophet and their understanding of what their religious responsibility is towards those who insult him are religious beliefs. They are the foundation leaders build on. So it's not religion that's to blame, but corrupt ideas and destructive values (that can often be found in religion). Combat those and the leaders who call for such ideas and values will lose their foothold in society. Epistemologically, I identified first, then evaluated. But, in our discussion, I didn't walk you through my reasoning. I simply offered my conclusion. "Blame" is a moral evaluation, which doesn't apply to the heart (which is why trying to use it in this context doesn't make sense ). To say that leaders are responsible for the atrocities means that they are to blame (i.e. we would morally judge them as being reprehensible for being responsible for such crimes). I more or less agree with your take on the nature of reality and identification, but I disagree with your application of these ideas on this issue. To sum up: Ideas are fundamental to how people think and values are fundamental to how people conduct themselves. Religion as a source of ideas and values can potentially guide people towards committing atrocities. This doesn't mean religion is a necessary component in evil, but evil (or misguided) ideas are at the root of every atrocity. Leaders are the instruments of applying ideas in a mass (social) scale. Thank you, once again, for the warm welcome. The discussion of "freewill and fatalism" has divided the Muslims since the embryonic days of Islam. There are three takes on the issue, amongst the Muslims: 1- The Ash'aris, who believe in fatalism. The Majority of Muslims fall under this category. Having said that, it's not always the case that a person will completely believe in everything his religion teaches. Many Muslims are influenced by the idea of personal responsibility - whether through personal observation or exposure to Western philosophies - and so integrate this idea into their personal outlook. 2- The Mu'tazalites, who believe in complete freewill. They were accused of being heretics by the majority for this idea, amongst other ideas. I don't know of any Mu'tazalite presence in the world today, but their ideas live on. 3- The Shia, who believe in "a matter between the two." When asked to explain this, Imam Ali asked the person asking if he could lift one leg off the ground. The man said he can. He then asked him if he can lift both feet off the ground. He said that it was impossible for him to do so. Imam Ali concluded that freewill is only applicable to some areas, but not in others (i.e. we have freewill in what we do, but not in altering the laws of nature, which we must accept as-is).

A lot has been said since my last post. I'd like to offer my own take on religion. I see religion as the gamification of philosophy. It not only presents a view of what the world is like, but a storyline that gives meaning to our lives. The essential elements of religion as a "game": 1- A simple, comprehensive worldview (Game Environment): There's just too much detail in the real world for the human mind to grasp, and for millennia the human race didn't know a whole lot about it. This often leads to anxiety and feelings of insecurity. That's why old maps used to have "Here Be Dragons" in uncharted areas: it gives us comfort making sense of things we don't yet understand. Religion offers a simplification of the world that makes it much easier to navigate. This is valuable, even within a rational framework: we need to lump observations together and focus on essentials to avoid dealing with too much information. 2- An instruction manual: Most (if not all) religions come with a set of instructions or commandments, either from scripture or the teachings of a religious figure. They help individuals (players) make sense of the world and what they need to do with their time on earth. It offers guidance and can help cultivate a sense of purpose and build confidence. 3- Clear goals (Game Objectives): This is essential for productivity and general human well-being. You need to know what you want to do and when you've done it. Without either of these you won't feel satisfied. 4- A sense of progress (Game Levels): Human happiness is strongly tied to progress. We get bored by routines and always aspire for greater things. Religion helps feed this need with rituals to perform, as well as lots of scriptural knowledge to acquire. 5- Challenges: Although many religious folk complain about temptation, life would be extremely dull if the good was easy to acquire. Temptation is a challenge. It makes life harder and, therefore, more exciting. 6- Good guys and bad guys: Saints and sinners. Believers and heathens. Red Team and Blue Team. These labels help develop one's identity, give expression to values, develop role models and guide one's actions. Morality isn't about abstract principles, but the application of these principles in human form by human agents. Religion offers an easy way of classifying people, whether by their beliefs or their actions. It makes it easier to know what to do and what to avoid, who to associate with and who to distance ourselves from. 7- Rewards and punishments: The path taken within a game is largely defined by the rewards offered and punishments meted. These help guide decision-making and are essential for life: we pursue what's good for us and avoid what is harmful. You can probably tell that all these elements are valuable for life on earth, whether you choose to experience them through religion or a secular philosophy (that will heavily rely on art and storytelling to compensate for the myths and rituals found in religion). As such, we cannot say that these things are good or bad, only that they are human and satisfy human needs. So what's wrong with religion? While religions have a great deal in common in terms of structure, there's a lot of difference in substance. Religions offer a worldview, but having a worldview isn't a problem. What the worldview is matters. Having values isn't a problem. What your values are could be problematic. The reliance on faith as a cognitive tool is destructive for human life and cripples scientific and technological progress. It can also lead to a number of psychological problems, since you are essentially saying that reason is impotent at making sense of your problems, when it is essential to overcoming them. Reliance on dogma is intellectual suicide. The definition of people as being good or bad based on their religious identity is wrong and will lead to unnecessary conflicts and unjustified fears and apprehensions. Valuing an after-life and condemning this life is problematic, since it strips life on earth of its value and can justify anything by dropping the context of the real world. This is only a sampling of the problems that can fester within religion. But this doesn't mean that religion is essentially evil or that it will necessarily condemn reason and life on earth. It's critical to accept that religious people will define and re-define their religion by the needs of the time. This means that they can embrace science and reason, while maintain a religious identity to give meaning and structure to their lives. A blanket criticism of religion is bad. Not because it's politically incorrect, but because it masks too many important facts about religion and how people relate to it. It makes the person speaking seem like he lives in a bubble (because he does). It's like saying: atheists have no morals because they don't believe in anything. Does that make any sense? Only in a religious bubble. Any social movement will have a leader at its helm. This doesn't mean that the leader is to blame for the atrocities. The leader offers the drive and the religion defines his direction. Religious people will turn to their religion to better understand the world, what to value and what actions to take. Therefore, clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland aren't solely the result of power-hungry leaders, but religious ideas that fuel the conflict.

Hmmm... it seems he really doesn't have a presence in English. It's neither of those gentlemen. This is a sample video from one of his lectures. Again, you may not agree with everything he says, but his advocacy of reason and freedom are very positive.

First of all, regardless of how sizable a rational community of Muslims is, I'm talking about a Muslim outlook that values reason and individualism that's rooted in Islamic teachings. This exists and has existed throughout Islamic history, though it has had cultural influence but not a great deal of political influence. And, unfortunately, you're absolutely right about the radicalization of Muslims in the Middle East and in Europe. The results of the "Arab Spring" are anything but hopeful. It seems that the tyranny of ruling minorities is simply being replaced with the tyranny of religious majorities. But there are some voices of reason within the Muslims. You have to bear this in mind: Not all of them speak up in English. An example is Dr Adnan Ibrahim. A great scholar currently residing in Vienna. He condemns dogmatism and advocates freethinking. He has a valuable lecture (in Arabic) on apostasy laws in Islam and how they only applied during military conflicts. He is hated by Islamists, but is gaining a large following. He was on a recent interview on Al-Jazeera TV and spoke about the importance of secular society and how theocracies lead to hypocrisy. I believe some of his lectures are subtitled on YouTube. You may not agree with everything he says, but he's a positive force within the Muslim world that's promoting freedom of speech and religion. I understand your position, but I don't believe the suspicion is warranted. Taqiyya only applies when there's a risk to one's life and well-being. I face a greater risk saying that I'm an Objectivist than saying that I'm an Islamist. Besides, you can cast doubt on every intention I express, but you can verify the points I make with any independent source. And if what I say makes sense, then it doesn't matter whether my intentions are good or evil. There's an Islamic teaching that states: "Take wisdom, even from the mouth of a hypocrite." I'm aiming to be a voice for good in my part of the world. But I need some intellectual ammo from the fine people on this forum. I still have a lot to figure out for myself. And I wish you the very best. (Though I could be lying )

Hi, Blackhorse. I'm not entirely sure that approaching me with suspicion is a sign of reason or paranoia. But if I am still an Islamist, then I have nothing to gain from claiming that I'm now an Objectivist. I'll be more than happy to share my reasoning for why I left the Islamist worldview in favor of the Objectivist one. And I certainly don't deny that I still appreciate and value many of Islam's teachings. I think that should be clear from some of my earlier posts. There are some questions I prefer not to answer, given the fact that I'm living in Kuwait and apostasy laws are alive and well in my country. So I hope you appreciate the care I have to exercise to preserve my life. I'm familiar with both women, in that I've watched a few interviews with Wafa and read part of Ayaan's biography (which I couldn't continue because I found it too depressing. I might muster the strength to pick it up once again, but I suspect I'll need the aid of some drugs to do that). I believe I've read the St. Petersburg Declaration before. Very well written, and I agree with it completely. The only problem I find with it is that it preaches to the choir. It won't get an Islamist to change his point of view on reading it, because it condenses some conclusions the signatories have arrived at. To convince an Islamist of the importance of secular society, you'll have to address their present assumptions about theocracies and human nature and present the reasoning that leads to the conclusions of why secularism is important. I humbly disagree. Sharia law is full of clauses that protect individual rights and property rights. But Islam, like any other religion, is open to a wide range of interpretations. Different Muslims will take verses out of context to defend and justify different outlooks. Islam is not a single worldview but a cluster of overlapping worldviews. Some of these worldviews advocate reason and individualism. Perhaps not consistently, but there is enough fertile soil to cultivate further dependence on reason. I suspect many members of this forum would accept that Thomas Aquinas - a Catholic priest - helped usher in the Enlightenment. Not by "bashing" Catholicism or religion, but introducing Aristotelian logic to the religious fold. I believe this is also possible with Islam and amongst Muslims. I support the principle of "reason before revelation." You don't have to reject religion completely to advocate reason. People don't think in a vacuum and they won't readily give up their current worldview, and not a lot of Muslims are willing to think about their beliefs objectively and starting from scratch. But the principle of "reason before revelation" means that what cannot be proven through reason cannot be relied upon through revelation. Therefore, anything which cannot be understood in revelation or conflicts with reason must either be rejected or suspended, until we can form a better understanding of the issue. Otherwise we remain within the limits of human understanding rather than claim that God knows better when we really mean that we're ignorant and are willing to believe in anything. Jts, I'm not familiar with Ali Sina and ISPs here in Kuwait have blocked access to the site you linked to. I'll have to use a proxy to access them later. Scumbag censorship. Muslims are a fragmented collective, and many Muslims do believe in altruism and collectivism. Many denounce life on earth and condemn worldly prosperity (if not to feed the poor and shelter the homeless). But, again, this depends on how Muslims interpret Islam and the Prophetic narrations they accept. For example, there are several accounts that defend the pursuit of wealth and its enjoyment. I'll mention only three: 1) A wealthy man wanted to walk with Imam Ali (the Prophet's cousin and successor) and decided to wear simple clothing, since Imam Ali used to do so. When Imam Ali saw him he said: "God wishes to see his bounties on his creation." The wealthy man said: "But you wear simple clothing." Imam Ali replied: "I am a leader and must empathize with the poorest of my citizens." 2) A man went to [i believe it was] Imam Al-Sadiq to confess his sin: "I enjoy making money and spending it on my family." The Imam replied: "What makes you think that's a sin? It's an act of worship." 3) A saying by Imam Ali: "Asceticism does not mean that you do not have any possessions, but that you do not have anything possessing you." I hope this post has helped you accept that Islam is not a monolithic entity and that there's a lot of opportunity to advocate reason and liberty within Muslim societies. Haider

وعليكم السلام I totally agree. I'm a tad reckless at times. My brother keeps warning me not to provoke people, especially in beliefs they hold dear to them. I don't notice that I'm being provocative. I just see it as making observations. I'm glad most of my discussions have been with friends and relatives. Otherwise I may not have survived to post this message.

You're absolutely right. Which is why I oppose the ridiculous claims that Islam has been "hijacked" by the extremists. There is widespread acceptance of - if not support for - extremist ideas within the Muslim mainstream. Martyrdom is prized even by the most liberal of Muslims. Many Muslims would never tolerate living in a theocracy, but they wouldn't oppose Sharia law, because to them it seems like they are opposing God's law. I would say that many, many Muslims don't know the basics of their religion, or carry contradictory fragments of it in their psyche, and they lack the ability to connect the pieces in a sensible way. Instead they resort to justifications and rationalizations. Innocent civilians are killed in 9/11, and you have Muslims thinking: "This is for all the Muslims the US has killed." Well, what about the Prophet teaching his followers not to attack civilians or damage their dwellings? That's no longer an important teaching. But perhaps it can be useful in inter-faith events or for proselytization. I don't think you're too naive. We understand the world by the experiences we have. I hope our encounter will be fruitful in better understanding Islam and the Muslim world. Many of my relatives and acquaintances don't respond favorably to my ideas, especially at first. But after several discussions and time to think about what I say, they eventually appreciate my points of view. It's risky speaking against the conventional wisdom of a conservative culture, but it has to be done. "Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes."

The two of you ought to be like peas in a pod! I infer this from your most perceptually evident shared trait: perpetually itchy chins. I'm mirroring Michael. Hope that builds some sort of rapport with him.