iNow Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 citizens don't have the right to create their own law. it's the judiciary system that decides what laws people must follow.Actually, that would be the legislature, but whatever... your reply is sort of tangential and oblivious to my actual comment anyway.
swansont Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 You are confusing Muslims with people who are Muslims only in name. As iNow points out, this is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Also, I'm not agreeing that people get to decide someone else is or isn't part of a particular religion. You might reject them from your particular sect, but not from the religion entirely.
Alan McDougall Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 The selection bias and special pleading is restricting actions to the last few decades. It assumes that all the involved societies are at exactly the same stage of political maturity and secularization, which is patently absurd. It's not like a revolution against a monarchy or dictator is an Islamic thing, it's that the western (non-Islamic) world already threw off their monarchical or dictatorial structures. It's not a fair assessment. Thus must we expect societies that are political immature, or dominated by theocratic dogma to to be in a state of civil unrest? I doubt if political maturity exists in any society, take the recent shut down of the USA Government, due to immature bickering and intrigue amongst Congressmen and Senators, in a supposedly mature and secularized country free of religious domination. And missing the obvious part that the current Government in Turkey is mildly Islamic (AFAIK). I doubt if it is going to remain this way, Kemal Ataturk the great Turkish statesman politics prevented Turkey from becoming an Islamic dominated society or theocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_personal_life
swansont Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Thus must we expect societies that are political immature, or dominated by theocratic dogma to to be in a state of civil unrest? I doubt if political maturity exists in any society, take the recent shut down of the USA Government, due to immature bickering and intrigue amongst Congressmen and Senators, in a supposedly mature and secularized country free of religious domination. A government shutdown is not really civil unrest, certainly not on par with what we've recently seen in the middle east. Did the US democratic republic have to resort to armed revolt to get things back in order during the shutdown, or did we rely on the procedures already in place? Would we have had the same options if we were in a monarchy or dictatorship? It's simply not the same thing. I'm talking about having a government in place that recognizes personal freedoms such as speech (and religion), and other things like elected representation and some limits on government power, vs governments that lack these things. Your particular religion is not really germane in order to revolt against an oppressive government. We just happen to be seeing the process currently take place in countries that have a large Islamic population, but they don't have a monopoly on such action.
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 So far, by the criteria used, I see no reason to single Islam out for special consideration in terms of its peaceful intent. Most religions have an undercurrent of violence mixed with a message of hope, and a veiled assumption that its followers are right and all others wrong. It's the nature of religion; some people become desperate where their eternal soul is concerned, and they'll go to extreme lengths to make sure they've chosen the right deity and the right way to worship it. A small percentage are fanatics, a small percentage are followers in name only, and the rest make up the bulk of the congregation and are fairly moderate. I would caution that we should be vigilant against fundamentalism in every group. In the US, we have to be careful about our religious extremists influencing legislation over abortion (they want life to legally start at conception, which would be nightmare for the courts) and education (e.g., the teaching of Intelligent Design). We see the so-called Tea Party trying to push a religious agenda that gives a disproportionate advantage to fringe perceptions. We have to stop religion from breaching the division between Church and State by getting tax breaks AND taking taxpayer funds in the form of faith-based initiatives. And you know what, we should probably keep an eye out to make sure Islamic groups aren't planning any violence also. Not because the religion itself is inherently more violent than any other, but simply because there is that potential with any group ideology.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 If I have some sort of political power and I want people to do something intrinsically bad- like killing others I can say to them "I want you to do this" or I can say "the Creator wants you to do this" . Which one is more likely to work? That's the real problem with most religions they short circuit the normal common decency of people. How many ruined lives does this story tell of? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse That's modern mainstream Christianity demonstrating that you can't trust it to be anything but evil. So, as far as I can tell, the answer to the title is "No, and nor are most of the others. If you want peace you are probably better off without a God in whose name to justify killing people."
swansont Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 If one wants to effect some sort of change one can exert political might, if that exists. But if one is under a political system in which one is disenfranchised, the options outside of violence are limited. One has to ask if the violence is inherent to any particular ideology, or if it's because that's the one option that's available.
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 ! Moderator Note SlavicWolf, Your continued ignorance of moderator warnings issued in this thread are 100% unhelpful in generating good discussion. You apparently are in need of the reminder that, 'that being intransigent about the fanaticism of others is the first step towards your own fanaticism,' (quoted from Phi for All from the report on this thread as I could not have worded it any better). Stop harping on with the no true Scotsman fallacies (pointed out earlier by iNow) and start being more productive in the way you approach this thread, or staff will simply remove your posts (this goes for everyone who ignores the warnings issued here).
Alan McDougall Posted January 28, 2014 Author Posted January 28, 2014 A government shutdown is not really civil unrest, certainly not on par with what we've recently seen in the middle east. Did the US democratic republic have to resort to armed revolt to get things back in order during the shutdown, or did we rely on the procedures already in place? Would we have had the same options if we were in a monarchy or dictatorship? It's simply not the same thing. I'm talking about having a government in place that recognizes personal freedoms such as speech (and religion), and other things like elected representation and some limits on government power, vs governments that lack these things. Your particular religion is not really germane in order to revolt against an oppressive government. We just happen to be seeing the process currently take place in countries that have a large Islamic population, but they don't have a monopoly on such action. I was responding to your statement about "politically maturity" not civil unrest. I admire the USA Constitution and its checks and balances that prevent your President from becoming a dictator!
SlavicWolf Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I explained in one of my posts why my reasoning is not fallacious. if you disagree - explain why. I am always open to dialogue. ...
imatfaal Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 ! Moderator Note I explained in one of my posts why my reasoning is not fallacious. if you disagree - explain why. I am always open to dialogue. ... Unfortunately we are not open to discuss Moderator notes and tips (in Red boxes and Green boxes respecitively). Please take a few moments to go back over the moderation that has been directed at your posts, take on board what has been said, and change your posting content and style in reference to those comments. This is not open to debate - we have been incredibly lenient in this thread in order to facilitate an important discussion; please acknowledge this by abiding by our rules and keep this thread a polite, logical, and open discussion. Do not respond to any moderation within the thread.
swansont Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I was responding to your statement about "politically maturity" not civil unrest. I admire the USA Constitution and its checks and balances that prevent your President from becoming a dictator! I addressed "political maturity" in the second paragraph of my post, which you quoted. If you view all revolts in political systems that lack the features I mentioned, do you see any correlation in the ideologies involved? i.e. are they largely Muslim, or are other faiths (or no faith at all) involved?
SlavicWolf Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) BTW read this http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?389781-Should-human-rights-always-outweigh-religious-rights This is a discussion about human rights taking place on the biggest English language Islamic forum. Gives a clue of what Muslims registered there think... they are clearly NOT in favor of secularism. For example, look at one post written by one of more active members of the board, replying to an user claiming that religion should be a personal matter: This does not apply to Muslims. Islamic law allowed itself to be enforced against the Muslims. That is why hadd punishments exist. It simply proves what I said before. Just read the thread. Muslims who post there aren't newbies but people who have been studying it for years. They know it better than y'all and I do. If you wanted to learn more about e.g. law, whom would you ask? A random person or a lawyer? This is going to be my last post in this thread. I leave the discussion for you to decide. If you don't know something about Islam and want to seek an opinion on people knowledgeable in Islam - just register on that board. They'll explain all things. I once posted there but I was kicked out for supporting Israel... so do not discuss such issues. Edited January 28, 2014 by SlavicWolf
swansont Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 BTW read this http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?389781-Should-human-rights-always-outweigh-religious-rights This is a discussion about human rights taking place on the biggest English language Islamic forum. Gives a clue of what Muslims registered there think... they are clearly NOT in favor of secularism. Fallacy of composition.
Alan McDougall Posted January 28, 2014 Author Posted January 28, 2014 I addressed "political maturity" in the second paragraph of my post, which you quoted. If you view all revolts in political systems that lack the features I mentioned, do you see any correlation in the ideologies involved? i.e. are they largely Muslim, or are other faiths (or no faith at all) involved? To answer your question above, I must do some research , I don't know what the results would be, but if I come across any meaningful info I will come back with it later.
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I explained in one of my posts why my reasoning is not fallacious. if you disagree - explain why. OK, let's take some examples: You cannot make Islam compatible with secularism. Guinea, Mali, Senegal, Turkey, Albania, Lebanon and Uzbekistan are examples of countries with a majority of Muslim citizens led by a secular government. So Islam can be compatible with secularism, as long as we don't use YOUR version of it. And when we do, you've been using the Special Pleading fallacy, despite a lack of relevant differences, to claim the Muslims you're talking about are different. The religion is rigid like a fossil, the only way to change it would be to change or denounce a part of it's scriptures and that is an impossible task. Many have tried and failed miserably - there has never been any tradition of secularism in Islam, it's prophet preferred a theocracy to a secular state. Gambia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Northern Cyprus, Palestine... again, all countries with a secular government and a majority Muslim population. There has been and continues to be secularism in Islam. The only rigid, fossil-like, unchangeable perspective I see here is yours. It's causing you to use the Guilt by Association fallacy. @Phi for All Oh man... Again you're confusing apples with oranges. You are confusing Muslims with people who are Muslims only in name. As many have pointed out, this is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're redefining what it is to be a Muslim in a way that makes your argument applicable, but narrows the definition to the point of meaninglessness. Your argument then becomes, "No true Muslim would behave differently than the way I'm describing it". You don't get to be automagically right in a discussion like this. No country can be secular and islamic at the same time. When it is islamc, it cannot be secular. When it's secular, it cannot be Islamic. Because your definition of this entire religion is so hidebound and narrow, it forces you into some False Dilemma fallacies as well. There are more possibilities involved here, but you're focused only on two, which is obviously harming your arguments. BTW read this http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?389781-Should-human-rights-always-outweigh-religious-rights This is a discussion about human rights taking place on the biggest English language Islamic forum. Gives a clue of what Muslims registered there think... they are clearly NOT in favor of secularism. For example, look at one post written by one of more active members of the board, replying to an user claiming that religion should be a personal matter: It simply proves what I said before. Just read the thread. Muslims who post there aren't newbies but people who have been studying it for years. They know it better than y'all and I do. If you wanted to learn more about e.g. law, whom would you ask? A random person or a lawyer? This is going to be my last post in this thread. I leave the discussion for you to decide. If you don't know something about Islam and want to seek an opinion on people knowledgeable in Islam - just register on that board. They'll explain all things. I once posted there but I was kicked out for supporting Israel... so do not discuss such issues. Why on Earth would we ever take what's written on a discussion board like that seriously? It's quite obviously a place for extreme opinions and lacks critical thought processes. You don't get decent evidence to support your arguments about Islam from a site that kicks you out for bringing up Israel. If I wanted to learn about the law, I would first have to determine what kind of law and for what territory. It does me little good to learn contract law for the UK if I'm trying to defend a thief in Kosovo. I think Islam is probably practiced at least as variably as the law, so I'm loathe to throw a blanket over it all and let your site "explain all things" Islam to me. 4
Moontanman Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Is Islam really the religion of peace their followers claim it to be? Looking at the daily news contradicts this claim don't you think? This reminds me of what one of my very religious family members pointed out several years ago, and I might add with a completely straight face. "if every would simply praise and worship God we wouldn't be having these problems with religious violence" Yes that was the statement meant as a cure all for all the earths religions, she was quite serious and expected that if everyone was christian then there could be no war or crimes and no one would do without... When I pointed out that various groups of christians had been killing each other for centuries and disagreements in how to properly worship god had resulted in many thousands of denominations over the centuries and often those disagreements had resulted in small scale killing as well as large scale wars. She answered me simply by repeating her statement louder as though it's volume would somehow change its veracity. I think all religions are driven by their fundamentalist fringes, if you want to see how any religion would act if it actually the power of life and death look no further than any religions fundamentalist fringes today or how it welded power in past when it really did hold such power. Trace any of the main mono theistic religions back far enough or look far enough from it's current center and you see how religion acts when it's not gelded by secular society, look at religion when and where it really does have power...
SlavicWolf Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Last remark. When I said that my reasoning is not fallacious i meant that it does not contain "No True Scotsman fallacy" I meant this post of mine: My reasoning is not fallacious. Maybe I'll explain this on a less provocative example.Every country has it's own legal system which determines what you can do and what you can't - in other words, what does it mean to be a law abiding citizen. In this case, is everyone who claims to be a law abiding person actually one? Is a person who claims to be law abiding but constantly drives under the influence, beats his wife and engages in illegal smuggling of drugs actually "law abiding"? You may claim that he is because not everyone adheres to a literal interpretation of penal code. They may, for example, interpret it metaphorically. If everyone could make his own interpretation of what does it mean to obey law, there would be no crimes and prisons would be empty.But they aren't. That's because people as citizens don't have the right to create their own law. it's the judiciary system that decides what laws people must follow. Every person who claims to be a law obeying citizen must adhere to these rules because that's the requirement made by those who created them. They also decide how they should be interpreted. You cannot smuggle drugs and be innocent at the same time unless you aren't a human which is impossible.That's exactly the flaw in your reasoning - all your assumptions are based on a faulty promise that people actually have the right to decide who is a Muslim and who is not while in fact they don't. All requirements were decided about 1400 years ago. if they weren't, there would be no such thing as takfir in Islamic law (google it if you want to learn more) The Islam I'm talking about isn't my own Islam. It is Islam of prophet Muhammad, Islam of his companions and of greatest Islamic jurists that ever walked on earth - of imam Abu Hanifa, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Anas Ibn Malik, Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i, Ibn Taymiyyah. It is also Islam of the greatest scholars of the 20th century and the present times - of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, Abu Ala Maududi, Yusuf Al Qardawi and countless other scholars. People who smuggle drugs are still guilty of breaking the law no matter how hard they deny the accusation. Therefore, they can't be called law obeying citizens. Muslims who defy sharia law aren't Muslims even if they say they are. A quote from that Maududi fella: Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet .... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule If such a great scholar of Islam, well versed in Quran, hadith and sira as well as in all classical works about Islamic theology and jurisprudence (he was named the greatest Islamic cleric of the 20th century) misrepresented it, then I don't know who doesn't. Peace and goodbye. Edited January 28, 2014 by SlavicWolf
iNow Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) When I said that my reasoning is not fallacious i meant that it does not contain "No True Scotsman fallacy"Except, despite your protestations to the contary, many actually do. Here are a few of the more obvious ones: Jews and Christians can reject that violence as simply historical anachronism while Muslims can't. The biggest mistake people make is assuming that Islam is an otherwise peaceful ideology that is misrepresented by radical. In fact it is totally the opposite - it's peaceful and tolerant Muslims who misrepresent Islam, not the violent ones. The violent ones have Quran, hadith and sira on their side, peaceful ones have nothing. Muslims can't discard this law. They can't because it was ordered by the perfect man and are therefore, the best possible. No Muslim can say that they aren't perfect unless they question Muhammad. But then they won't be Muslims anymore. Some people may say "but there is a lot of Muslims who don't support such a thing!". Yes, there are. The problem is that if a person does not support this law, then he/she is not a Muslim. Most of so called good Muslims are people who simply don't know their religion well enough. Again you're confusing apples with oranges. You are confusing Muslims with people who are Muslims only in name. <snip> As Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it - most self-declared Muslims choose how much of their religion they want to follow. However, this is not a true Islam. A true Muslim must approve all laws set by Muhamad, as they were established by the perfect man to be practiced for all times. For context, here's the definition of the no true scotsman fallacy: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X. <snip> The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims"). Now, read again those quotes from your posts in this thread that I placed above with this in mind and hopefully you will begin to finally understand what others have been pointing out to you for the last 5 pages, and why your quote above with which I opened this post is remedially absurd and plainly false. Edited January 28, 2014 by iNow
Ankit Gupta Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Don't u think this world would be a better place without these religions I mean when every body belive in each other every one would be same they all worship to same thing . as u can see every religion has some bad things like in Hindus also there is dowry , male dominance etc , every religion has some bad points and some good points its up to us what we choose . Also have u ever wondered how a single world can have so many makers or masters and each is completely different from other no connection between them . Sorry if I hurt some ones feelings but think of it
Moontanman Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Don't u think this world would be a better place without these religions I mean when every body belive in each other every one would be same they all worship to same thing . as u can see every religion has some bad things like in Hindus also there is dowry , male dominance etc , every religion has some bad points and some good points its up to us what we choose . Also have u ever wondered how a single world can have so many makers or masters and each is completely different from other no connection between them . Sorry if I hurt some ones feelings but think of it To loosely quote Aron Ra, "all of them cannot be correct but all of them can be wrong..."
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 People who smuggle drugs are still guilty of breaking the law no matter how hard they deny the accusation. Therefore, they can't be called law obeying citizens. Muslims who defy sharia law aren't Muslims even if they say they are. More bad logic. No major religion in the world would tell you you're not a member unless you obey every single law they have. Such an extremist stance seems hypocritical when applied to another extremist stance. And you add the caveat "law-abiding" for citizen but not for Muslim. I can still be a citizen even if I occasionally break the speed limit. Your definition means there's like, what, four or five actual Muslims in the world? Don't u think this world would be a better place without these religions I mean when every body belive in each other every one would be same they all worship to same thing . as u can see every religion has some bad things like in Hindus also there is dowry , male dominance etc , every religion has some bad points and some good points its up to us what we choose . Also have u ever wondered how a single world can have so many makers or masters and each is completely different from other no connection between them . Sorry if I hurt some ones feelings but think of it Can we please think of it in a different thread, one that isn't about a specific religion's peaceful intent? I think all religions are driven by their fundamentalist fringes, if you want to see how any religion would act if it actually the power of life and death look no further than any religions fundamentalist fringes today or how it welded power in past when it really did hold such power. Trace any of the main mono theistic religions back far enough or look far enough from it's current center and you see how religion acts when it's not gelded by secular society, look at religion when and where it really does have power... But they can also be driven to beneficial reform by their fundamentalist fringes. It's not always a bad thing, and even if it is, bad things can teach us too. And too much power isn't good in anyone's hands.
Alan McDougall Posted January 28, 2014 Author Posted January 28, 2014 Lets return to the question, Is Islam a religion of peace?
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Lets return to the question, Is Islam a religion of peace? I never left the question. Isn't it abundantly clear from the last five pages that this question doesn't have a meaningful answer, due to the variations that resist being generalized? The only rational answer is "yes and no", the same as many other major religions.
swansont Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Isn't it abundantly clear from the last five pages that this question doesn't have a meaningful answer, due to the variations that resist being generalized? The only rational answer is "yes and no", the same as many other major religions. In part because the question is incredibly vague, and clarification has not been forthcoming.
Recommended Posts