Islam and the West, fundamentally incompatible?

[TerraPrime]

I do not think that's comparable. Christianity prioritizes teachings of Jesus Christ above anything else (hence the name) and Jesus overruled a lot of stuff from the Old Testament (even though he agreed for it to be legit), like this:

Well, looks like you'll fit right in, in that room of Christian apologists.

So, we can grant that Christians are emulating Christ (try not to laugh too hard) and so they're exempt from this cross-cutural comparison. What about religious Jews?

The point is that if people don't want to kill their gay neighbors, they will find ways to accomplish just that, regardless of the text in the religious book. If Muslims don't want to force non-Muslims to convert at sword point, and I assure you that the vast majority of Muslims do not, despite what the Quran may or may not say, then they will find a way to do just that. For instance, drinking alcohol is not allowed in many sects of Islamic faith, but younger Muslims find ways to brew their own moonshine and party, nonetheless. Same with pre-marrital sex.

In other words, a better plan to reduce the conflict between Islam and the western ideas, and to minimize the struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims, is not to criticize the book of Quran and try to show others that that's the root cause of the discord. Rather, aim to liberalize their society in general, and their theology will follow.

[peterbound]

The Bible is not always vague. For instance: That seems pretty clear and explicit to me.

Of course, you can get a whole room of Christian apologists to dance and wiggle to explain why this passage is not really applicable to us any more, and that's what most Christians in the west behave - they pick and choose which passages to follow and which to ignore. And that's the point - it's the people, not the book, that is the problem. The Quran is as morally bankrupt as the Talmud and the Bible, and we've been fine with those two books for centuries.

Levitical law went by the wayside with Christ. At least that's the Christians viewpoint.

Now. If you want to get on the Jews, go right ahead.

[Dofs]

 

 

Well, looks like you'll fit right in, in that room of Christian apologists.

So, we can grant that Christians are emulating Christ (try not to laugh too hard) and so they're exempt from this cross-cutural comparison. What about religious Jews?

The point is that if people don't want to kill their gay neighbors, they will find ways to accomplish just that, regardless of the text in the religious book. If Muslims don't want to force non-Muslims to convert at sword point, and I assure you that the vast majority of Muslims do not, despite what the Quran may or may not say, then they will find a way to do just that. For instance, drinking alcohol is not allowed in many sects of Islamic faith, but younger Muslims find ways to brew their own moonshine and party, nonetheless. Same with pre-marrital sex.

In other words, a better plan to reduce the conflict between Islam and the western ideas, and to minimize the struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims, is not to criticize the book of Quran and try to show others that that's the root cause of the discord. Rather, aim to liberalize their society in general, and their theology will follow.

I don't know much about the Jews, we are speaking about the Christianity and Islam.

You have provided a law from the Bible that Christians never followed and that were never part of Christianity and use it as an example of how religious Muslims can stop following the laws that they follow at the moment. I am saying that this is a logical fallacy as the situations can't be compared and provided the reasons why. You hand-waving it as "Christian apologists find their excuses" isn't a good argument against these reasons.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Peterbound

Yes, indeed. Which is, you know, my original point - texts in a holy book matter less than what people do. If people don't want to sacrifice umblemished calves to atone for sins, then they will find a way to not do it, regardless of what the holy book says.

 

Re: Dofs

No, your first point was that the Quran gave specific and explicit instructions, thus making it hard to have room to wiggle away from doing certain things.

I pointed out that the Bible contains passages that are similarly unambiguous and yet, like you said, most Christians don't follow it.

You then responded saying that it's never part of the faith, anyway. Which, really, doesn't refute my point that Christians follow some passages and not the others. In fact, it very much confirms my point - despite any appearance of rigid mandate in the text, the followers will find ways to do what they want.

[Dofs]

No, your first point was that the Quran gave specific and explicit instructions, thus making it hard to have room to wiggle away from doing certain things.

I pointed out that the Bible contains passages that are similarly unambiguous and yet, like you said, most Christians don't follow it.

You then responded saying that it's never part of the faith, anyway. Which, really, doesn't refute my point that Christians follow some passages and not the others. In fact, it very much confirms my point - despite any appearance of rigid mandate in the text, the followers will find ways to do what they want.

Alright, if you say that religious Christians don't follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want" then you can apply the same logic to religious Muslims and say that they do follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want". The only conclusion I can get from your logic is that the people of Middle East are inherently more violent than people from Europe, lol.

No, people are the same everywhere. If very devout Christians don't follow Levitical law, while very devout Muslims do follow their equivalent violent rules, the cause of the difference is in the religions and in their books and not in people's heads.

[JonSnow4President]

Alright, if you say that religious Christians don't follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want" then you can apply the same logic to religious Muslims and say that they do follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want". The only conclusion I can get from your logic is that the people of Middle East are inherently more violent than people from Europe, lol.

No, people are the same everywhere. If very devout Christians don't follow Levitical law, while very devout Muslims do follow their equivalent violent rules, the cause of the difference is in the religions and in their books and not in people's heads.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

I'll leave this here.  

And yes, violent douchenozzles will be violent douchenozzles.

[peterbound]

all of this. The Quran is a convoluted, contradictory and cumbersome text, in my experience. In other words, subject to various interpretations. 

The Quran is pretty clear on how to handle contradiction with the act and verses of abrogation.

One of the many things that cause concern for non believers, as most of the 'newer' verses are less than peaceful.

[Dofs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

I'll leave this here.  

And yes, violent douchenozzles will be violent douchenozzles.

It's not about what we were discussing.

[Biglose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

I'll leave this here.  

And yes, violent douchenozzles will be violent douchenozzles.

A quote from your article:

Djotodia’s departure weakened the former Muslim rebels, known as Seleka, who carried out deadly attacks on Christians after they grabbed power in March, prompting the birth of Christian militias called the anti-balaka, or “anti-machete” in the local Sango language.

The armed vigilantes have used the power vacuum to step up assaults on Muslims.

Yeah, call me surprise violence turns out to create a backlash...

[BrettG]

Alright, if you say that religious Christians don't follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want" then you can apply the same logic to religious Muslims and say that they do follow their violent verses because "the followers will find ways to do what they want". The only conclusion I can get from your logic is that the people of Middle East are inherently more violent than people from Europe, lol.

No, people are the same everywhere. If very devout Christians don't follow Levitical law, while very devout Muslims do follow their equivalent violent rules, the cause of the difference is in the religions and in their books and not in people's heads.

 Though the "lol" indicates you were joking, aside from the word "inherently," which implies some kind of inborn tendency to violence, your first point is actually correct.  The people of the Middle East, today, are more violent than the people of Europe.  Why wouldn't they be?  The vast majority of people in Europe have easy access to clean water, electricity, a supply of food in no immediate danger of running out, opportunities for education and employment, housing, a ludicrously high number of entertainment options, and don't live in daily fear of bombs dropping on them out of the sky.  Of course many of these things could benefit from reform, and they don't apply to everyone equally, but they exist.  The most war-torn areas of the Middle East, on the other hand, are plagued by drought, opportunities for education and legitimate employment are scarce, there's little in the way of entertainment to distract from this form of daily life, and any day could be the day that a bomb goes off in a cafe, either from a terrorist or dropped from a Western drone.  These kinds of conditions will always lead to violence, no matter where they occur or what religion happens to be dominant in the area.  Europe is less violent right now because being violent in Europe would be massively inconvenient, and because it's hard to get mad enough to be violent when life is generally good.  Life in these war-torn parts of the Middle East is generally bad, by our Western standards, and where rule of law is largely ineffective there's no real inconvenience to violence. Leading to the rise of ISIS or any organization like them, and the easy ability to gain followers.  If the living conditions were reversed, Europe would be a chaotic, violent mess and the Middle East would be as peaceful as Europe is. Tying this into religion then, Christians in Europe or the United States "find ways to do what they want" because following the letter of the Bible would be too inconvenient to their comfortable way of life.  Who wants to give up all their worldly possessions and follow in the footsteps of Jesus?  How can you possibly follow all of the rules in Leviticus and watch the football game at the same time?  They fit the Bible around their way of life.  Likewise, violent Muslim extremists "find ways to do what they want" by searching out the passages in the Quran that will justify the violence that they would be engaging in regardless.

 

As to your second point, you helpfully pointed out a couple pages back that a Muslim that doesn't follow the Quran literally is "not very religious".  Therefore, by your own logic, there can't be a devout Christian that doesn't follow Levitical law.  If they're not literally following the Bible they are "not very religious," and therefore not devout.  I'll even be generous and give you that Jesus overturned the law about stoning adulterers that was brought up.  If you could also point out where Jesus explicitly overturns every other law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and anywhere else that Christians no longer follow, then I'd be willing to consider this point as anything other than apologetics/hand-waving.

[peterbound]

 Though the "lol" indicates you were joking, aside from the word "inherently," which implies some kind of inborn tendency to violence, your first point is actually correct.  The people of the Middle East, today, are more violent than the people of Europe.  Why wouldn't they be?  The vast majority of people in Europe have easy access to clean water, electricity, a supply of food in no immediate danger of running out, opportunities for education and employment, housing, a ludicrously high number of entertainment options, and don't live in daily fear of bombs dropping on them out of the sky.  Of course many of these things could benefit from reform, and they don't apply to everyone equally, but they exist.  The most war-torn areas of the Middle East, on the other hand, are plagued by drought, opportunities for education and legitimate employment are scarce, there's little in the way of entertainment to distract from this form of daily life, and any day could be the day that a bomb goes off in a cafe, either from a terrorist or dropped from a Western drone.  These kinds of conditions will always lead to violence, no matter where they occur or what religion happens to be dominant in the area.  Europe is less violent right now because being violent in Europe would be massively inconvenient, and because it's hard to get mad enough to be violent when life is generally good.  Life in these war-torn parts of the Middle East is generally bad, by our Western standards, and where rule of law is largely ineffective there's no real inconvenience to violence. Leading to the rise of ISIS or any organization like them, and the easy ability to gain followers.  If the living conditions were reversed, Europe would be a chaotic, violent mess and the Middle East would be as peaceful as Europe is. Tying this into religion then, Christians in Europe or the United States "find ways to do what they want" because following the letter of the Bible would be too inconvenient to their comfortable way of life.  Who wants to give up all their worldly possessions and follow in the footsteps of Jesus?  How can you possibly follow all of the rules in Leviticus and watch the football game at the same time?  They fit the Bible around their way of life.  Likewise, violent Muslim extremists "find ways to do what they want" by searching out the passages in the Quran that will justify the violence that they would be engaging in regardless.

 

As to your second point, you helpfully pointed out a couple pages back that a Muslim that doesn't follow the Quran literally is "not very religious".  Therefore, by your own logic, there can't be a devout Christian that doesn't follow Levitical law.  If they're not literally following the Bible they are "not very religious," and therefore not devout.  I'll even be generous and give you that Jesus overturned the law about stoning adulterers that was brought up.  If you could also point out where Jesus explicitly overturns every other law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and anywhere else that Christians no longer follow, then I'd be willing to consider this point as anything other than apologetics/hand-waving.

Not sure how to say this any clearer.  Christians, by the very definition of their name, no longer are required to follow levitical law.  The old testament is sort of a... prequel to the meat of their faith.  Christ showing up, and doing all his imaginary magic bullshit did away with the requirements laid out by the ascendents of the cult of christ.  You can, alas, be a very devout christian, an not even know what the levitical laws are. 

 

And bombs, schools, and water.  I got to spend some time in Iraq.  We were building schools, wells, and stopped bombing (although the locals seemed to want to still blow the shit out of each other), and you know what.  Nothing changed.  The culture is so beat into their heads, that its going to be very, very difficult for those nations to pull themselves out of their 'comfort zones' and join us here in the year 2015.  I don't say that to be a fucking bigot (although i'm sure some will take it that way), but they have inherent issues with regards to technology, work ethic (my favorite saying over there was Inshallah (God Willing) when talking about work.  Oddly enough, god never willed it to be done.) , and the concept of government/corruption that will keep them just barely surviving as a country without outside help.  

[Wise Fool]

Well of course YOU think they're lazy. But then you also think people like me must be lazy and people who have a lot of money are harder workers. Your judgment isn't exactly to be taken as authority when it comes to a person's character, let alone a people's character.

 

[peterbound]

Well of course YOU think they're lazy. But then you also think people like me must be lazy and people who have a lot of money are harder workers. Your judgment isn't exactly to be taken as authority when it comes to a person's character, let alone a people's character.

 

Tell me again of your failures, and how they are my fault for expecting you to work harder?  Hell, I've just given you an out, you can put it in god's lap and hope all your wishes, dreams, and fairytales come true.  

There is a cultural difference in Iraq about what constitutes work.  No big deal, unless you make it one.  Unless you've been there, and experienced it, i'd clip my lip.  Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, most of their work force is farmed out to other nationalities.  They like to chill, and if you have all that oil money, it's cool (I guess), but for a country that is being dragged kicking and screaming into a strange and new world, there needs to be some elbow grease and hard work put in. 

Let's get back to the topic though, rather than throw insults, although I'm not sure you really know how to do anything other than that. 

 

 

[BrettG]

Not sure how to say this any clearer.  Christians, by the very definition of their name, no longer are required to follow levitical law.  The old testament is sort of a... prequel to the meat of their faith.  Christ showing up, and doing all his imaginary magic bullshit did away with the requirements laid out by the ascendents of the cult of christ.  You can, alas, be a very devout christian, an not even know what the levitical laws are. 

 

And bombs, schools, and water.  I got to spend some time in Iraq.  We were building schools, wells, and stopped bombing (although the locals seemed to want to still blow the shit out of each other), and you know what.  Nothing changed.  The culture is so beat into their heads, that its going to be very, very difficult for those nations to pull themselves out of their 'comfort zones' and join us here in the year 2015.  I don't say that to be a fucking bigot (although i'm sure some will take it that way), but they have inherent issues with regards to technology, work ethic (my favorite saying over there was Inshallah (God Willing) when talking about work.  Oddly enough, god never willed it to be done.) , and the concept of government/corruption that will keep them just barely surviving as a country without outside help.  

Of course you can be a Christian and not follow Levitical law.  I think you can be a devout Christian and not follow any Levitical law at all.  But I also think you can be a devout Muslim and live an entirely peaceful life. My point was that Dofs (or anybody else) can't have it both ways. The Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible. Beliefs from it are still held by Christians. The New Testament is not the only text to be found in a Christian church. Therefore you can't on the one hand say that Muslims that don't follow all of the most violent passages of the Quran are by default "not very religious" while on the other maintaining that a Christian can declare large portions of their own holy book no longer applicable without also calling that person "not very religious."  If a Christian is allowed to interpret the Bible and choose to follow some portions and not others without losing "religious" as a descriptor, then the same is true of a Muslim with the Quran.

 

And of course it's going to be difficult to change the culture of a people/region. That's the nature of culture, it's not going to change overnight. You can build a school, but who are the teachers? Are they qualified? How are the children getting to class? Are they walking, is there a bus for students that live farther away? Are they safe while they go to and from school? Are they able to study and engage with the material at home, or will they have family chores/work that they have to do that will prevent them from actually reflecting on it? What material is being taught? Does the school have a budget to afford to pay the teachers a living wage and buy classroom supplies and ensure that they can remain open for more than a year or a season? If it's a Western education being provided, are the teachers generally safe enough that they won't be targeted by extremists for doing their job?  These are all issues that will make all the difference between whether that school that is built succeeds or fails. It's not easy and requires a lot of work, which may not be something the local population is accustomed to right away (perhaps because, as you pointed out, if the government is corrupt hard work and individual effort likely goes unrewarded, and thus what's the point in trying?), but that's the cost of trying to change the culture of a region.  This type of thing is not a short-term project, it's a long-term investment that requires a concerted effort and that won't provide any real material rewards for many years. And since the average American citizen and almost all American politicians have a notoriously short attention span, any long-term plan that won't benefit us RIGHT NOW is automatically written off.  More importantly to this thread, this would be true anywhere that you attempted to change the dominant culture.  It's not unique to any one religion or people.

[peterbound]

Of course you can be a Christian and not follow Levitical law.  I think you can be a devout Christian and not follow any Levitical law at all.  But I also think you can be a devout Muslim and live an entirely peaceful life. My point was that Dofs (or anybody else) can't have it both ways. The Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible. Beliefs from it are still held by Christians. The New Testament is not the only text to be found in a Christian church. Therefore you can't on the one hand say that Muslims that don't follow all of the most violent passages of the Quran are by default "not very religious" while on the other maintaining that a Christian can declare large portions of their own holy book no longer applicable without also calling that person "not very religious."  If a Christian is allowed to interpret the Bible and choose to follow some portions and not others without losing "religious" as a descriptor, then the same is true of a Muslim with the Quran.

 

 

Again, I don't think you understand the bible very well.  The OT is more of a contextual addition, a precursor to the meat of the faith.  Christians follow the teachings of Christ, ergo, the NT.  Everything else before that is just build up, preamble, and silly metaphor.  Now, JC might at times reference some parts of the Torah, but only because he himself was a Jew.  

 

Listen, as an atheist, I think they are all fucking silly.  It just happens to be that some of the followers of that crazy cat muhammad are the nuttiest of them all at the moment. 

[Darzin]

Once again depends on the denomination, Ismailis and Bektashis believe that the literal meaning of the Quran is the least important as opposed to the hidden meaning. Ismailis are completely integrated into modernity in terms of dress and belief, so clearly not all Muslims are doomed to a literal Quranic interpretation, are they a small minority yes they're maybe 10 million worldwide but it's proof of concept if nothing else. Hell their more in step with modern ideals than many American Christians.

[The guy from the Vale]

Yep. It's also like that in case of Alevites and most other Shi'ites. The one branch of Islam that's really incompatible with Western thought is Salafist Sunni Islam - and that's just a sub-branch of one branch of Islam.

[TrueMetis]

Again, I don't think you understand the bible very well.  The OT is more of a contextual addition, a precursor to the meat of the faith.  Christians follow the teachings of Christ, ergo, the NT.  Everything else before that is just build up, preamble, and silly metaphor.  Now, JC might at times reference some parts of the Torah, but only because he himself was a Jew.  

Explain that to all the Christians who think Noah's flood actually happened and the earth is 6000 days old. Which is about 40% of American's last I checked and about 20% of Canadians. Or all the Christians who point to the OT as justification for their homophobia. It'd be nice if you were right, but you're not.

Or fuck just look at the ten commandments. Most Christians consider those pretty central and hardly "just build up, preamble, and silly metaphor."

What parts are and are not taken seriously of both the OT and NT is up to the individual Christian, and we are just fortunate to live in a time when Christians do indeed interpret much of it as metaphor or otherwise not to be taken seriously. But this has not always been the case, and they could and have interpreted it in such a way as to do everything that Dofs list about the Quran. And given the shit going on with Trump and the far right's seeming rise in Europe I'd be wary of a regression happening.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yes, as long as they use tartar sauce as directed in Deut. 5:14.

(I say not even looking up Deut. 5:14...)

But seriously: should independent courts be allowed to enforce laws not sanctioned by the state? 

I hope you all would be against this regardless of religion. I wouldn't want an independent Muslim court set up in my town any more than a Christian one.

 

Myrddin,

You mean like through the existing Arbitration process where parties can remove a case from court and proceed informally based upon rules agreed to by the parties?  Yes, they can and have for decades.

TP,

Before condmening Jews for being bound by the strict provisions of Levitical law I'd love to hear what some Rabbis had to say about the particular passage you quote from the original Hebrew.  

As I seem to recall that there is a Millennium long tradition among Jewish Rabbis of discussing and debating the finer points of Levitical law and that as such your course and one pass interpretation of a passage in English and out of context of the other passages around it may give meaning and nuance to that pasage that we as non-Levitical scholars don't see or understand.

[Myrddin]

I asked if Myrddin had any specific threats from Sharia in mind, because there is a town in Texas where a mosque offered voluntary, nonbinding mediation services between its members, and the mayor of the town immediately seized that as evidence of OMG CREEPING SHARIA LAW!

This would be the same town where the infamous "clock kid" incident happened, and where armed yahoos are openly harassing mosque-goers.

No, I was thinking of a town in Sweden, actually. A friend of mine moved back home there and was pretty turned off by what he found.