Why Islam Can't Reform

[aelf]

That's some weasely defense of your own position. It's bait-and-switch because it was expressly directed at my critique of his second, specific argument. You can call it a strawman or a non-sequitur instead, if you want, but it won't change the fact that you jumped into the deep end unprepared.

 

[luiz]

Aelf doesn't know what bait-and-switch is, does not know how to argue in a logical manner, and is more interested at attacking people than the actual debate.

More at 11.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, not 'easily'. There are a billion adherents.

If anything, that makes it easier to 'reform,' not harder.

On a different subject I still have not seen anyone argue as to WHY Islam should reform.

I don't like the term 'reform' because of its historical baggage - the idea that Islam should, or could, follow the same historical path as Christianity did just seems ridiculous to me.

I am glad so many experts on Islamic theology and jurisprudence are here to explain to us that "real Islam" is ISIS and that ISIS is in fact right and Muslims who do not believe as they do are not real Muslims.
Every time idiots say that Islam is incompatible with Western society you are doing ISIS' propaganda work for it, so good job there!

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, not from the outside. Since there will always be large pockets of people for whom the progressive memes have not taken hold. You'll literally be able to link to hundreds and hundreds of Islamic-themed atrocities, because if 'only' ten thousand people are holding a horrid interpretation, that's enough people to cause a lot of evil.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's some weasely defense of your own position. It's bait-and-switch because it was expressly directed at my critique of his second, specific argument. You can call it a strawman or a non-sequitur instead, if you want, but it won't change the fact that you jumped into the deep end unprepared.

Nope. It was quite clear that he was making two separate arguments, and not stating that the broader general case directly implied that the more specific case necessarily followed from that. I really think that was made very clear indeed, which is why it's not fair to call that bait-and-switch. Given that this is my only position, I don't see how simply restating it can be classed as a "weasly defence" either.

If your position is that he accused you of denying that the more general case can even happen, when you said no such thing, then by all means call that a strawman and I'd probably agree. But remember that you didn't say "I never said that, that's a strawman", you said "that's a bait-and-switch" argument, and it's the latter which I was responding to. Ironically, one might claim that you are now making a bait-and-switch argument by trying to claim that the former is what you were talking about all along.

 

[plarq]

The problem being he was a 7th century warlord.

Jesus was not a warlord. I don't think Buddha was either.

Buddha was prince of secular ruler, he was also from a warrior caste. Buddhism is not about peace (that is Jainism work), but more about abolishing the functionality of caste system. Buddhism was a revolution back then, and it is hardly peaceful.

BTW, radical Islam would not become problem if there are not many potential sympathizers of radicals, just like Trump would never become president without silent Trump supporters. Tip of iceberg. Weeding out sympathizers of radicals is impractical, as it would become thought police and totalitarian state to do the job of purging thoughts. The only possible remedy is to eradicate material support to radical Islam, which is also not practical because of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Old Hippy]

The problem being he was a 7th century warlord.

Jesus was not a warlord. I don't think Buddha was either.

every time you see a bible
you need to think of Saint Constantine... a warlord around 320 AD that set up the religious texts we still use today and fought civil wars to become emperor, had his mother find a piece of the True cross? and named the capital of the Roman Empire after himself and set the stage for all the future Crusades in the name of Jesus

He is venerated as a saint by Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine Catholics, and Anglicans

 

[Berzerker]

I am glad so many experts on Islamic theology and jurisprudence are here to explain to us that "real Islam" is ISIS and that ISIS is in fact right and Muslims who do not believe as they do are not real Muslims. Every time idiots say that Islam is incompatible with Western society you are doing ISIS' propaganda work for it, so good job there!

In largely Muslim countries are laws based on Islamic ideals or those ostensibly embraced by western society?

ISIS doesn't have to tell Muslims apostates and blasphemers are to be punished. How do you get around that reality?

ISIS are remnants of Saddam's Sunni regime and they dont want the Shia controlling their lands. Other than the fact the west (the USA) made a mess of the place I'd ignore ISIS and let them continue their religious/civil war, but since we did make the mess, we need to clean it up. Three countries from one, The Kurds, Sunnis and Shia all get their own country. Sorry Turkey.

 

[jackelgull]

Except that doesn't hold up. The Ottoman Sultans may have added the title of Caliph to their already prodigious list of titles, but that was largely an outlier. Far more often rulers would adopt secular titles, such as Sultan or Malik (Authority and King, respectively). Outside of the caliphs, the government and religious institutions tended to regard each other with some degree of mutual suspicion. Let's not forget that the UK still stamps their coins with the Queen's face and the title "Defender of the Faith". The idea of Christianity endorsing a separation of Church and State is a very recent idea and not necessarily one that has taken hold worldwide.

The relationship between various caliphs and their administrations and the religious establishment is a complex and mutlifaceted thing. I mean, the founder of one of the five dominant fiqhs of Islam is emblematic of this - Imam Maliki was once heavily oppressed by the government and lashed publicly for his teachings - while later on the Abbasids set him up as a popular reference for the nation and asked him to write a book of fiqh and proclaimed no one had the authority to authorize fatawas except for Maliki.

While theoretically Islam calls for the religious establishment and state to be one, the reality was this never happened. Even in the time of the righteous caliphs they were never considered the final religious authority. Abu Bakr was not considered the most learned in religious matters, he was just the guy who filled the power vacuum. And Umar was not particularly known for being an expert in the hadith and sunnah, he was zealous and a capable administrator. The role of the Caliph was to take temporal power to preserve Islamic principles, it was the job of religious scholars to decide what those were.

 

[aelf]

Nope. It was quite clear that he was making two separate arguments, and not stating that the broader general case directly implied that the more specific case necessarily followed from that. I really think that was made very clear indeed, which is why it's not fair to call that bait-and-switch. Given that this is my only position, I don't see how simply restating it can be classed as a "weasly defence" either.

If your position is that he accused you of denying that the more general case can even happen, when you said no such thing, then by all means call that a strawman and I'd probably agree. But remember that you didn't say "I never said that, that's a strawman", you said "that's a bait-and-switch" argument, and it's the latter which I was responding to. Ironically, one might claim that you are now making a bait-and-switch argument by trying to claim that the former is what you were talking about all along.

Well, I was being somewhat charitable and assuming he was trying to be devious, but I suppose you could be right. He might have just been too thick to understand what I was saying. Still, the broader argument is wholly insufficient to justify the specific argument about Islam, so the stringing of both arguments successively as though one follows from the other is highly suspect. If you want to put that down to pure stupidity or incompetence as well, then sure.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How is assuming deviousness more charitable than assuming stupidity?

Apology accepted btw.

 

[aelf]

Like the argument made earlier. You can choose to be devious or not, but people are frequently born stupid.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd value an honest idiot over a devious manipulator any day.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'd value an honest idiot over a devious manipulator any day.

Really? Because I'd take Pence or Ryan over Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

Really? Because I'd take Pence or Ryan over Trump.

I'm not sure I would. I think I prefer incompetent kleptocrats to competent evil ideologues, all other things equal.

 

[aelf]

If you have incompetent kleptocrats controlled by evil ideologues, then you'll get the downside of evil ideologues with less money left afterwards.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Really? Because I'd take Pence or Ryan over Trump.

Meh. Not American.

Also: context was who I'd have a better opinion of in an internet argument, not who I'd want running a country.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm not sure I would. I think I prefer incompetent kleptocrats to competent evil ideologues, all other things equal.

I agree. Trump will steer the ship of state in all kinds of crazy directions, but Pence and Ryan are dedicated to plundering the middle class for the benefit of the superwealthy.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree. Trump will steer the ship of state in all kinds of crazy directions, but Pence and Ryan are dedicated to plundering the middle class for the benefit of the superwealthy.

Well, yeah, but to date they've far more effectively plundered the poor.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh come onnnnn. Not another bloody thread about Trump