Osama bin Laden Killed

[Brant Gaede]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

Do these Koranic verses refer to all idolators, for all time, or just the Quraysh and any other specific tribes that had conflicts with the Muslims in the 7th century?

You make the argument that Abraham built the Kaaba, which amounts to a historical claim that that shrine belongs solely to the Abrahamic faiths, yet the idolators worshiped there as well, as far back as history records its existence. Why shouldn't it be open to everyone?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The acts that some commit are impelled by the same bloody, vicious, evil, wicked set of religious memes that all or most share. Which divides the Muslim community into two (unequally sized segments). Those who are actively doing evil impelled by their religion and those not yet actively doing evil impelled by their religion.

It is their damned religion that is at the bottom of the violence.

Bob,

For someone who belongs to a group that has suffered harshly from precisely this kind of thinking, you certainly embrace it with gusto.

Let's paraphrase your own words and see if you recognize the message.

The acts that some Jews commit are impelled by the same bloody, vicious, evil, wicked set of religious memes that all or most Jews share. Which divides the Jewish community into two (unequally sized segments). Those who are actively doing evil impelled by their religion and those not yet actively doing evil impelled by their religion.

It is their damned Jew religion that is at the bottom of the violence.

Sound familiar?

Think about it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

Brant,

When you're good, you're very, very good.

You just succinctly identified the cognitive error in bigotry in a manner I have not.

It doesn't speak to the normative stuff, nor the blind fear and hatred, but the rational error that leads squarely to bigotry is right there in your words for anyone wise enough to try to understand it.

Unfortunately, people on the path to bigotry (or already at the destination) are not going through a very wise time of their lives.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Did it ever occur to you that Middle Eastern atheists are smart enough to keep their disbelief to themselves? (There are in fact atheists in the Middle East; I've had personal contact with a number of them over the years.)

As for your hypothetical response to atheist centers: I refuse to believe that all Muslims are as ignorant and childish as you make them out to be.

Ghs

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts.

Have you ever been to the Middle East as a civilian? If so, where?

No, I have never traveled to the Middle East. But I have spoken before many secular and atheist groups over the years, and in the process of doing so I have met a number of atheists from the Middle East. For example, a year after the Iranian Revolution, I gave a talk for the LA branch of American Atheists. There I met and later had dinner with four atheists who had fled Iran (along with their families) from fear of persecution by the Khomeini regime.

Your suggestion that there are no atheists in the Middle East is highly disingenuous, as is your suggestion that religious dissenters have nothing to fear. A minute of searching the web would reveal evidence to the contrary. Consider this excerpt from an interview with an atheist from the UAE, conducted in 2006.

Interview with an Arab atheist – Does Islam drive its youth away?

by Esra'a (Bahrain)

While I was in the UAE earlier this week, I conducted an interview with one of my friends who is an atheist.

So I’d like to share this interview with Adel Jalal, a 23 year old business student in Abu Dhabi.

Q: Hi Adel. Can you tell us a bit about yourself?

A: Yes. I’m Adel, a student from the UAE. I love everything about classical Arabic music and I’m addicted to Arabic literature.

Q: Interesting introduction, but I must ask, why do you stress the love of Arab culture so much?

A: I don’t hesitate to describe myself as atheist, but when you describe yourself as such here tell me the first thing that comes to your mind? Probably brainwashed, Satan worshiper, traitor.

Q: True, but that doesn’t really answer the question. Why do you boast about your love of Arab culture, specifically? I noticed that when we first discussed this, you said that you’re an atheist shortly before you tried to convince me that you’re not anti-Arab. Explain to me why you feel the need to do that?

A: Because non-Muslim Arabs are left out. We feel like we have no real space in society, especially in any intellectual field. When I say I’m atheist, people always tell me that I have become traitor. A sell-out. Someone who doesn’t know what it truly means to be “Arab.” Why? Because Arab means Muslim and Muslim means Arab? What does personal religious views have to do with my culture, my past, my identity? An Arab, this is something I am. This is something I take much pride in. Why do people attach my personal opinions to who I am, to my nationality? Does being Arab mean being intellectually identical to every other Arab out there?

For the complete interview, see: http://www.mideastyouth.com/2007/06/15/interview-with-an-arab-atheist-does-islam-drive-its-youth-away/

So now we know that there is at least one atheist in the Middle East.

Then there is the case of Egyptian blogger Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, who was imprisoned for his secularist writings. (This case has been widely publicized by freethought organizations in Italy, the U.S., and elsewhere.) Here is an excerpt from an interview with Kareem:

Interviewer: Mr. Abdul Kareem, can you tell us what you were specifically charged with, and what your response to these charges was?

Abdul Kareem Suleiman: The disciplinary board accused me of three main charges. The first charge...They are ideological charges. It’s the first time for me to learn that an idea would be a charge. Today, when I went to the university, I learnt that I can commit a crime that does not have any physical effects: Thinking!

The first crime I was accused of committing was disdaining religions, and of course specifically Islam. I had not imagined that I would face a charge like this because it was never my intention to disdain any religion. The purpose of the existence of religions was to institute ethics that human beings can make use of in their lives. That was the purpose of the emergence of religions, regardless of how they were founded and what their origins are. Whether they are mythical or not is not our topic. I found them accusing me of disdaining religions.

The second charge: Atheism. I had written an article during the election period of the President of the Republic, titled “Pledge Allegiance to President Mubarak… As The Leader of the Believers!” The first paragraph of this article was interpreted by them as...Well, I was discussing in it the relationship between those with religious authority and those with political authority, and the ties that bring them together...That is, the benefits that bring them together. There are mutual benefits. For example, they monopolize the authority of deities. I employed a phrase that they used against me: I described god as ‘the imaginary being’. I did not mean it that way. Generally, in the view of some people, deities are imaginary, and there is no physical evidence to prove god’s existence. This does not mean that I am an atheist. I make my own point of view clear, and I write neutrally and stay away from claiming the existence of this god or that god. That was what I meant, but it was used against me....

http://www.freekareem.org/2007/04/13/interview-with-kareem-after-al-azhar-investigation/

Early in 2001, I received an email from an American freethought group explaining the case of an Pakistani teacher who had been imprisoned, and who faced the death penalty, for supposedly blaspheming Islam. (He had made a passing remark in a class about some historians who questioned the orthodox account of Mohammed's life, and a student reported his grievous crime to the authorities.) Freethinkers were asked to send emails to the President of Pakistan requesting clemency, and I did so, but I don't know what became of him.

Cases like the above are not all that unusual, so don't tell me that there are no atheists in the Middle East or, if there are, that they would have nothing to fear. Syria and Lebanon might be exceptions, but this is something I would have to look into before taking your word for it.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

No offense, Michael, but you have lost me. If Ayn Rand put all this under "collectivism" (which I don't think she did), then she was dead wrong. To judge people on the basis of their beliefs, whether religious or secular, is not a form of "collectivism." The fact that I hate all Nazis does not make me a collectivist.

This is a useful line of thought for me, an acute point of contention that I explore in my own mind. George is unusually perceptive and knowledgeable on the progress and history of 'freedom ethics' and his book on atheism is a really great achievement (thanks again for posting the link to the free version, George! -- I would suggest that this book be read by our LM, if he wishes to get a bead on the history of 'free thought' or 'atheism' -- it is a rich and extremely valuable touchstone)

Here's how I see the point of contention between MSK and Ghs:

-- collective judgments can be faulty. Judging and punishing or discriminating against an individual for something attributed to a group can be fraught with injustice. Sloppily assigning a member to a group can mean that 'measurement omission' slurs over important distinctions. I think MSK and Ghs might agree more or less with these statements, even if I have put them awkwardly or in terms that do not exactly represent their understanding. I expect they agree on the underlying dangers of what I would call 'faulty generalizations' . . .

-- George says Rand was dead wrong (to put 'all this' under a rubric deemed collectivism). It is important to understand the point George is making, the distinction he is making. The key, for me, is these two phrases -- setting aside Ghs's note on Rand:

1. To judge people on the basis of their beliefs, whether religious or secular, is not a form of "collectivism."
   
2. The fact that I hate all Nazis does not make me a collectivist.

With apologies to Daniel Barnes, here I get concerned about definitions. "To judge people" "on the basic of people's beliefs" "form of 'collectivism'.

I figure, using MSK's framework of the Principle of Charity, that Ghs means by 'judge' a general thing, a conclusion, the act of judgment -- either The ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions or simply An opinion or conclusion.

By 'to judge people' I figure Ghs means 'to judge an individual,' and by 'on the basis of beliefs' means exactly what those terms imply: beliefs as held or stated or acknowledged but not merely suspected. In other words to judge someone on the basis of their actual beliefs.

(by 'collectivism' I think he means an actual doctrine, akin to Marxist/Communist/Racist dogma, a fleshed-out entire way of thinking or philosophy or practice).

So, to my best understanding, to judge an individual on the basis of their actual beliefs has little to do with formal 'collectivism.' I totally agree. And I think MSK would agree. Squabbling over 'collectivism' and Rand's intent and yadda blah is side issue to me . . .

For me, the interesting thing to consider is the quality of judgment and the type of judgment. A purely social judgment could be "Bubba says he believes in Nazi ideals. Well, fuck him." Or "Nisrallah Ben QuQipantz says 'I believe Islam will crush the West, Infidel.' Blech, what a fuckhead." In this sense, we here at OL are constantly judging the other individuals. If an individual states or implies that he is a Socialist Monster/Killer or a Priestess of the Peikoff cult or a General Semanticist or a Nazi or a Jewish Supremacist or Beckbasher or says things like "I believe in multiculturalism" or whatever, fuck them.

We don't always have time to make long dispassionate judgments about the fucked-up people on Ol. Summary judgments like "Oh, one of THEM," or "Bal Simon seems to be one of Those Stupid Enemies Of Freedom And Right-Thinking That I Battle From My Trailer" or "Fucking Canuckistani Moron" or "Belongs to Group A, obviously!" . . . well, who here does not judge? Seriously.

Since no one here is in a position to effectively hobble anyone else in the real world, we can rant and sort and lump and condemn and rant some more to our heart's content. Nobody is a Judge, as far as I can tell. No one has the power to sentence someone or fine him or imprison her or cast the assorted fuckhead believers out to purgatory or Heck or Attica . . .

The only point I originally wanted to make pertained to religious fanaticism. This has been a pernicious and destructive influence throughout history, and it was a primary target of those freethinkers and libertarians who spearheaded the enlightenment. Rand's notion of "collectivism" explains none of this.

Yup.

Mind you, Rand seems to have happily sorted and lumped her erstwhile enemies into groups of lesser or greater Evul. Her judgments seem incisive and holy to some, to others deranged and sloppy and unwarranted. At the root of her expressed opinions on racism -- she condemns the raw determinism of racialist thinking, the notion that an individual be judged on any other terms but his individual attributes. To give her the benefit of the Principle of Charity, we none of us here support the notion that important qualities of mind are inherited, and if she sorts racism under the rubric collectivism, hey -- this is polemic, right?

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical forces beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas -- or of inherited knowledge -- which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of anmials, but not between animals and men.

Oh, well, maybe not. Ignore my previous remarks. MSK is right and so is Ghs. Or whatever.

[BaalChatzaf]

The acts that some commit are impelled by the same bloody, vicious, evil, wicked set of religious memes that all or most share. Which divides the Muslim community into two (unequally sized segments). Those who are actively doing evil impelled by their religion and those not yet actively doing evil impelled by their religion.

It is their damned religion that is at the bottom of the violence.

Bob,

For someone who belongs to a group that has suffered harshly from precisely this kind of thinking, you certainly embrace it with gusto.

Let's paraphrase your own words and see if you recognize the message.

The acts that some Jews commit are impelled by the same bloody, vicious, evil, wicked set of religious memes that all or most Jews share. Which divides the Jewish community into two (unequally sized segments). Those who are actively doing evil impelled by their religion and those not yet actively doing evil impelled by their religion.

It is their damned Jew religion that is at the bottom of the violence.

Sound familiar?

Think about it.

Michael

Judaism (which started off as bad-ass as ever was Islam) has been modified over a 2000 year period. Mostly by Jews have the shit kicked out them by other nations stronger than they. This has lead Jews to learn to live with others in some sort of peaceful mode. Jews have had to live in countries not their own so they learned how to do so. Don't make trouble for the hosts and be as useful and law-abiding as possible. Judaism has been thoroughly detoxified. Its main book is the Talmud, not the TNKH (what you heathens call the Old Testament). Islam has not gone through this detoxification and is unlikely to. There is a very tiny minority of a minority in Israel which is bad-ass, the Gush Emunim of ultra-orthodox crazies, but even they do not bomb pizza places or hijack commercial flights. That last crazy act as one of this yo-yos kill Yitzak Rabin.

Now ask yourself when was the last time a bunch of bearded orthodox Jews hijacked an air flight and crashed it into a tall building? Keep thinking.....

Jews, in the main, tend to be non-violent and law abiding. Even when Jews go bad, like Bernie Madoff they won't make you bleed. They may fleece you but they won't kill you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now ask yourself when was the last time a bunch of bearded orthodox Jews hijacked an air flight and crashed it into a tall building? Keep thinking.....

Bob,

Not so fast.

I have been thinking.

I ain't going to go down the "cover an agenda with semantics" road. It's easy to jump into denial mode with semantics.

Try this for a change to keep it real--i.e., connected to real history and events.

The normal complaint against Jews I have read is not that they are violent. It's that they bankroll governments to do their dirty work for them while they live off the fat of the land.

Now reread the paraphrase in that light and see if the message is familiar.

I think this entire manner of thinking--on all sides--is a filthy mindset. Nothing good has ever come from it and nothing good ever will.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The normal complaint against Jews I have read is not that they are violent. It's that they bankroll governments to do their dirty work for them while they live off the fat of the land.

Now reread the paraphrase in that light and see if the message is familiar.

It is a variation of "the Jews control everything" myth. I am very familiar with it.

It is at the center of -The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion-, a damnable fiction.

Jews are up against a difficult situation. In order to exist and even flourish in a Strange Land they have to be better than the average native. Jews tend to work intensively, focus their intellects and excel at the things they attempt. It is this very success that creates the impression they are everywhere and run everything. Neither is true, but one can see where it comes from. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

To be clear, I don't discuss things with people like George to win arguments. It hardly ever matters to me whether he's right or I'm right when we disagree. When I discuss things with wise people where we are all giving it our honest best shot, I always learn something.

In that sense, right or wrong, with people like George, I always win. I believe the reader does, too.

That's not the case with preacher types and hecklers. I don't try to win arguments with them or even discuss issues to mutual advantage with them. The times I have tried this last have been total flops. So I think about the reader. I try to supply the reader with solidly stated opposition when I hold different views--and I balance the number of posts when hecklers go into rapid-fire heckling mode--so the reader can decide the topics for himself in a relatively objective environment..

I notice that several OL regulars share this attitude, too, but from their own perspectives (which means they do not always agree with me or with each other). That's a particular point of pride for me--that people like that are attracted to this forum.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Bob,

I agree 100% with your objections.

But if you object to this, why do you do it to Muslims?

I say, blame the guilty, not the innocent just because they look similar.

The guilty do really bad things. The innocent do not.

That may be a childlike definition, but it's true and I think it's a great start.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Did it ever occur to you that Middle Eastern atheists are smart enough to keep their disbelief to themselves? (There are in fact atheists in the Middle East; I've had personal contact with a number of them over the years.)

As for your hypothetical response to atheist centers: I refuse to believe that all Muslims are as ignorant and childish as you make them out to be.

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts.

No, I have never traveled to the Middle East. But I have spoken before many secular and atheist groups over the years, and in the process of doing so I have met a number of atheists from the Middle East.

George, many thanks for the reports on non-believers. It is interesting that LM brings up Syria as a case where an atheist enjoys religious freedom. If I remember correctly, LM had his most extensive Middle East visits in Syria, although he may have visited other countries as well besides Lebanon.

On the face of it, he is correct that Syria is ostensibly secular, and that apostasy is not a crime under civil law. But, as ever, but.

Firstly, Syria and Lebanon are exceptional. If LM is trying to tell us about the Middle East vis a vis atheism by reference only to Syria and Lebanon . . . the pertinent phrase in Arabic is تأكيد انحياز

I invite LM to review Amnesty International's detailed look at capital punishment in the Islamic world. The information may surprise him.

Secondly, that trite Objectivish notion of 'context' applies. Syria's constitution says that it its laws spring from Islam. The President must be Muslim. LM is correct that there are no apostasy rulings in civil courts, but, but but but . . . personal status codes mean that if you are Muslim, family law, marriage law, inheritance and so on is ruled by Sharia court, if you are Jewish, you are subject to Jewish law, if you are Catholic, you are ruled by Catholic law. If you are Druze, in these matters you may be ruled by Druze law. For all other folks you will be ruled by Muslim code. You must register your religion with the state on a mandatory civic register (though your religion does not appear on your travel documents; Jews are prohibited from contact of any kind with Israelis; Jews are excluded from the military and from the civil service; Jews may not leave the country without permission.

I have taken these following further details about religious freedom in Syria from this report.

- The Government does not recognize the religious status of Muslims who convert to Christianity.

- In the event of a conversion to Christianity, the Government still regards the individual convert as Muslim and still subject to Shari’a (Islamic Law).

- A Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man

- All religions and religious orders must register with the Government, which monitors fundraising and requires permits for all religious and nonreligious group meetings

- State radio broadcast the dawn, noon, and afternoon Islamic prayers; State television broadcasts recitations from the Qur'an in the morning

- Orthodox Christians are personal status law for Muslims, except for marriage and divorce.

- Alawites hold dominant positions in the military and other security services disproportionate to their numbers.

- Conscientious objection to military service is not permitted

- There is mandatory religious instruction in public schools for all religious groups, with government-approved teachers and curriculums.

- Religious instruction is provided on Islam and Christianity only

- membership in the so-called Muslim Brotherhood is punishable by death

- membership in a so-called 'Salafist group' is punishable by death

- All groups, religious and nonreligious, are subject to surveillance and monitoring by government security services.

- state media outlets such as Teshreen, Al-Ba'th, Al-Thawra, and the Syrian News website published anti-Semitic images alleging Jewish control of the United States and the world.

Ahem . . . on to atheists and their relative freedom or presence in Syria.

The most famous atheists of Lebanon/Syria are Ammar Abdulhamid and As'ad AbuKhalil. Abdulhamid lives in exile in DC, AbuKhalil lives in California. The atheist/agnostic blogger Tal al-Mallouhi was arrested in 2009 and sentenced to five years in prison last month. When she was arrested, she was 17. Her trial was conducted behind closed doors by a secret court.

Although the disgusting Emergency Law (1963) was repealed last month, any Syrian can be seized and held incommunicado at any time.

Thirdly, and obviously, the elephant in the room is, um, current events in Syria. Though no one can predict the next year, the greatest present fear in Syria, I think it is fair to say -- is fear of sectarian slaughter. The secular regime in Syria, as LM will acknowledge, is what it is and what it is is not pretty. Although a carefully circumscribed religious freedom is promulgated on the books, I think we all know what that means. If you are a free thinker of any kind, you had better keep your nose clean and your mouth shut -- and even that will not keep you out of prison. Probably the reason LM can give a rosy picture of the Syrian Religious wonderland for religious freedom is because Syrians know very well not to talk about religion under any circumstances, and so the folks he met were happy to keep their mouths shut for fear of the State and its dungeons.

As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism.

LM is not stupid, not unkind, not full of unreasoning hate, but I believe he is trapped between commitments to two imaginary worlds: a wonderland of Islamic Pollyanna loveliness and a wonderland of pure, sweet Western values in action. I appreciate his rather sweet naivete about human nature, but wish he could admit to the conflicts in his mind.

He will always keep his Western citizenship, I bet. His harsh, flip denunciations of Muslim authorities (such as Hassan of Morocco) reflect his delightfully arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone the perfect True Islam. Since he cannot read or effectively communicate in Arabic, has never received religious instruction -- while demanding that no one can speak for Islam except after a grueling formal education (viz. Hassan), his self-appointment as an authority on Islam resembles that of Richard Wiig. Absurd.

Edited May 13, 2011 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Now ask yourself when was the last time a bunch of bearded orthodox Jews hijacked an air flight and crashed it into a tall building? Keep thinking.....

Not on the Sabbath, anyway.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

My recollection is that you have never admitted for the first 200 or 300 years, Islam was largely spread by conquest, and that later rulers and empires in the Islamic world continued from time to time to spread their religion the same way.

I don't believe you've ever asked. The empire, like any, was certainly expanded by conquest, but I don't believe that the religion spread due to this conquest.

LM,

You should review your own previous posts on this site.

You did deny that Islamic forces conducted wars of conquest in the two centuries after Muhammad's death. I asked you specifically about the conquest of Sind (now part of Pakistan), and about various conquests in North Africa.

If you really don't think that conquest played a significant role in spreading Islam—not just during those two centuries, but also during the early days of the Ottoman Empire, or during a series of protracted conflicts in India and in other parts of the world—then consider the following:

Before 1519, not a single person in Mexico spoke Spanish.

Today nearly everyone in Mexico speaks Spanish.

Why?

Before 1519, there were no Roman Catholics in Mexico.

Today a significant majority of the Mexican population professes Catholicism, and most of those remaining affirm some other form of Christianity.

Why?

If you ask a broad spectrum of people who know their history, they will tell you that Mexicans speak Spanish and profess Catholicism because Spain conquered Mexico. Even the most fervent Christians will generally admit that this is so.

Before 636, hardly anyone in Egypt spoke Arabic.

Today, nearly everyone in Egypt speaks Arabic.

Why?

Before 636, hardly anyone in Egypt professed Islam.

Today, about 90% of the population of Egypt professes Islam.

Why?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism.

WSS,

I don't get the impression that LM has the slightest idea why anyone would ever become an atheist.

Quite a few years ago, a friend of mine was doing research on one of the Mayan languages. She spent countless hours with her chief informant, a woman born and raised in the highlands of Guatemala.

One day, she tried to explain to Flora (who was visiting the United States and had questions about many unfamiliar phenomena) that some people are atheists.

Flora's response was that an atheist would have be an animal, because all human beings believe in a God.

I'm an actual atheist, too. And I never did get a response from LM about a couple of ahadith that appear to license the execution of atheists.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

What percentage of those 1.6 billion people are good Muslims, from your point of view?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

How many do you estimate you'll have left?

I'm not playing this silly game with you, the majority of Muslims in the world are great people, I wonder how many Muslims you know Robert? I also wonder how many countries in the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia have you visited? Or How many Muslims from those places do you know?

LM,

Do you really think that the questions I asked you are part of a "silly game"?

Since you reduced them all to "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..." — something I don't believe that I have ever reduced any of your language to — I'm reposting them:

What percentage of those 1.6 billion people are good Muslims, from your point of view?

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has blessed honor killings, or clitoridectomy, or keeping girls out of school, or forbidding women to drive cars.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has commanded all women to wear burqas or abayas in public.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks that gays and Lesbians should be shunned, humiliated, beaten, jailed, or even executed?

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the Godly path consists of according dictatorial powers to the top Islamic cleric in the vicinity, or bestowing them on a non-cleric whose strongman status has been blessed by selected Islamic clerics in the vicinity.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the institution of slavery is now or ever was consistent with Islamic belief.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that dhimmi status for Christians, Jews, and maybe Zoroastrians, and the choice of slaughter or forced conversion for pagan Arabs and Hindus, is consistent with the tenets of Islam.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the duty of waging war on non-Muslims is incumbent on all able-bodied Muslim males.

Suppose you get so bold as to exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that there is a Hell, and that every non-Muslim will sooner or later end up roasting in it.

Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion anyone who ever believes, ever for a moment, that being a Muslim automatically makes one superior to all non-Muslims, and entitled to a role, however modest, in ruling over them.

How many do you estimate you'll have left?

I don't know a great many Muslims personally. Those I have met have been American-born converts, or immigrants from such countries as Turkey and Sa'udi Arabia. I have not traveled in Oman, or Malaysia, or Pakistan, or Algeria, or Somalia, etc., and I will happily defer to anyone who has been to those places and discussed these matters with those who live there.

But surely you aren't going to deny that some Muslims think that God has blessed honor killings, or has conferred elect status on Muslims, or insists on women being covered up from head to toe in public, or is ultimately going to send every non-Muslim to Hell?

In your travels to Syria, Qatar, and any other majority-Islamic country you have spent time in, what percentage of the Muslims whom you have encountered would you say share your vision of Islam?

Robert Campbell

[Richard Wiig]

We don't see Christians or Jews as idol worshippers like the pagan Arabs were. So I don't see the justification for not allowing Christians or Jews or other monotheist religions there.

Do these Koranic verses refer to all idolators, for all time, or just the Quraysh and any other specific tribes that had conflicts with the Muslims in the 7th century?

You make the argument that Abraham built the Kaaba, which amounts to a historical claim that that shrine belongs solely to the Abrahamic faiths, yet the idolators worshiped there as well, as far back as history records its existence. Why shouldn't it be open to everyone?

My point in responding to LM's claim that there is no Islamic basis for keeping non-muslims out of mecca was to point out that he is wrong. There are plenty more suras than I have posted that provide a basis. There is also the Hadith, and Muhammad himself who, while on his deathbed, commanded his followers to purge the Arabian peninsula of all non-muslims. It is one of the reasons - loyalty to their prophet - that Al Qaeda, and other muslims who take it seriously, would like to see Arabia purged of all non-muslims. Pointing this out is not heckling; it is to make important points.

[Rich Engle]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

--Brant

Thank you.

[Richard Wiig]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

--Brant

Thank you.

It's a comforting feeling but it isn't the case. Many of the ideas were originated in order to manipulate people. Muhammad was often exempt from constrictions that his followers were not. It's nice to have a direct line to Allah if you can get it. Muhammad made much up as he went along, and changed things as it suited him when he ran into problems. His ideas are all about manipulating people in order to gain power, and when people are primed for it by their faith, it is indeed religion using people. A cleric in some small village whips the faithful into a frenzy at friday prayers and they go rampaging through the village burning down the homes of Christians (and I know a muslim woman with a Belgian husband who lived in this village. Her husband had to hide in a drum fearing for his life) it is indeed religion using people. In Egypt, where the Copts are being persecuted, and when Christians are being persecuted all across the Islamic world, it is religion using people. That's the fact of the matter.

[Brant Gaede]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

--Brant

Thank you.

It's funny. I didn't really appreciate what I wrote until others did. I had to read it again and again. I thought it was a throw-away. At first I thought it was almost trite. It was just there and I wrote it down. "Appreciate" isn't the word. "Understand" is. In fact, I'm still trying to understand it. It's upsetting, it really is. Everybody wants to be in control. Few want to let it flow. I'm no exception. Something to work on. It's not what I said; it's this process. In that sense . . . --in that sense, it's grace.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

Religion is organised ideas. Religion is people.

[Rich Engle]

It's people using a religion not a religion using people.

--Brant

Thank you.

It's funny. I didn't really appreciate what I wrote until others did. I had to read it again and again. I thought it was a throw-away. At first I thought it was almost trite. It was just there and I wrote it down. "Appreciate" isn't the word. "Understand" is. In fact, I'm still trying to understand it. It's upsetting, it really is. Everybody wants to be in control. Few want to let it flow. I'm no exception. Something to work on. It's not what I said; it's this process. In that sense . . . --in that sense, it's grace.

--Brant

It was concise. It's sort of like what I notice in musical compositions: there are ones you labor away at, and ones that just come right out. Both good, but the latter ones almost always are leaner and meaner.

What you wrote is a perfect capsule description of what represents a, if not the, most major concern within the spiritual communities. The good thing is there is no doubt that a lot of interfaith work is emerging to address the problem. Basically, there are some things that no one (sane, that is) cares to tolerate. Recently here in SW Florida, our church was asked to join one of these councils and we were surprised to find that there were things to work on that we could agree to even with some of the Fundamentalist brothers--and we knock heads with them constantly, what with being GBLT welcoming, evolutionist, having a pagan contention, and so forth. Some progress with certain Muslim contingents as well, although we don't have much opportunity for that locally as there just aren't that many around.

r

[Brant Gaede]

Rich, see how it grows? I was in a negative context when I wrote that. You substituted your positive one. I was thinking of terrorists, Michael was thinking of bigotry and you of religious tolerance and commonality.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I was not talking about a person hating collectivists. I was talking about the collectivists themselves. People who hold to an "us against them" default mentality for judging all of humanity. You say you hate Nazis and that doesn't make you a collectivist. Agreed. But you don't see mankind divided up into (1) People who hate Nazis, and (2) The evil everyone else.

However, the hardline Nazis saw the world that way ("us against the evil everybody else"). They were collectivists.

I was also talking about collectivists themselves. My point was that to dislike or shun groups of people because of their common beliefs is not collectivism in Rand's sense. I assume it is safe to say that Rand disliked all communists to one degree or another, most of whom she did not know personally. This did not make her a collectivist in the sense explained in her article on racism. We are not talking here about a genetic trait over which people have no control and which is irrelevant to our judgment of those people as individuals; rather, we are talking about a common belief system (communism) that Rand regarded as extremely pernicious -- a character trait that she regarded as relevant to our judgment of individuals.

Of course, such moral judgments would not apply if a person believes that our beliefs are not within our volitional control, i.e., that our beliefs are causally necessitated by antecedent causes. But this was not Rand's position, nor is it mine. (I am actually much more of a radical volitionist than Rand was: I would not limit our free choices to the choice to focus or not to focus. Volitional choices permeate every level of our reasoning, deliberations, and decisions.)

According to this form of thinking, Islamists are collectivists when it comes to judging the rest of humanity. Racists ditto when it comes to the race they despise. (Note that the distance between a run-of-the-mill white racist who hates blacks and a white supremacist who hates all races but white is but a hop, skip and a jump. There's the "us against them" thing hiding in the wings.) Rand even called racism the lowest form of collectivism. See this quote from the beginning of her article, "Racism," in The Virtue of Selfishness:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

You can easily modify this quote to suit any form of bigotry, replacing "genetic lineage" with other non-volitional elements that are shared by a group.

Again, the point is that beliefs are not nonvolitional. Rand is talking about genetic characteristics over which one has no control.

Another more traditional way of saying this, albeit emphasizing the negative side and not the full universal meaning, is to take the most unsavory moral, social or political acts of a few individuals within a group and ascribe the entire group with them.

This is a form of moral collectivism.

This issue is more complicated than you indicate here. Let's take the case of a self-proclaimed Nazi skinhead. Some skinheads delight in beating up Jews, blacks, and gays. Should we therefore ascribe this behavior to all skinheads. No, of course not; only those who participate in such crimes (whether directly or indirectly) should be blamed. But this doesn't mean that we should give a complete moral pass to those skinheads who have not yet committed violent acts against others, if their ideology entails the sanction of such actions.

This gets us into very tricky philosophical and political territory. It raises issues that played a central role for centuries in the struggle for religious freedom and equal rights. Consider John Locke's famous monograph, A Letter Concerning Toleration, published in the late 17th century. In this brilliant argument for religious freedom, Locke famously excludes Catholics and atheists. Although he does not call for the outright persecution of either group, he maintains that neither Catholics nor atheists should be allowed to openly preach and practice their beliefs.

Why? Well, in the case of Catholics, Locke maintained that Catholics owe ultimate allegiance to a "foreign prince," the pope, and so can never be trusted as loyal English subjects. Moreover, according to many Catholics writers, especially Jesuits, the pope, by excommunicating a ruler or by declaring him a heretic, can free Catholics subjects of their political obligations to that ruler, who may then take up arms in an effort to replace him with a loyal Catholic prince.

As for atheists, Locke maintained that, without belief in a God, atheists can have no foundation for morality, so they cannot be trusted to keep their word in the tacit "social contract" that binds a society together.

The interesting question here is not whether the particulars of Locke's claims are right or wrong, but what should happen in the event Locke was correct. Locke was correct in asserting that, according to Catholic doctrine, Catholics owe primary allegiance, both moral and political, to the pope. In 17th and 18th century England, this doctrine caused many quasi-libertarian advocates of religious toleration to exclude Catholics from enjoying full civil rights. Even writers who argued that Catholics should be permitted to worship unmolested often maintained that Catholics should not be permitted to hold political offices. The reasoning here was similar to similar to the reasoning employed by American anti-Communists during the 1950s.

In the early 19th century, the brilliant liberal historian and essayist T.B. Macaulay (1800-59) considered this issue in calling for the complete elimination of civil disabilities for Catholics (and Jews) in Britain. His analysis was at once cynical and realistic. Yes, Macaulay said, Catholic doctrine, if consistently applied, would lead to results harmful to the British state -- but he adds that relatively few Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, take their religious beliefs seriously enough to carry them to their logical extremes. Rather, most Christians consider their major religious obligations to be fulfilled by attending Church once a week and by practicing certain social virtues. For most Catholics, political issues become mixed with religious issues only if Catholics are singled out and legally discriminated against. Thus, if Catholics enjoyed the same freedoms and legal privileges as other Brits, most of the problems predicted by opponents of toleration would never occur.

A lot more needs to be said about this, so I will continue this discussion in a subsequent post.

Ghs

[Peter]

Excellent post George. Check out Jerry Bigger's posting in the OL topic, "Ethics" on Ms. Brandens's speech. Here is an excerpt.

Peter Taylor

Barbara Branden wrote about Jihadists:

What they found, despite what one might expect to the contrary, is that suicide bombers are not united by race, religion, class, intelligence, economics, or education. Nor do they tend to be wild-eyed, screaming fanatics; they are not psychotic, they are not paranoid; for the most part they tend to be average, commonplace, normal.

However, there is one important characteristic that they share: membership in a group. They are not created in isolation and they do not function alone. They become part of a group—and then they become like that group, they take on its characteristics. It is group dynamics, the researchers contend, that creates suicide bombers.

What is it that occurs within groups that can make this happen? Often its members find in the group a new family, superseding their real families in importance, and with whom they develop a powerful bond. They spend most of their time together; they become progressively cut off from the larger society, progressively more alienated from it. As a result of this deep alienation from a world they believe does not understand them, they cease to regard the rest of society as being fully human; people outside the group become things, they are de-humanized, they are evil, and thus it is not possible to feel empathy or compassion for them.

end quote

Edited May 14, 2011 by Peter Taylor