FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[Warpoet]

Re your last point, the problem is both people who generalise on all Muslims as radicals and radicals themselves. The problem here is that some politicians amongst Muslim civil rights groups in the USA are also trying to shut down Muslim reformers.

That problem is far less significant than the one I described. And if you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Clarion Project represent "reform," you're really not in a position to point fingers at Muslim groups.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists.

Careful, don't want to scratch the flooring as you shift the goalposts. In the past, there have been arguments made that moderate Muslims don't do enough to try to prevent radical Muslims.

Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[In the past, there have been arguments made that moderate Muslims don't do enough to try to prevent radical Muslims.

And there is some truth to that. When Charlie Hebdo happened we heard more cries of "How dare they print an image of Mohammed?!" than "How dare they kill them for it?!".

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

While I agree that people perform great feats of mental gymnastics to twist their holy books into messages that match modern, peaceful and tolerant values, these books are not actual collections of ink blots. They have words in them forming doctrines. They explicitly direct intolerance and violence. There is a reason why we see so many Muslim suicide bombers, and no Jain ones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there is some truth to that. When Charlie Hebdo happened we heard more cries of "How dare they print an image of Mohammed?!" than "How dare they kill them for it?!".

Did we really?

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

While I agree that people perform great feats of mental gymnastics to twist their holy books into messages that match modern, peaceful and tolerant values...

Thanks.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Re your last point, the problem is both people who generalise on all Muslims as radicals and radicals themselves. The problem here is that some politicians amongst Muslim civil rights groups in the USA are also trying to shut down Muslim reformers.

That problem is far less significant than the one I described. And if you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Clarion Project represent "reform," you're really not in a position to point fingers at Muslim groups.

If they spread the message and don't advocate violence why not?

 

[whichphilosophy]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists.

Careful, don't want to scratch the flooring as you shift the goalposts. In the past, there have been arguments made that moderate Muslims don't do enough to try to prevent radical Muslims.

Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

It's very hard to say that moderate (ordinary) Muslims are not doing enough to curb radicals when the US drops bombs in the Middle East and sometimes civilians are killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re your last point, the problem is both people who generalise on all Muslims as radicals and radicals themselves. The problem here is that some politicians amongst Muslim civil rights groups in the USA are also trying to shut down Muslim reformers.

That problem is far less significant than the one I described. And if you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Clarion Project represent "reform," you're really not in a position to point fingers at Muslim groups.

You are once again attacking those that actually are moderate. Somehow I think you side with the radicals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Careful, don't want to scratch the flooring as you shift the goalposts. In the past, there have been arguments made that moderate Muslims don't do enough to try to prevent radical Muslims.

Moderate Muslims not doing enough about radical ones doesn't mean they don't exist. They are just for the most part afraid to take on the radicals.

Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

We have an ideology held by a large number of people. What name would you prefer to "radical Islam"? Is this a case of political correctness--you think getting rid of the name gets rid of the problem?

- - - Updated - - -

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists.

Careful, don't want to scratch the flooring as you shift the goalposts. In the past, there have been arguments made that moderate Muslims don't do enough to try to prevent radical Muslims.

Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

There is no radical Islam, only radical Muslims. Their books don't tell them to murder, they use their books to justify their murders.

It's very hard to say that moderate (ordinary) Muslims are not doing enough to curb radicals when the US drops bombs in the Middle East and sometimes civilians are killed.

It's not Muslims bombing the Middle East. Thus your argument is irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not Muslims bombing the Middle East. Thus your argument is irrelevant.

Didn't the US bomb Iraq during the Iraqi Wars? Didn't the US just drop a bomb on Syria?

 

[Warpoet]

If they spread the message and don't advocate violence why not?

Already explained in detail.

- - - Updated - - -

You are once again attacking those that actually are moderate. Somehow I think you side with the radicals.

Neither AHA nor the Clarion Project are moderate, and I don't give half a fuck what you think. You're a discredited ideologue whom nobody here takes seriously.

 

[Warpoet]

While I agree that people perform great feats of mental gymnastics to twist their holy books into messages that match modern, peaceful and tolerant values, these books are not actual collections of ink blots.

The gymnastics aren't any harder for them than for any of the other Abrahamic religions. You think it is because you live in an ideological echo chamber that reinforces that idea, not because it's true.

They have words in them forming doctrines. They explicitly direct intolerance and violence. There is a reason why we see so many Muslim suicide bombers, and no Jain ones.

If you're just going to regurgitate tired old Sam Harris talking points, at least throw the guy a citation, it'd look a bit more honest.

 

[NightSky]

And there is some truth to that. When Charlie Hebdo happened we heard more cries of "How dare they print an image of Mohammed?!" than "How dare they kill them for it?!".

What? Sorry, just because there's no 24/7 wide media coverage for the times Muslims condemn Charlie Hebdo or any other acts of terrorism, doesn't mean that those acts of condemnations didn't happen. It isn't exactly like the philosophical question of, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Because there's fact-check for these types of things. Did you read the article, "Muslims Around The World Condemn Charlie Hebdo Attack." In fact, just to see, I just did one quick Google search and I already came up with the popular speaker American Muslim called Nouman Ali Khan condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting. And there are more people who did these types of condemnations and clarified on what Muslim reactions should be called, "Clarity Amidst Turmoil – A Response to the Paris Shootings by Shaykh Walead Mosaad." The video of Nouman Ali Khan speaking on this subject if anyone's interested is called "My Thoughts on Paris Shooting." In fact, I will actually put up the video as well for those who are lazy (intellectually, mentally, emotionally or physically):

While I agree that people perform great feats of mental gymnastics to twist their holy books into messages that match modern, peaceful and tolerant values, these books are not actual collections of ink blots. They have words in them forming doctrines. They explicitly direct intolerance and violence. There is a reason why we see so many Muslim suicide bombers, and no Jain ones.

This is frankly such an asinine comparison that I am shocked anyone would have the temerity to make it. First of all, Jainism comprises of a world population that is estimated at 6 million people. By comparison, Islam comprises of a world population is estimated to 1.6 billion people. Secondly, Muslim majority countries have been bombed to kingdom come, not to mention has witnessed specific dictatorships supported by the West in those Muslim countries behind the scenes. This has not been the case with Jainism which is primarily concentrated in India, and even in India Jainism makes up less than 2 percent of the population. As you may imagine, adherents of Jainism have not been disproportionately impacted by foreign policy decisions that has seen millions and millions of people dead in droning attacks. Sorry, are we seriously even making this comparison?

Secondly, I have read the texts of Islam, the Qur'an and the ahadith (prophetic traditions), and they do not direct intolerance and violence; I will assume you have not read the texts which is why you make these claims. In fact, I'm so confident of this that I'm challenging you to create a thread called non-Muslim reading Qur'an in the "General Religion" section and giving you Oxford World Classic's Qur'an online to read at your convenience in plain English to read for when you're bored. But if you're going to do it, do it the right way, which is to supplement it with the Seerah, which is the biography of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) so that you have some idea of what's happening and why specific verses were revealed or you can simply ask questions as they come to you on specific verses. As any Muslim will tell you, the Qur'an that you read in the book form is not the way it had been revealed; in fact, the "Qur'an" literally means "recitation" and is thereby necessarily recited only in Arabic. In fact, the Qur'an itself says, "We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people may understand/use reason" (12:2). And the Qur'an had verses revealed at specific incidents, sometimes only one verse would be revealed, sometimes three, sometimes an entire chapter. So, unless you understand the context, you will not understand what inspired the verse or verses. And Arabic is a linguistically rich language - so, for the same verse, there can be an infinite number of interpretations. In fact, scholars of Islam have continued to write exegeses of Qur'an despite the fact that it's been more than 1400 years but they are still understanding and writing on their discoveries and interpretations of the verses.

Even Sam Harris, by the way, whom I assume you're using as a source of information on Islam, doesn't any longer to the best of my knowledge make the claim of direct intolerance or violence, or at least he's less overt about it now.

What Sam Harris has continued to claim is that holy texts should be able to be read literally as he expects divine texts to not require contexts for clarification as it's tempting to just read them as is. That's been his position, though I do understand he has since written a book with Maajid Nawaz giving Maajid Nawaz in that book an opportunity to give in-context readings of the same texts even though in his own previous releases and statements on Islam he'd not done that himself.

However, I disagree with Sam Harris on this issue for many reasons but one which I find is his (and like him many others') blind spot, and I wonder if people are smart enough to understand what I mean - let's figure it out right here:

In a blog post titled "On the Mechanics of Defamation" in October 2014, Sam Harris has said that his critic Reza Aslan was in wrong to say that he was a "genocidal fascist maniac" in a retweet that held both a scary picture of him and a quote out of context from his own book, "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them." So, in his blog post, he highlighted the passage from his book in its entirety to ensure that his readers and fans do not misunderstand and again talked about how wrong it was for people, or anyone really, to deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent his views without understanding or context.

However, in another blog post titled "True Believers," Sam Harris says the following in March 2015: "I grant that there are many possible readings of the Qur’an and the hadīth. There’s simply no question that many different traditions have emphasized one reading or another. All I argue is that there are more or less plausible, more or less straightforward, more or less comprehensive readings of any scripture. And the most plausible, straightforward, and comprehensive readings tend to be the more literalistic, no matter how self-contradictory the text. So, for instance, when it says in the Qur’an (8:12), 'Smite the necks of the infidels,' some people may read that metaphorically, but it’s always tempting to read it literally. In fact, a line like that fairly cries out for a literal reading."

Peace.

 

[NightSky]

Moderate Muslims not doing enough about radical ones doesn't mean they don't exist. They are just for the most part afraid to take on the radicals.

That is not true. I have been on three Muslim majority forums; and I personally have done nothing but take on extremist thinking on Internet forums approximately an year into my acceptance of Islam, and things have been continuing in that vein for some years now. I haven't been the only one - there have been countless other voices on those same forums doing the same. So, I do not and cannot believe that moderate Muslims are afraid - this is, by the way, not to say that some might not be afraid but many I see are not. It might be easier to intimidate one voice but not many.

We have an ideology held by a large number of people. What name would you prefer to "radical Islam"? Is this a case of political correctness--you think getting rid of the name gets rid of the problem?

I was writing on answers to questions like this in a thread that was supposed to be in the "General Religion" Section and an in-depth answer to whether Islamic extremism is like right-wing extremism but my computer unfortunately decided to act out and I lost a large portion of my work. So, I lost what remained of my motivation to create that thread, and I am still trying to find both the time and motivation to both rewrite and finally create that thread. The only reason I mention this is because my thread answered in general why I do think that questions like these are complex, and I don't think it is political correctness but understanding of complexities of such things that enable thinking people to pause and rethink the value of simplistic terms like "radical Islam." For everything, there should ideally be a rhyme and a reason, and the reasons should be strong enough that we don't confuse the issues for the general public; and the latter is a concern because my high school history teacher used to oft repeat as a way of describing the intellectual capacity of laypeople: "Masses are asses."

Peace.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Already explained in detail.

- - - Updated - - -

You are once again attacking those that actually are moderate. Somehow I think you side with the radicals.

Neither AHA nor the Clarion Project are moderate, and I don't give half a fuck what you think. You're a discredited ideologue whom nobody here takes seriously.

Is there anything about the Clarion project that shows it to be anti-Muslim.

 

[NightSky]

Already explained in detail.

- - - Updated - - -



Neither AHA nor the Clarion Project are moderate, and I don't give half a fuck what you think. You're a discredited ideologue whom nobody here takes seriously.

Is there anything about the Clarion project that shows it to be anti-Muslim.

I think the better question is what it hasn't said and done that shows it to not be anti-Muslim? Warpoet is right on this topic. By the way, I am all for human rights, woman's rights, minority's rights, and children's rights,but there's a clear agenda under which funding is given to Clarion project and the agenda isn't, by any stretch, benign. Google in this case is your friend.

Peace.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Is there anything about the Clarion project that shows it to be anti-Muslim.

I think the better question is what it hasn't said and done that shows it to not be anti-Muslim? Warpoet is right on this topic. By the way, I am all for human rights, woman's rights, minority's rights, and children's rights,but there's a clear agenda under which funding is given to Clarion project and the agenda isn't, by any stretch, benign. Google in this case is your friend.

Peace.

You are asking to disprove a negative. If there is anything, please quote the links. I know where his critics are coming from because they are doing nothing about these ills. Is the message wrong?

I don't disagree in principle with Warpoet regarding generalisations about Muslims.

 

[EricB]

Sarah Haider[/I]
Sarah Haider is the co-founder of and director of development for the Ex-Muslims of North America.

I have been a fan of Haider's for quite some time now.

As have I.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I have been a fan of Haider's for quite some time now.

As have I.

She speaks out against the so called Champions of change who are not actively changing anything which I think is why she supports the Honor Diaries project.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not Muslims bombing the Middle East. Thus your argument is irrelevant.

Didn't the US bomb Iraq during the Iraqi Wars? Didn't the US just drop a bomb on Syria?

What part of "not Muslims" did you not understand?

- - - Updated - - -

If you're just going to regurgitate tired old Sam Harris talking points, at least throw the guy a citation, it'd look a bit more honest.

Is there anyone that is opposed to the radicals that you do not consider to not be credible?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What? Sorry, just because there's no 24/7 wide media coverage for the times Muslims condemn Charlie Hebdo or any other acts of terrorism, doesn't mean that those acts of condemnations didn't happen.

I didn't say those acts of condemnation didn't happen. I said that they pale in comparison to the outrage, protesting, etc at the creation and publishing of the cartoons itself.

While I agree that people perform great feats of mental gymnastics to twist their holy books into messages that match modern, peaceful and tolerant values, these books are not actual collections of ink blots. They have words in them forming doctrines. They explicitly direct intolerance and violence. There is a reason why we see so many Muslim suicide bombers, and no Jain ones.

This is frankly such an asinine comparison that I am shocked anyone would have the temerity to make it. First of all, Jainism comprises of a world population that is estimated at 6 million people.

I was not mentioning Jains because of their numbers. I was mentioning them because a core doctrine of their religion is pacifism, as opposed to jihad.

Secondly, Muslim majority countries have been bombed to kingdom come, not to mention has witnessed specific dictatorships supported by the West in those Muslim countries behind the scenes.

Lots of other places have been bombed to kingdom come, not to mention having dictatorships supported by the west, without becoming a hotbed for suicidal homicidal terrorists gathering around a violent version of a particular religion, attracting adherents of that same religion from places around the world, that haven't been bombed etc, to join them in their righteous path of destruction of the infidel.

Yes, western imperialism is a big reason why people turn to radical islamism, but that doesn't excuse Islam from being a religion prone to channeling this hostility into terrorism. It isn't all Islam, no. But lets not pretend Islam isn't part of the problem here. It is.

Secondly, I have read the texts of Islam, the Qur'an and the ahadith (prophetic traditions), and they do not direct intolerance and violence; I will assume you have not read the texts which is why you make these claims.

I haven't read the full Quran and Hadeeths, no. I have read parts of them. I have read enough of them really.

In fact, I'm so confident of this that I'm challenging you to create a thread called non-Muslim reading Qur'an in the "General Religion" section and giving you Oxford World Classic's Qur'an online to read at your convenience in plain English to read for when you're bored.

Could be a fun exercise at some point.

And Arabic is a linguistically rich language - so, for the same verse, there can be an infinite number of interpretations. In fact, scholars of Islam have continued to write exegeses of Qur'an despite the fact that it's been more than 1400 years but they are still understanding and writing on their discoveries and interpretations of the verses.

Why do you suppose an all powerful being who could simply have made us all understand what he wants us to know, instead would choose such a terrible means of communication?

Does he intend all of the violence and hatred that results from the (mis)interpretation of his word? If he is truly all powerful then we all understand these holy books exactly as we are intended to understand them.

Or should we instead view these books as the ramblings of a delusional man who went from oppressed minority to violent warlord and who had sex with a 9 year old? Sure, we can look at the Quran in the context of the Phrophet, but don't expect us to overlook who this man was. He wasn't a hippy that got crucified.

Sam Harris has said that his critic Reza Aslan was in wrong to say that he was a "genocidal fascist maniac" in a retweet that held both a scary picture of him and a quote out of context from his own book, "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."

Sam Harris has also said that it may be sensible to do a first nuclear strike in some extreme circumstances, and Azlan read that and declared Sam a proponent of nuking people.

You don't have to twist and turn either of Sam's statements or put them in "proper context" for them to make sense. They make sense on the face of them. You instead need to do what Azlan does, and put additional words into Sam's mouth and imply that he wants to commit genocide or nuke somebody to make it objectionable. Reza Aslan is not just reacting to what was written by Sam. Reza Azlan is outright telling lies about what Sam said.

Cenk Uygur does the same thing in his now infamous interview with Sam and subsequent statements about it. He asks why Sam says all muslims want to kill us. Sam corrects him that he didn't say that and patiently tries to explain what he really said. Cenk listens and then a couple of days later declares that Sam said all muslims want to kill us. It is a tiresome and all too frequent tactic of regressives like Reza and Cenk.

Qur’an (8:12), 'Smite the necks of the infidels,'

Does the book ACTUALLY say that or not? Do you have to make stuff up to make it look like it says that, the way Reza and Cenk do against Sam? Would an almighty and perfect communicator say such a thing and not intend for people to take it for what it actually says, without twisting and turning and researching for some context in which it somehow doesn't say that?

PS - I am still waiting for your response to post #47 that I directed to you in this thread: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10928-Christianity-The-Cure-for-Islamism/page5