Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”

[Jokodo]

The problem with islam is actually very simple no matter how much some people 'muddle the waters' in lengthy posts in the hope that this will pass as a successful argument against the secular criticism of islam:

You are complaining about "lengthy posts"? That's a good one.

1. The basics of islam (quran + hadith + medival Islamic jurisprudence, still largely with us today) has many injunctions (explicit, clear meaning) in stark contradiction with Modernity. Muhammad's deeds are often very far from today's morality.<snip>

How is this different from Christianity and Judaism?

2. The quran however is viewed all over the muslim world as 'perfect' (pre-existent with god in heaven thus above historical criticism) and Muhammad as the 'perfect being' who deserves emulation at all times (this is what even the quran itself teaches explicitly).

Many Muslims view the more legalistic parts of the Qur'an as specifically fitted to the circumstances of Arabia at Muhammad's time. Not that this absolves it of all criticism - many of the injunctions are bad even by contemporary standards. But it's enough to falsify this particular argument.

3. At the same time unaided, rational, Human Reason is severely played down in the muslim traditions,

As compared with, e.g., Christianity, which requires you to accept as a basic premise that 1=3. Because that's not at all in contradiction to "unaided, rational, Human Reason". </irony>

7. Finally the 'others do the same' 'argument' is a red herring,

The "others ot the same argument" is if anything what angelo is using when he says that it's alright to deny basic human rights to all Muslims because some/many/most (it doesn't fucking matter which of these) Muslims would rather deny human rights to some people. If we want to be a society that builds upon accepting unconditional, universal human rights, we're going to have to award them unconditionally and universally to all humans. If we don't, we have no basis for claiming to be any better than them.

those who know well the basics of Christianity and Judaism know equally well that there is an important difference between the basics of these religions and islam, enough to produce significantly different outcomes at the practical level. <snip>

Which one is it - the "basics", or the "outcomes at the practical level"? As far as outcomes at the practical level are concerned, you do realise that openly operating Christian communities have a continuous existence in many cases predating the emergence of Islam in many predominantly Muslim countries, while openly operating Muslim communities have never existed in Christian countries until maybe 100 years ago (with the exception of Polish/Lithuanian Tatars).

 

[Jokodo]

I'm citing a parade in New York on Sept. 9th, 2007,

Just to repeat that point I made in my last post directed at you, in case it was tl;dr:

No, you're not citing that parade. You're citing a tiny counter-demonstration to the parade that was there specifically to denounce the parade's organisers as un-Islamic accomodationists.

Calling that "citing the parade" is like saying that you're citing X (where X= some mainstream protestant church) when you're citing the placards the Westboro Baptist Church held up in protest at one of X's celebrations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with islam is actually very simple no matter how much some people 'muddle the waters' in lengthy posts in the hope that this will pass as a successful argument against the secular criticism of islam:

1. The basics of islam (quran + hadith + medival Islamic jurisprudence, still largely with us today) has many injunctions (explicit, clear meaning) in stark contradiction with Modernity. Muhammad's deeds are often very far from today's morality. The basics of islam may be amenable to some degree of interpretation but it is definitely not infinitely elastic in (rational) interpretation, no mental gymnastics can make some dark parts of islam disappear (other than by recognizing mistakes).

2. The quran however is viewed all over the muslim world as 'perfect' (pre-existent with god in heaven thus above historical criticism) and Muhammad as the 'perfect being' who deserves emulation at all times (this is what even the quran itself teaches explicitly).

As I see it Islam's big problem is they need a reformation.

 

[Togo]

The problem with islam is actually very simple no matter how much some people 'muddle the waters'.

Yes, it is. You don't like Islam, so you're looking for some way to make it different from other religions.

1. The basics of islam (quran + hadith + medival Islamic jurisprudence, still largely with us today) has many injunctions (explicit, clear meaning) in stark contradiction with Modernity.

As does Christianity. The prohibitions against fish, approaching an altar with any kind of eye defect, and the death sentence for fornication come readily to mind, but there are plenty of others.

Muhammad's deeds are often very far from today's morality. The basics of islam may be amenable to some degree of interpretation but it is definitely not infinitely elastic in (rational) interpretation, no mental gymnastics can make some dark parts of islam disappear (other than by recognizing mistakes).

So, a bit like Elijah then? Or Samson mutilating people and collecting the body parts as trophies. Or Lot's rather unusual approach to family life?

2. The quran however is viewed all over the muslim world as 'perfect' (pre-existent with god in heaven thus above historical criticism)

But not above interpretation, which is the business of trained priests and not casual readers. A bit like catholicism

There is a difference of degree here between the 'radicals' and many peaceful muslims indeed but sadly not of real substance (what even many of the 'progressives' of islam advocate fall way too short from what is needed to create a real and durable muslim Enlightenment). The outcome is much of the same: severe curbing of personal freedoms and free inquiry which put huge brakes to progress.

That's a... pretty subjective judgement. And that's the real basis for removing constitutional rights from these people? You don't like their philosophy?

5. This brings naturally the next point, we have to use the same standards when defining who is moderate and who is radical / conservative in islam. A reasonable standard is that used to define moderate Christianity, the public attitude toward the status of the holy book and secularism is crucial for only rationality at this level, seconded by a healthy religious education can push the religion beyond a certain threshold of 'no return', that is a return, be it partial, toward the 'dark' practices of the past appears implausible. The cutting point is not between terrorists and peaceful but between those advocating publicly a healthy level of secularism + modern values + openly admitting that even the holy book is fallible and those falling short of this.

So the criteria for removing someone's constitutional rights is that they don't have what you think is a suitably Enlightenment set of values and beliefs? And nothing to do with blowing up administration buildings?

Doesn't that totally destroy your own argument? I mean, not only are you denying someone their rights in defiance of enlightenment values, you're doing so because they aren't showing those same values to your satisfaction. And the original fig-leaf justification offered, that this was somehow related to terrorism, has been entirely abandoned.

I'm afraid many muslims are not moderate in the western standard, including many of those considered 'moderate' today in the West (they never confront publicly sharia, preferring instead to claim that it is fully compatible with Modernity,

I think sharia law is fully compatible with modernity. But then, I've had experience in implementing it.

7. Finally the 'others do the same' 'argument' is a red herring, those who know well the basics of Christianity and Judaism know equally well that there is an important difference between the basics of these religions and islam, enough to produce significantly different outcomes at the practical level.

It's the centre of your entire point. The only justification you've offered for suspending the rights of individuals on the grounds of religion is that Islam is somehow fundamentally different from any other religion. You're not talking about suspending the rights of druids, breatharians, or communist-anarcho-syndicalists, just muslims. The fact that 'others are the same' means that you're wrong on the facts.

For example the fact that Christianity had since the beginning a bent toward interpreting symbolically the Old Testament and Jewish Law (and gives much more support pro the value of the unaided human reason**) than islam lead naturally to an expansion of what should be interpreted symbolically or contextualized historically (ever since Reason was rehabilitated in the 13th century) and finally made easy the 'quantum jump' to the view that at least sometimes the conclusions of the unaided Human Reason are more important than what is written in the holy book. As I said before it is not that difficult to remain a Christian whilst still accepting that the Bible is far from being 'perfect'. Sadly the particularities of islam make this jump extremely difficult.

Given that there are millions of Christians who do believe that the Bible is perfect, it doesn't matter whether you think Islam makes this hard or not.

The problem here, metachristi, is that you're proposing religious discrimination in the name of fair treatment, and a suspension of Enlightenment values on the grounds of protecting the values of the Enlightenment. And for reasons, as you make explicit above, that are nothing to do with terrorism, or public safety, and everything to do with you personally disliking how these people think.

 

[metacristi]

You are complaining about "lengthy posts"? That's a good one.

1. The basics of islam (quran + hadith + medival Islamic jurisprudence, still largely with us today) has many injunctions (explicit, clear meaning) in stark contradiction with Modernity. Muhammad's deeds are often very far from today's morality.<snip>

How is this different from Christianity and Judaism?

2. The quran however is viewed all over the muslim world as 'perfect' (pre-existent with god in heaven thus above historical criticism) and Muhammad as the 'perfect being' who deserves emulation at all times (this is what even the quran itself teaches explicitly).

Many Muslims view the more legalistic parts of the Qur'an as specifically fitted to the circumstances of Arabia at Muhammad's time. Not that this absolves it of all criticism - many of the injunctions are bad even by contemporary standards. But it's enough to falsify this particular argument.

3. At the same time unaided, rational, Human Reason is severely played down in the muslim traditions,

As compared with, e.g., Christianity, which requires you to accept as a basic premise that 1=3. Because that's not at all in contradiction to "unaided, rational, Human Reason". </irony>

7. Finally the 'others do the same' 'argument' is a red herring,

The "others ot the same argument" is if anything what angelo is using when he says that it's alright to deny basic human rights to all Muslims because some/many/most (it doesn't fucking matter which of these) Muslims would rather deny human rights to some people. If we want to be a society that builds upon accepting unconditional, universal human rights, we're going to have to award them unconditionally and universally to all humans. If we don't, we have no basis for claiming to be any better than them.

those who know well the basics of Christianity and Judaism know equally well that there is an important difference between the basics of these religions and islam, enough to produce significantly different outcomes at the practical level. <snip>

Which one is it - the "basics", or the "outcomes at the practical level"? As far as outcomes at the practical level are concerned, you do realise that openly operating Christian communities have a continuous existence in many cases predating the emergence of Islam in many predominantly Muslim countries, while openly operating Muslim communities have never existed in Christian countries until maybe 100 years ago (with the exception of Polish/Lithuanian Tatars).

From what you write I wonder whether you really read the article in the OP. How many muslims are there capable to admit publicly that even the quran is fallible? Where is the quranic criticism on a par with the biblical criticism (which played a central role for the apparition of Modernity by the way)? Where is the widespread re-Hellenization of the muslim mind? Why muslim jurists do not just abrogate the medieval Islamic jurisprudence if so many see it as a relic of the past?

In fact admitting that the holy book is not infallible is the first mark of moderation (if we want to be consistent we should apply the same criterions as in Christianity) and the reality is that we deal with only a small elite of real muslim moderates acting totally outside the mainstream Islamic religious establishment and its educational methods (still brainwashing people's minds and criminalizing all attempts at non trivial reform) and with very very few adherents at the public level.

No doubt there are those who agree with the affirmation that the quran is fallible in private but who prefer to hide or propose way limited reforms on fear to not be branded 'apostates'; unfortunately I cannot count them among the moderates in the western acceptation for they are, indeed, at most passive carriers of same the old islam since they never confront the core problems with islam.

If the core of islam were not so rotten as it is then many of these people who hide now would come out easily. But of course if this had been the case we would have witnessed a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment long time ago. Finally if you really understood the basics of these three religions (you didn't, not my duty to teach you why reason has a much greater status in Christianity and Judaism) and were honest enough you'd easily agree that islam is more radical and the only chance to durably modernize it is via transformation, implying important non trivial reforms (merely exiling islam outside the public area, like Ataturk did, do not prove very reliable, the current re-islamization of Turkey is a living proof).

That's it, a moderate islam is very far from the mainstream islam of today and unfortunately such an islam is inexistent now (the real moderates of islam, in the western sense I talked about, are actually only proposing such a way, it is the job of the Islamic religious establishment to make it become a reality; by the way the fact that there is no central authority in islam actually makes things way worse than in Christianity for, given also the rotten basics of islam, it is very difficult to implement important reforms in practice via a top to down mechanism; indeed at all times it is possible that some muslims invoke the right, granted by the Islamic traditions and Muhammad, to 'defend' islam against unbelievers and fight their own scholars and clerics).

I am not against arguments contrary to my views per se. But I find totally dishonest to claim that no serious argument against islam can be mounted on the lines I presented here (from my experience invariably followed by frantic attempts to 'show' that such views are 'logical fallacies', 'bigotry' and, real madness, 'islamophobia'). Devout enough muslims often react to my arguments as if I try to kill them (by the way another effect of the defective core Islamic worldview affecting, at the unconscious level, the minds of many muslims) but let me say that the so called 'western progressives' are often not too far away.

Finally failing to see that a liberalism without borders has inside the germs of its own demise is your biggest mistake. Some ideologies are just too rotten at the core (dealing in the basics with how to divide the booty among the prophet and the believers is enough radical for you?) and do not deserve the same respect as the reasonable ones; rational people should always be capable to identify and stop them, especially if their ultimate task is to replace liberalism with their immutable dogmas. Yet I bet that if I invented now a religion not far from islam you'd be one of the first to throw a barrage of stones...why then an exception for islam?

 

[Jokodo]

How many muslims are there capable to admit publicly that even the quran is fallible?

How many Christians are there who call the Bible fallible? Not who interpret it metaphorically or who'd say that certain passages are overridden by other, more palatable ones, but who publically say that certain passages are outright false?

Where is the quranic criticism on a par with the biblical criticism (which played a central role for the apparition of Modernity by the way)?

You mean the kind of Biblical Criticism that was deemed haram by the Catholic Church until the mid-20th century?

Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship

In fact admitting that the holy book is not infallible is the first mark of moderation

No. The "first mark of moderation" is not interpreting the book in such a way that it commands one to do awful things. Whether one arrives there via considering it fallible, or via mental gymnastics and massive reading between the lines during interpretation while maintaining that the book is god's own words doesn't have practical consequences.

if we want to be consistent we should apply the same criterions as in Christianity

You are not applying the same criteria. Nobody is demanding of Christians that they publically denounce the Bible as error-ridden before we accept them as moderate. We judge them by their actions.

If the core of islam were not so rotten as it is then many of these people who hide now would come out easily. But of course if this had been the case we would have witnessed a real and durable Islamic Enlightenment long time ago.

If the core of Christianity were not so rotten as it is we would have witnessed a real and durable Christian Enlightenment by 1100AD.

not my goal to teach you why reason has a much greater status in Christianity and Judaism

If you're not willing to defend that claim -- don't make it! Simple as that.

But I find totally dishonest to claim that no serious argument against islam can be mounted on the lines I presented here

It might be possible, but you're not doing it. If you want to claim that Islam is somehow inherently different because of its "rotten core", you can't go on and contrast it with how moderate Christians live their religion today by ways of ignoring large sections of their book, you have to make an actual argument that the "core" of Christianity/Judaism is fundamentally different.

Finally failing to see that a liberalism without borders has inside the germs of its own demise is your biggest mistake.

So instead of watching as mice infest our food store, we should set the house on fire?

especially if their ultimate task is to replace liberalism with their immutable dogmas

The ultimate goal of most Muslims I know is to live their own lives unharassed.

Yet I bet that if I invented now a religion not far from islam you'd be one of the first to throw a barrage of stones...why then an exception for islam?

I would ridicule you, sure. But if you were to be denied basic rights for what you think without even requiring any immoral or unlawful action on your side, I'd be there to defend you.

 

[Jokodo]

An afterthought on that ridiculous notion that reform in Islam would have to come from the religious authorities (reform in Christianity was bottom up, forced upon the authorities against their will), coupled with the other ridiculous notion that moderation implies rejecting the infallibility of scriptures. Mainstream Protestant churches fail that test, so there goes your "applying the same criteria". Just one of many more examples from  Christian heresy in the modern era:

Peter Cameron (Presbyterian, Australia, 1992)[edit]
On 2 March 1992, at a Dorcas Society rally in the Ashfield Presbyterian Church, Peter Cameron, Principal of St Andrew's College at the University of Sydney, preached a sermon entitled "The Place of Women in the Church". As well as supporting the principle that women should be ordained to the ministry, it argued that the Bible had to be understood in the context of the times in which it was written. Cameron was tried and convicted for heresy. He appealed, but resigned before the appeal could be heard. <emphasis added>

 

[angelo]

I'm citing a parade in New York on Sept. 9th, 2007,

Just to repeat that point I made in my last post directed at you, in case it was tl;dr:

No, you're not citing that parade. You're citing a tiny counter-demonstration to the parade that was there specifically to denounce the parade's organisers as un-Islamic accomodationists.

Calling that "citing the parade" is like saying that you're citing X (where X= some mainstream protestant church) when you're citing the placards the Westboro Baptist Church held up in protest at one of X's celebrations.

Nevertheless, it was there and allowed which is more than would be expected in any other country but a western society. Imagine such a protest in Arabia a fundamentalist islamic country.

 

[angelo]

An Egyptian member of the islamist group Takfir wal-Hijara, who was also a member of the Egyptian parliment, was reported by the Egyptian magazine Rose El Yusef as saying: "Why should we muslims be ashamed of terrorism or promoting it especially since it is in the qu'ran that orders us to do terrorism?"

Islamic scriptures ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war against all those who do not believe their nonsense about allah and the paedophile Mohammed.

Qu'ran 60:4 "And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate forever until you believe in allah only."

Let me be clear, the west must understand [despite what Western apologist for this most vile of religions say] that the problem is not with individual muslims as much as it is muslim scriptures commanding them to kill.
The question is what will the West do to protect its citizens from violant commandments against non-muslims that appear in the qu'ran, hadith and sharia?

Non conformist or as some here call them. "moderate muslims" aren't real muslims if they do not live by these credos.

 

[Jokodo]

An Egyptian member of the islamist group Takfir wal-Hijara, who was also a member of the Egyptian parliment, was reported by the Egyptian magazine Rose El Yusef as saying: "Why should we muslims be ashamed of terrorism or promoting it especially since it is in the qu'ran that orders us to do terrorism?"<snip>

Are you making this up? Google returns 0 results for the quoted phrase, and the group Takfir wal-Hijra was never represented in parliament.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm citing a parade in New York on Sept. 9th, 2007,

Just to repeat that point I made in my last post directed at you, in case it was tl;dr:

No, you're not citing that parade. You're citing a tiny counter-demonstration to the parade that was there specifically to denounce the parade's organisers as un-Islamic accomodationists.

Calling that "citing the parade" is like saying that you're citing X (where X= some mainstream protestant church) when you're citing the placards the Westboro Baptist Church held up in protest at one of X's celebrations.

Nevertheless,

Nevertheless? I just showed that your claim was almost the opposite of the truth, and it doesn't give you pause at all, you stick to your conclusions? This goes to show that your conclusions are not based on facts.

it was there and allowed which is more than would be expected in any other country but a western society. Imagine such a protest in Arabia a fundamentalist islamic country.

I assume with "Arabia" you mean to refer to Saudi Arabia. So fucking what? Authoritarian regimes don't have freedom of association. What else is news?

 

[angelo]

An Egyptian member of the islamist group Takfir wal-Hijara, who was also a member of the Egyptian parliment, was reported by the Egyptian magazine Rose El Yusef as saying: "Why should we muslims be ashamed of terrorism or promoting it especially since it is in the qu'ran that orders us to do terrorism?"<snip>

Are you making this up? Google returns 0 results for the quoted phrase, and the group Takfir wal-Hijra was never represented in parliament.

No, you're right, but that's because you didn't read my post properly. I didn't say Takfir wal-Hijara was represented in parliament, I said a member of that outfit was.

 

[Jokodo]

An Egyptian member of the islamist group Takfir wal-Hijara, who was also a member of the Egyptian parliment, was reported by the Egyptian magazine Rose El Yusef as saying: "Why should we muslims be ashamed of terrorism or promoting it especially since it is in the qu'ran that orders us to do terrorism?"<snip>

Are you making this up? Google returns 0 results for the quoted phrase, and the group Takfir wal-Hijra was never represented in parliament.

No, you're right, but that's because you didn't read my post properly. I didn't say Takfir wal-Hijara was represented in parliament, I said a member of that outfit was.

That doesn't change the fact that when I google "takfir wal-hijra parliament", all I get is results detailing how the group is boykotting parliamentary elections for principled reason, or how the assassinated a member of parliament back in 1977, or some totally bogus results where there's one article about the parliament and another unrelated one about Takfir wal-Hijra both linked from the politics main page of a news portal (and this remains so whether I use your misspelt variant or the actual name of the group - I was thinking using your misspelling might allow me to at least work out which islamophobic hate group invented the story, but not even that seems to work). You'd think that if a (former or present) member of Takfir wal-Hijra was represented in parliament, it'd be possible to find some information on him.

Unless you can provide a source, I have to conclude that not only this anecdote is made up, but that you made it up yourself.

But what if it were true? You can't use a single quote from a single Jobbik or Golden Dawn member of parliament to prove that all of European culture is irrevocably depraved either, or can you?

 

[angelo]

In not so many words, it's a terrorist outfit right? And that one of it's members was in parliament in the past. It also doesn't alter the fact that most terrorist attacks are muslim. For every christian terrorist atrocity, [Mc Veigh] there are 20 times more from the muslim faith.

 

[Jokodo]

In not so many words, it's a terrorist outfit right?

It's a name with which at least one terrorist outfit used to describe itself, yes. The name was also at times used by the the Egyptian regime to discredit all opposition.

And that one of it's members was in parliament in the past.

A claim you appear to be making up. Back it up or retract it.

For every christian terrorist atrocity, [Mc Veigh] there are 20 times more from the muslim faith.

A different claim from the one you've been making. Can we please finish discussing the other one?

 

[angelo]

I cannot find the name of that particular individual in my sources as it happened nearly a decade ago, but that doesn't rule out what I claimed. When it comes to islam I retract nothing.
The point I was making is the delusion that these people are under which makes them extremely dangerous.
Here is a name I do have in my sources, a certain Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker of 9/11 who proudly declared in court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion islam demands that I kill infidels."
Where in xtian orthodoxy does it teach xtians to go out and kill infidels and Jews. Since the crusades, or just after xtianity has modernised, islam is still the primitive cult it's always been. As I said earlier, a true moderate muslim is not adhering to the qu'ran therefore not adhering to islam and it's true colours.

 

[Jokodo]

I cannot find the name of that particular individual in my sources as it happened nearly a decade ago, but that doesn't rule out what I claimed. When it comes to islam I retract nothing.
The point I was making is the delusion that these people are under which makes them extremely dangerous.

When you don't have a source, you don't have a point.

Here is a name I do have in my sources, a certain Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker of 9/11 who proudly declared in court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion islam demands that I kill infidels."

Is he a member of Egyptian parliament?

Where in xtian orthodoxy does it teach xtians to go out and kill infidels and Jews.

If you want to claim that those views are mainstream, you'll have to quote someone else than this guy himself. If you want, I can show you where members of Golden Dawn, the rightwing party/mafia gang/terrorist organisation that gained ~7% in Greece's last parliamentary elections and over 9% in the EU elections, approvingly quote Hitler. But you and I both recognise that they are a minority (even if a frighteningly large one) and their views not representative of "the West" as a whole. But when it comes to Islam, you have no problem representing the views expressed by a fringe as if they were indicative of society at large.

Since the crusades, or just after xtianity has modernised, islam is still the primitive cult it's always been. As I said earlier, a true moderate muslim is not adhering to the qu'ran therefore not adhering to islam and it's true colours.

You are not the final authority for the interpretation of Islam.

 

[Sabine Grant]

When you don't have a source, you don't have a point.

Here is a name I do have in my sources, a certain Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker of 9/11 who proudly declared in court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion islam demands that I kill infidels."

Is he a member of Egyptian parliament?

Where in xtian orthodoxy does it teach xtians to go out and kill infidels and Jews.

If you want to claim that those views are mainstream, you'll have to quote someone else than this guy himself. If you want, I can show you where members of Golden Dawn, the rightwing party/mafia gang/terrorist organisation that gained ~7% in Greece's last parliamentary elections and over 9% in the EU elections, approvingly quote Hitler. But you and I both recognise that they are a minority (even if a frighteningly large one) and their views not representative of "the West" as a whole. But when it comes to Islam, you have no problem representing the views expressed by a fringe as if they were indicative of society at large.

Since the crusades, or just after xtianity has modernised, islam is still the primitive cult it's always been. As I said earlier, a true moderate muslim is not adhering to the qu'ran therefore not adhering to islam and it's true colours.

You are not the final authority for the interpretation of Islam.

Not only that, but it is a common trait among people who have no knowledge of the diversity of branches and their subsequent schools of thoughts within Islam. Not only that, but his comment fully echoes the statements made by Christian fundy groups who define liberal and moderate Christians as " not adhering to the Bible" therefor not adhering to Christianity and its true colors. Anyone with any insight in the platform supported by Christian reconstructionalists would know that they apply the "not a true Christian" to liberal Christians while they concoct via their wishful thinking measures they would pass as legislation if they were given any political power to do so. Those are folks who would have no hesitation to "put homosexuals to death". Or criminalize homosexuality and penalize gay persons with prison sentences. As it is now the case in Uganda.

Since they have no such political power in the US, they took their anti-gay fear/hate mongering propaganda to...Uganda! Namely, 2 conservative Christian Evangelists, Engle and Lively. For those fanatic fundies, any deviation from their Bible inspired horrific agenda means you are not " A true Christian".

You know, I remember so vividly a thread which had popped up on a Christian Forum, Theologyweb, when I was still a Christian. The OP asked if God were to command you , as he did with Abraham, to sacrifice your son or daughter, would you obey God? I was the only one who said no. I was already labeled as "not a true Christian" due to my liberal Christian profile.

But to go back to our actual contention with several of Angelo's claims, indeed it is about this :

But when it comes to Islam, you have no problem representing the views expressed by a fringe as if they were indicative of society at large

and especially when it is used to rationalize penalizing an entire society, in this specific case all Muslims without making any distinctions whatsoever. Because that is what Hirsi Ali advocates (her stances were clearly quoted early in this thread).

 

[metacristi]

How many Christians are there who call the Bible fallible? Not who interpret it metaphorically or who'd say that certain passages are overridden by other, more palatable ones, but who publically say that certain passages are outright false?

If we talk abnout the civilized world then apart from the fundamentalists in America, who claim also to be literalists, you'd hardly find many who claim to be innerantists (there is a difference between being literalist and being innerantist). Actually there is a widespread consensus in Christianity that the Bible must be interpreted both through the lens of the culture in which it was originally written and examined using Human Reason. In fact all aspiring priests are exposed these days to the critical method applied to the Bible during their education being thus much more aware of the limits of their religions than otherwise.

There may be people on the street unaware of this but for our argument what counts is that MODERATE Christians DO accept that the bible is not innerant (has mistakes, even in the New Testament) and they are many. Finally responsible for the fact that even fundamentalist Christianity is not violent, accept a healthy level of secularism and still see human Reason as important is definitely the basics of Christianity (but don't understand me wrongly here, overall we can rather talk of the fact that the basic tenets of Christianity leave much more 'holes' for modernity than that it is directly responsible for Modernity, for example in Christendom there has always existed much more healthy secular spaces than in islamdom where the forces of progress could develop; nonetheless this means that its basics is more benign that that of islam)

You mean the kind of Biblical Criticism that was deemed haram by the Catholic Church until the mid-20th century?

Yet the higher criticism could develop in the protestant countries and liberal enough Christians agreed with many of its conclusions. In islam that's totally missing even now. Shia islam included.

You are not applying the same criteria. Nobody is demanding of Christians that they publically denounce the Bible as error-ridden before we accept them as moderate. We judge them by their actions.

You may apply this criterion. Rational people apply the criterion I outlined. Moderate Christians reject innerantism. Even Christian fundamentalists are usually peaceful and accept a certain degree of secularism but this does not maske them moderate.

If the core of Christianity were not so rotten as it is we would have witnessed a real and durable Christian Enlightenment by 1100AD.

Christianity had an Enlightenment long ago (starting indeed only in England, France and Germany but generalized over the 19th century) whilst we still wait for an islamic Enlightenment. That's what counts. Finally the papal reforms at the beginning of the first millenium and the rehabilitation of Reason in the 13th century (but anyways one can make a strong point that the Christian Mind has never been de-hellenized as it happened in islam) catalyzed the Sccientifc Revolution and the Enlightenment (via also the 'holes' which the basics tenets of Christianity left: universities, guilds based on autonomous charts and so on were de facto secular spaces where 'subversive' ideas could develop; in islam that was impossible).

If you're not willing to defend that claim -- don't make it! Simple as that

What is simple here is to see that you are ignorant regarding the basics of Christianity. The argument is still there even if you are unaware of it. Robert Reilly summarize it here:

The reason Christianity was insulated from an obsession with God’s omnipotence [as islam still is] was the revelation of Christ as Logos in the Gospel of St. John. If Christ is Logos, if God introduces himself as ratio, then God is not only all-powerful, He is reason.

Christianity at ther core is not about following blindly the holy book (Rerason = almost 0) but about interpreting it via Reason and not accepting contradiction with it (Reason). From here to rejecting innerancy is not that a great step. Finally if you are not aware yet in islam it is still this 'obssesion with god's omnipotence' which is dominant, many people are affected at the unconscious level by this approach. Given also other defects of islam there is no surprise that a real critcism of the quiran is still inexistent in the muslim world or that many muslims cannot stand the existence of critcism of islam (they act at mere rational arguments as if you try to kill them).

It might be possible, but you're not doing it. If you want to claim that Islam is somehow inherently different because of its "rotten core", you can't go on and contrast it with how moderate Christians live their religion today by ways of ignoring large sections of their book, you have to make an actual argument that the "core" of Christianity/Judaism is fundamentally different.

i already made that long ago. It is your ignorance and stubborness to not read anything i recommended you along time which prevented you to understand. This happens when one tries to 'show' with all costs that I am a 'bigot', 'white supremacist' or 'islamophob' without actually paying attention to what I actually argue. See also

http://blog.theproudatheist.com/is-islam-a-more-radical-religion-an-inside-view-by-kaveh-mousavi/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/marginoferr/2014/02/26/is-islam-a-more-radical-religion-part-2/

So instead of watching as mice infest our food store, we should set the house on fire?

Delusion never pays. One can continue with the same 'arguments' which severely minimalize the impact of islamic religious tenets, education and institutions in the hope that somehow the violence and discrimination coming from the Islamic world will disappear but the problem is that highly erroneous assessment of the causes can never lead to lasting solutions (even if there may be some short term 'success').

The ultimate goal of most Muslims I know is to live their own lives unharassed.

I'm afraid islam teaches that islamic law should triumph all over the world finally. And not that long ago no muslim would have denied that. Including sufis and Ahmadyya muslims. Even today many muslims in the islamic world are obsessed with 'islam will conquer Rome' and so on.

*for example the Ahmadyya muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in 'The Religion of Islam' (Lahore, Pakistan, 1950, page 249:

"we find prophecy after prophecy announced in the surest and most certain terms to the effect that the great forces of opposition should be brought to naught, that the enemies of Islam should be put to shame and perish . . . that Islam should spread to the farthest corners of the earth and that it should ultimately be triumphant over all religions of the world.

The conclusion one should draw from the existinmg realities is that even well intended people cannot 'bend' the basics of islam beyond a certain threshold. It is true that in our times they 'bended' it even more (irrationaly often) but still the threshold is too low to assure full compatibility with Modernity (some injunctions are considered immutable, addressing them head on is plain apostasy). That's why Reason must be regained by islam for only the trasnsformation of islam (involving important change) can really do the job.

I would ridicule you, sure. But if you were to be denied basic rights for what you think without even requiring any immoral or unlawful action on your side, I'd be there to defend you.

That's nice but we discussed about ideologies which can lead people toward extremism not about basic rights. For example I want muslims to have all the rights I have. Yet I still want a single law for all. No to sharia and no to accepting uncritically the delusion of muslims that islam, as it is today, is peace, democracy, feminism and so on.

 

[Jokodo]

there is a difference between being literalist and being innerantist

You said it all.

The fun fact (or sad fact, for you), though, is that the Catholic and mainline Protestant establishment is inerrantist but not literalist. People do get heresy charges for questioning inerrantism (I posted one example in #227, repeated below for your convenience). Now it's true that in mainline Protestantism, being charged with, and convicted for, heresy means you loose your ministry, while in some Islamic contexts it can mean you loose your life. But that's not the point. The point is that this is enough to show that your claim that moderate Christians are not inerrrantist is false, and thus demanding of Muslims to give up inerrantism hypocricy.

Peter Cameron (Presbyterian, Australia, 1992)[edit]
On 2 March 1992, at a Dorcas Society rally in the Ashfield Presbyterian Church, Peter Cameron, Principal of St Andrew's College at the University of Sydney, preached a sermon entitled "The Place of Women in the Church". As well as supporting the principle that women should be ordained to the ministry, it argued that the Bible had to be understood in the context of the times in which it was written. Cameron was tried and convicted for heresy. He appealed, but resigned before the appeal could be heard.