Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

If it helps, Christianity and Judaism are not religions of peace either.
Well, it certainly helps put your own statements in this matter into the proper context because all three clearly are now. For the most part, only some of the fundamentalists, those who are extremely conservative, or those who are poorly educated and easily deceived by others still use ancient religious scripture as an attempt to rationalize their hate of others, at least publicly.

The rest understand that civilization has advanced far beyond when those passages were first written. That you wouldn't hear some of the passages of the Koran used in a sermon by the vast majority of Imams any more than you would hear stoning adulterers to death used by many rabbis or ministers. To claim they were still used to foment violence towards others shows a deep and troubling misunderstanding of the religions as they are now practiced in general.
 
So the thread title is "Islam and fascism". To get back to the title of the thread, as someone who has apparently lived among Muslims as well as read their philosophy and is now teaching young students about the religion, what do you see as the relationship between Islam and fascism (and hence the thread title)? Is Islam a "mother load of bad ideas" as Sam Harris says?

Yes, I absolutely agree. I don't know anyone who disagrees who has a) read the doctrines of Islam, b) observed how the belief in these doctrines plays out in reality, and c) doesn't have an apologetic agenda to push. We can gladly go into detail on specific issues, but it's a wide topic. Is there anywhere you would like to start? Among the bad ideas I can suggest are global jihad and terrorism, the relationship towards violence in general, the all-encompassing nature of Islam, the belief in Muslim superiority and coupled with that the view of non-Muslims and their culture, the mistreatment of women, of homosexuals or of animals, adherence to theocracy and sharia and views on religious freedom and apostacy. If you are genuinely interested, we can talk about the scriptural origins, the history, and current manifestation of any of these ideas.


I believe there are a few Muslim practitioners in the Civ community and I would also be very interested in hearing what they have to say in defense of their religion.
I also like to converse with Muslims when it comes to Islam. The discussions I have had in real life with Muslims have usually been fairly pleasant and informative, they at least tend to know what they are talking about. I have also had very negative experiences with certain Muslims who hold appalling views, among them unfortunately my brother-in-law. There is an enormous spectrum of beliefs and of degrees to which they are held among Muslims.
What I am interested in when talking to moderate, secular Muslims is how they have managed to square their moderation with Islamic scripture. However they they have managed to do it, it could perhaps present a pathway for the more radical Muslims and be a way forward.

Since you mentioned Sam Harris, why not start by watching this discussion between him and Maajid Nawaz, who is a secular Muslim trying to help reform the faith. It is a good example of how such discussions can go when both sides are willing to engage with each other civilly, despite disagreeing about many things.
 
I don't know anyone who disagrees who has a) read the doctrines of Islam, b) observed how the belief in these doctrines plays out in reality, and c) doesn't have an apologetic agenda to push.
In other words, the vast majority of Americans who don't agree at all with this simplistic and inane personal interpretation of what Islam must mean, simply because you have convinced yourself by quote mining the Koran and listening to obvious Islamophobes like Sam Harris.

Again, this is a minority opinion which didn't even really exist prior to 9/11. How do you rationalize those obvious facts?

What I am interested in when talking to moderate, secular Muslims is how they have managed to square their moderation with Islamic scripture. .
It is quite simple. The vast majority of Muslims do the very same things the vast majority Jews and the Christians do.

You just claimed to have spoken to a number of moderate Muslims. Didn't you even ask them given how much you obviously dwell on this single nonsensical issue? Or did you think they would likely react the very same way your brother-in-law apparently did when you discussed these inane positions with him?
 
Well, it certainly helps put your own statements in this matter into the proper context because all three clearly are now. For the most part, only some of the fundamentalists, those who are extremely conservative, or those who are poorly educated and easily deceived by others still use ancient religious scripture as an attempt to rationalize their hate of others, at least publicly.

The rest understand that civilization has advanced far beyond when those passages were first written. That you wouldn't hear some of the passages of the Koran used in a sermon by the vast majority of Imams any more than you would hear stoning adulterers to death used by many rabbis or ministers. To claim they were still used to foment violence towards others shows a deep and troubling misunderstanding of the religions as they are now practiced in general.
The scripture has not changed. For as long as these religions include in their teachings that dark-age and pre-classical exhortations to commit genocide and other atrocities are part of the word of god they will forever contain within them the seeds of barbarism, savagery and hatred. Fundamentalists as you call them are in the majority of cases doing precisely what their holy books tell them to do and what the founders of their religions would have approved of. There still exist many parts of the world where speaking out against religious orthodoxy is to place your life at risk. Take for example the spate of murders of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh. Religion only speaks in hushed tones where it is weak, where it is strong it is no less oppressive and ruthless than it ever was.
 
You can't "change" scripture that is all supposedly the words of this god or his prophet. All you can do is to selectively ignore parts of it that are clearly no longer acceptable in modern society.

The federal and local governments have been closely monitoring virtually all mosques ever since 9/11. Yet they haven't found any that are spreading supposed "jihad" except in a tiny handful of cases. What they have found is just the opposite. Yet there are those who still absurdly claim that Islam is a "religion of violence" when the facts show just the opposite is actually true.
 
And herein lies the flaw in your argument (and theirs). The truth is that most people in modern, secular societies turn a blind eye to half the contents of their scripture and so their behaviour no longer reflects the true character of their religions - which is that which is laid out in text for all time. And a pretty horriffic character it is too.

Closely monitored my backside. As in someone asks them to fill out a form every three years.
 
You seem to have missed the rather obvious fact that religions (unlike holy books) aren't writ in stone: they change over time. So, following your own line of agrument, the 'true character' of religions change over time.

Now, continue with your conspiracy theory.
 
And herein lies the flaw in your argument (and theirs). The truth is that most people in modern, secular societies turn a blind eye to half the contents of their scripture and so their behaviour no longer reflects the true character of their religions - which is that which is laid out in text for all time. And a pretty horriffic character it is too.

Closely monitored my backside. As in someone asks them to fill out a form every three years.
If the religion has dramatically changed with time, why is the ancient version which clearly isn't applicable to modern society "the true character of their religions"?

Furthermore, why aren't the usual suspects descending on you en masse to accuse you of of having an "anti-Christian bias", as they obviously would if I ever stated anything of the sort?

Now, continue with your conspiracy theory.
You would think they could at least come up with an original one to continue to entertain us. This one is mentioned so often on Islamophobic websites it has become a meme.

rrttgggg-meme-generator-how-dare-these-videos-portray-radical-islamo-nazis-as-a-threat-to-world-peace-4af64a.jpg
 
You seem to have missed the rather obvious fact that religions (unlike holy books) aren't writ in stone: they change over time. So, following your own line of agrument, the 'true character' of religions change over time.

Now, continue with your conspiracy theory.
You've obviously missed the bit about the Koran and the Bible being the literal word of god and ultimate authority of their respective religions. :crazyeye:

...why is the ancient version which clearly isn't applicable to modern society "the true character of their religions"?
Because it is written in their holy books and held to be the word of god and therefore the ultimate authority.

Would you be prepared to move to Bangladesh and author an atheist blog?
 
Yes, I absolutely agree. I don't know anyone who disagrees who has a) read the doctrines of Islam, b) observed how the belief in these doctrines plays out in reality, and c) doesn't have an apologetic agenda to push. We can gladly go into detail on specific issues, but it's a wide topic. Is there anywhere you would like to start? Among the bad ideas I can suggest are global jihad and terrorism, the relationship towards violence in general, the all-encompassing nature of Islam, the belief in Muslim superiority and coupled with that the view of non-Muslims and their culture, the mistreatment of women, of homosexuals or of animals, adherence to theocracy and sharia and views on religious freedom and apostacy. If you are genuinely interested, we can talk about the scriptural origins, the history, and current manifestation of any of these ideas.

The "relationship towards violence" sounds concerning. What exactly is the relationship of Islam toward violence? For example, the Old Testament talks about an "eye for an eye". What is the Koran's take on violence? Does it actively promote the use of violence as a first resort, just a great way of settling disputes or is it considered retaliatory? Are adherents of Islam obligated to use violence in order to further the religion? Or is violence considered only something to use under special circumstances?
 
In 845, Taoist Emperor Wuzong of the Tang Dynasty initiated the "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution" in an effort to appropriate war funds by stripping Buddhism of its financial wealth and to drive "foreign" influences from China. Wuzong forced all Buddhist clergy into lay life or into hiding and confiscated their property. During this time, followers of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Manichaeanism and Zoroastrianism were persecuted as well. The persecution lasted for twenty months before Emperor Xuanzong ascended the throne and put forth a policy of tolerance in 846

There are many strains of Daoism. The main strain is not really a religion but more of a lifestyle people were advised to follow, like Confucianism. There are branches that are more spiritually religious though. I wouldn't be that surprised if Wuzong followed a more spiritually religious strand of Daoism. Also that act of persecution seems less religiously motivated as much as an act of driving out "foreign" influences like you mentioned, since it doesn't mention the persecution of other native belief systems such as Daoism.
 
It may be difficult for you to understand, but there are people here who are educated on the topic.

One can disagree with opinions, like I vehemently disagree about your materialism, but when opinions are thoughtful, like in your case, discussions at least do make sense.
 
Old Testament talks about an "eye for an eye".

The Old Testament is just literature, like American Psycho, which talks of fun topics like randomly killing prostitutes. Brutal subject matter doesn't mean the authors are advocating behavior displayed in it. The Old Testament describes the annihilation of the Canaanites, although archeological evidence suggests they were simply assimilated with the Israelites. Maybe it was transgressive satire taken too literally?
 
Does the same apply then to the Koran?
:)No, the Koran is the direct word of God as if dropped to us at that instant. That's why no translation is considered to be wholly accurate, only in the Arabic of the time is it accurate. (I think that's correct, check with a Muslim)

The Bible is the word of God in the words of man, as for being literal or not, we Catholics see it as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDDKlXl488 starting at 5:07

Protestants may or may not see it differently.:)
 
The "relationship towards violence" sounds concerning. What exactly is the relationship of Islam toward violence? For example, the Old Testament talks about an "eye for an eye". What is the Koran's take on violence? Does it actively promote the use of violence as a first resort, just a great way of settling disputes or is it considered retaliatory? Are adherents of Islam obligated to use violence in order to further the religion? Or is violence considered only something to use under special circumstances?

Thank you for your questions. You chose what is perhaps the most consequential bad idea in Islam. The promotion of violence is deeply imbedded in Islamic scripture and is an integral part of the holy texts. The first thing to note about the koran is, as abradley correctly pointed out, that it is seen as the direct word of god (unlike the bible, which most Christians think is the word of God written down through the hand of men and is therefore more open to interpretation). There are fewer tools available for Muslims to theologically defend a less literal take on the koran. As I pointed out at the bottom of page 5 in this thread, the koran itself forbids Muslims to change the meaning of what Allah allegedly revealed to Mohammed. Furthermore, its commands are much more open-ended. Whereas the bible contains stories and parabels which can be contextualised more easily and are largely viewed as refering to the specific circumstances of the time they were written, the literary style of the koran is that of an instruction manual, giving advice and orders to Muslims for all times.

So what does the koran says about violence? Violence itself is of course a wide field and is advocated in many different contexts. The most obvious context is violence against unbelievers. The koran contains over one hundred verses which order Muslims to fight against the infidels. Jihad is a central message of the book. These are not lines which are open to interpretation; they are clear commands, such as "kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them" (2:191), "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" (9:123), or "strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them" (66:9). For a larger overview, check this page.

The verb stem "qtl", "to kill", appears 187 times in the koran. The stem "db", "to punish", appears over 400 times. That is not going into the over 7,000 hadith, which like the koran are viewed as divine revelation and confirm the messages found in the koran, including the advocating of violence.
It is important to mention the concept of abrogation in this context. This is the theological precept that in the case of contradictions in the koran, later verses override the earlier ones. I commented on this in an earlier thread:
Funky said:
The first part of the Koran deals with Mohammed's life in Mekka. At this time, the city was home to several religions and sects, and Mohammed just had a few dozen followers. In light of his own numerical inferiority, he preached tolerance and suggested that all religious beliefs be respected and treated equally. It was only after he went to Medina and obtained a large following that he spread Islam through the sword and applied the rules of Islam to non-believers, who in most cases were forced to convert or die. He is said to have personally beheaded 800 Jews in the process. After he came back to Mekka, he destroyed all the religious symbols in the Kaaba, which had been a remarkably tolerant religous center for all kinds of various beliefs. Believing in Islam became mandatory, as did the fight against all unbelievers. Mohammed's time in Medina and his conqering of Mekka make up the second part of the Koran.

Now, if we look only at the Mekka part of the Koran, we naturally find a comparably benign text. The focus lies on spiritual aspects, and when it touches political aspects they are mostly about good relations and tolerance. But when we get to the Medina part, the incitement of violence against anyone who disagrees with the tenets of Islam becomes the central message. If Muslims only focused on the first part, we wouldn't have much of a problem. In fact, Sufists tend to do just that. They have a mystical rather than political approach to their religion.
However, there is a huge problem. After Islamic scholars noticed contradictions in the Koran back in the 9th century, they solved the problem by deciding that if two verses were in conflict, the one that came later in the book was the correct one. This means that for large parts of the Muslim community, when in doubt, the Medina part overrides the Mekka part, violence trumps peacefulness, the political and aggressive trump the spiritual.

Moreover, violence is not only commanded against unbelievers. The punishments for violation of the rules of sharia often include the death penalty or other physical mistreatments. The most undisputed law in the Muslim world is that apostacy is to be punished by death. There has never been a major school of thought opposed to this punishment, and even many Muslims who are viewed as moderate consider this to be the only just sentence. But also other "crimes", such as blasphemy, adultery (including women who were raped), or homosexuality (which are all "hudud", "crimes against God") lead to the death penalty. And the death penalty in Islam not conducted by a lethal injection, but by public stoning or, in the case of homosexuals, hurling the "offenders" from roof tops. In many Islamic countries "lesser" crimes, such as theft, are punished by chopping off hands or public flogging.

All the attempts to reform and modernise the religion over the course of its history have been rejected and combatted by the religous establishment. Medieval Arab philosophers such as Ibn Khaldun or Ibn Sina were prosecuted, as are reformers today, who are brandmarked as heretics for their effort to contextualise the barbarism in the Islamic holy texts. While there have been quite a few outspoken Muslim critics of Islam in the past decades, their voices remain marginal compared to Islamic orthodoxy, which, led by the Al Azhar University of Cairo, the intellectual center of the Muslim world, continues to reject any re-interpretation of the koran and the hadith. That is why it is so noteworthy that Egypt's president Al-Sisi claimed early this year that it was "inconceivable, that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!" Words like these are rare from political or religious authorities, and several incitements to kill the man were immediately issued on public television.

The results of the tradition of violence can be seen around the world today. Every month thousands of innocent people are killed by violence in the name of Islam. Just being a non-Muslim is a dangerous thing in many Islamic countries. Being a Jew, a homosexual or an atheist will get you killed instantly in places from Pakistan and Bangladesh over Saudi Arabia and Iran to Somalia. However, most victims of Islamic violence are other Muslims, many of who too openly expressed free thought or confessed to hold beliefs divergent from Islamic tradition. Others fall victim to the Sunni Shia divide. And many of them are women and girls who commited the "crimes" of seeking education or not covering themselves up properly. The sheer number of killings in the name of Islam should make it obvious that these are not isolated cases. Furthermore, over the last decade there have been hundreds of polls on the connection between Islam and violence and the relationship of Muslims towards terrorism. Depending on what questions are asked, we often find majorities or at least large minorities of the population in Muslim countries who support the use of violence. While not all of the, say, 86 percent of Jordanian Muslims who support the death penalty for leaving Islam would actually go out and kill apostates, it should be clear that numbers like these are terrifying.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think this should be enough for a first overview.


Tigranes said:
One can disagree with opinions, like I vehemently disagree about your materialism, but when opinions are thoughtful, like in your case, discussions at least do make sense.
Thank you, Tigranes. I believe that whatever opinions we hold, a civil and open conversation should always be the medium by which we engage with each other and exchange our ideas.
 
Does the same apply then to the Koran?

Probably.

The problem aren't the content of the Bible or the Qu'ran. Any mature individual should be draw own conclusions from it without emulating all of it. The problem is that there always individuals superstitious enough to think such books are divinely inspired.
 
I agree quran has a good bunch of violent passages (i have read it) and today islam and violence are interconected in many cases. However christanity according to Jesus teachings should be a totally peaceful religion, but has lead along history to a number of incredibly violent events.

So my question is: can islam by itself lead to violence or there are other causes and ANY religion, under some situations, can be used as a catalyst for such violence, as nationalism or any other ideology?
 
Probably.

The problem aren't the content of the Bible or the Qu'ran. Any mature individual should be draw own conclusions from it without emulating all of it. The problem is that there always individuals superstitious enough to think such books are divinely inspired.

As I pointed out at the beginning of my above post, there are crucial distinctions between the bible and the koran, not only regarding content, but also their literary style and their openness to interpretation.
More importantly, when you talk about "mature individuals", you are doing this from a Western, secular perspective. Yet unlike the West, the Islamic world has not experienced centuries of secular philosophy impeding on religious dogma. That is why you get well-educated public figures like Tarek Ramadan expressing his beliefs in Djinns or the Saudi sheikh Bandar al-Khaibari claiming the sun rotates around the earth. It is not that these are immature people. But they, like many other Muslims, are to varying degrees victims of their own religious and cultural history, a history which to a large extent has circumvented the clash with modernity, that clash which is so formative for the West.
 
Back
Top Bottom