Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb and his use of takfir

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 01:55:46 Well first of all he is full of shit, because in a recent discussion with me he refered to "mild mannered" muslims who drank as something positive. In the next breath he will point to jihadis doing the same and that makes them not real muslims, LOL! And why the fuck does it matter that they found Islam online? Are you still living in the 90's? Anyway to the article. When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism to tackle extremism, this intolerant doctrine is not challenged but reaffirmed The last few weeks have seen a slew of Muslim condemnations of the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In the US, the Council for American-Islamic Relations called ISIS ‘un-Islamic and morally repugnant’. Arsalan Iftikhar, a well-known American Muslim writer, meanwhile wrote that ISIS should be called the ‘Un-Islamic State’. The Organisation of Islamic Conference has said that the ISIS’s killing of US journalist James Foley has ‘nothing to do with Islam’, while the Muslim Council of Britain has called ISIS ‘un-Islamic to the core’. These are strong words and these condemnations are both welcome and well-intentioned. However, many such denunciations also deeply problematic. Just as non-Muslims who try to tackle Islamism through defining moderate interpretations of Islam as the sole ‘true Islam’ actually undermine liberal Muslim attempts to develop a pluralist understanding of religion, so moderate Muslims’ use of takfir – the process of denouncing rival Muslims as apostates or non-Muslims – reinforces the ideological underpinnings of the very movements they are seeking to tackle. Takfirism is the root and enabler of all modern jihadism; takfirist doctrine enables any ‘true’ Muslim to label those with a rival interpretation of Islam as no longer Muslim. This, combined with traditional Islamic jurisprudence that mandates death for apostates, is taken by jihadists as an open license to denounce and then kill their enemies. When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism to tackle extremism, this dangerous and intrinsically intolerant doctrine is therefore not challenged but is instead reaffirmed. Illustrating this, one British fighter in Syria, explaining why he regarded the MCB as his enemies, said: ‘The Muslim Council of Britain, they are apostates, they are not Muslims”, ironically the same argument that the MCB itself makes against ISIS. A better approach is to accept that Islamist extremists, however distasteful their view of Islam, remain Muslims, however much other Muslims, and non-Muslims, might dislike their version of Islam. Traditionally, as long as a Muslim accepted the existence of a single God and that Mohammed was his final prophet, then he/she was a Muslim. Ironically, a return to this age-old ‘big tent’ approach – that both jihadists and ‘moderates’ are now trying to hastily jettison – is arguably a better way to tackle extremism than seeking to ‘takfir the takfiris’. It also goes without saying that in modern multi-cultural societies no respectable Muslim should be using ‘non-Muslim’ as a term of abuse against theological rivals; among other things this also perpetuates the stigmas against apostates (i.e. those Muslims who exercise their right to freedom of conscience by leaving Islam). A further problem with the ‘jihadists are not Muslims’ argument is that when mainstream Muslims deny that extremists are also Muslims, extremist arguments are not engaged with but are instead left to fester. Take, for example, militants’ fondness for beheading captives; jihadists typically justify this practice through referencing the Quranic verse 47:4 ‘when you meet those who disbelieve, strike at their necks’ (and variants of this, according to different translations), often supported by many centuries of warlike, and literally medieval, interpretations. Rather than seeking to effectively re-contextualise and de-fang this verse for the modern era, a blunt rejection of those who cite it as non-Muslims removes all scope for critically engaging – and dismantling – their arguments. This ostrich approach that extremists’ actions ‘have nothing to do with Islam’ not only fails to recognise how deep-rooted some hardline jihadist interpretations are, but it also effectively cedes such key theological battlefields to the extremists. The cumulative effect of the above is damaging inaction; if ISIS and other extremists are not Muslims, then why should Muslims be involved in challenging them and their arguments? The Muslim Council of Britain’s recent statement that ISIS ‘has been repudiated by all Muslims’ is a case in point; if all Muslims have rejected the group then there is nothing for more moderate Muslims to do. Equally counter-productive is the Muslim Association of Britain’s recent press-release which condemns ISIS but also suggests the group are not only not Muslim but are part of an (undefined) plot to damage Islam: ‘The group is purposely doing severe damage to the reputation of Muslims across the world and is attempting to defame the image of Islam.’ It is useful to consider how effective anti-racism campaigns would be if they had followed the same tactics (‘Nick Griffin? We really don’t consider him to be English because he’s adopted many foreign practices. The BNP? Oh, they’re part of an insidious plot by foreigners to damage Britain.’). On the contrary, effective counter-racism work has always involved identifying, countering, modifying or openly rejecting a range of traditional cultural practices, narratives and ideas; counter-radicalisation work in Muslim communities should be no different. Accepting that Islamist extremists are also Muslims, and that aspects of their ideology are deeply entrenched in Islamic tradition, is an essential first step. http://lef...lims-risk-making-things-worse/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 02:16:24 This is why I take at face value anyone who says they are a Muslim, be they jihadist, Islamist, gay, non-binary, with purple hair, drinking and fornicating. "True Islam" suggests that such a thing actually exists and is something one should strive for.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed May 24 03:12:55 "Takfirism" sounds like a euphemism for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 04:25:57 Nim: Idjit. You completely missed the point. The point is the majority of European Islamic Terrorists are not actually that Islamic. Not just because they drink, but because generally they are unobservant up until the point they are radicalised. The religion comes as part of the radicalisation package: i.e. they get their religion from the terrorists that are recruiting them, rather than getting their terrorism from the religion. Therefore, to go after Islam generally as the cause of the problem profoundly misunderstands the problem. And as a general characteristic to narrow focus on, it's also far less useful than the other indicators: *History of petty crime and run ins with the law *History of drug abuse *History of mental illness All of these things allow a far better profile for detection and investigation. It's like your brain dropped out once you started nodding along with the far right. Saying this amounts to Karfirism is absurd in two ways. Firstly, western states are not religious authorities - we are not in the business of saying who is a Muslim or not, we are in the business of detecting and preventing crime and safeguarding the population. Secondly, when we discuss whether or not a terrorist "represents islam", it's not a religious discussion, it's a discussion about to what degree we should associate other people who identify as Islamic but do not harbour terrorist intent with the terrorists. So, certainly the idea of Apostasy etc. is key to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. But equally, arguing that all Muslims should either renounce their faith, or should be viewed as potential terrorists ALSO adopts the ISIS doctrine of an Islamic world which they represent, and a non Islamic world. It's equally non-pluralistic, but with the added disadvantage that rather than split the people who are Islam into a narrowly defined grouping that are our enemies, we invite all Muslims to be either with us, or against us - while at the same time tacitly encouraging the likes of Nick Giffin and yourself to alienate them, pushing them towards the former. It explicitly rejects the idea of peaceful coexistence. Cherub Cow: So does the polar reverse, look at Nim's conclusion! If we define "True Islam" to be what ISIS says it is, then anyone who claims to be a "True Muslim", according to Nim, must be so. The simple truth is a religion is far too broad a thing to be used in this way. It's a broad spectrum and so you can't treat anyone who identifies as a Muslim as a potential terrorist (or rather, any more of a potential terrorist than someone else). I cannot believe we need to have this conversation.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 04:28:33 Nim: "(‘Nick Griffin? We really don’t consider him to be English because he’s adopted many foreign practices. The BNP? Oh, they’re part of an insidious plot by foreigners to damage Britain.’). " Equally though, we haven't had an entire campaign saying "We need to ban English people from the country, because statistically speaking English people are far more likely to engage in EDF political violence than Scottish people". Because such a thing would be laughed out of town as patently stupid, rather than a "Sober headed assessment of valid, yet difficult responses to a real and serious threat".
Seb Member	Wed May 24 04:29:22 ooh, interesting autocorrect there from google. "Takfirism" became "Kafirism" - close, but not the same thing.
Forwyn Member	Wed May 24 04:33:09 Try statistical use of genetic markers indicating inbreeding.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 04:38:01 I'm genuinely at a loss about what you want a Muslim to do then to distance themselves from ISIS Nim. If they don't speak up and denounce ISIS, then they are supporters. If they do speak up and denounce ISIS, then they embrace the concept of "True" Islam, which implies concepts of Apostasy, which means that they embrace the kind of thinking implicit in religious fundamentalism (that there is a fundamentally true interpretation). So what is it you want them to do, bar head back to Syria and wait to be either gassed by Assad, bombed by Russians, or beheaded by ISIS? Become Atheists? Why not go whole hog. We are traditionally Christian societies, and you know, look at the evil of the avowedly Athiest soviets. Maybe you should convert to Christianity, or be kicked out the country? You can't preach the superiority and tolerance of a humanist society that separates church and state if you are effectively singling out a particular religion and defacto banning it. The point of separating church and state isn't because "religion is bad, mmmkay", it's precisely because the state should not discriminate on the basis of religion - or lack of it.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 04:39:22 Nim: "Try statistical use of genetic markers indicating inbreeding." See, look at Forwyn and your new compatriots who have "joined you" on this issue. When they say Muslim, they know what they mean. The mean your heritage, not what religion you practice.
Forwyn Member	Wed May 24 04:44:36 Persian inbreeding is statistically insignificant compared with the Arab world, yoy fucking racist. https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-6-17
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 04:49:09 >>If we define "True Islam" to be what ISIS says it is, then anyone who claims to be a "True Muslim", according to Nim, must be so.<< vs what I actually said. >>This is why I take at face value anyone who says they are a Muslim, be they jihadist, Islamist, gay, non-binary, with purple hair, drinking and fornicating. "True Islam" suggests that such a thing actually exists and is something one should strive for.<< You are worthless.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 05:15:02 >>look at Forwyn and your new compatriots<< Once it was apparent that ex-muslims and atheist in the Muslim community could not rely on their historical allies the political left. Once we saw how quickly the likes of you and Jergul threw us under the bus to not sound "racist" we had to seek new allies. I am getting a fair treatment from forwyn and sam adams, they seem far more interested in what I am saying and what I think, unlike you and your ilk who are obsessed with where I come from and why I am not acting and talking like where I come from. Good riddance "friend".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 05:31:39 "I'm genuinely at a loss about what you want a Muslim to do then to distance themselves from ISIS Nim." LOL! Well thank you for finally admitting to not understanding what I am saying. The article was fairly clear I think, about what needs to be done. STOP TALKING ABOUT "TRUE MUSLIMS"! Stop saying that Islamic State is not Islam or that it has nothing to do with Islam. Deal with the ideology head on, if you are an Imam contextualize the verses, reinterpret in a modern context. Takfiring the takfiris validates the concept of takfir and strengthens the claim that "true Islam" exists, this is the death of a pluralistic Islam.
Forwyn Member	Wed May 24 05:41:12 I spent a good deal of time learning Farsi from native Iranians, most of them Atheist or non-practicing, who fled their homeland because of radical Islam. Good folks, a shame what Western imperialism and virulent sky-daddy lore wrought on their nation. But leftists ignore demographic trends and pretend something like that could never happen in the West.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 05:45:09 It is like I have spoke to a wall this past year seb. About reading the quran and hadiths, immersing myself in Islamic history so that I can argue and contextualize the ideology when I talk with the Muslims I meet. Instead I have wasted my time trying to convince a brit who knows absolutely nothing about any of that I am not a genocidal racist. When I tell him I am tired of that, he tells me "yea because I am spot on". Why is the demographics of rape offenders interesting to someone who spends time mentoring immigrant teenage boys in the hoods? Clearly because he (me) has become radicalized and buddies with nazis now. What I said to WTB applies to you 100%, I will let Hitchens say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed_8puKLUGw
Cherub Cow Member	Wed May 24 05:50:42 [CC]: "'Takfirism' sounds like a euphemism for the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy." [Seb@CC]: "So does the polar reverse, look at Nim's conclusion! If we define 'True Islam' to be what ISIS says it is, then anyone who claims to be a 'True Muslim', according to Nim, must be so." By "polar reverse" do you mean that one limiting definition could be over-drawn into a total definition? Like, for example: [Red Potato]: "Brown potatoes are not true potatoes." [Brown Potato]: "Red potatoes are not true potatoes." [Erroneous Observer]: "All potatoes are Red Potatoes." If that sort of error outcome was your meaning, then yes, that would be problematic because the E.Observer would be playing into the results of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (forming proofs from within the fallacy's circular logic, thus creating more error), whereas the "No True Scotsman" fallacies of the potatoes should be seen for their errors — that is, both brown and red potatoes should equally be understood as potatoes in a general sense. Or back to the topic: ISIS/ISIL and moderate Muslims would all still be "Muslim", but if either group uses Takfirism to eject the other from the "Muslim" title via a "true" modifier, then they would be employing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to ignore existing overlaps in their Venn diagram. That seems to catch up with Nim's latest post (Wed May 24 05:31:39). With "true" out of the way, they would — like the article and Nim seem to say — have to discuss the differences in their applications of Muslim texts (where they exit the Venn diagram overlaps) while understanding that each group would still be considered "Muslim".
Seb Member	Wed May 24 06:07:15 Nim: I did read it. What are you trying to say then? My reading of this "This is why I take at face value anyone who says they are a Muslim, be they jihadist, Islamist, gay, non-binary, with purple hair, drinking and fornicating. "True Islam" suggests that such a thing actually exists and is something one should strive for." Is that you are saying then that when a liberal Muslim claims that they are a true Muslim, you decide to take them "at face value", that they must believe the things you take to be "true Islam", which is something that underpins violence? Because that's what it seems to be. It's the ontologically proof of God fallacy applied to terrorism. I've not thrown you under the bus for being athiest, I'm throwing you under the bus for turning your atheism into an implicit blanket condensation of Muslims who haven't renounced their faith. You don't get to turn your petty religious spat into a screaming societal divide, and exacerbate what is already a hugely difficult problem. Your argument is we should treat terrorism as fundamental to Islam or vice versa is dangerous nonsense that creates an intractable divide in society and risks increasing radicalism. Firstly, Disallowing Muslims the ability to differentiate themselves from terrorism also validates ISIS views. It puts the responsibility on innocent people to justify their innocence, or be guilty by association. Secondly, The liberal Muslims and mainstream Muslims are not the ones that are a problem, so how are they going to tackle the beliefs of the fundamentalists? And the fundamentalists do subscribe to Takfirism, and don't view moderates as Muslims, so moderate Muslims can embrace fundamentalists as fellow adherents as much as they like, but how is that going to change the fundamentalists views? They are all Takfir. The only practical thing to be achieved is to defeat the ideology of terror, which can only be achieved by arguing that the terrorism isn't necessary or is an immoral course of action. The former alone amounts to an implicit argument that it's morally justified but not appropriate to the context, which risks backfiring. The latter is Takfirism by another name. The idea is so obviously sterile and self defeating, you can only be seriously entertaining it due to confirmation bias. And in so far as a particular brand of Islam is fundamental to terrorism, what practical value does that have for detection and countermeasures? Pretty much none. Focusing on specific networks of individuals is more practically useful.
jergul large member	Wed May 24 06:18:32 Seb Nimi is a radicalized muslim scholar living in a western country. By his own definitions. Encouraging a western crusade on islam is no more than what ISIS propagandists suggest is appropriate. So if we absolutely have to look for 5th columns to deal with in a dramatic manner... Have a nice flight home nimi.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 06:19:58 Cherub Cow: Which then leads to the obvious point - the difference between Terrorists and terrorist supporters, and non terrorists - is within win it. Islam itself transcends that split, and is not a practically useful way to approach terrorism from a perspective external to Islam. Internally,the terrorists believe the non terrorists are Takfir, and if the moderates can pursuade the terrorists otherwise; either they are endorsing the terrorists religious justifications (which they don't) or they are arguing that the terrorists are applying the religion wrongly, which would amount to saying a religious justification of terrorism is invalid and contrary to Islam. Which is pretty much Takfirism. It basically boils down to appealing to non terrorist Muslims to believe that terrorism is moral and religiously justified because the terrorists think so. Which is a patently daft thing to want to do.
Seb Member	Wed May 24 06:21:33 *within Islam.
jergul large member	Wed May 24 06:23:01 The only question really is if we believe that Muslim can redeem themselves through a single act of conversion. I would argue the culture in too ingrained and inter-generational for an act of conversion to have any meaning. This is incidentally also true of converts to the muslim faith. They have their baggage that their non-muslim culture is completely responsible for. Attempts at self-medication by adopting a moon-god non-withstanding.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 24 06:41:10 "Is that you are saying then that when a liberal Muslim claims that they are a true Muslim, you decide to take them "at face value", that they must believe the things you take to be "true Islam", which is something that underpins violence? Because that's what it seems to be." I am saying that as an atheist I give no shit about true Islam because that would mean that there is a true Islam to be had. It is a non-sequitur for me, do you understand? You can't get a "true" message from a book filled with medieval magic and religious nonsense. So I don't care beyond there being Muslims and Christians etc. And if someone believe they are a Muslim, who the fuck am I to say they are not? Beyond that there are practical reasons to NOT engage in takfirism towards Islamist and Jihadist as detailed in the article. Furthermore as someone who understands the religion I know that you have literally ZERO theological or historical grounds to stand on excommunicating these people, they are making a LITERAL READING. The way forward is re-reading, contextualizing and shaping a new modern understanding and you do not achieve that by strengthening the takfir concept and selling in the "true muslim" idea. >>Muslims who haven't renounced their faith.<< Yes it would be great if everyone renounced their faith, Muslims included, I believe the world would be a better place. My hopes are far more down to earth, I want a reform of Islam. >>Your argument is we should treat terrorism as fundamental to Islam<< I make far better distinctions than you. Jihadist, Islamist and conservative muslims, different groups with significant overlap, all pose different challenges to a secular liberal democracy. >>Disallowing Muslims the ability to differentiate themselves from terrorism also validates ISIS views.<< I understand why moderate Muslims want to distance themselves from the likes of ISIS, I am saying that the method being used no matter how well intentioned is not helping. >>The liberal Muslims and mainstream Muslims are not the ones that are a problem, so how are they going to tackle the beliefs of the fundamentalists?<< By providing better argument and rebuttal than "these are not true Muslims". By engaging the arguments, breaking them down and showing why these interpretations are wrong or out of context. I point you to Majid Nawaz and his organization Quilliam, far too few like them. Muslims the whole lot, I have no issues with their context and modern version of Islam as a person, as an atheist I would disagree in the same conversational tone I disagree with Christians. Live and let live.
Seb Member	Thu May 25 06:54:26 Nim: "I am saying that as an atheist I give no shit about true Islam because that would mean that there is a true Islam to be had." That confuses whether there Islam is factually accurate, vs whether there is a correct account of what Islam is. I don't believe that lamarckian evolution is correct, but I do acknowledge there is a correct account of what it is. "And if someone believe they are a Muslim, who the fuck am I to say they are not?" And if they are to say "that Islam is not my Islam", who are you to say that's not true also? "The way forward is re-reading, contextualizing and shaping a new modern understanding and you do not achieve that by strengthening the takfir concept and selling in the "true muslim" idea." And yet that is exactly and precisely how reform has happened in Christianity - it was the liberal reformers that felt they were going back to the basic by looking at the source and interpreting it. It is literally where the term "fundamentalist" comes from, and the fist step was to reject Catholicism as *not* being a correct interpretation, and the pope therefore a heretic. You say you want a reformed Islam, but how reformed is an Islam that still accepts a religious basis for political terror? The idea is so contradictory in my mind as to baffle. The only way you could accept terrorists to be Muslims is if you accept Islam does, in fact, permit murder of innocents for political ends. Granted that would be a tiny improvement on "duty" that the terrorists seem to believe. Ultimately, any form of ecumenicalism that extends to providing a moral justification for witch burning is a pretty bad form of ecumenicalism. I think your argument is highly philosophical - the idea that mainstream Muslims should embrace fundamentalist doctrine as actually in accordance with Islam is far more likely to make it easier for people to justify their action, or justify inaction when they notice jihadist tendencies in their company; and it is far more likely to cause those outside the faith to view it as a 5th collumn, increasing alienation and playing directly into the narrative that there is a civilisational conflict, and Muslims need to pick a side and the west has already decided that the Muslims amidst them are the enemy. It is very obviously self defeating both philosophically and in practice. I just saw a Quilliam op-ed in the papers yesterday denouncing terrorism as not religiously justified.
Seb Member	Thu May 25 07:23:29 In any case, your threat title still misses the point. If you think a reformed Islam should encompass a diversity of views, and perhaps Islam as practiced already does given the large majority that think that terrorism is so contrary to Islam as to be apostasy; then simply identifying as a Muslim cannot logically tell you anything useful about either terrorists or an individuals inclination to terror. Which was my point all along.
Seb Member	Thu May 25 07:27:59 Incidentally, if terrorism is inevitable consequence of Takfirism, how come we see no counter radical terrorism with Liberal Muslims blowing up conservative ones? The problem of terrorism is clearly confined to a very small subset of Muslims as a whole. Hence why I reject all this blanket thinking that goes "hey, terrorism is a Muslim problem". To me, at least in Europe, it appears to be far more one of how we structure our society. It's disproportionately more likely among our Muslims than American Muslims, and occurs in a specific generation or two. That is far more interesting than noting they all say they are doing it in the name of Islam. For a start, you can rule out foreign policy as the main driver: America has a far longer track record of blowing up Muslims, yet American muslims are far less likely to turn on their society than ours.
murder Member	Thu May 25 07:31:05 You know you're fighting a losing battle when you've been reduced to debating exactly how Muslim Muslim terrorists are at the time their attack ... based on how Muslim they were years or months before. As if it matters. They are all more Muslim than you are, and they all want to kill you.
Seb Member	Thu May 25 08:40:04 murder: They don't all want to kill us and and not all Muslims are terrorists. The point about most of the european attackers converting to Islam as part of the radicalisation process is important > there is an active recruitment campaign that looks for non Islamic people. Would they really need to do that if all Muslim people are already frothing at the mouth to kill us? Nope. Angry white people join neo-nazi groups like EDF etc, but the EDF isn't organised enough to actually run a terror campaign. That said, they do quite happily beat, attack and kill minorities. Look at that chap in the states who burned down a church. But nobody would say "All white people want to kill black people", or "All right wingers want to kill black people".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 26 09:12:51 >>I don't believe that lamarckian evolution is correct, but I do acknowledge there is a correct account of what it is.<< Are there many different schools of lamarckian evolution? This is not a good analogy, comparing religion with failed scientific theories. Our books changed and are revised, Quran and Hadith stay the same. We must be pragmatic, Islam is not going the way of Lamarckism any time soon, there are many interpretations, all full of nonsense. I don't care nor do I think it is possible to acknowledge a correct account of Islam 1400 years after the fact. 1400 years of Muslims killing each other over what is true Islam. >>And if they are to say "that Islam is not my Islam", who are you to say that's not true also?<< I don't say anything about any part of Islam or interpretation of Islam being true. My point and the article are clear on why moderate Muslims and the rest of us must get out of the "no true Muslim" business. >>And yet that is exactly and precisely how reform has happened in Christianity<< Well, Islam is not Christianity and I have tried to explained these differences many times. It is unreasonable to expect similar results or that Islams path to secularism and reform will mimic Christianities. You must let go of these ideas, the difference between Christianity and Islam are not subtle. >>You say you want a reformed Islam, but how reformed is an Islam that still accepts a religious basis for political terror?<< Well the texts that ISIS quote are part of the body of literature that is Islam. You can disagree with their interpretation, but can never say they have nothing to do with Islam. You watch the snuff videos in shock and horror, but ISIS also builds roads, punish murderers and builds bakeries. It is not like they only pick the death and suicide parts and drive around like a band of murderous lunatics. They govern, they build and they try to live like "good Muslims". They accept Allah and his prophet, they pray 5 times a day, they go to Mosque and yes they fight against the enemies of the Muslims, like the prophet. There is no room for these interpretations in the modern context of today, but Islamic history and precedence is full of them. I mean ISIS did not invent this stuff, there is a long lineage from Ibn Taymiyyah to Ibn Wahab of this type of interpretations. Even further back to the Khwarij that rebelled again and killed the last rightously guided Caliph Ali setting off the entire Shia/Sunni divide. You do not reshape the thinking by making obvious theological blunders claiming these ideas and interpretations have nothing to do with Islam. I could point you to Muhammad the prophet himself doing the things ISIS did. So without someone contextualizing these things and just simply saying "this isn't Islam", it makes a poor facade for anyone familiar with the texts. >>Muslims should embrace fundamentalist<< "embrace". Some what troubling that you feel the need to re-emphasis what I say and not so slightly shift the meaning. They need to stop saying the interpretations have nothing to do with Islam, because clearly they have a lot to do with Islam. Instead they should sit down and see why anyone would interpret the text this way and provide better and more modern interpretations. I mean really seb, Al Qaeda denounces ISIS, Iran denounces both and Saudi Arabia denounce all 3. They all point to each other and call the others more or less apostates. Then when you look at the details you realize they all want some form of oppressive Sharia state, just their own version of it. This is not a good way forward.
Seb Member	Fri May 26 10:28:28 Nim: You're switching tack again. The argument you presented in the last post was that in order to believe in a true Islam you'd need to believe in Islam, and therefore as an Atheist, you don't believe in a true Islam. That doesn't logically follow. Asking Muslims to get out of the "no true Islam" business is a bad idea. It would have to then accept you can be a good Muslim while blowing up children in a suicide attack; and such a thing isn't so bad as to put you outside of the faith. "Well, Islam is not Christianity and I have tried to explained these differences many times." As someone who isn't a Muslim then, why is it for you to say what Islam must and must not do to reform? Particularly when other religions have reformed that way? You say you can interpret the texts in a way that means suicide bombing is forbidden. That's just another way of saying other interpretations are wrong - Takfirism by another name. "They need to stop saying the interpretations have nothing to do with Islam... and provide modern interpretations" Yeah, that's what they are doing. So what you are saying they should do is stop saying "Nothing to do with Islam", is basically asking them to take responsibility for actions they believe are actually contrary to the faith. Firstly, that's unethical in my view to ask a group to accept guilt by association. Secondly, it dilutes the message that these actions are not consistent with the faith. Thirdly, it encourages others outside the faith to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. Would you really rather prefer that mainstream Muslims accepted Isis, Saudi conservatives and Al-quaeda as a legitimate form of Islam, just practiced wrongly (which is the definition of apostasy anyway). It's not going to stop the latter three treating everyone else as apostates. No, what we want is for mainstream Muslims to stop thinking Apostasy is something Muslims need to violently oppose. But we absolutely do want Muslims to reject the idea that Jihadis interpretations of Islam are legitimate!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 26 11:34:52 >>if terrorism is inevitable consequence of Takfirism<< It's not, takfiring the takfiris validates the concept itself. It is not for the benefit of the jihadist we should stop doing this, it is for the benefit of those on the fence and in the risk zone. It is de-platforming on a major scale, calling a muslim apostate is more or less calling them an animal to be butchered. We should have learned something about de-platforming by now, all it does is drive up the book sales of the de-platformed. When it comes to Jihadist they sell a very straight forward, easy and compelling narrative. Their job is made easier by the very narrative of the Quran and the story of Muhammed which literally is full of battles and wars against the enemies of the Muslims. It is very easy for the jihadists to re-apply the same context to much of the middle east and paint a grievance narrative, easily connecting what is going on today to what Muhammed and his companions faced 1400 years ago. Instead of tackling that narrative and providing a better narrative we capitulate the entire debate by dismissing there is something to talk about. I think it is quite clear that "this" has at least something to do with Islam. Pro-life has something to do with Christianity, thinking cows are sacred has something to do with Hinduism. The concept of Jihad has something to do with Islam. >>It's disproportionately more likely among our Muslims than American Muslims<< The USA has also been far more restrictive and selective. Europe also has a closer proximity making it easier and cheaper for many more to make the trip, legally or illegally. >>yet American muslims are far less likely to turn on their society than ours.<< There are 3.3 million muslims in America. There are 44 million (2010) muslims in Europe. 19 million in the EU alone. I would expect us to have more incidents. Europe also has 1400 years of violent history and back and forth wars and destruction with Islamic empires that the USA does not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 26 12:26:58 >>The argument you presented in the last post was that in order to believe in a true Islam you'd need to believe in Islam, and therefore as an Atheist, you don't believe in a true Islam.<< I have presented several arguments for why this is a bad thing. One being the non-sequitur as an atheist. Yes only the adherents care, but should not if the goal is to reduce fundie influence. I have nothing more to add on this point. >>It would have to then accept you can be a good Muslim while blowing up children in a suicide attack; and such a thing isn't so bad as to put you outside of the faith.<< It shouldn't be, you would still be executed or put in prison, killed in battle. What we are talking about are the underlying ideology and values. The spring from Islamic literature and thus have to be dealt with within Islam. >>why is it for you to say what Islam must and must not do to reform?<< As someone who has lived and experienced both worlds I think that puts me in a position to say something about what needs to be done. However I am not inventing these things, I hear them from Muslims like Majid Nawaz. I think the propositions are reasonable as someone who live in both worlds. >>is basically asking them to take responsibility for actions they believe are actually contrary to the faith.<< No one bares responsibility for anything other than their own actions. I am not promoting collective blame or guilt not for white atheists nor Arab Muslims. The problematic parts of Islam are not isolated to jihadism, Islam needs much more reform than you are apparently giving it credit for. If tomorrow Jihadism was eradicated a lot more work would be ahead of Muslim reformers to do away with the misogyny towards women and minorities. And here it would help to know exactly what ideas we are talking about and what % of muslims reject them. Like I said, different sharia thumping groups will reject each other, but for me and you it would make little difference. >>Secondly, it dilutes the message that these actions are not consistent with the faith.<< They are consistent with the Quran, they are consistent with the story of Muhammed provided you are given a grievance narrative. Now that might be a false narrative of American imperialism of stealing Iraqs oil or other conspiracy theories infesting the ME. You understand what I mean? The story of Muhammed and his life can very easily be put into a modern context >verbatim< and be very rational and plausible, provided a grievance, of which there are thousands of in the ME. This is why the ideology matters, Islam as written and understood for 1400 year makes it easy to view many issues as Muslim against non-Muslim. Much of the Quran is about how Muslims should interact with non-Muslims. It doesn't mean everyone will become terrorist, but it provides rules and boundaries that will produce "Mujahids" to defend Islam and Muslims when certain criteria are met. >>It's not going to stop the latter three treating everyone else as apostates.<< No, but it will shift the energy and focus of the debate to re-evaluating and re-defining what Islam means. What jihadist do today is based on 1400 years of Islamic success, spreading Islam through warfare. You can not simple as a Muslim or non-Muslim say that these 1400 years of killing infidels, imposing jizyah and enforcing sharia, has nothing to do with Islam. At least not expect to be taken seriously by the people you are trying to convince. >>But we absolutely do want Muslims to reject the idea that Jihadis interpretations of Islam are legitimate!<< It should be rejected as an interpretation that can provide Muslims with a bright future and fulfilling life. But more than reject they need to look at the troublesome texts and passages and be ready to provide compelling answers when their sons come asking. That will not happen as long as we can deny there are any problematic verses. You have to realize that changing the >literal speech of god< something only the Quran claims to be, is not done at a whim. Hence the strong conservative tendencies among Muslims.
Seb Member	Fri May 26 16:28:14 Nim: "It's not, takfiring the takfiris validates the concept itself." Again, I draw that categorical distinction between "I consider your actions and beliefs to be incompatible with mine, therefore I must kill you" to "I consider your actions and beliefs to be incompatible with mine, so I no longer consider you to have the same faith as me" "What we are talking about are the underlying ideology and values" Indeed - that's the pojnt. If a moderate interpretation rejects those values and ideologies, then what should they make of an interpretation that upholds them? Your argument seems to be that somehow, fundamentalist interpretations will be more marginalised if moderate muslims accept that the fundamentalist interpretations are valid interpretations. I can't think of anything more obviously and demonstrably illogical. To argue that the only way to avoid the former is to say "Yes, the thing you are doing is definitely consistent with my faith". How, exactly, does saying "yes, it is consistent with Islam to blow up children in suicide bombs" marginalising fundamentalists? "No one bares responsibility for anything other than their own actions." Philosophically lovely. You don't need to look beyond this thread to see that a large minority of people in the west do not see it that way, and you are making it moderate muslims responsibility to "reform" ISIS types by first acknowledging interpretations of Islam they fundamentally reject as being valid. "If tomorrow Jihadism was eradicated a lot more work would be ahead of Muslim reformers to do away with the misogyny towards women and minorities." Same arguments apply, and in any case you can find strains of Christianity and Judaeis that are deeply mysogynistic or hostile to minorities. Nobody puts the onus on liberal christians and jews to address or account for those factions. "They are consistent with the Quran" Depends how you read it though. The bible has plenty of horrible stuff, and the truth is most Christians don't actually know the theological underpinnings of why they are interpreted away. They just ignore it. "No, but it will shift the energy and focus of the debate to re-evaluating and re-defining what Islam means." Which is lovely if what you want is a big religious studies lovefest, but comes with pretty severe penalties in the short term. What I want is young, angry, European muslims to not feel further alienated, for them not to find religious justification for blowing themselves up and killing their neighbours, and for idiotic westners to not push them into the arms of radicalisers by validating everything that radicals say. And I simply don't agree that having a long deep discussion on why Jihadis actions are on the face of it, justified, but that the justification turns out to be wrong when interpreted such and such a way. You don't tend to win arguments by arguing strongly for the opposing point of view, and then changing tack and arguing against it. Either moderate Islam thinks that the Jihadi's interpretation is wrong, or they think it's correct. If they thinks it's wrong, and that the adherents are not practicing Islam. And they should say so. And that's Takfirism apparently.
Seb Member	Fri May 26 16:37:03 Nim: "I would expect us to have more incidents." I said less likely, not simply less. I.e. they are disproportionately less events. I remind you that the bulk of European Islamic terrorists are second or third generation. So "restrictive" entry criteria clearly not the issue. Their parents don't commit terrorism, so they can't be getting it from their parents. I think you are struggling to accept the idea that actually the problem of Islamic Terrorism in Europe may have a lot to do with structural problems in European society. America is a lot better at integration than we are. A violent ideology finds far less angry young men in which to take root. It's European society that has shaped the conditions for these guys as they develop, probably more so than Islam as religion is only one aspect of an individual. And indeed many only embrace Islam as part of their recruitment by jihadist movements, but have a longer history of crime and violence. If you are genuinely interested in intercepting people before they blow or shoot up a nightclub, I think there are probably more fruitful areas to look.
Forwyn Member	Fri May 26 17:24:40 Blame Europe! Lol Why aren't Korean immigrants shooting up concert halls?
Seb Member	Fri May 26 23:58:35 Forwyn: Korean immigrants in Europe live in a different context. They are not systematically discriminated against, they don't exist as a large corralled group of relative poverty being descended from a large body of post Imperial labour import; and there's no movement seeking to coral them into a violent campaign. When you start to compare to other groups with similar context, patterns emerge. Take afro carribean, you get the gangs, violence etc but there's no external global movement seeking to tap into that population. That said, a fair few find their way to jihadis even though their cultural background is Christian.
jergul large member	Sat May 27 07:47:55 "That said, a fair few find their way to jihadis even though their cultural background is Christian." This is one of the difficulties with overemphasising the importance of prophet accreditation in the Abrahamic faith. Red potatoe, brown potatoe, blue potatoe. They are all potatoes based on a common holy book.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: