Why is Islam Backward?

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward.  Western societies are more liberal and progressive now than in the middle ages but that's not because we have different scriptures - the injunction to stone anyone working on the sabbath is still in our holy book - but it's because we have found ways to get around the awkward bits.  Except of course when it serves our purpose not to ignore it, such as when we want to burn witches or condemn homosexuals - then the validity ofhe old scriptures is re-invoked!  

But in the islamic world a narrow, fundamentalistic attitude to scripture developed centuries ago is still going strong, and (some would contend) only getting stronger, to the detriment of everbody (especially Muslims)

I have located what I think is an excellent article examing the historical and contemporary forces that have shaped islamic culture.   I won't attempt to paraphrase it - I dont think it is over-long.

#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?




Western societies are more liberal and progressive now than in the middle ages but that's not because we have different scriptures - the injunction to stone anyone working on the sabbath is still in our holy book - but it's because we have found ways to get around the awkward bits. 

But that is not true is it. The teaching in the Christian New Testament for instance is entirely different. Tell me;  what does the Christ of the New Testament say about stoning?


Except of course when it serves our purpose not to ignore it, such as when we want to burn witches or condemn homosexuals - then the validity of the old scriptures is re-invoked!  
 
Lets see, The last person to be executed for witchcraft was way back in 1684, when Alice Molland was hanged in Exeter. I think it was even earlier in Scotland. The last person to be executed for sodomy was way back 1835 that two men called James Pratt and John Smith at Newgate Prison. What is your point? And I believe Islam is still today waging a war against witchcraft among other things and stoning, hanging and burning homsexuals.



But in the islamic world a narrow, fundamentalistic attitude to scripture developed centuries ago is still going strong, and (some would contend) only getting stronger, to the detriment of everbody  (especially Muslims)

And anyone that gets in its way of late, Such as Infidels, Pagans, Jews and Christian, simply anyone who isn't muslim.

I have located what I think is an excellent article examing the historical and contemporary forces that have shaped islamic culture.   I won't attempt to paraphrase it - I dont think it is over-long.

I will read it when I have more time, but it is interesting that Raza Rumi opens his peace with this:



 "The rise of global Islamism in the form of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) will pose a major challenge to the security of both Western and Muslim-majority nations for years to come". 

This is indicating that the Islamic threat is not a flash in the pan as much as you would like and want us all to believe prosser. Also notice that, just like you prosser, he loves using that playdown word, "Islamist" a lot as if these "Islamists " have nothing to do with Islam.

Tell me, prosser, in your own words; Why do these "islamists" claim that they represent Islam in its most pure, truest form. What makes them believe they do? Where do they get the idea that they are the true representatives of Islam?
Topic's author
#3
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Tell me;  what does the Christ of the New Testament say about stoning?
John 8:7
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

Now does that apply to all stoning cases or just adultery?  Does it apply only for a first offence (she is told to 'sin no more')?.
It can mean any of those and no doubt more besides.  There is no 'correct' interpretation of scripture; there are only competing interpretations and often which interpretation comes dominates is no more than a historical accident.

i'd like this thread to be about the causes and consequences of conservativism in islam, not comparative religion.







#4
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@keithprosser
The short answer is that Islam has yet to adopt the core values of the Enlightenment.
Topic's author
#5
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
The short answer is that Islam has yet to adopt the core values of the Enlightenment.
The church tried to hold back the Enlightenment in Europe but ultimately failed.  I think that religious conservatism stamped out the equivalent in Arabia as early as the C10.  Up to then free thought and philosophy flourished with men like Avicenna and al-Biruni.   Then came al-Ghazali who wrote 'the incoherence of the philopsophers' and othodoxy - not reason -  came to dominate.

Topic's author
#6
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
@Stephen
An interesting idea i came across is that one reason (there is rarely one simple reason for things!) that the enlightenment succeded in Europe but not in Muslim lands was printing - or rather the lack of it in the latter.  

"In 1515 the Ottoman Sultan Selim I, persuaded by the influential clerics of the realm, issued a decree that imposed death penalty on anyone using a printing press, invented in Germany in 1455, to print books in Turkish or Arabic. The ban remained in force for the next 270 years, till 1784, except for an attempt to circumvent the ban in 1729. Thus, it was only after 1784 that the technology of printing could filter to the rest of the Middle East. Even so it was not till 1817 (362 years after the invention of printing) that the first book was printed in Iran. In Europe, however, the printing press had come into extensive use in by the end of the 15th century and is recognized as a powerful engine of the Reformation and the making of the modern Europe."


#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

one reason  that the enlightenment succeded in Europe but not in Muslim lands was printing - or rather the lack of it in the latter.   
 That and education. Didn't muslims destroy any printing presses that came into their lands? And didn't they exile or execute all their learned arab men, such as philosophers, mathematicians and astronomers alchemists and scientist and slaughter those  they came across in exile in Europe?

Tell me;  what does the Christ of the New Testament say about stoning?
John 8:7 
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"Now does that apply to all stoning cases or just adultery?
Now is all you have to do to answer that question is show us all and yourself,  where in the bible does the Christ god of Christians order the stoning of anyone?


  Does it apply only for a first offence (she is told to 'sin no more')?.
Irrelevant. But it is obvious you don't know. and there is absolutely no mention in the New Testament.

It can mean any of those and no doubt more besides. 

Where's your evidence? let us see it.

There is no 'correct' interpretation of scripture;
Which scripture are you talking about.


not comparative religion.

You brought in the comparison, by making statements such as "  Western societies are more liberal and progressive now than in the middle ages but that's not because we have different scriptures" etc etc.  What did you expect, people just to accept what you say without question?

 I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?

Tell me, prosser, in your own words; Why do these "islamists" claim that they represent Islam in its most pure, truest form. What makes them believe they do? Where do they get the idea that they are the true representatives of Islam?


Topic's author
#8
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Where do they get the idea that they are the true representatives of Islam?
A question can be a sincere request for information, but I suspect that isn't the case here!   It would save time if you simply stated the point you want to make.

Topic's author
#9
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
where in the bible does the Christ god of Christians order the stoning of anyone?
Where does he forbid stoning for anything bar adulterous women?   It's a matter of interpretation.  I'd like to think Jesus was against, say, stoning blasphemers, but it's not explicit in the text he was. 

if scholar A says the verse applies to adulteresses only and scholar B says its applies for all previously stonable offences who is right?   That is how religious wars hsppen!

#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
where in the bible does the Christ god of Christians order the stoning of anyone?
Where does he forbid stoning for anything bar adulterous women?  

That is what I asked you. So You are going to answer questions with  questions of your own. Pathetic. 


I'd like to think Jesus was against, say, stoning blasphemers, but it's not explicit in the text he was.  
 
So you're going to imagine it is there but cannot find it. I see. Well let me tell,you won't find it there. So let's move on.

if scholar A says the verse applies to adulteresses only
scholarA  would have to offer evidence for his conclusion, something you are simply  incapable of doing.
 
and scholar B says its appliesfor all previously stonable offences who is right? 
 
scholar A  would require from scholar B  evidence for his conclusion,something you are simply incapable of doing.
Like I Require evidence from you but you have come up empty handed so far and offered only a hypothetical.
 
It is not in the scripture that Christians read. And that is your only answer. so stop scraping the hypothetical barrel. It is empty. So let's move on.... to your link. 

#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
From your link.
“Islamism’s menace to Muslims, however, has been compounded by the weakened state of critical thinking within Islamic religious and political traditions”.https://www.hudson.org/research/11172-the-prospects-for-reform-in-islam  
Do you see that, prosser? “critical thinking”he says. That would mean the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement. Yes “critical thinking” ,which is stifled by left wing apologists such as yourself who won’t have word said against Islam.  
 
I notice too that he mentions that the “requirements of a changing world have been sidestepped”. Yet you simply try to ignore this by continually bringing up the Old Testament as if it hasn’t change and its laws and dictates are still practiced to this day in the Jewish and Christian worlds as are those laws and dictates of islam still are practiced and adhered to.  They are not still practiced by jews and Christians, they have moved on. And this is why I keep telling you, that you can throw as many OT verses at me as you like and all day long but they are irrelevant! You do this as if it somehow gives ‘balances‘ to the violence proscribed in the Quran, it doesn’t because one has moved on and the other has no intention of moving on.

Topic's author
#12
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
because one has moved on and the other has no intention of moving on.
A religion is an abstract - how can a religion have an 'intention'?   Did Christianity intend to reform and move on?  What are Christianity's intentions for the future?

The reason Islam 'has no intention of moving on' is that at this point in history there are many people who don't want it to move on, and even want it to turn further back.  Religions both shape and are shaped by history.

Who knows!  I predict that in 200 years the US will be a Evangelical, fundamentlist theocracy and the Middle East a thriving Islamic democracy.   If I'm wrong you I'll owe you 100 dollars - in 2219.



#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
because one has moved on and the other has no intention of moving on.
A religion is an abstract - how can a religion have an 'intention'?  
And now your just being a nob. You know exactly what I mean when I say islam hasn't moved on. So I will spell it out MUSLIMS will not reform islam or allow it to move on as per. “requirements of a changing world ”. and another reason muslims won't allow this is muslims because it is the last religion and the final word of allah.
Did Christianity intend to reform and move on?  What are Christianity's intentions for the future?

So we're back to Christians and what they did or didn't do. You simply are not taking into consideration the C_I_V_I_L_I_S_A_T_I_O_N of peoples are you?

The reason Islam 'has no intention of moving on' is that at this point in history there are many people who don't want it to move on,who don't want it to move on,

Yes I know, There are many aren't there? And they are Muslims aren't they? And the reason they don't want ISLAM to move on is because the many muslims you mention  believe that the quran is that last and altimate unalterable word of Allah.

 and even want it to turn further back. 

Yes I know that to. I keep telling you that but you put that down to the wishes of the minority muslims,. When in truth it is "many". So tell me something I don't know instead of avoiding my questions,


Who knows.....I predict that in 200 years the US will be a Evangelical,

Irrelevant to today though is it.. Stop being silly, you're showing signs of being on the back foot already and we are only on page one. .

Religions both shape and are shaped by history.

If allowed to, yes  and the wish or need and will is there. Which it isn't according to "many muslims" and the Sultan of Brunei,  is it? 
#14
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Have you not heard of YHWH the god of christians? He ordered the murder of thousands, well he did if you believe the book written by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages he did.
I know that it is mostly fiction so I take no notice, I leave that to those with mental health problems.
Topic's author
#15
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You simply are not taking into consideration the C_I_V_I_L_I_S_A_T_I_O_N of peoples are you?
That's true.  If you tell me what it refer to and how factor it in I will try 'taking into consideration'.

#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Have you not heard of YHWH the god of christians?

Are you going to continue in this vein of disrupting someone else's thread. This is supposed to be a thread about Islam and why it is " backward" according to the OP. Or are you just going to troll it without a single piece of substance. I don't mind , it is not my thread so fill your boots and  troll away, you don't need my permission.  But it is extremely rude and unnecessary when someone is trying their damned to have a discussion on "why Islam is backward", or did you not read the title of the thread? Of course you didn't. 

If I would have started a thread with such a title both you AND prosser would be on me like  flies to shite calling me a  "racist bigot" and of being    "islamophobic".

But if you wish to keep interrupting someone else's serious thread for the sake of it,  then tell me,  you hate preaching hypocrite:  is keithprosser not a "islamophobe" for even suggesting "Islam is backward"?  In your own time my son.

#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
That's true.  If you tell me what it refer to and how factor it in I will try 'taking into consideration'.

More questions but never an answer. I would just love to believe there are many members here watching you dodge and twist and evade questions concerning your own statements and links.

Let's go back to my original question after you OP


I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?


Topic's author
#18
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You simply are not taking into consideration the C_I_V_I_L_I_S_A_T_I_O_N of peoples are you?
That's true.  If you tell me what it refer to and how factor it in I will try 'taking into consideration'.

I asked because seemed that you are saying Christians are 'civilised' and Muslims are 'primitive' or 'savages'.   I wanted you to correct, clarify or expand on that. 

Topic's author
#19
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
If I would have started a thread with such a title both you AND prosser would be on me like  flies to shite calling me a  "racist bigot" and of being    "islamophobic".
I was going to title it 'is wahhabism backward' or 'is salafism backward' but the linked article used 'Islam' in its title so in the end  I did too.


I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?
I think all religions are backward if that they are based on the silly notion of gods and divine revelations. 

#20
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen

Are you going to continue in this vein of disrupting someone else's thread.

Nah! I'm just asking you questions you can't answer.
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I was going to title it 'is wahhabism backward' or 'is salafism backward' but the linked article used 'Islam' in its title so in the end  I did too.

Oh, that's ok then, As long as it wasn't me, of course. At least the author recognises it as all being Islam. unlike you who talks of "forms" of islam and then never explains  these "forms"  to somehow waterdown the violence in the quran.



I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?
I think all religions are backward if that they are based on the silly notion of gods and divine revelations.  

I didn't ask you what you think about all religions though, did I?  What's the matter with you?  you are stuttering and stumbling and answering questions that i didn't ask,   AGAIN!


I have  asked you,  does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" also and don't know or understand what they are following?  Its a simple question that has sprang from your own statement.  have you forgot what it is you wrote, keith? here  is your statement again again:

I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 

Topic's author
#22
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
So i'm saying all religions are backward...  you asked

Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?
i could (should?) have said 'no' at that point, because I don't think adherents of a religion are 'backward', given that is generally taken to mean 'has learning difficulties'!  But alas what I wrote was what I meant by a 'backward religion', ie 

I think all religions are backward if that they are based on the silly notion of gods and divine revelations. 
However, it is hardly a secret that there are features of Islam which are (or appear) outdated - even barbaric - when viewed from the perspective of a 21st century westerner.  Islam is backward. I don't think a society in which religion plays a major role can ever be as good as a secular democracy.  But does Islam have to be as bad as it is in Saudi Arabia?  Are there benign forms of Islam, or at least less toxic ones?
I think the answer is yes. 

Given that we can't magic Islam from the planet, what are the prospects for the future?

Those are some of the issues I'd like to explore in this thread. 

 
#23
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
There is nothing backwards about Orthodoxy. When western Europe was in the dark ages, the sciences flourished in the east. It wasn't until after the west called their 4th crusade and looted the Orthodox Churches of artwork, relics, and books of knowledge that they managed to climb out of the dark ages and into the so callled "renaissance". Even then, Christendom in the west was perverse for a long time leading up to that, and it is no surprise considering Roman Catholicism is a schismatic church that broke away from Orthodoxy, and that is where all of Christianity in the west comes from. 

Your appeal to our scriptures is misguided because it is our book, and the way we use it is the proper way, not the way you do. If you want to know how we use it, you are welcome to become a catechuman and be educated in the faith.


Islam is fundamentally backward because of how intolerant it is to anything that contradicts it. It also makes evangelizing Muslims very difficult. It wouldn't be a big deal if subjugation of the entire world wasn't built into Islam.

Orthodoxy has long understood Islam as being composed of beliefs long since deemed heretical, or contrary to the faith that was handed down by the church by the apostlles and through the bishpps.
Topic's author
#24
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You've said all that before and it's not relevant to the topic.

Oh, and welcome back.
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
It certainly is relevent. As I said, Islam is intolerant and subjugation of the Earth is built into it.

But if my religion is as unenlightened as you expect to claim while rejcting rebuke, how can it be written..

"God hath granted me to speak as I would, and to conceive as is meet for the things that are given me: because it is he that leadeth unto wisdom, and directeth the wise.
For in his hand are both we and our words; all wisdom also, and knowledge of workmanship.
For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:
The circuits of years, and the positions of stars:
The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots:
And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know."

Obviously the issue here, at least as it pertain to my faith is that you don't speak from a position of knowledge.

Here is an interesting read that is somewhat related to this subject. As you can see, even in the 12th century Muslims were not very tolerant towards contradictions to their faith. The Orthodox monk in this account only spoke because the prince promised that he would remain unharmed.



#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 
So i'm saying all religions are backward...  you asked

Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?
i could (should?) have said 'no' at that point, because I don't think adherents of a religion are 'backward', given that is generally taken to mean 'has learning difficulties'!  But alas what I wrote was what I meant by a 'backward religion', ie  


Generally means "'has learning difficulties'". yes it does.   But you trying to take your own statement out of context isn't working so stop being sly and deceitful. Ok you also recognise that of the 1,5 BILLION muslims in the world , not all of them would have learning difficulties.
Are you saying those educated muslims are backward because they follow a "backward religion" of Islam? 


I think all religions are backward if that they are based on the silly notion of gods and divine revelations.  
Yes you keep saying this as if it waters down what you have wrote. But you have specifically started a thread where you have called  and singled out "ISLAM" as "a backward religion".


However, it is hardly a secret that there are features of Islam which are (or appear) outdated - even barbaric - when viewed from the perspective of a 21st century westerner.

So you can refer to "parts" of islam as being "barbaric " but for some fkn extremely odd reason  you stamp your feet in protest when I use the word. Double standards..  

when viewed from the perspective of a 21st century westerner.

And what about from the 21st century perspective of say an Afghani imam of the Taliban ?

 Islam is backward.

Does Islam belong in the west seeing that you consider Islam to" backward"?

I don't think a society in which religion plays a major role can ever be as good as a secular democracy. 

So this "backward religion Islam" does not belong in the West, then? 

Are there benign forms of Islam, or at least less toxic ones?I think the answer is yes.  
But all are Isalm.  Ok what are the other ones? describe a "non toxic" one.

Given that we can't magic Islam from the planet, what are the prospects for the future?

No we can't magic it away,  but Islam,  in my opinion, is more than welcome to the part of the planet that it originated. I don't believe it belongs in or is compatible with, the West & western society or civilisation. I honestly believe we are heading not for a clash of cultures but a clash of civilisations.

Those are some of the issues I'd like to explore in this thread. 

So let's  explore some of what you have raised and that I have responded to. And let's also hope your thread doesn't get hijacked and derailed simply for the sake of it. 
Over to you?

Topic's author
#27
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Well I think you tried to derail it with making a mountain out what 'backward' meant when what is hardly central.

It seems we have some common ground - neither of want to see the west dominated by theocratic Islam! 

Where we differ - correct me if i am wrong - is that you want to see no Islam in the west and whatever they like in Arabia.  My ideal is close to a 'tame' form of Islam everywhere, as I see no prospect of eradicating religion in the foreseeable future.



#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
Well I think you tried to derail it with making a mountain out what 'backward' meant when what is hardly central.

Well you are are wrong. It was a genuine question that to my mind would follow the accusation of "Islam being backward" because over a billion of people follow Islam. . And you still haven't answered the question, your dodging it.  Why?


It seems we have some common ground - neither of want to see the west dominated by theocratic Islam!  

Given what I know about Islam and many of those who  follow it,  I wouldn't allow it here at all. But I am not stupid enough to say it can be banned. You on the other hand are sitting on the fence and refusing to answer questions . I asked you, do you believe islam, the religion you have said is "backward" belongs in the West?  You have ignored that question and others besides, yet you want dialogue. It is hardly a case of "exploring " if you dodge and clam up and ignore when anyone poses you a question concerning your own fkn statements, is it?


Where we differ - correct me if i am wrong - is that you want to see no Islam in the west and whatever they like in Arabia.
You are correct, but I understand that it is an impossibility, it is, as you have made extremely clear, "here and isn't going anywhere with more to come".   I also know I have to tolerate the situation, but you want me to accept it . Just as I  know and understand that Islam cannot be reformed or changed and this is dangerous and makes it incompatible with the West.

My ideal is close to a 'tame' form of Islam everywhere,

Nice ideal, "Tame", strange use of a word in this context, it implies the "form" we have to tolerate is not tame.


as I see no prospect of eradicating religion in the foreseeable future.

No, I don't believe religion can be "eradicated " as the Romans discovered.

#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,671
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I was going to title it 'is wahhabism backward' or 'is salafism backward' but the linked article used 'Islam' in its title so in the end  I did too.
 
Raza Rumi has actually titled his piece:

The Prospects For Reform in Islam.

He says; in bold:
“Muslims do in fact have a substantial body of both historical as well as contemporary thinking that they can draw upon to help improve their political and social structures and create more just, inclusive societies”. 

But  Rumi - underlined -  fails to tell us why it is that they do not "draw upon" this historical & contemporary literature & knowledge?  . Could it be that the so called “islamists’ are following the Quran to the letter and simply refuse to “draw upon” anything that appears to contradict the Islamic book and Hadith? Or Simply because they believe, as he says “the view propagated by Islamists of all varieties is that Sharia law is “divinely ordained” ?

 He goes on to say  islam/Shariah" cannot be questioned. Sharia, therefore, must be understood literally, and Islamists are driven by their belief that the Sharia represents a comprehensive political and belief system".
 

If this is the case, then this does go someway to supporting what I have said above. Islam will not and cannot  reform because it is believed to be the last and final word of Allah,

It is quite difficult to take quotes from this piece and comment on them . It leaves far to much room for misunderstanding. The best way to give your link the critique it deserves is for you to C&P the whom text and for you to interject your comments, opinions and thoughts as and when, on what seem an interesting piece.

I can then comment on what you have picked out to comment on. it is your link and your thread after all. This shouldn't leave too much room for accusations of taking Rumi "out of context".

Of course, this would all depend on how serious you are about "exploring" this "backward religion".

Topic's author
#30
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Nice ideal, "Tame", strange use of a word in this context, it implies the "form" we have to tolerate is not tame.
It's been hard to find a word you don't immediately bristle at!

I have a deep and abiding loathing for theocracy.  Religion as a private matter I have only a little animosity for, but history and the example of the Muslim world shows that theocracy leads to cultural and intellectual stagnation and decline.  If I was in the US i'd probably be more concerned with the rise of the 'religious right' than with Islam, but in the UK and worldwide it is clear that the only realistic contender for theocracy is Islamic.

You may or may not be old enough to remember the dark days of the '70s and Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech.  I was mixing it with NF skinheads in those days.   So in away we have been here before, but of course the present situation is not the same in many ways as you are no doubt itching to point out!  But what is the same is the potential for firebrands on both sides to escalate things to the level of a low-intensity civil war.   What happens is that the extremes co-opt their moderates..  A moderate who isn't 'for' their extremists is considered 'against' them.  Moderates become enemies of one side and traitors to the other.  Squeezed from both sides, the centre disappears.
 
Familiar recent examples are Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Rwanda. 

As I said earlier, you will be itching to say how much it's different this time from the race-based issues of decades ago. You bet it is!  The problem is how to avoid civil strife without capitulating to the theocrats.  I think we have no choice but to be very clever in how we promote moderate - or tame! - forms of islam (which do exist) and make extreme forms unattractive.

I'm not a political scientist (obviously!) and I haven't pre-prepared a spiel so this post is very much a ramble, not a thought out manifesto.