Philosophical Vegan Forum

I almost thought it would be a good video by Atheism-is-Unstoppable. But after some minutes, he clearly went of the rail by stating 'moderates' don't understand their own religion. This idea that only Muslims that have the same literal interpretation as these atheists (which is I'm sorry to say, also quite cherry-picked) is not only misleading about how religion is practiced by millions of people (Islam and other religions), but works counterproductive to goals like getting more Muslims (especially young marginalized people) to get moderate.

To address an actual example that is expressed in this video, lets take the wish from the 'real' Muslims for a world-wide caliphate. If you've actually studied the history of the Arab world for a bit (just some basic stuff), you know that it has gone through some real good times. When the Ottoman Empire (the last great caliphate lasting for centuries) slowly degraded and finally collapsed at the end of the first World War, and the British and French took control of the area this had a great impact on the people. It is organizations like Islamic State that are trying to recreate a feeling of hope of recreating a great Caliphate after decades of territorial control, wars and humiliation. Of course this ideal isn't going to be reality, though many youngsters from the west are fooled by it. It's rarely been talked about, but the Islamic State is in fact heavily involved and educated in their regional politics and history. This is much more a territorial and geopolitical struggle with a religious ideal/wrapping than the other way around. It is this sentiment which leads some to want a world-wide caliphate (it's a bit similar to Trump and his slogan 'make America great again', but then without already having achieved the position of being the words biggest economic and military power). World dominance isn't on the agenda of most Muslims though, who are at peace with their country regarding their religious desires as long as they are able to practice their believe without state obstacles (like the Quran actually says they should).

Another aspect of the video goes into poll results. Although the views of Muslims in some of the polls are indeed worrisome, the fact that so many people are in favor sharia law means something completely different to Muslims than how westerners generally think about it (who are just taking all the bads from it and are propagating that the Muslims that are supportive of sharia law also want this, which is sometimes, but generally isn't the case). Even those fundamentalists with bad ideas are mostly interested in living a good Muslim live, not necessarily in forcing others into believing the same thing themselves. Some certainly do, but there is some nuanced side notes to be made about how to read those polls (just like there has to be made side notes in the case of U.S. public opinion on the issue of burning their flag).

Nuance is important in these discussions, so I don't quite like his dismissive tone. Later on he tries to differentiate some types of Muslims and saying he's against them all because Islam is supposedly inherently wicked (a.k.a. literalist interpretation; still holding on to it, no matter what), but to different degrees, to show how 'nuanced' he is. Well congratulations, you are an actual bigot then. Unless you are not seriously interested in a fruitful discussion discovering real differences of opinion (I'm not saying these more hardheaded new atheists are the only ones to blame on that point though), it's not helpful to criticize people for asking for nuance. That's why I generally don't have that much problems with Sam Harris, because he's actually willing to get into more depth which shows many nuance. I see a growing (?) problem with his fans though. It's generally a good indication when you hear them use these new, now quite popular snarl word 'regressive left'. Although sometimes it might actually be appropriate, I see it more times used to dismiss criticism with actual elements of truth in it. It's seldom, if ever, the case someone is defending Islamism, and if they care about Islamophobia it's generally not because they don't care for women and gays in the Muslim community.

It might be controversial to post this, since the new atheist community seems to have achieved a consensus on what to think about Islam, but whatever.

Volenta wrote:But after some minutes, he clearly went of the rail by stating 'moderates' don't understand their own religion.

I would say that's fair, but it's also true that extremists don't understand their own religion. Nobody understands Islam because Islam doesn't make any sense. Even being less contradictory than Christianity, it's still full of contradictions and logical potholes.

Volenta wrote:works counterproductive to goals like getting more Muslims (especially young marginalized people) to get moderate.

This is an important point. If we're going to certify any version of Islam as the "correct" version, it might as well be a moderate version. It's all nonsense, so there's no reason we can't make it up as we go along, and choose answers that are at least tolerant of modern civilization. Consensus on religious matters becomes truth, not the other way around (unfortunately).

The trouble between the two sides, I think, is that nobody is really willing to say this. And those advocating moderate Islam can't say this because if they do, it sort of defeats the strength of their argument that it's the correct version.

Volenta wrote:Although the views of Muslims in some of the polls are indeed worrisome, the fact that so many people are in favor sharia law means something completely different to Muslims than how westerners generally think about it (who are just taking all the bads from it and are propagating that the Muslims that are supportive of sharia law also want this, which is sometimes, but generally isn't the case).

Right, I talked about this in another thread something like a year ago. Chances are if we compared modern Muslims to those even fifty years ago, we'd see an enormous and positive change in some of those aspects -- like wanting death for apostates, etc.

The problem is that the SJW-inclined leftist media isn't really engaging properly with critics to explain this. As mentioned above, they kind of can't if they want to maintain this argument of the proper interpretation being one of peace.
Unfortunately, the responses tend to be nothing more than rhetoric.

It's liberal Muslims, I think, and not SJW-style white secular defenders of Islam, that need to come to the forefront to engage in this discussion in defending Islam.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I would say that's fair, but it's also true that extremists don't understand their own religion. Nobody understands Islam because Islam doesn't make any sense. Even being less contradictory than Christianity, it's still full of contradictions and logical potholes.

I think that is indeed correct if you're talking in the field of philosophy of religion, but essentially the point is to look at it from a religious anthropological and sociological perspective. How it is practiced in reality is ultimately what matters most, since that's where the actions (having consequences) take place. Religion is a much more complex phenomenon then just holding beliefs about the world and metaphysical reality (that's why trying to define 'religion' is really hard to do). It's also about culture, rituals, activities, community, about being a 'good' and complete human being, and so on. And that's my point: if a Muslim holds a non-literal interpretation, just thinks the same as his imam told him, or maybe hasn't even really thought about it, does that mean he doesn't understand his own religion? I don't think so.

The irony is that many of these youngsters traveling to the middle east to join Islamic State were recent converts and/or weren't regular visitors at their local mosques, but generally not committed to Islam at all before getting involved in jihadi networks (mostly on the internet). And yet, they are supposed to already understand 'their religion' better than their parents who've practiced it for years and don't want anything to do with Islamic State?

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is an important point. If we're going to certify any version of Islam as the "correct" version, it might as well be a moderate version. It's all nonsense, so there's no reason we can't make it up as we go along, and choose answers that are at least tolerant of modern civilization. Consensus on religious matters becomes truth, not the other way around (unfortunately).

The trouble between the two sides, I think, is that nobody is really willing to say this. And those advocating moderate Islam can't say this because if they do, it sort of defeats the strength of their argument that it's the correct version.

It's not about certifying any version as correct, it is about recognizing it's not a monolithic entity. It means different things to different people. My criticism is about saying that the literalists have the better one (which is a certification).

brimstoneSalad wrote:The problem is that the SJW-inclined leftist media isn't really engaging properly with critics to explain this. As mentioned above, they kind of can't if they want to maintain this argument of the proper interpretation being one of peace.
Unfortunately, the responses tend to be nothing more than rhetoric.

Oh, but that's definitely also a problem. I'm not siding with them either.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's liberal Muslims, I think, and not SJW-style white secular defenders of Islam, that need to come to the forefront to engage in this discussion in defending Islam.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I've two notes to make.

It's first of all the mainstream media that is failing to bring liberals or otherwise moderates to the forefront. This is maybe even more the case in periods of terrorist strikes on the west where any critical analysis seems to be absent. There is also the problem that people are not educated on Islam in the west (education about other religions falls short as well by the way), and many do not have connections with Muslims to know what really drive them through life. There are some channels and TV shows that are actually bringing the moderate perspective, but they are seldom being watched (maybe because they lack sensationalism, I don't really know).

The other thing is that I do think that some 'Islam critics' are going too far in the other direction (like Atheism-is-Unstoppable), passing beyond valid criticisms. If the only ones calling out those people are these 'SJW-style' people, it will probably only fuel people to take more black and white positions on these subjects. This is also a problem not to be underestimated, in a time where demagogues like Trump are popular. That's why I take great issue with Sam Harris for his statement on Ben Carson (yes, in full context).