The political thread that helps us understand each other

[SkinsHokieFan]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

Maher is not on any list because he is one of the only members of the liberal national figures who isn't a raging hypocrite in Islam

 

treatment of females matters

the right to leave your religion peacefully matters

treatment of gays matters

freedom of speech matters

 

theae are all core liberal beliefs completely irreconcilable with Islam 

 

two questions

1. If the Catholic Church started publically beheading gays in the Vatican what would the American Liberal reaction be?

2. Could there EVER be a Broadway Play called "the book of Islam"?

 

This might be the most ignorant post you have put on this message board, and there are quite a few to choose from. Equating Islam to ISIS or AQ or the Saudi Royal family is incredibly ignorant.

 

My fundamental issue is you are comparing the Catholic Church, the mainstream accepted voice of Catholics worldwide with ISIS/AQ/the Saudi Royal Family; which implies that mainstream average Muslims have as much of a voice with those organizations as mainstream ordinary Catholics do with the Catholic church.

 

So the question of if the Catholic Church started beheading gays is a non sequitor.

 

One of my frustrations, and why I can't vote for Republicans anymore even if my general political philosophy aligns much more with that party, is reasons like this post. Rather then fundamentally understanding that I have no voice nor way of impacting what ISIS does, I am automatically considered ISIS first, and then American second (maybe), even though I was born in this country and lived here my entire life.

 

Literally every main stream Muslim organization on Earth has addressed the 4 points Zoony made, and those organizations do represent more Muslim voices then ISIS/AQ/the Saudi Royal family. The American government certainly has much more of a voice with the Saudi Royal family then I do, yet no administration since they took power has ever demanded any significant social change in the Kingdom.

 

I have posted this before, but will post it again. It is a "Letter to Baghdadi," written by an international group of Muslim scholars and leaders, with Quranic citations that destroys any argument made by ISIS. Yet somehow this is frequently ignored

 

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

 

Quote

 

It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas , and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith .

 

It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

 

Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

 

It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

 

The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud ) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ﷻ.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

 

Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

 

It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

 

Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

 

After the death of the Prophet ﷺ , Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere

 

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

And I forgot to add the Marrakesh declaration, from last year!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/africa/muslim-conference-calls-for-protection-of-religious-minorities.html?_r=0

 

http://www.marrakeshdeclaration.org/marrakesh-declaration.html

 

Quote

 

WHEREAS, conditions in various parts of the Muslim World have deteriorated dangerously due to the use of violence and armed struggle as a tool for settling conflicts and imposing one's point of view;

WHEREAS, this situation has also weakened the authority of legitimate governments and enabled criminal groups to issue edicts attributed to Islam, but which, in fact, alarmingly distort its fundamental principles and goals in ways that have seriously harmed the population as a whole;

WHEREAS, this year marks the 1,400th anniversary of the Charter of Medina, a constitutional contract between the Prophet Muhammad, God's peace and blessings be upon him, and the people of Medina, which guaranteed the religious liberty of all, regardless of faith;

WHEREAS, hundreds of Muslim scholars and intellectuals from over 120 countries, along with representatives of Islamic and international organizations, as well as leaders from diverse religious groups and nationalities, gathered in Marrakesh on this date to reaffirm the principles of the Charter of Medina at a major conference;

WHEREAS, this conference was held under the auspices of His Majesty, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and organized jointly by the Ministry of Endowment and Islamic Affairs in the Kingdom of Morocco and the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies based in the United Arab Emirates;

AND NOTING the gravity of this situation afflicting Muslims as well as peoples of other faiths throughout the world, and after thorough deliberation and discussion, the convened Muslim scholars and intellectuals:

DECLARE HEREBY our firm commitment to the principles articulated in the Charter of Medina, whose provisions contained a number of the principles of constitutional contractual citizenship, such as freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law; and that,

The objectives of the Charter of Medina provide a suitable framework for national constitutions in countries with Muslim majorities, and the United Nations Charter and related documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are in harmony with the Charter of Medina, including consideration for public order.

NOTING FURTHER that deep reflection upon the various crises afflicting humanity underscores the inevitable and urgent need for cooperation among all religious groups, we
AFFIRM HEREBY that such cooperation must be based on a "Common Word," requiring that such cooperation must go beyond mutual tolerance and respect, to providing full protection for the rights and liberties to all religious groups in a civilized manner that eschews coercion, bias, and arrogance.

BASED ON ALL OF THE ABOVE, we hereby:

Call upon Muslim scholars and intellectuals around the world to develop a jurisprudence of the concept of "citizenship" which is inclusive of diverse groups. Such jurisprudence shall be rooted in Islamic tradition and principles and mindful of global changes.

Urge Muslim educational institutions and authorities to conduct a courageous review of educational curricula that addesses honestly and effectively any material that instigates aggression and extremism, leads to war and chaos, and results in the destruction of our shared societies;

Call upon politicians and decision makers to take the political and legal steps necessary to establish a constitutional contractual relationship among its citizens, and to support all formulations and initiatives that aim to fortify relations and understanding among the various religious groups in the Muslim World;

Call upon the educated, artistic, and creative members of our societies, as well as organizations of civil society, to establish a broad movement for the just treatment of religious minorites in Muslim countries and to raise awareness as to their rights, and to work together to ensure the success of these efforts.

Call upon the various religious groups bound by the same national fabric to address their mutual state of selective amnesia that blocks memories of centuries of joint and shared living on the same land; we call upon them to rebuild the past by reviving this tradition of conviviality, and restoring our shared trust that has been eroded by extremists using acts of terror and aggression;

Call upon representatives of the various religions, sects and denominations to confront all forms of religious bigotry, villification, and denegration of what people hold sacred, as well as all speech that promote hatred and bigotry; AND FINALLY,

AFFIRM that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

 

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

On gays

 

http://www.hrc.org/blog/largest-u.s.-muslim-organization-supports-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill

 

 

Quote

 

Largest U.S. Muslim Organization Supports LGBT Anti-Discrimination Bill

Last week, one of the clearest shifts in the decades-long debate over Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) came into light from the largest U.S.-based Muslim organization, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), joined a broad interfaith coalition, calling ENDA a “measured, common sense solution that will ensure workers are judged on their merits, not on their personal characteristics like sexual orientation or gender identity.”



In a historic advancement for the LGBT rights movement, the Senate on Thursday approved ENDA, a bill that protects against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Despite advances in anti-discrimination in the workplace, Muslims continue to face unfair job discrimination. Our shared experiences of discrimination can provide a common basis to work with one another to mold a more inclusive America.

Commenting on the shift of tone, Dr. Sharon Groves, Director of HRC’s Religion and Faith Program, regarded ISNA's support of ENDA as a major step in right direction. 

“LGBT Muslims both in the U.S. and abroad need to hear from organizations like ISNA that their experiences as Muslims are recognized in the spirit of Islam’s emphasis on compassion and respect for all humanity,” said Groves.

The movement for greater acceptance of LGBT people in Islam is growing. LGBT Muslims continue to be at the forefront of cutting edge scholarship at the intersection of Islam and issues affecting the lives of LGBT Muslims. Around the nation and the world, LGBT Muslims and their allies are working to build an inclusive faith — and having some notable success.



 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

 

Quote

 

But a couple of Pew polls might help explain what's going on here. It is true that there is a tremendous amount of hostility to gays and lesbians in countries where Islam is a dominant religion. A Pew poll from 2013 had the vast majority of Muslims in 36 countries overseas declaring that homosexuality is immoral. When I say "vast majority," I mean numbers like 90 percent.

But a recent poll in 2015, also by Pew, shows that American Muslims are much less likely to share this attitude. By comparison, 45 percent of American Muslims approve of homosexuality, and 42 percent of Muslims support same-sex marriage recognition. In both cases, a greater number disapprove of acceptance than approve. But then, so do Evangelical Christians in numbers greater than American Muslims. Only 36 percent of Evangelical Christians approve of homosexuality and only 28 percent of Evangelical Christians support same-sex marriage recognition.

The good news is that support for acceptance of gays and lesbians in America has increased in all faiths between 2007 and 2014. And the point of this post is not necessarily to hold up social conservatives to criticism over an incident they had nothing to do with.

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, grego said:

Who would you put on the extreme athestic left? Politically, people like Harris, Maher, Gad Saad, Dave Rubin, Jonathan Haidt and Douglas Murray are all center or center left. You mean extreme as in atheist? 

 

Based on Jumbo's comment, I am going to ignore several posts/comments not because I don't think they have significant (positive or negative) value.  Just that I don't see how I can reply to them in the context of this thread.

 

This though, I think can reply to at least superficially (as explaining myself).  (I'll avoid any further reply that starts to turn this into a God/no God thread).

 

Yes, I meant extreme in the context of atheist not in the context of left.  There are 2 things that generally would result in my considering somebody an extreme atheist:

 

1.  Somebody that tries to imply or claim that science can disprove the existence a St. Augustinian like vision of God (which realistically is the view of God that many (if not most) western Christians have).  

 

2.  Somebody that strongly believes that the net impact on humans of religion has been a strong negative (especially in the context of separating current western secular beliefs from Christianity is very difficult IMO).

 

And as at least number 1 seems to apply to Harris (his attack of using science to address the concept of free will as a way to disprove God), I would consider him to be an extreme atheist (and these people certainly all seem to be to identify with the Democratic party and so extreme atheistic left).

[grego]

You absolutely have to distinguish between what people do in the name of a religion and what the religion actually teaches. 

 

Shf, the people that you need to convince are the ones that are preaching the stuff zoony referenced and their quotations and interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

3 minutes ago, grego said:

You absolutely have to distinguish between what people do in the name of a religion and what the religion actually teaches. 

 

Shf, the people that you need to convince are the ones that are preaching the stuff zoony referenced and their quotations and interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. 

 

I don't need to do anything except what I am doing now and that is being a good citizen, hard worker, and tax payer.

 

I am not a scholar nor do I have any access to the Saudi Royal Family, AQ or ISIS. I am not one of the following: a terrorist or "ally" in the war on terror.

 

I am just a mid 30s American citizen with a hot wife

[zoony]

3 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

This might be the most ignorant post you have put on this message board, and there are quite a few to choose from. Equating Islam to ISIS or AQ or the Saudi Royal family is incredibly ignorant.

 

At the end of the day, you have the right to be a member of any religion you wish.

 

I have the right to think that your religion represents the absolute worst of humanity.  That is both of our rights as U.S. Citizens.  A right, I might add, that doesn't just make the West different from Muslim Nations, but fundamentally BETTER.  Big difference and an important distinction.

 

On to your claim of ignorance on my part.  By now I'm used to you lashing out should anyone dare say anything derogatory about your faith, but I reject your notion that I am ignorant.  My statement is that Islam runs completely counter to liberal ideals, and I stand by that.  I guess you're ultimately free to dismiss my view as ignorant, but again, I am far from ignorant on this subject.

 

 

1.  88% of Egyptian Muslims and 62% of Pakistani Muslims feel that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy.  This is 2017.  Let that sink in.

2.  You completely ignored my question on whether there could be a Broadway play called "The Book of Islam".  I understand why you ignored it.  You do too.  Bataclan.

3.  Freedom of Speech and Expression matter.  Charlie Hebdo.

4.  Women's rights matter.  In Saudi Arabia, a woman has no rights.  

5.  87 People were publically beheaded in Mecca in 2014, the most holy ground of Islam.  You might reject comparisons to the Vatican, but that is your choice.  We both know why you reject it.  But don't label me as ignorant.

 

I'm sure you will dismiss all of the above, telling me that they are simply the rules of governments, regional issues only, or disowning those as "not real muslims" who do this kind of societal damage.  At least the Catholic Church accepted and apologized for the priests involved in the sex scandal.  After all, that's what a modern, progressive, responsible religion would do.  Would have been a lot easier to just say they're "not real Catholics" I guess.  Or just a product of the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Busch1724]

Not sure where to post this, but seemed like a place some discussion could be had. So I was catching up on the Trump Cabinet thread. Was going through the pages around 218-219 or so and the discussion turned to Dodd Frank. While reading it I had what some would probably think is a dumb idea, but makes sense to me at the moment...

 

So should we have two Congresses? One set of elected senators and representatives would be voted on for their financial policy and would include things like banking and environmental regulations along with tax policy. The other congress would be voted on for social issues. Basically double the size of Congress. My thought process is that it is impossible for a senator or representative to be an expert on both and those elected could be better put to use for their expertise for what they are knowledgeable. I realize lines are blurred since some issues like the environment and education are both social and economic, but equal representation on committees from economic and social representatives would be present to draft legislation involving both. 

 

Crazy idea I know...so poke fun at it and shoot holes in the idea. 

[s0crates]

@Busch1724 I think the idea of having two congresses is completely unworkable because it would involve rewriting the Constitution and a drastic restructuring of our government, but I do think you are on to something in distinguishing left-right economics and liberal-conservative social policy.

 

We had a conversation in this thread earlier this week about subdividing traditional left and right into libertarian and authoritarian subsets so there would be left-authoritarian, left-libertarian, right-authoritarian, and right-libertarian (where left-right is about the level of government regulation in economics, and libertarian-authoritarian is about the level of state power in other areas). I argued that both Democrats and Republicans are much more authoritarian than most of us. 

 

My own view is we need alternatives to the two major parties. This presents its own difficulties, because our government isn't really conducive to multi-party politics. So maybe instead we need two new parties or drastic changes in the two parties we have. As somebody who tends to lean left, for example, I would like to see the Dems embrace more New Deal economics and less identity politics. More importantly, I would like to see both parties move away from massive state power in the form of things like the war on drugs, obscenely high incarceration rates, warrantless domestic spying, and imperialist foreign policy.

[SkinsHokieFan]

2 hours ago, zoony said:

 

At the end of the day, you have the right to be a member of any religion you wish.

 

I have the right to think that your religion represents the absolute worst of humanity.  That is both of our rights as U.S. Citizens.  A right, I might add, that doesn't just make the West different from Muslim Nations, but fundamentally BETTER.  Big difference and an important distinction.

 

On to your claim of ignorance on my part.  By now I'm used to you lashing out should anyone dare say anything derogatory about your faith, but I reject your notion that I am ignorant.  My statement is that Islam runs completely counter to liberal ideals, and I stand by that.  I guess you're ultimately free to dismiss my view as ignorant, but again, I am far from ignorant on this subject.

 

 

1.  88% of Egyptian Muslims and 62% of Pakistani Muslims feel that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy.  This is 2017.  Let that sink in.

2.  You completely ignored my question on whether there could be a Broadway play called "The Book of Islam".  I understand why you ignored it.  You do too.  Bataclan.

3.  Freedom of Speech and Expression matter.  Charlie Hebdo.

4.  Women's rights matter.  In Saudi Arabia, a woman has no rights.  

5.  87 People were publically beheaded in Mecca in 2014, the most holy ground of Islam.  You might reject comparisons to the Vatican, but that is your choice.  We both know why you reject it.  But don't label me as ignorant.

 

I'm sure you will dismiss all of the above, telling me that they are simply the rules of governments, regional issues only, or disowning those as "not real muslims" who do this kind of societal damage.  At least the Catholic Church accepted and apologized for the priests involved in the sex scandal.  After all, that's what a modern, progressive, responsible religion would do.  Would have been a lot easier to just say they're "not real Catholics" I guess.  Or just a product of the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there you go again, missing the entire point, which is baffling because I think you are much more intelligent then this. At the end of the day you also  have a right to have the opinion you have, and I have the right to tear it apart piece by piece and demonstrate how wrong you are, and how ignorant it is . It is what makes America better then any other nation on earth. 

 

1) What you have done is assign to me, an American born and raised in this country, responsibility for the opinions and actions of people who live far away, are far less educated then I am and live in a completely different social order. I am not Egyptian. I have no influence on the Saudi Royal family. And I am Pakistani only in that I pray the same way, and can speak the language when I visit. I don't make you take responsibility for the opinions of Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump, nor do I make you take responsibility for nearly half of this country thinking climate change is some sort of hoax, and nor do I assign you responsibility for these jackasses http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58d4287818d94658ac52db51ddd94f36/backlash-greets-plans-muslim-cemeteries-across-us

 

2) Why can't there be a play called the "Book of Islam," on Broady which is the same in your face play that the "Book of Mormon" is. I ignored it because it is a stupid hypothetical that doesn't have anything to do with the fundamentals of dealing with an American citizen. However, we apparently can no longer have a mosque in the vicinity of Broadway http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque-201008

 

3) Freedom of speech does matter. I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo until the incident by a terrorist. I also see that Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, Sam Harris are all alive and well, doing interviews and able to speak their opinions on Islam (and make some damn good money also). 

 

4) Women's rights do matter. Somehow in Pakistan a woman was elected prime minister all the way back in 1988 and elected again in the mid 90s!! http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/06/09/meet-the-nine-muslim-women-who-have-ruled-nations/ 

I am certain you reviewed carefully all of the items I posted by respected Islamic scholars and mainstream Muslim organizations that agree that women's rights matter. I, along with 99.99% of Americans who are Muslim have nothing to do with nor any influence in the Saudi royal family and how they treat their women

 

5) Your comparision of Mecca to the Vatican is ignorant and completely conflates that discussion. Ordinary Catholics do have an influence in the actions of the Church, thanks to the hierarchy starting with laypeople, going to nuns, priests, bishops, archbishops, etc. Donations to the Church by laypeople matter. Ordinary Muslims, especially those in America, have very little influence on the actions of the Saudi Royal family, since bi-partisan consensus in America is to continue to keep funding them, keep giving them weapons and keep buying their oil. In fact the royal family has more leverage over us because one of the key tenents of Islam is visiting Mecca and they control it. If Muslims in America could influence the royal family, Mecca wouldn't have turned into Vegas with 5 star hotels https://qz.com/511115/its-time-to-take-mecca-out-of-saudi-hands/. 

 

6) I'll make sure it is very clear my argument. I am an American who follows the religion of Islam but has 0 influence on what my co-coreligionists do. I also think the Saudi royals are the biggest evil on earth, and have been since the British put them in power after WW1, and we have underwritten them since we found oil in the desert. The billions they have received from the west in $ has been put to spreading the most vile, disgusting interpretation of Islam and we see the results of that influence today. If one really wants to make a difference it is by not driving a gas powered car (me!) or taking public transportation. 

 

7) I think just like the 2017 version of the Republican party is vile and the antithesis of liberal ideas, in particular for women, young people, poor people, minorities or gays, it is what I think of the Saudi government. Islam and Muslims can fit just fine in America as most of us here have flourished while being Muslim. Not just flourished, but have completely kicked ass and are now doctors, entrepreneurs, lawyers, actors, comedians, athletes, members of the military and contribute to society. I would like to be able to just be an American without having to take responsibility for what the Saudi gov't does, what ignorant people in the villages of Pakistan think, or what atrocities terror organizations commit.

 

Muslims doctors

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/18/muslim-doctors-to-trump-fans-we-ll-treat-you-even-if-you-hate-us.html

 

Entrepreneurs (a good list, although Saban is Jewish)

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2017/01/29/muslim-immigrants-american-billionaires/#2c17131f36d7

 

Lawyers

 

http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/336/Dr-Azizah-al-Hibri-KARAMAH/

 

Muslims in the American military

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/muslims-us-military.html?_r=0

 

http://time.com/4432865/khan-muslim-american-soldiers-history/

 

 

 

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21651331-india-should-make-more-valuable-asset-abroad-worldwide-web

 

Now I do  hope you take the time to actually read everything I posted, including the backup articles and sources. And if you still don't understand why the argument you are making of comparing the actions of the Catholic church/Vatican to ISIS and Saudi Arabia is ignorant and why I took the time out on a Saturday to respond to it, PM me and I'll articulate it more.

 

[zoony]

Feel free to point out all the liberal, progressive Muslim states. 

 

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

6 minutes ago, zoony said:

Feel free to point out all the liberal, progressive Muslim states. 

 

 

 

Irrelevant. I only vote in America and now in North Carolina (which apparently isn't a liberal progressive state either)

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html

[zoony]

15 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

Irrelevant. I only vote in America and now in North Carolina (which apparently isn't a liberal progressive state either)

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html

 

When my point is that the two are irreconcilable then it is exceedingly relevant 

[SkinsHokieFan]

1 minute ago, zoony said:

 

When my point is that the two are irreconcilable then it is exceedingly relevant 

 

False. Your point ends up being that Muslims cannot be American because they follow a religion that cannot fit into the west. 

 

The real question is do you consider me to be American and others like me to be American?

 

If so, you wouldn't attempt to make me accountable for the decisions of the Saudi king or terrorist groups worldwide. And neither would Bill Maher or Sam Harris. We certainly don't attempt to hold Alex Ovechkin accountable for the actions of Putin 

[s0crates]

54 minutes ago, zoony said:

Feel free to point out all the liberal, progressive Muslim states. 

 

 

 

I'm no expert on history or Islam, but I've been told by several historians that the Ottoman Empire was tolerant and progressive for its time. If that's so, then it does suggest that Islam isn't necessarily incompatible with liberal values.

 

That said, I think I would have to grant you that most of the Islamic world today is very regressive, intolerant, and undemocratic. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

2 minutes ago, s0crates said:

 

I'm no expert on history, but I've been told by several historians that the Ottoman Empire was tolerant and progressive for its time. If that's so, then it does suggest that Islam isn't necessarily incompatible with liberal values.

 

The fundamental point is it does not matter if Islam is or isn't compatible with liberal values because this country is not nor will it ever have Islamic law

 

if we have problems with how Muslims think in Pakistan or Egypt or have issues with the Saudi govt that is their problem, not the problem of Americans who are Muslim, unless Muslims are not considered to be American 

[twa]

The critical point is those Americans wanting to be Americans.....despite our faults.

[Major Harris]

20 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

False. Your point ends up being that Muslims cannot be American because they follow a religion that cannot fit into the west. 

 

The real question is do you consider me to be American and others like me to be American?

 

If so, you wouldn't attempt to make me accountable for the decisions of the Saudi king or terrorist groups worldwide. And neither would Bill Maher or Sam Harris. We certainly don't attempt to hold Alex Ovechkin accountable for the actions of Putin 

 

 

Can you score 50 goals? 

[tshile]

@zoony is right if we were battling Christian extremism the left would suddenly lose its ability to differentiate between Christian extremists abusing a religious tool and just regular christians.

 

(I'm sure the right would suddenly gain such an ability)

 

Of course, you only really see that in africa these days I think, and they're as stuck in the past as the middle east.

[grego]

I think that what progressive Muslims are standing for today is excellent. These are the kinds of people western civilized society should be supporting in the fight against isis and the like. 

 

The only point of contention, where this gets muddled a bit, is, who is following what religious texts, and who is to say what religious texts a Muslim is supposed to follow? 

 

Ideas from religious texts that aren't exactly compatible with our present day values aren't uncommon. If we had, for example, a group of Jewish people who were stoning women for not being virgins on their wedding day, we would say 'maybe deuteronomy 22 is a bad idea'. We wouldn't have to wonder where this is coming from. Fortunately, this doesn't appear to be happening, so far as I'm aware. 

 

The four major schools of sunni Islamic jurisprudence (sunni Muslims make up 80 to 90% of Muslims) agree that apostasy is punishable by death. And they support this position by way of various hadith, the sayings and actions of the prophet. So, literally millions (there are about 1.5 billion sunnis) are being taught this doctrine. 

 

This is a problem. How we overcome it, I'm not sure. Judaism seems to have had a reformation. And obviously, there are many Muslims who do not follow these teaching. So there is hope. 

 

I think we need to do everything we can to empower the progressive liberal reformers, that's for certain. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

These things are cyclical to a degree. In 1788, you would be hard pressed to find a progressive, Catholic democracy.

 

For a large portion of the 20th Century, there were "modern" Muslim states. Turkey and Iran and particular spring to mind.

 

1979 radicalized the Islamic world to an alarming degree with two world-altering events. The West's solution to that problem was not support of "liberal" or "democratic" reforms but 1) the unyielding support of strongman dictators in the Arab world combined with 2) arms, training, and support of radical insurgents in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

[mcsluggo]

On 2/4/2017 at 7:55 PM, zoony said:

Feel free to point out all the liberal, progressive Muslim states. 

 

 

 

welcome to the wonderful world of Bali

[skinny21]

^ reminds me of the survey question "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

 

Seems like stability (and $ from arms sales) has too often outweighed the desire to advance more moderate (or progressive) parties.  Of course, I'm not sure anything beyond vocal support for free elections is wise... though humanitarian crises/abuse should be taken into account. 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

These things are cyclical to a degree. In 1788, you would be hard pressed to find a progressive, Catholic democracy.

 

For a large portion of the 20th Century, there were "modern" Muslim states. Turkey and Iran and particular spring to mind.

 

1979 radicalized the Islamic world to an alarming degree with two world-altering events. The West's solution to that problem was not support of "liberal" or "democratic" reforms but 1) the unyielding support of strongman dictators in the Arab world combined with 2) arms, training, and support of radical insurgents in Afghanistan.

 

You're absolutely right, but I don't know if cyclical is the right word because it would suggest that there is more of an unbroken continuum of human civilizations in regions than I think really exists.  There are population, institutional, and cultural replacements that happen to the extent that I think you almost have to acknowledge that a discrete civilization gets born.  Turkey is a good example of a place where civilizations have basically risen and fallen and been changed by the arrival of new peoples before the original people cycled back around from hard times to prosperity, peacefulness, and openness.

 

Anyway, that's pedantry.  It is absolutely true that there is nothing inherently incompatible between Islam and liberalism and progressive thought. For half the history of the religion, the Islamic world was the peaceful, hegemonic, tolerant, and enlightened world.  And you're right in linking the rise in fundamentalist Islamic regimes in Southwest Asia to the post-colonial policies of American and European powers.  They've had a near constant destabilizing role in the region since the decline of the Ottomans.  Political instability and colonial exploitation breeds poverty and stifles development which breeds religious fundamentalism and conflict.  Especially in a heavily interconnected world where even people in very poor nations can have a global reach.

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

These things are cyclical to a degree. In 1788, you would be hard pressed to find a progressive, Catholic democracy.

 

Careful now with the cyclical thing. You'll sounding like Steve Bannon and his Fourth Turning/saecula nonsense if you keep it up. Ha.