Islam - What's your view on it?

[TexRex]

So when Pakistani academic is sentenced to death for blasphemy it's ok because individuals in Pakistan want it that way and any suggestion that it's wrong is cultural imperialism? Or what is your position on this?

Religion itself isn't responsible for it. People are. Specifically people who wish to maintain control over other people and do so by wielding belief as a weapon. Someone who threatens that control is struck down by the people who act in this manner to keep it.

 

[UKMikey]

So when Pakistani academic is sentenced to death for blasphemy it's ok because individuals in Pakistan want it that way and any suggestion that it's wrong is cultural imperialism? Or what is your position on this?

Er... what?! The thread is about whether Islam is to blame. No one is saying it's OK. Just questioning why it's in this particular thread.

 

[TexRex]

"If you can create heaven for yourself without creating hell for somebody else, fine. That's a good enough code. Try and create heaven for somebody else as well, but don't create hell for anyone 'cos that's less than animal." -- Andy Partridge

 

[novcze]

Religion itself isn't responsible for it. People are. Specifically people who wish to maintain control over other people and do so by wielding belief as a weapon. Someone who threatens that control is struck down by the people who act in this manner to keep it.

People are always responsible because religion or any ideology is nothing without people. But how does it work in this case, the state which represents people sentenced someone to death and used ideology to justify it, so is everyone in Pakistan responsible? ... or can we criticize the ideology used to justify immoral actions?

People are easily manipulated so I would rather criticize ideology.

 

[UKMikey]

People are always responsible because religion or any ideology is nothing without people. But how does it work in this case, the state which represents people sentenced someone to death and used ideology to justify it, so is everyone in Pakistan responsible? ... or can we criticize the ideology used to justify immoral actions?

People are easily manipulated so I would rather criticize ideology.

There is a third option. We can criticize those people who use ideology to justify terrible actions. Is that "everybody in Pakistan", or just the theocratic government? People have used other ideologies to justify bad actions. Should we criticise those ideologies as evil as well?

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone who celebrates them here at GTP by the way.

 

[novcze]

There is a third option. We can criticize those people who use ideology to justify terrible actions.

That works well for terrorists, not so well for Pakistan where government is voted in general elections.

 

[Dotini]

So when Pakistani academic is sentenced to death for blasphemy it's ok because individuals in Pakistan want it that way and any suggestion that it's wrong is cultural imperialism? Or what is your position on this?

Pakistan is basically Islamist while India is basically Hindu. This difference in religion I think is why the two nations split into two, but maybe I'm wrong. In Pakistan blasphemy is punishable by death. In India, they legislate to deter Muslim immigration. Both nations seem determined to keep each other's ideology or religion at arm's length. Obviously there are regions in the world in which secular democratic rights, freedoms and responsibilities of individuals have very little standing, validity or meaning.

 

[TexRex]

People are easily manipulated so I would rather criticize ideology.

Persecution in a nutshell.

 

[novcze]

Persecution in a nutshell.

What? ... since when is criticism of ideology a persecution?

 

[TexRex]

What? ... since when is criticism of ideology a persecution?

Simples. In blaming what people believe, you're blaming anyone who believes regardless of their actions. You maintain that the ideology is responsible for peoples' horrible acts rather than people themselves, nevermind that there are countless adherents to the ideology who haven't actually committed horrible acts.

 

[novcze]

Simples. In blaming what people believe, you're blaming anyone who believes regardless of their actions. You maintain that the ideology is responsible for peoples' horrible acts rather than people themselves, nevermind that there are countless adherents to the ideology who haven't actually committed horrible acts.

not so simples, people usually critizes certain aspects od ideology, most don't declare whole thing as evil.

And if we stick to topic, islam is not one ideology, there are different schools and different implementations in different countries. I don't think e.g. muslims living in the US are persecuted by my criticism of Pakistani blasphemy laws. Or are they?

 

[TenEightyOne]

not so simples, people usually critizes certain aspects od ideology, most don't declare whole thing as evil.

Unfortunately your posts came across to me as blanketing generalisations. You specifically removed people from your criticism and chose ideology.

 

[Dotini]

Unfortunately your posts came across to me as blanketing generalisations. You specifically removed people from your criticism and chose ideology.

Are you saying we should remove ideology, ideas, dogma, and all directives to behavior right there in the literature from the discussion of Islam? Are we supposed to only discuss individuals?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you saying we should remove ideology, ideas, dogma, and all directives to behavior right there in the literature from the discussion of Islam? Are we supposed to only discuss individuals?

No, I'm saying that a more granular view of ideologies that claim Islam as their driver would be far more useful than wide generalisations which suggest that those subsets are entirely informed by a single root.

 

[UKMikey]

Are you saying we should remove ideology, ideas, dogma, and all directives to behavior right there in the literature from the discussion of Islam? Are we supposed to only discuss individuals?

Are you saying that Islam should be separated from other religions which instruct their followers to kill other people because it's a special case? Perhaps the point is that the Qu'ran doesn't transform its readers into brainwashed pod people any more than does, say, Atlas Shrugged or The Catcher In The Rye?

 

[Dotini]

Is the purpose of this forum to promote and tolerate a diversity of opinion, or is it to drive opinion into agreement and consensus?

 

[UKMikey]

Is the purpose of this forum to promote and tolerate a diversity of opinion, or is it to drive opinion into agreement and consensus?

Whatever it is, the AUP would suggest that it's not designed as a platform for opinion presented as fact. When that happens it sounds like other people will challenge those opinions, hopefully with logical objections.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think we're being a bit quick to absolve religions of their fair share of responsibility. Would Muslims kill in the name of Islam without Islam or Christians persecute homosexuals without Christianity..?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think we're being a bit quick to absolve religions of their fair share of responsibility.

I don't see that happening, what I see happening is a reinforcement of the idea that religion en masse isn't an automatic overarching driver of these things. Priests can be in same sex marriages, for example, something which is impossible under the Generalised View Of How All Religion Works.

 

[novcze]

You specifically removed people from your criticism and chose ideology.

Yes, because I belive that most people in Pakistan who support things like blasphemy laws are indoctrinated.

 

[TexRex]

Yes, because I belive that most people in Pakistan who support things like blasphemy laws are indoctrinated.

Indoctrination is a non-starter if the only person involved is the indoctrinated. Religion doesn't accomplish indoctrination.

 

[Dotini]

Doesn't the general Muslim population of Pakistan tolerate blasphemy laws and their punishment by death? They are probably indoctrinated by religious law and dogma if they can read, and by the Imams, mullahs, elders and warlords if they cannot.

 

[UKMikey]

Doesn't the general Muslim population of Pakistan tolerate blasphemy laws and their punishment by death? They are probably indoctrinated by religious law and dogma if they can read, and by the Imams, mullahs, elders and warlords if they cannot.

I'm not sure how active a part they play in their "toleration" but the question as far as this thread is concerned is whether it's because of the particular faith they follow or because that faith is mixed in with their government. Is there something about Islam different from any other religion which means it can only survive in a theocracy? I thought we knew that not to be the case.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure how active a part they play in their "toleration" but the question as far as this thread is concerned is whether it's because of the particular faith they follow or because that faith is mixed in with their government. Is there something about Islam different from any other religion which means it can only survive in a theocracy? I thought we knew that not to be the case.

So, the question this thread is concerned about is whether blasphemy deaths and its cultural toleration is because of the particular faith of Islam?
Is this the only thing this thread is concerned about, or just the only one right now? Either way, where else in the world does such a practice exist and is tolerated?

When Islam gets exported to other cultures, such as in Europe, SE Asia, India, etc., does it tend to come into conflict with pre-existing religions? From my remote perch, it seems like the answer may be yes. Didn't India divide off Pakistan to split Hindu from Islam? To this very hour, India seems trying to prevent more Muslims from entering. However, from personal experience here in Seattle, the Muslim community is very small and doesn't seem to cause any problems. The whole issue over here arose with the 9/11/01 attack on the twin towers. We then attacked Afghanistan, Iraq and later Libya, resulting in waves of terrorism and refugees from devastated lands. Many other nations now are obviously torn by sectarian violence, from Africa to Indonesia. We started lots of wars, but didn't win any, succeeding only in causing lots of additional problems in the aftermath with NGOs, money and munitions. As a Brit, you are involved in both the cause and effect. More so the latter than the former. Obviously Islam can survive anywhere, not just in a theocracy. It can even thrive and expand. But could its more doctrinally repressive, sexist, homophobic and violent facets be finally incompatible with modern liberal secular democracies? How is that resolved?

 

[UKMikey]

So, the question this thread is concerned about is whether blasphemy deaths and its cultural toleration is because of the particular faith of Islam?
Is this the only thing this thread is concerned about, or just the only one right now? Either way, where else in the world does such a practice exist and is tolerated?

It's the Islam thread. If Islam isn't the cause then it belongs in another thread. If Pakistan has more people sentenced to death for blasphemy than anywhere else, then it sounds like a problem with the brand of theocracy practised in Pakistan.

This isn't the Pakistan thread so if it's not happening in every country which has Muslims in then it sounds like a broad brush generalisation to suppose that it will happen in every country which has Muslims in. It's like those people who blame London Jews for Israeli foreign policy or people with UK in their usernames for British foreign policy.

But could its more doctrinally repressive, sexist, homophobic and violent facets be finally incompatible with modern liberal secular democracies? How is that resolved?

This seems like an irrelevant question unless you believe that those democracies are bending over backwards to allow those facets to flourish.

 

[Dotini]

This seems like an irrelevant question unless you believe that those democracies are bending over backwards to allow those facets to flourish.

As a practical matter irrelevant? It is for me, with 2% Muslim. Probably for you too, at 5%. But is India a a liberal secular democracy? No. And it is a relevant problem there. With France at 12% it gets more relevant. But I hope you will agree that wars of choice against Muslim countries with resultant terrorism and refugees fleeing to the West is overall a bad process that must not continue. Let's hope it's not too late.

 

[UKMikey]

As a practical matter irrelevant? It is for me, with 2% Muslim. Probably for you too, at 5%. But is India a a liberal secular democracy? No. And it is a relevant problem there. With France at 12% it gets more relevant.

Links, please. Do radical terrorists represent the entire minority in those countries? Certainly they're not theocracies run by wahhabists. What happens if the mayor of the city you live in is a Muslim? Should one be worried? From experience... I kinda doubt it.

But I hope you will agree that wars of choice against Muslim countries with resultant terrorism and refugees fleeing to the West is overall a bad process that must not continue. Let's hope it's not too late.

Those of us who protested the Iraq war aren't surprised that it had the same effect as the Troubles.

 

[Dotini]

Links, please. Do radical terrorists represent the entire minority in those countries? Certainly they're not theocracies run by wahhabists. What happens if the mayor of the city you live in is a Muslim?Should one be worried? From experience... I kinda doubt it.

Those of us who protested the Iraq war aren't surprised that it had the same effect as the Troubles.

Here are your requested links. They may not be current.

United Kingdom 2011 Census giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,516,000, 4.4% of the total population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom

A 2017 Pew Research report documents Muslim population at 5,720,000 or 8.8% of the total population.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France

There aren’t precise numbers on how many Muslims live in Washington. Pew Research Center estimated it was less than 1 percent of the state’s population in 2014 (less than roughly 70,000), but the research firm Dinar Standardestimated 80,000-100,000 around the same time. The Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates that Muslims in Washington now number “well over” 100,000, according to Arsalan Bukhari, CAIR Washington’s executive director.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...chance-to-show-what-true-islam-means-to-them/

Yes, the number of radical terrorists in the community at any one time can be small. But remember, the agreed to question included the the toleration of the culture to the outrages. I agree worry is not precisely the answer. Neither is protest. Panic is worse. But as you've acknowledged, surprise is no longer available as an excuse.

 

[UKMikey]

Here are your requested links. They may not be current.

I was hoping for links that supported the idea that Islam is incompatible with liberal secular democracies like India and France as you asserted above.

 

[Dotini]

I was hoping for links that supported the idea that Islam is incompatible with liberal secular democracies like India and France as you asserted above.

Obviously our conversation, at times civil, is now at an end as miserable distortions dribble from your lips. Below is what I ASKED, not asserted.

I will not reply to any further reply you might make, as you are now unfit for further polite conversation. But it was fun while it lasted. Congratulations.

So, the question this thread is concerned about is whether blasphemy deaths and its cultural toleration is because of the particular faith of Islam?
Is this the only thing this thread is concerned about, or just the only one right now? Either way, where else in the world does such a practice exist and is tolerated?

When Islam gets exported to other cultures, such as in Europe, SE Asia, India, etc., does it tend to come into conflict with pre-existing religions? From my remote perch, it seems like the answer may be yes. Didn't India divide off Pakistan to split Hindu from Islam? To this very hour, India seems trying to prevent more Muslims from entering. However, from personal experience here in Seattle, the Muslim community is very small and doesn't seem to cause any problems. The whole issue over here arose with the 9/11/01 attack on the twin towers. We then attacked Afghanistan, Iraq and later Libya, resulting in waves of terrorism and refugees from devastated lands. Many other nations now are obviously torn by sectarian violence, from Africa to Indonesia. We started lots of wars, but didn't win any, succeeding only in causing lots of additional problems in the aftermath with NGOs, money and munitions. As a Brit, you are involved in both the cause and effect. More so the latter than the former. Obviously Islam can survive anywhere, not just in a theocracy. It can even thrive and expand. But could its more doctrinally repressive, sexist, homophobic and violent facets be finally incompatible with modern liberal secular democracies? How is that resolved?