|
But the Ulema can't.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
Which is why there are no Christian churches that sanction gay marriages, seeing as homosex is similarly condemned by normative Pauline Christianity
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
In the Bible. Which plays a distinctly different role in Christianity than the Koran does in Islam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Once again, normative, Pauline, Nicene Christianity is not the same thing as the Bible. I'm not saying the Bible condemns homosex. I'm saying normative, Pauline, Nicene Christianity condemns homosex. What the Bible says is irrelevant. So it is an exactly comparable situation, because both normative Christianity and normative Islam condemn homosex. Do you understand?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So does destabilizing the region by toppling any government that's too "Traditionalist Islam" further that organic process? Does setting up authoritarian institutions to oppose "Traditionalist Islam" help? An unqualified 'Yes' to the first question, and a 'Maybe' to the second. The reason I think this is because Islam, of whatever variety, has historically (and especially in the 20th century) leaned very heavily on authoritarian institutions to support and justify itself. Compared to Christianity, it seems to have an incredibly underdeveloped intellectual tradition of apologetics or reconciliation with modern values. On a philosophical level, Islam (specifically, the Qur'an) has virtually no arguments to deploy except for the argument from authority, on which it bases absolutely loving everything. Every time I've talked with Muslims online or in person, the only explanation I have ever gotten as to why I should adopt their faith is "Because the Koran says so, which means God said so, because I say so." If you reject that axiom, they write you off pretty much immediately. Conversely, even the most over-emotional Christians trying to convert me back in high school could muster better arguments than that. Without the argument from authority to resort to, Islam is bankrupt. Without the club of the religious courts and the clenched fist of the abusive father beating acceptance into children, Islam won't even last one generation unless it backs way the gently caress off in terms of its political and lifestyle prescriptions. Abner Cadaver II posted:
Just because the religion is inherently anti-modern doesn't mean that it will always succeed at preventing outside intellectual forces from liberalizing a society. Islamic majorities in a democracy won't naturally create a less liberal and less tolerant society so long as the citizens of that democracy have higher priorities than ensuring every possible tenet of Islam is enforced. If enforcement of Islamic law is the primary stated purpose of a government, even one that claims to be democratic, it will always become an oppressive monstrosity. Abner Cadaver II posted:Why do you think "Traditionalist Islam" can't survive without authoritarian institutions propping it up if Islam is inherently anti-modern/anti-liberal? Firstly, the government is not the only authoritarian institution of concern. Tribal communities and mob justice are just as great an obstacle to the secularization of the Arab world as de jure Sharia. Much like the KKK and racist-owned businesses in the U.S. during the late 20th century, authoritarian institutions of law-enforcement must be deployed against non-governmental institutions and individuals if any progress is to be made in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Once again, normative, Pauline, Nicene Christianity is not the same thing as the Bible. I'm not saying the Bible condemns homosex. I'm saying normative, Pauline, Nicene Christianity condemns homosex. What the Bible says is irrelevant. So it is an exactly comparable situation, because both normative Christianity and normative Islam condemn homosex. Do you understand? That Nicene Christianity exists as a separate entity from the bible is the entire point. Nicene Christianity is not the only Christianity nor is it the only conceivable Christianity. Islam with a fallible Koran is inconceivable- it undermines every conceivable narrative of the religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Like, how do you spin an imperfect Koran into Islamic doctrine? Christians can just say 'Paul was wrong' and its really no big deal. What similar handwaving can Muslims pull off? That Muhammed interpreted the intentions of God incorrectly? That the Holy Koran was corrupted in its infancy? It could happen I suppose, but it will require a massive overhaul in dogma. Sure, followers now can just ignore whatever they want but people actually do like their religious narratives to be coherent enough to pass the slightest bit of scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Like, how do you spin an imperfect Koran into Islamic doctrine? Christians can just say 'Paul was wrong' and its really no big deal. What part of "real life Christians just do whatever is politically and socially convenient and acceptable and don't make theological arguments" is so difficult to comprehend?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Miltank posted:That Nicene Christianity exists as a separate entity from the bible is the entire point. Nicene Christianity is not the only Christianity nor is it the only conceivable Christianity. Islam with a fallible Koran is inconceivable- it undermines every conceivable narrative of the religion. Do you think that if someone self-identifies as a Muslim but doesn't follow the Quran to the letter they'll like fade out of existence Back to the Future style or like Time Cops will show up and drag them away?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
lol if you don't think theology matters. Just lol. E:where are you finding these Muslims and Christians 'self-identifying' from the outside of a community of believers? Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ It's interesting how in all of these charts, 100% of self-identified Muslims believe Sharia is following the Word of God, and 100% believe apostates should be executed. The 44% of Tunisians who do not support death for adultery as prescribed in the Quran, don't exist. You may think otherwise, but they don't. It's a tricky thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Some really nice irrelevant facts right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Some really nice irrelevant facts right there. "Facts are irrelevant to my arguments" -SA forums poster Miltank You literally said it was inconceivable for somebody to have a Muslim religious framework without 100% adherence to Quranic precepts. The people in this study don't do that? I'm sorry that the real world is biased against your argument or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Those facts are irrelevant to my argument. -correct forums poster miltank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Like, how do you spin an imperfect Koran into Islamic doctrine? Christians can just say 'Paul was wrong' and its really no big deal. You're not supposed to say that. The bible is accepted as the unequivocal word of God, handed down directly from God. It's a cultural thing to discount certain parts as more or less word of God, not a religious one. You see the same thing in Islam where different people accept some collections of Hadith as true and discount others, which include huge things such as sharia law. There's no basis to your argument that the Quran is somehow inherently seen as more word of God to Muslims than the bible is to Christians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Those facts are irrelevant to my argument. There are many, many self-identified Muslims in the world who do not adhere 100% to normative Muslim behavior. Therefore, your argument that it's impossible for an adherent of the Muslim religion not to adhere 100% to normative Muslim behavior, is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy This is the stupidest loving argument. Like literally sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO I WIN" over and over dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The bible in Christianity and the Koran in Islam are completely different things, doctrinally speaking. The miracle of Christianity is the Christ figure described in the bible. The miracle of Islam is literally the Koran itself.  Except for all the books in the Koran and Bible that match up, and the multiple figures (including Jesus) who also are in the Koran.But considering your usual argument points in religious debate threads, I expect no less than "My religion is the only true religion." from you, Miltank posted:Those facts are irrelevant to my argument. This is you in EVERY religious debate thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Im looking for a way to accept the Koran as an errant document and justify this errancy within the narrative of Islam. Unless you can link an essay by a theologian to that effect or are a muslim who can explain this to me I'm not really seeing how opinion polls are supposed to refute this argument. E:^ holy poo poo that is a stupid post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
It's almost like the narrative of Islam (or any other religion) is irrelevant to the vast majority of people's behavior
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Im looking for a way to accept the Koran as an errant document and justify this errancy within the narrative of Islam. Unless you can link an essay by a theologian to that effect or are a muslim who can explain this to me I'm not really seeing how opinion polls are supposed to refute this argument. Its just as errant as your document. Get over it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Hmm yeah you are right, and I never said otherwhys?? E: And the same response to this. icantfindaname posted:It's almost like the narrative of Islam (or any other religion) is irrelevant to the vast majority of people's behavior
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Is this the part where you start rolling with the punches?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Its looking to be the part where I get buried in posts and stop trying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Im looking for a way to accept the Koran as an errant document and justify this errancy within the narrative of Islam. Unless you can link an essay by a theologian to that effect or are a muslim who can explain this to me I'm not really seeing how opinion polls are supposed to refute this argument. The document is inerrant but interpretations of it are errant. Even apparently straightforward passages may actually be very complicated. Exactly the same way people treat the New Testament, where very straightforward passages about helping the poor and the sick and rich people sucknig turns into, "Well, actually..." This poo poo ain't hard. The point being made to you is the vast majority of Muslims are like any other religious observer: they're very imperfectly observant, and they all have slightly different interpretations of the Koran.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Continuing with what Abner Cadaver was posting about; I think there is actually an argument to be made that creating more violent fundamentalists has a silver lining. Jihadists are not doing the long-term prospects of conservative Islam as an ideology any favors with their violent antics. They're so repulsive that even fundamentalists of other religions have their reputation blackened by association with the likes of the Taliban. Much like the rise of the KKK in the American South, although Jihadists can be considered 'bad' in isolation, they are also a sign that social progress is being made, because social progress almost always inspires a violent reaction against it. The solution isn't to halt social progress so that the Jihadists calm down. On the contrary; the more that Islamic literalism gets associated with violent terrorist acts, the better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Continuing with what Abner Cadaver was posting about; I think there is actually an argument to be made that creating more violent fundamentalists has a silver lining. Jihadists are not doing the long-term prospects of conservative Islam as an ideology any favors with their violent antics. They're so repulsive that even fundamentalists of other religions have their reputation blackened by association with the likes of the Taliban. Much like the rise of the KKK in the American South, although Jihadists can be considered 'bad' in isolation, they are also a sign that social progress is being made, because social progress almost always inspires a violent reaction against it. The solution isn't to halt social progress so that the Jihadists calm down. On the contrary; the more that Islamic literalism gets associated with violent terrorist acts, the better. The rise of the KKK in the South was followed by Jim Crow and intense, politically entrenched racism that went on for a hundred years until the CRA slightly tore at it, but it continues to this day. Your analogies are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:On the contrary; the more that Islamic literalism gets associated with violent terrorist acts, the better. How can you be so dumb? How can you have read these forums for so long and never learned one single thing? It's remarkable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Firstly, the government is not the only authoritarian institution of concern. Tribal communities and mob justice are just as great an obstacle to the secularization of the Arab world as de jure Sharia. Much like the KKK and racist-owned businesses in the U.S. during the late 20th century, authoritarian institutions of law-enforcement must be deployed against non-governmental institutions and individuals if any progress is to be made in our lifetimes. Using federal troops to desegregate the South in the 60s is a very bad analogy for many reasons. Do you really, truly think that foreign powers going in and establishing police states to "de-Islamify" populations is a good idea? That seems to be what you're advocating here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You're not supposed to say that. The bible is accepted as the unequivocal word of God, handed down directly from God. It's a cultural thing to discount certain parts as more or less word of God, not a religious one. You see the same thing in Islam where different people accept some collections of Hadith as true and discount others, which include huge things such as sharia law. There's no basis to your argument that the Quran is somehow inherently seen as more word of God to Muslims than the bible is to Christians. Not arguing against your point, but you're referencing two different things in your statement. The Hadiths and the Quran are two separate things. We believe that the Quran is the literal word of god. The Hadiths could be equated more towards gossip. Some of them can be easily believed (like those provided by his wives) and some are made up. There's some guideline on which one to believe or not to believe, but in my eyes you would believe whatever you felt makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Im looking for a way to accept the Koran as an errant document and justify this errancy within the narrative of Islam. Unless you can link an essay by a theologian to that effect or are a muslim who can explain this to me I'm not really seeing how opinion polls are supposed to refute this argument. It would help, maybe, if you actually read the Koran. It addresses this! The Koran 3:7 posted:It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. It is true and inerrant, but because humans don't have the mind of god, they aren't able to grasp it in its full meaning, and are going to have to rely on interpretations, which will be fallible and will differ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Do you really, truly think that foreign powers going in and establishing police states to "de-Islamify" populations is a good idea? I'm very confident that no one is sincerely advocating that. Why would you think that? If fixing the bad parts of a religion is a sincere concern for people maybe treating any criticism of it as some manifestation of colonialist superiority or islamophobia is the wrong approach. Things don't fix themselves especially when people are afraid to discuss the subject for fear of being labeled a racist by people consumed by white guilt. The vast majority of western people don't have much understanding of Islam an squelching discourse on the subject just opens the 'fear of the unknown' to evolve into islamophobia. This is especially true for ordinary people when you consider that for many, they only recieve information about islam from the quarterly terrorist attacks. Sethex fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I'm very confident that no one is sincerely advocating that. I sincerely hope they aren't advocating it. I'm asking the question because this view of Islam as a monolithic foe to modernity is one also held by the people who do think the only or best option is some good old fashioned colonial imperialism. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity and that the whole religion ought to be somehow in some way suppressed, which is what Liberal_L33t has been saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I sincerely hope they aren't advocating it. I'm asking the question because this view of Islam as a monolithic foe to modernity is one also held by the people who do think the only or best option is some good old fashioned colonial imperialism. I thought we were talking more cultural imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:What I'm taking issue with is the idea that Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity Religious governance is, almost by definition, incompatible with modernity, and the concept of secularism/laïcité seems anathema to the dominant strands of contemporary Islam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
 http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf Honestly I didn't scrutinize this or anything but maybe this belongs here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Why is the word "christian" mention on every single page of a thread ostensively about Islam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I'm very confident that no one is sincerely advocating that. Let's be real. The closest thing to a real theological discussion any of the chucklefucks criticizing Islam here have come up with are lovely oneliners they ripped off islamaphobic clickbait articles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Why is the word "christian" mention on every single page of a thread ostensively about Islam. Because both are religions, but it's only kosher to criticize Christianity, because racism and colonialism. The best way to fight racism is to behave like the racist, but with a kosher target. Islam is sacred, because Headgear and colonialism. Christianity is evil, because the Republican Party, and like some poo poo that happened five hundred years ago. And the Crusades, always remember the Crusades. Is that clear?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Because both are religions, but it's only kosher to criticize Christianity, because racism and colonialism. The best way to fight racism is to behave like the racist, but with a kosher target. Islam is sacred, because Headgear and colonialism. Christianity is evil, because the Republican Party, and like some poo poo that happened five hundred years ago. And the Crusades, always remember the Crusades. Its plenty okay to criticize Muslims, but considering most arguments presented by US groups criticizing Muslims stem from racism, and Islamaphobia is justified by groups who see Muslims as largely all terrorists based solely upon their religion and their race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:33
|
|