Then you need to read more. As I said, I'm not getting into an anecdote battle. — Thorongil

Why read more? To collect more "anecdotes" regarding Christianity or Islam that you'll disregard, being adverse to an "anecdote battle"?

Really, though, I'm aware of the fact that Islamic fanatics exist and by all accounts wish to impose a cruel and primitive theocracy on all, and are killing and otherwise great harm. I have no problem at all in saying they're a menace to civilization. You may well be right, and Islam may be the most violent of the historically violent Abrahamic religions. And, I'm inclined to say the New Testament has far less references to violence than either the Old Testament and the Quran. I think, though, that has made little difference in the propensity of Christians to do harm. I think the fact that Christians are not doing violence in the name of their religion now isn't attributable for the most part to their study and regard for the New Testament. It's never stopped them from doing violence in the past.

I really don't believe Western liberalism and any kind of truly authentic Islam are going to find it easy to co-exist. — Wayfarer

I think much of the public controversy about this topic arises from that word 'authentic'. It is typically assumed, without examination, that there is such a thing as 'authentic Islam'. There is no apparent reason to believe there is any such thing, just as there is no such thing as authentic Christianity or authentic Buddhism. Adherents of a particular sect, who have dogmatic tendencies, will insist that their sect's version of the relevant religion is the only authentic one, but very few people outside the sect believe them.

Religions are at best family resemblances - a la Wittgenstein. To speak about authentic Islam makes as much sense as saying that a particular activity is an authentic 'game'. If one wishes to insist that there is an authentic version of any particular religion, one must be an Aristotelian Essentialist.

It is typically assumed, without examination, that there is such a thing as 'authentic Islam'. — andrewk

What do you think, if you asked a Muslim, if there were 'such a thing as authentic Islam', that he or she would say? I bet they would not even comprehend the question. The response would be: of course there is, 'authentic Islam' is the word of the Prophet.

very few people outside the sect believe them. — andrewk

The trouble is, you're viewing this from a perspective which you don't understand as 'a perspective'. Your secular/Western/naturalist perspective is that religions are social constructions, they're interchangeable because they're a matter of individual choice - and I think you believe that to be tantamount to 'scientific fact'. But the people you're speaking about wouldn't agree with that for a second. 'Islam' means 'surrender', it doesn't mean 'hey, what's your opinion'?

Because of course, "the West" is monolithic, as much as "the Islamic world," right? — Arkady

No, and not necessary for the point I was making. The article I quoted was from a Muslim columnist, discussing whether freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the context of Western liberalism, is a two-edged sword. He said that while Muslims may benefit from these protections, other attitudes which are part and parcel of Western liberalism, such as 'sexual liberation', are incompatible with Islam.

So, to claim that the problem is that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity is not only to make a claim that is not supported by evidence (show me a study where levels of violence in majority Islamic countries are found to be significantly higher than those in majority Christian countries where other socio-cultural variables are accounted for) but also to prevent yourself from having any hope of finding a solution. Which is fine only for those who don't really want one. — Baden

Speaking for myself, I've never said that Islam is inherently more violent (in terms of its scripture, say; though, as others have pointed out, its principal figure was a bit more violent than Jesus in his lifetime), I've said that it is more violent than any other major world religion in the 21st century.

That sounds violent. — Mongrel

It's less violent than flogging the dolphin.

What do you think, if you asked a Muslim, if there were 'such a thing as authentic Islam', that he or she would say? I bet they would not even comprehend the question. The response would be: of course there is, 'authentic Islam' is the word of the Prophet. — Wayfarer

You are using a story that an imaginary Muslim might make a certain claim, as proof of the truth of the claim. If we ask the same Muslim 'Is there life after death?' they might say 'yes'. Is that then proof that there is life after death? We then ask Richard Dawkins, and he says No, so we now have proof that there is no life after death. So we now have two conflicting proofs. Of course, neither is a proof.

In short, you are confusing an observation of someone that self-describes as belonging to group G saying they believe there is an essence of group G, with evidence that there is an essence of group G. Remember the True Scotsman. He was convinced there was an essence of being a Scotsman, and he was a Scotsman. Does that make him right?

I'd hazard a guess that most adherents of most religions believe there is an essence of their religion. The trouble is that their views as to what this essence is vary from one to another, which means many of them must be wrong - and Occam's Razor suggests they are all wrong. [For those that don't read carefully - not you Wayfarer - let me spell this out. I did not say their religious beliefs are wrong. I said their belief that there is an essence of their religion is wrong.]

and I think you believe that to be tantamount to 'scientific fact'. — Wayfarer

Surely you know me well enough by now to know I'm not a reductionist. I don't believe in scientific facts. Science is just a tool for helping us construct useful narratives. A lovely, lovely tool. But still just a tool.

In short, you are confusing an observation of someone that self-describes as belonging to group G saying they believe there is an essence of group G, with evidence that there is an essence of group G. Remember the True Scotsman. He was convinced there was an essence of being a Scotsman, and he was a Scotsman. Does that make him right? — andrewk

I'm not confusing anything. I'm drawing out a point, that the easy acceptance of different religions is itself something alien to the believer. From our modern secular viewpoint, religions are social constructs so at the end of the day, which one you choose, or whether you don't choose any, is a matter of personal choice. That's not reductionist, but it assumes that the secular attitude is normative. That's why you say that they're right - I.e. they have the right - to their beliefs, but wrong to say that such beliefs can be 'essential'. And in saying that, I'm not accusing you of anything - just exploring the implications of these various views.

That's why I referenced the Ross Douthat OP yesterday - it's worth reading this passage:

to any Muslim who takes the teachings of his faith seriously, it must seem that many Western ideas about how Islam ought to change just promise its eventual extinction.

This is clearly true of the idea, held by certain prominent atheists and some of my fellow conservatives and Christians, that the heart of Islam is necessarily illiberal — that because the faith was born in conquest and theocracy, it simply can’t accommodate itself to pluralism without a massive rupture, an apostasy in fact if not in name. [Some here are saying this; in fact one of my near relatives believes it to the point where he and his spouse can't even discuss the issue.]

But it’s also true of the ideas of many secular liberal Westerners, who take a more benign view of Islam mostly because they assume that all religious ideas are arbitrary, that it doesn’t matter what Muhammad said or did because tomorrow’s Muslims can just reinterpret the Prophet’s life story and read the appropriate liberal values in. [That's the kind of view you're advocating]

//ps// - I will concede that the position I have been taking in this thread is nearer the first than the second. In that sense I am pretty near to agreement with my relative.//

the Qur'an is there for all to read, — VagabondSpectre

I have heard it said that there is a strong view in Islam itself that this is not the case - that, first of all, it ought to be read in Arabic, and secondly, that it ought to be read only by men. (The idea that everyone ought to read scripture was a Protestant innovation.)

I'm not sure of the provenance of that idea, but I recall reading an article about the difficulty of engaging in 'ciritical scholarship' of the texts, in the manner that has been applied to the Christian texts.

This was in a journal article I read, in which a revisionist scholar was exploring the idea that the '17 virgins' that martyrs for the faith were to enjoy in Paradise, were not actually 'virgins' at all - that the very early texts gave a term which may have referred to an especially rare and delicious date, later mis-translated as 'virgin'. (A significant error if such it was!) In any case, the scholar that was investigating this matter was - how shall we say - shown the door, i.e. not allowed to continue his research because the religious authorities disapproved - which the article said, was not uncommon in the field.

secular liberal Westerners, who take a more benign view of Islam mostly because they assume that all religious ideas are arbitrary, that it doesn’t matter what Muhammad said or did because tomorrow’s Muslims can just reinterpret the Prophet’s life story and read the appropriate liberal values in. [That's the kind of view you're advocating] — Wayfarer

No I'm not. One's religious ideas are deeply conditioned by one's psychology, which is in turn conditioned by genes and environment (including, in some cases, spiritual experiences). One has very little choice in the matter, so I certainly would not say they are arbitrary.

I wouldn't bother continuing to quote that article. It's a gross over-simplification of a complex situation and, furthermore, contains no realistic policy proposals.

Of course it matters what the Quran says, just as it matters what the Bible says - because some people take them literally. But it does not follow from that that it is reasonable or fair to assume that all people who self-describe as Muslim (Christian) agree with and actively promote the implementation of the literal English translation of every line in the Quran (Bible).

As I've said so many times before, what matters is what people actually believe, not what beliefs we project on them based on a label. This has nothing to do with secularism. It is simply recognising that each person is an individual and deserves to be treated as such. Racial and religious profiling is unfortunately a necessary evil in detective work - because detection is crucially dependent on profiling and uses whatever profile information it can get. I would be very sad to see it starting to play in public policy. The last time we had that was the White Australia policy.

We've agreed - I think - that it would be a good idea to have psychological testing for aspiring immigrants to ensure they are supportive of our liberal, democratic society. Such testing can be applied to all prospective immigrants regardless of ethnicity or superficial religious label.

If you want to impose some additional restrictions, based on religious profiling, then tell us what that would be, and we can discuss it.

No I'm not. One's religious ideas are deeply conditioned by one's psychology, which is in turn conditioned by genes and environment.... — andrewk

but not, it would seem, by any actual revelation. 'It matters because believers say it matters'. In denying what I said you said, you say it again! Anyway, it doesn't matter that much, and it's certainly not possible to incorporate such nuances in public policy. Thanks for your feedback.

On the contrary, it is public policy where it matters most. If we consider Islam to be incompatible with our values, in the sense of Islamic identity, then the only choice we have is genocide-- any presence of Islamic identity amounts to an existential threat to our society. To avoid destruction of our community we must kill or remove any Muslim.

The naunce of what people believe as compared what some tradtion might say is critical. Else we equivocate any Muslim with a monster who just wants to destroy our society-- effectively that all Muslims are a members of ISIS. We lose all sight they are people.

but not, it would seem, by any actual revelation — Wayfarer

Revelation was covered in my very next six words. Why did you leave them out of your quote? Here they are again:

'including, in some cases, spiritual experiences'

Can we cut to the chase now and hear what restrictions you would like to see placed on people that self-describe as Muslims? Unless you have a concrete proposal, it all starts to look like just an attempt to feel superior to 'the Left' (which is as much of an over-simplified cardboard cut-out label as is 'Muslim').

Revelation was covered in my very next six words. — andrewk

But, notice, that you've given a reductionist account of revelation, i.e. one might have 'spiritual experiences' but these are 'conditioned by genes and environment'. It is, as I said, a secularist account of the meaning of religion (which you assume is normative, for reasons you gave in an earlier post, i.e. there can be no 'objectivist' account of religious truth.)

Of course it matters what the Quran says, just as it matters what the Bible says - because some people take them literally. — andrewk

So it matters 'because it's what people believe'. But that is not their criteria for why Islam ought to be accepted. You see, you're automatically assuming that your liberal Western criterion of 'the value of the individual' is what is underwriting the acceptance of Islam, when they themselves are not likely to accept that yardstick. In a strange way, we're offering them the 'wrong kind of rights'.

it all starts to look like just an attempt to feel superior to 'the Left' — andrewk

Well, I'm sorry, I had intended it as an attempt to engage in a rather deeper level of analysis of the issue.

As I've acknowledged, the implication of my view is that I think there ought to be more examination of the implicit notion that Islam can be an 'equal partner' in a liberal-secular framework, and a consideration of the hidden premisses in the arguments from both sides. So I will acknowledge, I am arguing from a more conservative position, but I hope not an extremist position.

I think Muslims themselves generally ought not to be compelled to go along with the general consensus of Western liberalism, in such matters as sexual morality (as the opinion piece from a Muslim writer said.)

On the other hand, I certainly don't think the West ought to be obliged to respect polygamy and the subjugation of women and various other cultural practices associated with islam.

I think that there has to be a very long and difficult debate within Islam, and between Islam and the West, about such questions, without it falling into the extremes of Islamophobia, on the one hand, and laissez faire individualism, on the other. That is all I'm trying to say.

You often speak sympathetically about condemnations of the supposed immorality of the West, but I'm never quite sure what you're referring to. — Arkady

I'm referring to the post-sexual revolution attitudes towards marriage and sexuality. I have a conservative view. As for cultural and scientific materialism, they're not the same, but they're closely related.

It's only one more step before you realize that as there is no absolute indisputable meaning of religion X (just shades of plausibility with regard to interpretations)... — Baden

I agree there's no objective meaning. Also that it's better to try and engage the moderates and isolate the radicals - I'm sure that there have been a lot of behind-the-scenes efforts behind those lines. The main difference in perspective that I have, is that I am also questioning the kind of assumed narrative of liberalism, albeit from another perspective again. But other than that, I agree with your points.

Fair enough, I'm no spokesman for liberalism or any other -ism on this one.

But, notice, that you've given a reductionist account of revelation, i.e. one might have 'spiritual experiences' but these are 'conditioned by genes and environment' — Wayfarer

No. You are reading it wrong. I did not say that spiritual experiences are conditioned by genes and environment. I said that a person's beliefs are conditioned by their genes and environment. The parenthesis clarifies that 'environment' encompasses everything that happens to a person, including any spiritual experience, revelation or other such thing. It is not necessary for us to guess whether the experience is a hallucination or a genuine interaction with a deity. Whichever it is, the experience is still part of somebody's historical environment.

You are much to quick to pull your 'reductionist' gun from its holster.

As I've acknowledged, the implication of my view is that I think there ought to be more examination of the implicit notion that Islam can be an 'equal partner' in a liberal-secular framework, and a consideration of the hidden premises in the arguments from both sides. — Wayfarer

Who holds that notion? Not me. I have repeatedly said that the idea of 'Islam' as an entity or agent with which one can converse and do deals, is a chimera.

It is individuals, not labels, that can be, and are needed as, partners in our liberal, social-democratic society. Forget the label and focus on the individuals and their beliefs. Then you don't need any pre-suppositions or implicit notions, be they liberal, conservative or something else.

You are much to quick to pull your 'reductionist' gun from its holster. — andrewk

You're not quick enough to duck! X-)

Sorry, that was facetious. I think I've said enough for now.

I've seen that movie a could of times. Didn't remember the dolphin scene.

It's interesting to note how the newly-fashionable anti-Islamism's efforts to villainize Muslims by tendentiously scrutinizing their holy texts parallel similar efforts from antisemites scrutinizing the Talmud. I wonder if the two groups have much of an intersection? I mean, there are, of course, plenty of people who are both antisemitic and anti-Muslim, but I am specifically interested in the amateur scholars who perform this sort of exercise.

Sounds pretty boring to me. Why does it interest you?

Because, as the vulgar meme states, change Muslim to Jew or Islam to Judaism and see if your rhetoric seems nazi-ish... It's pretty telling in some cases

I'm imagining people sitting around reading the KKK website (assuming there is one.) Maybe not so strange. I know two people who are fascinated by holocaust stories. Yeesh.

It's quite interesting indeed.

As a somewhat experienced and net-savvy atheist I'm keenly aware of the varying levels of anti-theism that spans the secular community. Hitchens and perhaps Dawkins were the gold standards of anti-theism in that their anti-theist views ("Religion is poison" - Hitchens) were applied somewhat
consistently to most religions (certainly the Abrahamic three), but since the anti-Islamic rise in the west, it's as if new anti-theists have arrived on the scene who are only opposed to the notion of one particular theism, and they're no longer primarily atheist or even secular to begin with.

That Christians should hold the position that another person ought not to have the right to exist in society for subscribing to Islam, especially given they all claim to worship the same "all forgiving" monotheistic deity, is flabbergasting. Intolerance, meet intolerance (or: religious freedom, meet ignorance and hypocricy)

The broad mishmash of individuals from previously politically disunited groups (theists, hard/soft atheists, agnostics, and some right wing/isolationist ideologues) who find common ground in their staunch and selective opposition to Islam is what gives rise to the chorus of self-reinforcing anti-Islamic rhetoric which ranges from "Islam is inherently more dangerous" to "fight back against Islam in the west order to protect your faith and your children from impending invasion and assimilation". That there is a critical mass of it to begin (which is what enables it to grow within internet media and culture) more or less coalesced in the post 9/11 world and as online media itself was taking shape.

Anti-theism is a double-edged war-axe of a position to wield, and if done with hypocrisy or poor form is more damaging to itself than to religion. It really does take someone like Hitchens to do it well if hard anti-theism is to be wielded even somewhat persuasively. And so, the now razor sharp extremes of new devout anti-Islamic pundits, who generally have very little experience in the somewhat developed argument against religion, wind up making more of a mockery of their own position the more vehemently they try to defend it.

What fascinates me most is the way that online media itself shapes and enables new forms of organization around and based on ideas which happen to be highly motivating (such as the fear and hatred of something) and their resulting evolution and accompanying trends and conflicts.

Lacking central authority and already being so diverse in practice and culture across different regions makes it unlikely that major changes to doctrine or practice will come from a religious hierarchy like the papacy or broad reform such as Protestantism, but as cultural values shift (and there is pressure on them to shift, rest assured) reform on any level becomes more digestible to Islamic populations and more achievable for the many tiers of religious leaders and scholars of the Islamic world who risk embracing it. If the Islamic public continues to westernize, then at some point not embracing reform will become more risky than embracing it.

That said, not all practicing Muslims seem to require reform. The problem of violent Islam such as it is remains specific to individuals, groups and interpretations rather than pertaining to the ideology and it's practitioners as a whole. There are many secular Muslims, and as orthodoxy perhaps subsides (as it did for Christians) secularism might provide the environment necessary for substantial reform to emerge. As I mentioned earlier though, it depends large on who is around and how they feel after the dust settles from the current chaos widespread across the Islamic world.

Just to be clear on terminology here, "Islamism" specifically refers to a militant (sometimes violent) brand of Islam; thus opposition to Islamism can be regarded as no vice, I should think. Given the context in which you discuss the term and the overall tenor of your post, I think you meant just to refer to those who are anti-Islam simpliciter.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I had thrown an -ism onto the end of anti-Islam, and totally missed the resulting ambiguity.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I had thrown an -ism onto the end of anti-Islam, and totally missed the resulting ambiguity. — VagabondSpectre

I think these days you have to append -icism otherwise you are racist.

I presume you support death to apostates and atheists?

I presume you support death to apostates and atheists? — tom

I am an atheist, so that would be a bit hypocritical of me (agnostic soft-atheist).

What do you support though? Anti-religious sentiment in general? Are you a full blown hard-atheist anti-theist? You've condemned Islam, so what now?

I can understand morally opposing religion on the basis of the harm that it contributes to, but I cannot understand how we could eliminate the entirety of one or all religions without causing more harm than those religions cause in the first place.

After decades of terrorism aimed at us we have started asking loudly why the radical elements of the world hate us.

The West, powered by technological advantages, imposed ruthless imperialism over much of the world for material advantages for three centuries. This caused a lot of suffering. After the world wars, the mankind, in general, has learned that conquering other countries hurts the conqueror more than it helps, in the long run. The US, having more fair and humane attitude internally had made huge progress by then, and had employed milder international policies up to that time. This made her emerge as the leader of the war-broken West. But since then, we have exploited the underdeveloped world economically. And to achieve and support the economical advantages we manipulated underdeveloped countries’ politics. In some instances we even have been the ‘king maker’. This has generated pains round the world.

Pain generates anger. A culture handles its anger according to its emotional makeup, which in turn is influenced by its collective religious base, whether be it based on dogma or reason. Thus some cultures are more forgiving of the past then others. In addition, different cultures have more home-generated hate than others, stemming from their family, social and political environment.

When deep anger is allowed to linger on, or to grow by additional factors, it crystallizes over time, and turns into hate. Hate differs from greed, in that, hate does not weigh gain against cost; it just wants to destroy. This is directed more towards the US for two main reasons, because she is the leader of the West, and the memories of our unfair dealings are fresh in the minds around the world. Even our gestures of generosity have been tainted by political considerations. Greed goes hand in hand with pride, which keeps us blind to our follies. As mighty as we are, new technologies are making it feasible for a few to hurt many. And, some cultures are producing large numbers of hateful people who are ready to risk their lives to cause us pain. They will overwhelm our policing resources not too far in the future.

We need to focus our generosity towards the pains of people around the world more, and less on our immediate gains from these efforts. In the long run, this self-less generosity can earn emotional goodwill of the common populace around the world. We all think emotionally somewhat. But the Eastern cultures are more emotional than the Western cultures. We can influence the Eastern cultures more easily through their emotions than through objective representations. Such efforts will divert their hate to somewhere else, and we can stop being their prime target. Change of attitude frog-leaps by generation. It is better to pay for our deeds by reducing the pain of others early than by incurring suffering later. Hate is a monster that devours itself, if nothing else is available. Let us pull out from its path. Meanwhile we can keep defending ourselves with force, need of which will taper down, as goodwill grows.

What do you support though? Anti-religious sentiment in general? Are you a full blown hard-atheist anti-theist? You've condemned Islam, so what now? — VagabondSpectre

Islam allows the rape of children. Their perfect moral example married a 6yr old. What has abhorrence at such behaviour got to do with atheism?