FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[Warpoet]

Warpoet has had a hard on for me for a while now. Say anything negative about Islam and he'll have one for you too. He'll even make things up to put words in your mouth. And he can be summoned anytime you say anything remotely about Islam in any thread. Its actually pretty amazing.

Not nearly as amazing as watching you try to act as though your childish swipes against me amount to anything whilst you cower behind the ignore function.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The thread highlights Muslim reformists who stand up against Radical Islam. There are other Muslim reform groups. Radical Islam is a danger to Muslims (who are not radical) and worse to progressive ones.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is an interesting point recently made by Sarah Haider: https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/03/20/10-questions-for-sarah-haider/

Despite all of that, I am hesitant to make broad claims of the “capability” of the religion to embrace modernity, although I will say I expect the faith is as likely to break as it is to bend. Comparisons to the slow modernization of Christianity fall flat in the face of the very different world we live in today. Islam’s backwardness and limited ability to flex may be its undoing – I’ve noticed an increase of atheists and agnostics as literature/media critical of Islam becomes more widely accessible. Christianity never had to face such a rapid onslaught of challenges.

Islam is modernizing and being reformed (and secularized) in a much different era than Christianity did. Do you think this makes it harder or easier on Islamic reformists?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Use 'anti-Muslim bigotry' instead.

Such bigotry does exist. The thread was relating to the majority of Muslims who are not fanatics. Naturally anti-Muslim bigotry does exist.
Not so long ago Christianity was slaughtering people in the name of God and Christ. That doesn't mean all Christians were and are murderous fanatics.
tly
One contentious issue is Sharia. On one hand some relate it to hand chopping, stoning and beheading. Yet under Arbitration Laws in the UK Civil Sharia is acceptable. I've previously been in touch with the Muslim Arbitration Council (MAT) which aims to follow the UK law in dealing with civil and domestic disputes. There are other Sharia courts which are operating outside of the Arbitration Act. In the USA 22 states have banned Sharia law though when applied correctly is not an unfair system to resolve civil matters.

This would be unfair because as I understand Jewish and Christians have their own arbitration.

At the same time some Muslim reformers face problems within a few sections of their community. This was why I started the thread.

Since I have worked in the Middle East for number of years for 3 different countries and have a new boss who is Palestinian (also a friend of mine for a number of years), I hope I have some idea of the differences withing Muslim communities. I have not met any radicals amongst those I know but of course they exist.

 

[Warpoet]

This is an interesting point recently made by Sarah Haider

And what qualifications does Sarah Haider have on this issue other than being an ex-Muslim and gaining celebrity with the Sam Harris/Dave Rubin crowd? Regardless, her point is undermined by the fact that plenty of Muslims living in the West have embraced "modernity" (whatever that means in this context). Even if people like you dismiss empirical data indicating this as lies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is an interesting point recently made by Sarah Haider

And what qualifications does Sarah Haider have on this issue other than being an ex-Muslim and gaining celebrity with the Sam Harris/Dave Rubin crowd? Regardless, her point is undermined by the fact that plenty of Muslims living in the West have embraced "modernity" (whatever that means in this context). Even if people like you dismiss empirical data indicating this as lies.

What do you mean by qualifications. She is an Ex-Muslim and an Atheist. Muslims have accepted modern values. They also appreciate they are more empowered in the West than back home or where their parents came from.

What empirical data are you talking about? There are Jihadists who aim to radicalise the USA and there are still areas of abuse of women's rights such as forced marriage (not unique to Muslims) This not to nullify the problems we have in the West with domestic violence, crime and vandalism.

I think however we have to be careful to address extremism without generalising it to mean all Muslims. On the other hands any attempts at reforms are in danger of being called Islamophobic

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What do you mean by qualifications.

She doesn't need qualifications of any sort to make the point she made. We live in a different time now than we lived in during when Christianity was going through the reformation. We live in a much more connected and technologically advanced world, with more people freely attacking and questioning religion than ever before worldwide. You can contain that in one small country, or even in a big one, but people are connected globally now. Reformers of Islam have a much different challenge than reformers of Christianity had, and Haider, being with an ex-muslim organization has reportedly seen the faith of many Mulsims break instead of bend.

 

[Warpoet]

What do you mean by qualifications.

Anyone can claim to have some great insight into religion and how its adherents think. But being an ex-Muslim doesn't make you an expert on Islam. I'm an ex-Christian; that hardly makes me an authority on Christianity or how Christians think.

The "ex-Muslim" industry is populated by people who make such claims but have little to no credentials beyond being an ex-Muslim. In Haider's case, being ex-Muslim and having a pretty face seem to be all it takes for Harris, Rubin and their acolytes (like Penguin) to treat them as some kind of authoritative source. Why should anyone else?

What empirical data are you talking about?

Already produced several times. Someone else just asked me about this. Scroll up.

 

[Warpoet]

She doesn't need qualifications of any sort to make the point she made.

Then why'd you cite her as a source instead of making the point yourself?

We live in a different time now than we lived in during when Christianity was going through the reformation.

Which, if anything, suggests that it would be easier for people to compartmentalize their faith away now, in a modernized, secular society, compared to the world Christians lived in when religion's influence over the state was finally restrained. Pointing to backwards and illiberal societies is not particularly instructive. As I said, the far more relevant evidence is the example of Muslims who live in the West under comparable socioeconomic circumstances to Christians. And the data indicates that, by and large, they're doing just fine. But that's not the data you want to see. You're convinced that Islam is different, that Muslims are worse, and that their integration into some society is some all-encompassing issue that liberals refuse to acknowledge. But the evidence doesn't support you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Anyone can claim to have some great insight into religion and how its adherents think. But being an ex-Muslim doesn't make you an expert on Islam. I'm an ex-Christian; that hardly makes me an authority on Christianity or how Christians think.

The "ex-Muslim" industry is populated by people who make such claims but have little to no credentials beyond being an ex-Muslim. In Haider's case, being ex-Muslim and having a pretty face seem to be all it takes for Harris, Rubin and their acolytes (like Penguin) to treat them as some kind of authoritative source. Why should anyone else?

What empirical data are you talking about?

Already produced several times. Someone else just asked me about this. Scroll up.

You produced nothing except a statement about Islamophobic but no substantiation. If I missed it you can show it again.

 

[Warpoet]

You produced nothing except a statement about Islamophobic but no substantiation. If I missed it you can show it again.

Don't need to. You've shown multiple times throughout this thread and others that you don't actually listen to what anyone else says anyway, so I'm not digging it up again just for you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You produced nothing except a statement about Islamophobic but no substantiation. If I missed it you can show it again.

Don't need to. You've shown multiple times throughout this thread and others that you don't actually listen to what anyone else says anyway, so I'm not digging it up again just for you.

You can show an example which won't take long as it is on this thread.

 

[Warpoet]

I know I can. I said I'm not going to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I know I can. I said I'm not going to.

I just went through this thread. You did comment with a lot of good points at times but that is all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting Article about the US first case tried against FGM which was highlighted by progressive Muslims speaking out against this.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/05/21/female-genital-mutilation-religious-freedom/319911001/

Michigan Doctor Accused of Performing FGM to Claim Freedom of Religion Defense

Lawyers for Jumana Nagarwala, the Michigan emergency-room doctor accused of performing genital mutilation on young girls, plan to invoke a defense based on freedom of religion, the Detroit Free Press reported.

While the law, enacted in 1996, is clear that cutting a girl’s genitals is illegal, the defense will claim the girls in question were not actually cut, but rather scraped for religious reasons. Thus, they will propose that not only was no harm was done, but the defendants themselves are victims of religious persecution by the U.S. government.

The case involves two seven-year-old girls from Minnesota who were brought to Nagarwala’s clinic in Livonia, Michigan for the procedure. Also charged in the case are Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, who is accused of letting Nagarwala use his clinic to carry out the cuttings and Farida Attar, 50, Fakhruddin’s wife, who is accused of holding the hands of at least two victims during the cutting procedures to comfort them.

 

[J842P]

Interesting Article about the US first case tried against FGM which was highlighted by progressive Muslims speaking out against this.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/05/21/female-genital-mutilation-religious-freedom/319911001/

Michigan Doctor Accused of Performing FGM to Claim Freedom of Religion Defense

Lawyers for Jumana Nagarwala, the Michigan emergency-room doctor accused of performing genital mutilation on young girls, plan to invoke a defense based on freedom of religion, the Detroit Free Press reported.

While the law, enacted in 1996, is clear that cutting a girl’s genitals is illegal, the defense will claim the girls in question were not actually cut, but rather scraped for religious reasons. Thus, they will propose that not only was no harm was done, but the defendants themselves are victims of religious persecution by the U.S. government.

The case involves two seven-year-old girls from Minnesota who were brought to Nagarwala’s clinic in Livonia, Michigan for the procedure. Also charged in the case are Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, who is accused of letting Nagarwala use his clinic to carry out the cuttings and Farida Attar, 50, Fakhruddin’s wife, who is accused of holding the hands of at least two victims during the cutting procedures to comfort them.

Interesting. If indeed the procedure involved was merely a sort of ritualistic scraping/cutting and didn't involve actual excision of the clitoris then this is might be actually defensible under religious freedom.

And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it's just a minor nick or scraping, in the name of religion?

Very clearly it does, or at least, no one has bothered to prevent the routine genital cutting of baby boys for religious reasons.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting. If indeed the procedure involved was merely a sort of ritualistic scraping/cutting and didn't involve actual excision of the clitoris then this is might be actually defensible under religious freedom.

And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it's just a minor nick or scraping, in the name of religion?

Very clearly it does, or at least, no one has bothered to prevent the routine genital cutting of baby boys for religious reasons.

The group who has written about this are Muslims who oppose this. Yet even they are called Islamophobic.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...enital-mutilation-victims-michigan/100690792/


The Michigan case, they say, has emboldened them, particularly because the doctor's defense revolves around an all-too-familiar argument made by the Bohra community: that the mild, ritual "nick" or "shaving" isn't actual cutting. The victims disagree, they say, and they have the mental and physical scars to prove it.

“It's taken me a long time to be as comfortable as I am," said Taher, who hopes that her Sahiyo campaign to end female genital mutilation will gain momentum from the Michigan case. "We can’t have this happening ... Whether it’s a tradition, for religious reasons or for sex, I see all of it as controlling someone. This is a form of gender violence. It’s a form of child abuse. It’s oppression.”

I cannot find any written reference to this in the Qu'ran. There is one article here
https://stopfgmmiddleeast.wordpress.com/background/islam-or-culture/

While there is no mention of FGM in the Quran, a Hadith (saying about the life of the prophet) recounts a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”

Some Muslims will say they only feel the Qu'ran is valid as the others are interpretations and additions.
It also seems that this is a practice designed to bring pleasure to the man at the expense of the woman.

 

[J842P]

Interesting. If indeed the procedure involved was merely a sort of ritualistic scraping/cutting and didn't involve actual excision of the clitoris then this is might be actually defensible under religious freedom.

Very clearly it does, or at least, no one has bothered to prevent the routine genital cutting of baby boys for religious reasons.

The group who has written about this are Muslims who oppose this. Yet even they are called Islamophobic.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...enital-mutilation-victims-michigan/100690792/


The Michigan case, they say, has emboldened them, particularly because the doctor's defense revolves around an all-too-familiar argument made by the Bohra community: that the mild, ritual "nick" or "shaving" isn't actual cutting. The victims disagree, they say, and they have the mental and physical scars to prove it.

“It's taken me a long time to be as comfortable as I am," said Taher, who hopes that her Sahiyo campaign to end female genital mutilation will gain momentum from the Michigan case. "We can’t have this happening ... Whether it’s a tradition, for religious reasons or for sex, I see all of it as controlling someone. This is a form of gender violence. It’s a form of child abuse. It’s oppression.”

It wouldn't surprise me if the religious community is lying about the nature of the ritual. Indeed, I expect that they *are lying*. Hopefully, this will be sorted out in court.

I cannot find any written reference to this in the Qu'ran. There is one article here
https://stopfgmmiddleeast.wordpress.com/background/islam-or-culture/

While there is no mention of FGM in the Quran, a Hadith (saying about the life of the prophet) recounts a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”

Some Muslims will say they only feel the Qu'ran is valid as the others are interpretations and additions.
It also seems that this is a practice designed to bring pleasure to the man at the expense of the woman.

Seems irrelevant.

 

[J842P]

In any event, it is good to keep in mind that the West is only removed form clitorectomies by about 100 years. It was common from the 18th century well into the 20th century to treat female "hysteria" and "masturbation." Indeed, male circumcision in the West was introduced during the same time explicitly to "treat" masturbation. That practice, although it is dying out, survived into this century through a combination of inertia and ridiculous post-hoc justifications like the explanation that it is done for "hygiene".

The truth is, most doctors just do what they were told to do by the doctors who taught them. They came up with the ridiculous "hygiene" argument when no one remembered the root cause of the practice, and they just assumed (since they were likely circumcised themselves) that it must be for hygiene reasons.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The group who has written about this are Muslims who oppose this. Yet even they are called Islamophobic.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...enital-mutilation-victims-michigan/100690792/


The Michigan case, they say, has emboldened them, particularly because the doctor's defense revolves around an all-too-familiar argument made by the Bohra community: that the mild, ritual "nick" or "shaving" isn't actual cutting. The victims disagree, they say, and they have the mental and physical scars to prove it.

“It's taken me a long time to be as comfortable as I am," said Taher, who hopes that her Sahiyo campaign to end female genital mutilation will gain momentum from the Michigan case. "We can’t have this happening ... Whether it’s a tradition, for religious reasons or for sex, I see all of it as controlling someone. This is a form of gender violence. It’s a form of child abuse. It’s oppression.”

It wouldn't surprise me if the religious community is lying about the nature of the ritual. Indeed, I expect that they *are lying*. Hopefully, this will be sorted out in court.

I cannot find any written reference to this in the Qu'ran. There is one article here
https://stopfgmmiddleeast.wordpress.com/background/islam-or-culture/

While there is no mention of FGM in the Quran, a Hadith (saying about the life of the prophet) recounts a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”

Some Muslims will say they only feel the Qu'ran is valid as the others are interpretations and additions.
It also seems that this is a practice designed to bring pleasure to the man at the expense of the woman.

Seems irrelevant.

This is opposed by Islamic reformers who themselves have been called Islamphobes. If FGM gains in the courts for religious reasons the radicals have won using the legal system.