Playing Islam's advocate

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists. Attempting to guess why they make such extreme, unacceptable and often all-out immoral claims and what could be worth listening to behind that all can be very bothersome.

Worse than that, it also distracts me from the actual issues that could be discussed to reach constructive understandings. It is true that such understandings have a remarkable tendency to drive people away from Islamic beliefs, and that may help in explaining why apologists so rarely further these, but things are as they are.

Still, fair understandings should be pursued nonetheless and proper, valid arguments and perspectives are a valuable gift to attain. So I will attempt to collect some here in this thread.

Contributions are welcome, with the following ground rules:

1. Attempting to convince me of the truth of the Qur'an, let alone that I should somehow prove that it is wrong, is a non-starter. I have wasted far too much time down that lane already. What I am interested in is at another level of practice and argument altogether.

2. Likewise, I have no interest at all in discussing how the evil Western values are supposedly oppressing poor helpless Muslims. There is a time and place to rightfully discuss how serious military intervention in Muslim-populated areas is. Not in this thread.

3. I reserve the right to add additional rules as needed, depending on how much pressure away from proper discussion is brought here. I am attempting to understand where apologists come from, not to "give them a chance". They have no chance, not with me, not with a religion of conformance and scripture and theism, not with Islam.


Given these admittedly strict constraints (although they are considerably more open than many will understand or admit), what is there to consider about the appeal and values of Islam that is not fit for summary riddance?

First and foremost, the love for a stable society with clear, reliable, predictable social roles. I can certainly see the appeal of having a fairly good idea of what one should expect of the future and of the people one knows. It is too bad that this so often ends up feeding homophoby and repression of basic personal freedoms, but nonetheless I think this appeal should be recognized and given a measure of respect. Attempts to dissuade away from Islamic beliefs, necessary as they are, would do well to recognize this factor and attempt to work with it instead of against it. People feel a legitimate need for predictability, a degree of recognition for their efforts and personal dedication, commitment and support from others. That is no small conquest.

A related appealing element of Islam is the fairly succesful attempt at equanimity. For all the qualifications that must come with it, Islamic societies tend to indeed have a significant degree of roughly equal respect for most people and social classes. It is too bad that the exceptions tend to include theocratic and military leaders, but I suppse human nature can't very well be denied. All the same, these somewhat socialistic ideals must feel appealing to those used to the often cruel inequalities of "the West", of some competing religions, of many poorer countries. I only wish they were a bit more honest about the limits of the reach of those ideals. It is at the very least disconcerting to hear Muslims claim that "Islam has no Priests" and the like.

 

[icehorse]

I love it Luis! (I have asked similar questions over time, not as eloquently as you have here!)

I will say this, if people were truly allowed freedom of religion and freedom from religion, I could understand that for some people the idea of "ummah" (roughly speaking "a large world-wide family"), could be a really appealing idea. That's the only rare, positive distinction I've discovered so far.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, @icehorse

Something else that I just recalled: there are apparently many people who find it useful and reassuring to have clear sources of answers and certainty. There is some circunstantial evidence that Islam is appealing for those people specifically.

One downside is that an attachment for those specific references often develops, creating a stress between one's senses of security and of fairness.

 

[Covellite]

The Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and embraces Islam and that is the way that Islam defines "peace" and "tolerance". Islam does not tolerate other religions and faith in theory (and quite often in practice, mostly in In Islamic states with Shariah Law).
The Arabic word Islam implies the attainment of peace through submission to Allah.
People who were brought up in a predominately free society do not pay much attention on reasons we should all have some fear considering Islam.

 

[Laika]

I admit to being an Islam apologist on RF. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to defend Islam from the numerous attacks on it. I have done this however, largely without the depth of understanding that would be sufficient to defend Islam specifically.

I have however tried to change that over the past week and looked into it more. this was mainly by reading the first chapter of the Quran. ("Chapter" is the wrong word, but I'm trying to illustrate that out of a very long book, I have only read a small part of it). I did also attempt to learn how to pray as a Muslim. even though I have far from mastered it, even trying to do so underlined the level of commitment involved in such a religion and how much devotion is involved.

the one thing that has stuck out in what little I have read of the Qur'an, much to my regret, is the repeated references to unbelievers going to hell. endevouring to be fair, I have not read another religious text to compare it with, but it did make me wonder about why a belief in hell is so prevelent amongst religions (and whether there are parrelells with how "unbelievers" were condemned to a form of hell on earth under communism.) sadly, its hard to miss the idea that perhaps there is something more "universal" in a desire to see our enemies suffer.

If I can reduce my objections to criticism of Islam down to a few positions, the following would be a rough guide. These are ones I would feel comfortable making without a much deeper knowledge of Islam itself as it is about establishing the context of the discussion and limits on cliams of what we can say Islam is or is not.

1. The overwhelming majority of criticisms of Islam are made without deeper knowledge of the religion, its traditions or history. I fear that even what little I have read of the Quran is still more than many of its critics. I would argue very strongly that without such a background knowledge that we are ingeneral not qualified to say what Islam is or is not (and that does include those who would defend Islam as a "religion of peace" without an ability to back up that statement). Given how often the cliams regarding Islam are so sweeping and generalised, it would merit more than a superfical level of knowledge to make this stick.
   
2. The cliams are made against "Islam" rather than "Muslims" specifically. In otherwords, religious belief is treated almost entirely seperately from religious believers themselves making it easier to treat it as an "us versus them" characterisation, a faceless enemy devoid of humanity simply because we aren't willing to put a face to it. this ultimately is a "reductionist" approach, that totally eliminates the fact that Islam- like all belief systems-is part of a living faith. it typically reduces it to the most literalist, fundamentalists interpretation of a scripture. Sadly, I do not believe you will find any religion or belief system that is totally "pure" or "good". violence is a capacity for human beings, whether we like it or not. saying someone is violent, says very little about the motivations behind that violence, it's context or whether it can be justified. Importantly, people can say many things about "Islam" that they wouldn't say to a "Muslim" in person. that is de-humanising and helps foster a notion of Muslims as the "other" submitting to something called "Islam".
   
3. Islam is often characterised as "fascist" or "totalitarian". Overall, I can no longer accept this as valid criticism of any ideology, even fascism itself. the term has been appropriated and become so utterly devoid of its original meaning, that it is just a form of propaganda. I would be comfortable saying, that in a secular world, we deify concepts of freedom and personal liberty, and use "totalitarianism" to refer to our our satan. these words, have become the language of witch-hunts and if you look at the US at the way political language has been so perverted to demonise any movement that is not considered compatable with personal liberty, it is both very dangerous and devoid of much substantive content. I believe in a presumption of innocence, and in individual responsibility for our actions and not our beliefs. Even if were able to characterise a group of ideas were actually "bad" that does not necessarily lead to "bad actions" unless we ignore free will. To argue otherwise is contary to the ideals of secularism and freedom that we are supposed to defend. this has raised some rather disturbing questions regarding whether National Socialists should be judge by the same standards. I would be hypocritical if I didn't apply it, but I confess being disturbed by that as well. Muslims deserve a fair trial as individuals and not a show trial as "extremists", "terrorists" or "enemies of the people" with unspecified crimes based on a collective guilt. If we think freedom is worth defending, ideally we should defend the freedom of our enemies too if freedom is indeed now our "sacred" cause.
   
4. There is ultimately a question as to whether there are universal moral standards by which "Muslims" in general could be judged. This position is one I have to conceede is very extreme and not one I would ussually present but it should be taken into consideration. In abandoning a view of universal ethics, it does open the door to accepting Sharia Law as a potentially "valid" form of morality. I would consider that a necessary recognition of individual free thought, but it is dangerously close to being destructive of those same freedoms. it should take something extraordinary for such an argument to go from being "one position among many" to "truth". What I have realised is that many of our concepts of right and wrong come from Christian and Liberal conceptions of natural law. it is difficult to say whether we indeed have a "right" to impose our standards of right and wrong without clearly implying a form of imperialism, which would render the very idea of universal human rights deeply hypocritical by the violence used to imposed such values. I'm uneasy with this as clearly this is a return to deeply nationalistic ideas of right and wrong and I don't 100% agree with that. [Your welcome to call that a violation of rule 2, but I hope I am underlnining the intellectual basis for such an argument with the idea that we may not have the right to judge others according to our standards].
   
5. More specifically, we have to keep in mind that "Islam" is not somehow divorced from either Christianity or Judaism. If there were something wrong with Islam, we could almost certianly trace it back to either one or both of the Abrahamic religions. That is important because if we attack Islam, we are also attacking a "sibling" of christianity which we ourselves are largely a product of. The roots of secular societies are still fundamentally christian, so we have to at least consider Islam in relation to its abrahamic predecessors and not just in abstract isolation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Laika. Thanks for your contribution.

I admit to being an Islam apologist on RF. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to defend Islam from the numerous attacks on it. I have done this however, largely without the depth of understanding that would be sufficient to defend Islam specifically.

There is nothing wrong with being an apologist. This thread aims, to a degree, to make the apology for Islam and for the Qur'an. Just not in the usual ways.

I have however tried to change that over the past week and looked into it more. this was mainly by reading the first chapter of the Quran. ("Chapter" is the wrong word, but I'm trying to illustrate that out of a very long book, I have only read a small part of it). I did also attempt to learn how to pray as a Muslim. even though I have far from mastered it, even trying to do so underlined the level of commitment involved in such a religion and how much devotion is involved.

I believe the usual word is "Surah" ("Surata" in Portuguese), of which there are 114 and many of which are faily short, sometimes extremely short even. They are very well determined, individually named (nearly always following a simple "definite article and noum" structure) and almost without exception begin with the now traditional praise to God.

All in all, the Qur'an is a fairly simple and not too lengthy book, at least when compared to the Bible or the Vedas. Of course, there are the Ahadith and other texts as well, but Muslims seem to unanimously agree that they are not nearly as important as the Qur'an.

the one thing that has stuck out in what little I have read of the Qur'an, much to my regret, is the repeated references to unbelievers going to hell. endevouring to be fair, I have not read another religious text to compare it with, but it did make me wonder about why a belief in hell is so prevelent amongst religions (and whether there are parrelells with how "unbelievers" were condemned to a form of hell on earth under communism.) sadly, its hard to miss the idea that perhaps there is something more "universal" in a desire to see our enemies suffer.

That there is.

However, I don't think too many of the most demographically popular religions besides Christianity and Islam encourage such a mindset. I am fairly certain that Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism do not, at least. Even Christianity does not seem to need that specific belief in order to sustain itself quite as much as Islam.

If I can reduce my objections to criticism of Islam down to a few positions, the following would be a rough guide. These are ones I would feel comfortable making without a much deeper knowledge of Islam itself as it is about establishing the context of the discussion and limits on cliams of what we can say Islam is or is not.

The overwhelming majority of criticisms of Islam are made without deeper knowledge of the religion, its traditions or history. I fear that even what little I have read of the Quran is still more than many of its critics. I would argue very strongly that without such a background knowledge that we are ingeneral not qualified to say what Islam is or is not (and that does include those who would defend Islam as a "religion of peace" without an ability to back up that statement). Given how often the cliams regarding Islam are so sweeping and generalised, it would merit more than a superfical level of knowledge to make this stick.

That, I fear, works at least as often to the advantage of apologists as it does to their detriment. One who knows little of Islam and of the Qur'an will often extrapolate from Christianity, the Bible and Christians in order to fill the gaps. But the truth of the matter is that in so doing we often end up seeing Islam through rosy lenses, presuming a lot more acceptance of questioning and of internal tolerance than the evidence supports, or even than the apologists understand to be reasonable or even logical.

The claims are made against "Islam" rather than "Muslims" specifically. In otherwords, religious belief is treated almost entirely seperately from religious believers themselves making it easier to treat it as an "us versus them" characterisation, a faceless enemy devoid of humanity simply because we aren't willing to put a face to it. this ultimately is a "reductionist" approach, that totally eliminates the fact that Islam- like all belief systems-is part of a living faith. it typically reduces it to the most literalist, fundamentalists interpretation of a scripture. Sadly, I do not believe you will find any religion or belief system that is totally "pure" or "good". violence is a capacity for human beings, whether we like it or not. saying someone is violent, says very little about the motivations behind that violence, it's context or whether it can be justified. Importantly, people can say many things about "Islam" that they wouldn't say to a "Muslim" in person. that is de-humanising and helps foster a notion of Muslims as the "other" submitting to something called "Islam".

It has been my experience that Muslims are very consistent and criterious, perhaps even out of linguistic considerations, in differentiating "Islam" from "Muslims' religious practice". It seems to be almost literally impossible to convince a Muslim that Islam may be in any significant sense in need of renewal or of better guidance, although criticism against some group's practice finds considerably easier acceptance.

Quite often, Islam seems to be somewhat at odds with itself when it comes to whether it should be a living faith. It quite obviously is - it could not help being - but it does not alwas feels to well about that. Being faithful to tradition is a big priority, and one is expected not to stray too far from it.

There is a considerable, largely unchallenged body of evidence suggesting that literalism is, if not necessary, very much expected in most or all cultures that think of themselves as Muslim. Even when the word "fundamentalism" is presented, Muslims are more likely to accuse "westerners" of failing to have enough of it than to demonstrate why they themselves are not victims of it.

It seems fair to point out that many Muslims seem outright confused by and even oblivious to the expectation that we should give them the opportunity to convince others that they are not too fundamentalist. I don't think I have ever seen or even heard of anyone who considers himself a Muslim actually say that we should not think of any specific group or person as fundamentalist Muslims - or, for that matter, that we should. Even Daesh/ISIS/ISIL and Al Qaeda are often accused of not being true Muslims, not of being too fundamentalist. There are persistent hints that some Muslims actually suspect those groups of lying when they claim belief in the Qur'an. Supposedly they might be "atheists in disguise" or something. That is all but unbelievable, but cultural expectations may surprise one a lot.

As for dehumanizing... again, I fear the counter-effect may well be more significant. We tend to perhaps over-humanize Islam by associating it with actual people and presuming that they have possibly a greater grasp of our usual concepts of civil rights and mutual respect than they might actually have, or even have learned.

Islam is often characterised as "fascist" or "totalitarian". Overall, I can no longer accept this as valid criticism of any ideology, even fascism itself. the term has been appropriated and become so utterly devoid of its original meaning, that it is just a form of propaganda. I would be comfortable saying, that in a secular world, we deify concepts of freedom and personal liberty, and use "totalitarianism" to refer to our our satan. these words, have become the language of witch-hunts and if you look at the US at the way political language has been so perverted to demonise any movement that is not considered compatable with personal liberty, it is both very dangerous and devoid of much substantive content. I believe in a presumption of innocence, and in individual responsibility for our actions and not our beliefs. Even if were able to characterise a group of ideas were actually "bad" that does not necessarily lead to "bad actions" unless we ignore free will. To argue otherwise is contrary to the ideals of secularism and freedom that we are supposed to defend. this has raised some rather disturbing questions regarding whether National Socialists should be judge by the same standards. I would be hypocritical if I didn't apply it, but I confess being disturbed by that as well. Muslims deserve a fair trial as individuals and not a show trial as "extremists", "terrorists" or "enemies of the people" with unspecified crimes based on a collective guilt. If we think freedom is worth defending, ideally we should defend the freedom of our enemies too if freedom is indeed now our "sacred" cause.

I am not too wild about the cult of personal freedom in the USA either, but I think that is not a good reason to doubt the persistent indications that Islamic thought is indeed totalitarian and authoritarian in nature - or, at the very least, has shown a remarkable consistency of association with those traits.

As for ignoring free will, that much I do. I never found a functional, realistic concept of same, so I truly have no choice but to ignore it.

Secularism, it must be understood, does not really mean the same thing here than it does in supposedly secular muslim environments. The expectations and presumed notions are simply way too different.

I don't have much of an issue with what you say above, but I feel that it is somewhat disconnected from the actual matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is ultimately a question as to whether there are universal moral standards by which "Muslims" in general could be judged.

Of course there are. Both Muslims and everyone else. We all live in the same world and are subject to the same general needs and restrictions.

This position is one I have to conceede is very extreme and not one I would ussually present but it should be taken into consideration. In abandoning a view of universal ethics, it does open the door to accepting Sharia Law as a potentially "valid" form of morality. I would consider that a necessary recognition of individual free thought, but it is dangerously close to being destructive of those same freedoms. it should take something extraordinary for such an argument to go from being "one position among many" to "truth".

Not sure what you meant to say here.

What I have realised is that many of our concepts of right and wrong come from Christian and Liberal conceptions of natural law. it is difficult to say whether we indeed have a "right" to impose our standards of right and wrong without clearly implying a form of imperialism, which would render the very idea of universal human rights deeply hypocritical by the violence used to imposed such values. I'm uneasy with this as clearly this is a return to deeply nationalistic ideas of right and wrong and I don't 100% agree with that. [Your welcome to call that a violation of rule 2, but I hope I am underlnining the intellectual basis for such an argument with the idea that we may not have the right to judge others according to our standards].

You seem to be thinking mainly of legal or quasi-legal judgements, which I would not advise. Such are just too political in nature to be of much use in matters better suited to religious and moral values.


Instead, it is easier and probably more constructive to nurture and express our critical capabilities and learn to make the difficult questions honestly, openly and often. That is essentially drawback-free in the medium to long term, albeit often painful in the short term.

As for nationalism, it is a disease to be ridden of.

I have some issue with you statement that we have no right to judge others according to our own standards. Far from lacking the right, we actually have the right and the duty to do just that. That will often result in unfair judgements, certainly, and we therefore also have the duty to allow for that and to be responsible about the enforcement and the consequences of our judgements. Above all, we have the duty not to refrain from learning better out of our judgements, particularly when they turn out wrong.

That is how it should be. The alternative is to be neglectful, apathetic, or indifferent, which is anything but a respectful attitude.

More specifically, we have to keep in mind that "Islam" is not somehow divorced from either Christianity or Judaism.

It has some commonality of concepts, references and even of origin, certainly, but I think that it is fairly self-evident that Islam is, in fact, divorced from both Christianity and Judaism in lots of significant senses. Again, I am not sure what you mean to say here.

If there were something wrong with Islam, we could almost certianly trace it back to either one or both of the Abrahamic religions.

We can indeed. That is a trivial exercise IMO.

All three of them commit the serious mistake of valuing scripture and theism over true religious teaching, which can only arise from the interaction among people with sincere dedication towards moral growth.

Except that Judaism has largely healed itself out of it because it is so sublimely served by its adherents sincere dedication towards each other despite their many disagreements. Christianity has had a far harder time at it, perhaps in part because it has failed to protect itself against the dangers of nationalism, and therefore remains only partially awakened from the follies of scripture worship.

But Islam has not even accepted yet that there is a grave need to reject such scripturalism and embrace true religion. Or, at least, it has not allowed itself to have those who perceive the need become the mainstream voice. It is all still far too clandestine to be even acknowledged, and often summarily described as "anti-Islam", much to my disappointment.

That is important because if we attack Islam, we are also attacking a "sibling" of christianity which we ourselves are largely a product of. The roots of secular societies are still fundamentally christian, so we have to at least consider Islam in relation to its abrahamic predecessors and not just in abstract isolation.

I am interested in questioning and, when necessary, criticism, not in attacking "per se".

It just turns out that, from all apperances, Islam will indeed perceive any criticism as an attack.

 

[Deidre]

Well, one would have to believe in the God of the Abrahamic faiths to begin with...that would be a good start. lol When debating atheists/anti-theists, theists will always have an uphill battle, regardless of religion and its specifics. I'm somewhat of a Muslim apologist, because I explored it as a potential religion for myself, and coming back to a different Abrahamic faith lends me less close minded to the advantages of Islam, in a broader sense. You will never be open minded to the positive ideals of Islam, if you are not open minded to the general idea of an Abrahamic deity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, one would have to believe in the God of the Abrahamic faiths to begin with...that would be a good start. lol

A good start for which goal?

When debating atheists, theists will always have an uphill battle, regardless of religion and its specifics.

I beg to differ. Unless you mean when the debate is about matters that rely on the existence of or on the belief in his existence, that is.

Then again, that sure feels like a self-imposed, unnecessary handicap to me. Belief is not supposed to be necessary, IMO.

I'm somewhat of a Muslim apologist, because I explored it as a potential religion for myself, and coming back to a different Abrahamic faith lends me less close minded to the advantages of Islam, in a broader sense.

I would like to hear about that from you, for sure.

 

[Deidre]

A good start for which goal?

You mention in your OP, that you find it hard to agree upon something when talking to Muslim apologists. My thought is, it might have less to do with Islam as a whole, and more to do with the fact that you are an anti-theist.

I beg to differ. Unless you mean when the debate is about matters that rely on the existence of or on the belief in his existence, that is.

Then again, that sure feels like a self-imposed, unnecessary handicap to me. Belief is not supposed to be necessary, IMO.

Well, yes and no. This is true in some ways. But, you identify yourself as an anti-theist, so to me that means that you don't see the value in having a theistic worldview. Islam is very much a theistic worldview.

I would like to hear about that from you, for sure.

In describing why I'm open minded about Islam, you mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

You mention in your OP, that you find it hard to agree upon something when talking to Muslim apologists. My thought is, it might have less to do with Islam as a whole, and more to do with the fact that you are an anti-theist.

I completely disagree, as it turns out.

I have an easy enough time with most Hindus, many Mormons, even many Christians. Hinduism in particular is a breeze.

Islam, however, pretty much dares me to say it is wrong simply because I am an atheist. So there, and not my doing.

Anti-theism is simply not very consequential and could hardly affect my views nearly enough to justify such a suspicion.

Well, yes and no. This is true in some ways. But, you identify yourself as an anti-theist, so to me that means that you don't see the value in having a theistic worldview. Islam is very much a theistic worldview.

I would say that I refuse to neglect an obvious flaw, actually.

In describing why I'm open minded about Islam, you mean?

I meant the advantages of it.

I am giving my view of those in the posts of this thread that are not replies to someone else's.

By all means tell me if you feel that anything there is not very accurate or if they remind you of something else worth mentioning.

 

[Deidre]

''I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists''

This is your statement in the OP. Why do you find it difficult to find something to agree with when you hear Muslim apologists? Seeing that you have an 'easy enough time' with other religions, what is it about Islam that causes you to not be as open minded? (if that's even the right word)

First, I'm not looking for you to change your stance, but you started this thread for a discussion, and I'm trying to understand why you have a harder time with Islam, than other faiths?

 

[icehorse]

''I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists''

This is your statement in the OP. Why do you find it difficult to find something to agree with when you hear Muslim apologists? Seeing that you have an 'easy enough time' with other religions, what is it about Islam that causes you to not be as open minded? (if that's even the right word)

First, I'm not looking for you to change your stance, but you started this thread for a discussion, and I'm trying to understand why you have a harder time with Islam, than other faiths?

Seems like a loaded question, no? I know of few people more open-minded than Luis, and it strikes me he's asking a really honest question here.

 

[icehorse]

Laika,

You take issue with the word "totalitarian", yet you admit you haven't read the Quran yet? Have you looked up the word "totalitarian"? The Quran is unquestionably totalitarian in the breadth of its commandments to Muslims.

 

[Deidre]

Seems like a loaded question, no? I know of few people more open-minded than Luis, and it strikes me he's asking a really honest question here.

It's a sincere question, based on his statement in the OP. There must be a reason or maybe a set of reasons as to why he doesn't feel as accepting/tolerant of Islam, as he does other faiths. He stated above that anti-theism isn't really the reason, and he has an easy time with other faiths, so I'm asking what is it about Islam that he can't find anything to agree on with a Muslim apologist?

 

[icehorse]

Deidre,

Perhaps I misunderstood you when you asked Luis why he couldn't be open-minded? It strikes me that he spelled out his reasons pretty clearly.

To be fair, I'm biased here because I have done my level best to understand what good I should see in Islam, and no one I've talked to (Muslim and non-Muslim apologists), has provided any even slightly compelling answers. And to be sure, the scripture doesn't help.

 

[DawudTalut]

Sometimes I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists. Attempting to guess why they make such extreme, unacceptable and often all-out immoral claims and what could be worth listening to behind that all can be very bothersome.

Peace be on you.
You are giving a verdict against Islam here. So what is there to talk?

Worse than that, it also distracts me from the actual issues that could be discussed to reach constructive understandings.

What are actual issues in your opinion?

It is true that such understandings have a remarkable tendency to drive people away from Islamic beliefs, and that may help in explaining why apologists so rarely further these, but things are as they are.

Still, fair understandings should be pursued nonetheless and proper, valid arguments and perspectives are a valuable gift to attain. So I will attempt to collect some here in this thread.

Contributions are welcome,

with the following ground rules:

1. Attempting to convince me of the truth of the Qur'an, let alone that I should somehow prove that it is wrong, is a non-starter. I have wasted far too much time down that lane already. What I am interested in is at another level of practice and argument altogether.

If you have already made your mind, how can you be convinced?
It will be waste of time.

2. Likewise, I have no interest at all in discussing how the evil Western values are supposedly oppressing poor helpless Muslims. There is a time and place to rightfully discuss how serious military intervention in Muslim-populated areas is. Not in this thread.

All Western values are not evil, otherwise many Muslim had not gone there.

3. I reserve the right to add additional rules as needed, depending on how much pressure away from proper discussion is brought here. I am attempting to understand where apologists come from, not to "give them a chance". They have no chance, not with me, not with a religion of conformance and scripture and theism, not with Islam.

What is actual discussion-agenda?

Given these admittedly strict constraints (although they are considerably more open than many will understand or admit), what is there to consider about the appeal and values of Islam that is not fit for summary riddance?

Plz say in easier sentences.

First and foremost, the love for a stable society with clear, reliable, predictable social roles. I can certainly see the appeal of having a fairly good idea of what one should expect of the future and of the people one knows.

ditto

It is too bad that this so often ends up feeding homophoby and repression of basic personal freedoms, but nonetheless I think this appeal should be recognized and given a measure of respect.

ditto

Attempts to dissuade away from Islamic beliefs, necessary as they are, would do well to recognize this factor and attempt to work with it instead of against it.

ditto

People feel a legitimate need for predictability, a degree of recognition for their efforts and personal dedication, commitment and support from others. That is no small conquest.

ditto

A related appealing element of Islam is the fairly succesful attempt at equanimity.

ditto

For all the qualifications that must come with it, Islamic societies tend to indeed have a significant degree of roughly equal respect for most people and social classes.

Is it compliment?

It is too bad that the exceptions tend to include theocratic and military leaders, but I suppse human nature can't very well be denied. All the same, these somewhat socialistic ideals must feel appealing to those used to the often cruel inequalities of "the West", of some competing religions, of many poorer countries. I only wish they were a bit more honest about the limits of the reach of those ideals.

If you are talking against role of theocratic role and military roles mixed with extremism, then it should not be there.

It is at the very least disconcerting to hear Muslims claim that "Islam has no Priests" and the like.

 

[sun rise]

Given the wide variety of adherents to a religion (or atheists), I don't find it useful to speak in the abstract. For Islam, there are those who live peaceful lives in a democracy and feel that is their expression of Islam. And there are those who justify murder, rape and destruction as Islamic. So if someone wants to tell me specifically what their most inspirational Suras in the Quran are and how those passages help them to become better human beings, I'm happy to read or hear what they have to say. If someone says that a particular example from the life of Muhammad changed their life in someway, that's also interesting. On the other hand, if someone wants to market their religion to me, I'm not interested.

 

[Laika]

Hi, Laika. Thanks for your contribution.


There is nothing wrong with being an apologist. This thread aims, to a degree, to make the apology for Islam and for the Qur'an. Just not in the usual ways.




I believe the usual word is "Surah" ("Surata" in Portuguese), of which there are 114 and many of which are faily short, sometimes extremely short even. They are very well determined, individually named (nearly always following a simple "definite article and noum" structure) and almost without exception begin with the now traditional praise to God.

All in all, the Qur'an is a fairly simple and not too lengthy book, at least when compared to the Bible or the Vedas. Of course, there are the Ahadith and other texts as well, but Muslims seem to unanimously agree that they are not nearly as important as the Qur'an.




That there is.

However, I don't think too many of the most demographically popular religions besides Christianity and Islam encourage such a mindset. I am fairly certain that Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism do not, at least. Even Christianity does not seem to need that specific belief in order to sustain itself quite as much as Islam.




That, I fear, works at least as often to the advantage of apologists as it does to their detriment. One who knows little of Islam and of the Qur'an will often extrapolate from Christianity, the Bible and Christians in order to fill the gaps. But the truth of the matter is that in so doing we often end up seeing Islam through rosy lenses, presuming a lot more acceptance of questioning and of internal tolerance than the evidence supports, or even than the apologists understand to be reasonable or even logical.




It has been my experience that Muslims are very consistent and criterious, perhaps even out of linguistic considerations, in differentiating "Islam" from "Muslims' religious practice". It seems to be almost literally impossible to convince a Muslim that Islam may be in any significant sense in need of renewal or of better guidance, although criticism against some group's practice finds considerably easier acceptance.

Quite often, Islam seems to be somewhat at odds with itself when it comes to whether it should be a living faith. It quite obviously is - it could not help being - but it does not alwas feels to well about that. Being faithful to tradition is a big priority, and one is expected not to stray too far from it.

There is a considerable, largely unchallenged body of evidence suggesting that literalism is, if not necessary, very much expected in most or all cultures that think of themselves as Muslim. Even when the word "fundamentalism" is presented, Muslims are more likely to accuse "westerners" of failing to have enough of it than to demonstrate why they themselves are not victims of it.

It seems fair to point out that many Muslims seem outright confused by and even oblivious to the expectation that we should give them the opportunity to convince others that they are not too fundamentalist. I don't think I have ever seen or even heard of anyone who considers himself a Muslim actually say that we should not think of any specific group or person as fundamentalist Muslims - or, for that matter, that we should. Even Daesh/ISIS/ISIL and Al Qaeda are often accused of not being true Muslims, not of being too fundamentalist. There are persistent hints that some Muslims actually suspect those groups of lying when they claim belief in the Qur'an. Supposedly they might be "atheists in disguise" or something. That is all but unbelievable, but cultural expectations may surprise one a lot.

As for dehumanizing... again, I fear the counter-effect may well be more significant. We tend to perhaps over-humanize Islam by associating it with actual people and presuming that they have possibly a greater grasp of our usual concepts of civil rights and mutual respect than they might actually have, or even have learned.




I am not too wild about the cult of personal freedom in the USA either, but I think that is not a good reason to doubt the persistent indications that Islamic thought is indeed totalitarian and authoritarian in nature - or, at the very least, has shown a remarkable consistency of association with those traits.

As for ignoring free will, that much I do. I never found a functional, realistic concept of same, so I truly have no choice but to ignore it.

Secularism, it must be understood, does not really mean the same thing here than it does in supposedly secular muslim environments. The expectations and presumed notions are simply way too different.

I don't have much of an issue with what you say above, but I feel that it is somewhat disconnected from the actual matters.

Of course there are. Both Muslims and everyone else. We all live in the same world and are subject to the same general needs and restrictions.




Not sure what you meant to say here.




You seem to be thinking mainly of legal or quasi-legal judgements, which I would not advise. Such are just too political in nature to be of much use in matters better suited to religious and moral values.


Instead, it is easier and probably more constructive to nurture and express our critical capabilities and learn to make the difficult questions honestly, openly and often. That is essentially drawback-free in the medium to long term, albeit often painful in the short term.

As for nationalism, it is a disease to be ridden of.

I have some issue with you statement that we have no right to judge others according to our own standards. Far from lacking the right, we actually have the right and the duty to do just that. That will often result in unfair judgements, certainly, and we therefore also have the duty to allow for that and to be responsible about the enforcement and the consequences of our judgements. Above all, we have the duty not to refrain from learning better out of our judgements, particularly when they turn out wrong.

That is how it should be. The alternative is to be neglectful, apathetic, or indifferent, which is anything but a respectful attitude.





It has some commonality of concepts, references and even of origin, certainly, but I think that it is fairly self-evident that Islam is, in fact, divorced from both Christianity and Judaism in lots of significant senses. Again, I am not sure what you mean to say here.




We can indeed. That is a trivial exercise IMO.

All three of them commit the serious mistake of valuing scripture and theism over true religious teaching, which can only arise from the interaction among people with sincere dedication towards moral growth.

Except that Judaism has largely healed itself out of it because it is so sublimely served by its adherents sincere dedication towards each other despite their many disagreements. Christianity has had a far harder time at it, perhaps in part because it has failed to protect itself against the dangers of nationalism, and therefore remains only partially awakened from the follies of scripture worship.

But Islam has not even accepted yet that there is a grave need to reject such scripturalism and embrace true religion. Or, at least, it has not allowed itself to have those who perceive the need become the mainstream voice. It is all still far too clandestine to be even acknowledged, and often summarily described as "anti-Islam", much to my disappointment.




I am interested in questioning and, when necessary, criticism, not in attacking "per se".

It just turns out that, from all apperances, Islam will indeed perceive any criticism as an attack.

Thanks for your clarification on the Surah/Surata as that was very helpful.

I think if I reduced my thinking on this to one idea, it's that we have to differienate between Islamophobia and legitimate criticism of Islam. the problem focuses on what is or is not a "legitimate" criticism. Whilst this is a common position amongst politically left leaning people, I have to admit it is somewhat self-contraditoy (e.g. should I defend Islam even when its beliefs are contary to feminism or the freedom for apostates such as myself to have their beliefs). a bigger issue is where you draw the line and say military intervention is necessary against ISIL. I'm not opposed to it, but it makes me uneasy.

I garbled it, but my point was- is that in rejecting universal values you reject the basis for a "right" to intervene. You make a good case that it is our right and our duty to intervene and I wish I had your confidence on that. I suspect that Deash and Al-quieda are interpretations of the Qur'an as a source for Sharia Law but this does not necessarily make them the "correct" or only interpretation of it. I would be surprised if it really is as clear cut as they are "fakes" or unbelievers in disguise.

In so far as Islam (as it appears to be) is based on a literalist and fundamentalist reading of the scripture as a source of sharia law, it turns "religion" into a group identity that falls outside of secular definitions of freedom of the individual to exercise religious belief. I think any criticism on Islam can come down to one; that it cannot be reformed or secularised as christianity has and is therefore irreconciably opposed to western systems of freedom democratic soceities.

Laika,

You take issue with the word "totalitarian", yet you admit you haven't read the Quran yet? Have you looked up the word "totalitarian"? The Quran is unquestionably totalitarian in the breadth of its commandments to Muslims.

I did an earlier post in which I said that accusations of Totalitarianism are eqivilent to accusing someone of satanism, atheism and witchcraft in earlier times (which I have now deleted). I stand by that, but having thought about it more- yes- you have a point. If it can be demonstrated that "Islam" is totalitarian, it then becomes a problem and is incompatable with western practices of individual liberty. But in order to argue that, I think you would have to demonstrate that it could not be secularised in an "Islamic reformation". its a question of whether there is a problem with simply one interpretation of Islam, or Islam as a whole.

I'd prefer it be much more specific as then we can demonstrate it and fact-check it and get some context. That would make me reconsider my opinion of Muslims and not just Islam. I think if I don't have the courage to direct criticism against Muslims themselves, it isn't worth very much, nor does it give them an oppurtunity to show that I am wrong or that they can change if I were right.

 

[LuisDantas]

''I feel frustrated by how difficult it is to even find something to agree with when I hear Muslim apologists''

This is your statement in the OP. Why do you find it difficult to find something to agree with when you hear Muslim apologists? Seeing that you have an 'easy enough time' with other religions, what is it about Islam that causes you to not be as open minded? (if that's even the right word)

How open minded can or should one be with a doctrine that spends considerable efforts attempting to scare me with eternal hell, because I won't pretend to believe in a concept that makes no sense to me? A doctrine that expects one to eventually realize that all people were born adhering to it, no less?

Frankly, it is a straight case of learning of a doctrine and realizing that it can not possibly be right. Or even have a lot of space for worthwhile teachings among all the theocracy preaching.

So it is a combination of being the most emphatically theocratic religion I ever met (even Christianity has learned better) with having a doctrine shaped to rely on said theocentrism almost ot the exclusion of anything else, including basic common sense and not too rarely basic moral sense as well.

Also, the apology is consistently appalling, to the point that other religions benefit from it at Islam's expense. Whatever Islam teaches these days is having a very hard time showing any evidence of being conducive to wisdom. Having good will towards Islam becomes quickly and ever increasingly a hope that what I do know of is at odds with what I have yet to learn about the reality of the religion, with hardly ever any actual evidence to support such a hope.
What is slightly (and yes, at this point it seems that slightly is the proper word) in question by now isn't whether Islamic doctrine is worth considering, but rather what can be learned of why people still adhere to it.

It is still worthwhile and necessary to reach the best possible communication and understanding with Muslims, no matter how depressingly difficult the task may seem at times.

First, I'm not looking for you to change your stance, but you started this thread for a discussion, and I'm trying to understand why you have a harder time with Islam, than other faiths?

Did the above clarify it somewhat?