Islam and Islamists

Double wank and shit chips
Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#121

Post by Steersman » Mon May 23, 2016 11:16 am

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right?
More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points. Although I might suggest that you're a little slow on the uptake, or decidedly "reluctant" to address that argument, since I've been saying that, more or less, for the last hundred posts or so.
jimhabegger wrote:Am I missing anything?
Not that I can see at the moment - apart, maybe, from the fact that I don't see that you've really ever addressed the central element of my "thesis", although it is also one that many others (Rizvi, Sultan, Rahman, Hirsi Ali, et. al.) have supported. For example:

But since it seems relevant, you also asked in a recent post:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, it looks to me like you think I've been lying about some things. If that isn't what you think, please let me know.
It's less a question of you actually lying, as far as I can see, than that you are, apparently, intellectually dishonest and egregriously evasive. You make a great summary of my position, but seem remarkably reluctant, being charitable, to actually address the substance of it. I was hopeful that your "I haven't seen anyone taking [The Muslim Threat] seriously enough" might have led to you doing so, but you then abandoned the field without ever really doing that. Not at all impressive or commendable, but which underlines my point.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#122

Post by jimhabegger » Mon May 23, 2016 7:42 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right?
More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points.
(snip}
You make a great summary of my position ...
Then I'll proceed from there, to ask some questions about it, including one that I've already asked without seeing any answer.

1. Do your principles ever prevent you from doing anything you want to do? If so, can you give some examples of that?

2. The Baha'i Faith endorses the Quran. Are you proposing to ban the Baha'i Faith, and to deport Baha'is? If not, why not?

3. Do you have any ideas about how to sort out the Muslims who repudiate the Quran, from those who don't?

4. Following your line of reasoning, the Bible promotes some of the worst kinds of violence, child sacrifice for example, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Christian is implicitly endorsing the Bible, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Bible. Why are you not proposing to ban Christianity, and deport Christians who don't repudiate the Bible? If it's just a matter of how much and what kind of violence, how did you decide where to draw the line, to say that the government needs to repress Islam, but not Christianity? Or is the difference simply pragmatic, in that repressing Christianity might be far less feasible than repressing Islam?

5. Is there anything for me to see in any of the literature that you've invited me to read, besides examples of bad things that people have done in the neme of Islam?

6. What are your reasons for believing what opinion polls say about people's opinions?

7. Some people who endorse the Quran, promote using it in ways that oppose violence, rather than promoting it. Would you want those people to be deported, along with all the others who endorse the Quran?

8. Do you have any precise definition for "ban Islam"? I know you've given some examples, but do you have any precise definition for that, or some way for anyone to decide what precise actions or policies would serve that purpose? Would it be any actions or policies aimed at preventing people from practicing or promoting Islam?

9. If you're advocating actions or policies to prevent people from practicing or promoting Islam, would that include prohibitions against all the practices that are promoted in the Quran? Truthfulness, fairness, caring for poor people, and honoring agreements, for example? If you wouldn't want to prohibit all the practices that are promoted in the Quran, how would people know which of those practices are prohibited?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#123

Post by jimhabegger » Mon May 23, 2016 7:55 pm

Please try to include some other reasons in your answer to question 6, along with your insults. I've never seen any answers to that question, from anyone, other than ad homs, and if there are any answers to that question other than ad homs, I would very much like to see them.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#124

Post by Steersman » Mon May 23, 2016 10:01 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote: >snip>
You make a great summary of my position ...
Then I'll proceed from there, to ask some questions about it, including one that I've already asked without seeing any answer.
Not quite sure why you think I would want to answer any of your questions when you've clearly refused to answer or respond to any of mine. Cutting too close to the bone?

But, despite your strewing a boatload of red herrings on the field, a few answers as points of information or reference:
jimhabegger wrote:5. Is there anything for me to see in any of the literature that you've invited me to read, besides examples of bad things that people have done in the name of Islam?
Of course. That you refuse to even consider that possibility, and to actually read that literature to find out for yourself, speaks volumes: "don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up".
jimhabegger wrote:6. What are your reasons for believing what opinion polls say about people's opinions?
Uh, maybe statistical sampling theory? Gawd, but you're ignorant. And show no willingness to learn. Dogma - preconceived and unevidenced opinion - does tend to rot the brain.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#125

Post by jimhabegger » Mon May 23, 2016 11:47 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:5. Is there anything for me to see in any of the literature that you've invited me to read, besides examples of bad things that people have done in the name of Islam?
Of course.
Could you please specify what?
jimhabegger wrote:6. What are your reasons for believing what opinion polls say about people's opinions?
Uh, maybe statistical sampling theory?
Apart from election polls, have you ever seen or heard of any empirical evidence of any correlation between response frequencies in opinion poll samples, and response frequencies in the populations they were allegedly taken from?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#126

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 12:01 am

Steersman wrote:Not quite sure why you think I would want to answer any of your questions ...
Maybe for practice. In promoting your solutions, you might encounter other people who will ask the same questions.
... when you've clearly refused to answer or respond to any of mine.
.
False. I have answered some of your questions, and I've told you what I would need to see, before I would answer any more of them.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#127

Post by Steersman » Tue May 24, 2016 12:10 am

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:5. Is there anything for me to see in any of the literature that you've invited me to read, besides examples of bad things that people have done in the name of Islam?
Of course.
Could you please specify what?
Yes, an analysis of why that happens, and what society should be doing about it.
jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:6. What are your reasons for believing what opinion polls say about people's opinions?
Uh, maybe statistical sampling theory?
Apart from election polls, have you ever seen or heard of any empirical evidence of any correlation between response frequencies in opinion poll samples, and response frequencies in the populations they were allegedly taken from?
What do you mean, "apart from election polls"? For one thing, it seems to me that they prove the point. And for another, the whole point about sampling is that it is frequently rather difficult to poll an entire population. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link.

In other news, and to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone:
Most Brits Think Islam ‘Incompatible’ With UK, Third Say It Is Violent

The majority of British people believe Islam is incompatible with British values, and one in three say the ideology promotes acts of violence.

More than 56 per cent of respondents to a new ComRes poll disagree with the view that Islam is compatible with British values. In fact, it was found that more Britons believe Islam is a violent religion (31 per cent) than those who regard it as compatible with British values (28 per cent). ....

The results tally with those of recent polls conducted in both France and Germany. A majority of the French, across the entire political spectrum, believe Islam is incompatible with their society. And in Germany, there has been a sharp shift in opinion with a rejection of Islam now a majority opinion for the first time. ....
About freaking time that people started to read the writing on the wall. If Islam doesn't want to change then it will be gone.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#128

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 1:03 am

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:5. Is there anything for me to see in any of the literature that you've invited me to read, besides examples of bad things that people have done in the name of Islam?
Of course.
Could you please specify what?
Steersman wrote:Yes, an analysis of why that happens, and what society should be doing about it.
Thank you. Is there anything in that analysis, different from the analysis in my summary of your views? If so, please specify.
jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:6. What are your reasons for believing what opinion polls say about people's opinions?
Uh, maybe statistical sampling theory?
Apart from election polls, have you ever seen or heard of any empirical evidence of any correlation between response frequencies in opinion poll samples, and response frequencies in the populations they were allegedly taken from?
Steersman wrote:What do you mean, "apart from election polls"? For one thing, it seems to me that they prove the point. And for another, the whole point about sampling is that it is frequently rather difficult to poll an entire population. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link.
I didn't need to read the link, to know that.

You didn't answer the question. Apart from election polls, have you ever seen or heard of any empirical evidence of any correlation between response frequencies in opinion poll samples, and response frequencies in the populations they were allegedly taken from? If so, please provide references.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#129

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 4:21 am

Steersman wrote:Not quite sure why you think I would want to answer any of your questions when you've clearly refused to answer or respond to any of mine.
I followed that link, and all it says is "Thanks. You've just helped me avoid wasting a lot of time and effort." In my post before that I said "Before I would tell you more about what I think, and my reasons for it, I would need to see some signs that you have some friendly interest in what I think, and my reasons for it."

Just now, I searched through your posts to me, and I didn't find any questions of yours that I haven't answered, unless you're talking about implied questions. For example, Is there an implied question here?
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right?
More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points. Although I might suggest that you're a little slow on the uptake, or decidedly "reluctant" to address that argument, since I've been saying that, more or less, for the last hundred posts or so.
Are you asking me what I think about that argument? If so, I will answer. If you've asked me any other question that I haven't answered, try asking it again, with a question mark at the end of it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#130

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 4:29 am

Steersman wrote:Not quite sure why you think I would want to answer any of your questions ...
Those are questions you would need to answer, if you want your argument to have any credibility with me. Even if you don't care about your credibility with me, it might increase your credibility with more people, if you could answer those questions.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#131

Post by Steersman » Tue May 24, 2016 9:28 am

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
Apart from election polls, have you ever seen or heard of any empirical evidence of any correlation between response frequencies in opinion poll samples, and response frequencies in the populations they were allegedly taken from?
Steersman wrote:What do you mean, "apart from election polls"? For one thing, it seems to me that they prove the point. And for another, the whole point about sampling is that it is frequently rather difficult to poll an entire population. Which you would have known if you'd bothered to read the link.
I didn't need to read the link, to know that.

You didn't answer the question. Apart from election polls ....
Fuck off.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#132

Post by Steersman » Tue May 24, 2016 9:34 am

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
For example, Is there an implied question here?
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right?
More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points. Although I might suggest that you're a little slow on the uptake, or decidedly "reluctant" to address that argument, since I've been saying that, more or less, for the last hundred posts or so.
Are you asking me what I think about that argument?
Yes, more or less. Though for bonus points you could try answering my implicit question of why you think there's some justification, as you stated, to be concerned about "The Muslim Threat".
jimhabegger wrote:If so, I will answer.
Do so.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#133

Post by Steersman » Tue May 24, 2016 9:42 am

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:Not quite sure why you think I would want to answer any of your questions ...
Those are questions you would need to answer, if you want your argument to have any credibility with me. Even if you don't care about your credibility with me, it might increase your credibility with more people, if you could answer those questions.
I kind of expect that my credibility, at least as far as Islam goes, is substantially better than yours is. And I kind of think ("suppose") more than a few others here also see you as kind of weaselly and waffly - at best. You might try looking to your own credibility than being overly concerned with mine.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#134

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 2:11 pm

Steersman wrote:You didn't answer the question. Apart from election polls ....
Fuck off.[/quote]
I'll take that as a "no."

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#135

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 2:12 pm

Preview fail and quote fail.
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:You didn't answer the question. Apart from election polls ....
Fuck off.
I'll take that as a "no."

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#136

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 6:02 pm

Steersman wrote:You make a great summary of my position, but seem remarkably reluctant, being charitable, to actually address the substance of it.
Steersman wrote:You might try looking to your own credibility than being overly concerned with mine.
I've responded to those comments, in my closet thread
jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right?
More or less; you seem to have hit all the high points ...
Steersman wrote:You make a great summary of my position ...
Are you asking me what I think about that argument? If so, I will answer. ...
Steersman wrote:Please do.
1. "The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society."

I think that the Quran can influence people towards violence, or away from it. I think it depends entirely on how a person uses it, which depends on heredity, conditioning and environment.

2. "Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran."

I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people towards violence, then obviously he's promoting violence, which he would be doing anyway, with or without the Quran. I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people away from violence, then he will do a lot more to help improve the behavior of other Muslims than any non-Muslim can do.

3. You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

In reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, all I see is evidence of how much people falsify their reasons for their harmful attitudes and behavior.

I haven't seen or heard of any well-founded reasons for believing the pictures that opinion polls paint of popular opinions, and I see some very good reasons not to believe them.

4. To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

I don't think that would do anything whatsoever to help reduce violence, and I think it would dramatically increase the growth and spread of violence, all over the world, including in your country and mine.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#137

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 6:07 pm

Steersman wrote:But since it seems relevant ... you are, apparently, intellectually dishonest and egregriously evasive.
How are your speculations about my personality relevant to your theory about the causes of violence in the name of Islam, and the solutions you're proposing for it?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#138

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 6:53 pm

Steersman wrote:... all who accept that the Quran was written by Allah are essentially Islamists ...
That's just incredibly stupid, and it strains my imagination to think that you really believe it.

Can you honestly say that you think that all the Baha'is in the world are essentially Islamists? Can you find one person who will honestly say that?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#139

Post by jimhabegger » Tue May 24, 2016 10:52 pm

Steersman, just a reminder, I might recognize more of your questions as questions, and answer them, if they have question marks at the end of them.

I'll answer your implicit question, why I think there's some justification to be concerned about "The Muslim Threat". First I'll explain what I mean by that. I don't have any precise ideas about what might happen. Just for example, that the hostilities both ways might continue to escalate, involving more and more countries more deeply, with increasingly massive and destructive violence reaching into more and more places, not excluding the US and Canada. Possibly even a nuclear world war.

The justification I see for being concerned about that is history including the history of the last few decades, and my own experience with, and study of, human nature.

I'm not really sure how much of that can be avoided. I do think that anyone who wants to can help reduce and counteract the damage, and that there is some possibility for any one of us to make a big difference. I think that promoting escalation of the conflicts will make things worse, without doing anyone any good. The only benefit will be to the careers of some of the people who are promoting that, and to the egos of some of their fans, and even that won't outweigh their losses in the end.

----

After observing and considering more carefully how you're using some of your words, I've decided that if I use your applied definitions for the words, I agree with everything you're saying. Here are the definitions I see you using, in your position as I summarized it:

Your definition of Islam: "Any version of Islam which influences people to commit or endorse the worst kinds of violence, more than any other ideology does. Anything that anyone calls Islam, that does not meet those conditions, is not really Islam."

Your definition of Muslim: "Any person who calls himself a Muslim, who needs to be, deserves to be, and legally can be, deported or kept out of the country. Anyone who does not meet those conditions is not really a Muslim."

With those definitions of "Muslim" and "Islam," I would agree with banning "Islam," deporting "Muslims," and keeping "Muslims" out of the country.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#140

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 12:30 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:... all who accept that the Quran was written by Allah are essentially Islamists ...
That's just incredibly stupid, and it strains my imagination to think that you really believe it.

Can you honestly say that you think that all the Baha'is in the world are essentially Islamists? Can you find one person who will honestly say that?
You really might consider buying a dictionary - or bookmarking an online version:
es·sen·tial·ly
əˈsen(t)SHəlē/
adverb
used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.
"essentially, they are amateurs"

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#141

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 12:54 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, just a reminder, I might recognize more of your questions as questions, and answer them, if they have question marks at the end of them.
A fair point.
jimhabegger wrote:I'll answer your implicit question, why I think there's some justification to be concerned about "The Muslim Threat".
Good for you - I'm impressed; progress, or at least a start. :-)
jimhabegger wrote:First I'll explain what I mean by that. I don't have any precise ideas about what might happen. Just for example, that the hostilities both ways might continue to escalate, involving more and more countries more deeply, with increasingly massive and destructive violence reaching into more and more places, not excluding the US and Canada. Possibly even a nuclear world war.
Sometimes - quite frequently as a matter of fact - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 50 million dead in World War Two is kind of the proof of that pudding. You might note a tweet of mine that I'll put in a later post.
jimhabegger wrote:After observing and considering more carefully how you're using some of your words, I've decided that if I use your applied definitions for the words, I agree with everything you're saying. Here are the definitions I see you using, in your position as I summarized it:

Your definition of Islam: "Any version of Islam which influences people to commit or endorse the worst kinds of violence, more than any other ideology does. Anything that anyone calls Islam, that does not meet those conditions, is not really Islam."

Your definition of Muslim: "Any person who calls himself a Muslim, who needs to be, deserves to be, and legally can be, deported or kept out of the country. Anyone who does not meet those conditions is not really a Muslim."

With those definitions of "Muslim" and "Islam," I would agree with banning "Islam," deporting "Muslims," and keeping "Muslims" out of the country.
Kind of; sort of close to but oh so far. For starters, you might give some serious thought to:
Einstein wrote:Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Nice tautology you've created, but with enough holes in it to drive not just a tank through them but an entire armoured division. Define "influence" for starters. My entire point, which you seem remarkably reluctant to consider, is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence. Rizvi's point:

As long as "moderate" Muslims insist that the Quran [piss on it and on the Prophet] is the literal word of Gawd, they are, essentially, fellow-travelers with the Islamists, and give aid to, comfort, and abet them: in a word, guilty of odious "influence". You might, though I kind of doubt you're capable of it, actually read some of what Anjuli Pandavar has said recently on the topic, a small sampler:
Pandavar wrote:Islam does not compromise except to deceive. It does not negotiate except to hoodwink. And it most certainly does not recognise anyone’s right to say anything.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#142

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 1:05 pm

Apropos of nothing much in particular:

My response:

"Nuking Mecca - from orbit, just to be sure" might be a tad draconian - but not by much.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#143

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 3:47 pm

Steersman wrote:My entire point, which you seem remarkably reluctant to consider, is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
I've considered that point, and addressed it, repeatedly. Most recently:
Jim wrote:2. "Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran."

I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people towards violence, then obviously he's promoting violence, which he would be doing anyway, with or without the Quran. I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people away from violence, then he will do a lot more to help improve the behavior of other Muslims than any non-Muslim can do.
From your responses and non-responses to my comments and questions, it looks to me like you don't really believe what you're saying.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#144

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 6:00 pm

Steersman wrote:My entire point ... is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
I can see a possible reason why that point is so important to you, but unless I see more signs that you really believe it, I'll presume that you don't.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#145

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 6:51 pm

I have a question about a legal issue.

In connection with my discussion with Steersman about banning Islam and repressing Muslims or keeping them out of the country, I've been reading some articles about attempted crimes. Here's my question:

If a person tells the police that he intends to commit a crime, a robbery or a murder for example, which he specifies without telling them when or where, and no one sees him taking any substantial step to commit the crime until he actually commits it, is there anything the police can do, legally, to prevent him from committing it?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#146

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 6:56 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:My entire point ... is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
I can see a possible reason why that point is so important to you, but unless I see more signs that you really believe it, I'll presume that you don't.
You're welcome to "presume" anything you want - something which seems to be a large part of your stock-in-trade, but that doesn't make it true. And in this case it isn't - once again you might take a look at the dictionary:
in•flu•ence (ˈɪn flu əns)

n., v. -enced, -enc•ing. n.
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to produce effects on others by intangible or indirect means.
2. the action or process of producing such effects.
"Influence" doesn't have to be overt or direct to qualify as such. BTW, is English a second language for you?

But to emphasize the point, you might, again, take a look at Pandavar's many observations on the odiousness of Islam, this one in particular:
Forgive me for saying this, but you seem not to really understand what a madrassa does. A madrassa doesn’t have to pack people off to jihad, although some do. It merely needs to create the kind of mind (there’s that Muslim mind thing again!) in which disdain/contempt/rejection for everything non-Muslim becomes an instinctive response and a common framework for apprehending the world. Muslims are proud of what madrassas do to their kids. It’s one small step from there to shouting, “Kill all Jews!”, or to dancing in the streets at the news of 9/11, or to pretending ISIS isn’t happening, or to shaming the rape victim, or to sending abused women back to their monstrous husbands. Read the stories of Muslims who have escaped Islam and dig into why it is such a traumatic experience. ....
And this one:
I recognise that any attempt to ban either religion or scripture is invariably counter-productive. So what combination of the evil triad, together with incendiary Friday prayers and friends egging one another on in “discussion circles,” tips young men into Qur’an compliance, I cannot say. As for responding to the problem, I would see the closing down of all madrassas as a critical part of that response. I sincerely hope that J K Rowling understands the difference between Donald Trump and a Saudi imam, for I would put an immediate stop to all foreign imams entering any Western country and expel all those present within them.
While I disagree with her about the banning - and maybe why she's apparently not thrilled with me commenting there - I certainly agree with her about "closing down of all madrassas" and about deporting "all foreign imams". Although it might be debatable whether the latter two are not tantamount to the former.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#147

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 7:07 pm

A lot of people who are participating in intimidation and vandalism campaigns in the name of some ideology, might be in for some unpleasant surprises, when the authoritarianism they're helping to grow and spread starts being turned against them.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#148

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 7:08 pm

Bother! I posted in the wrong thread again!

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#149

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 7:08 pm

Bother! I posted in the wrong thread again!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#150

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 7:22 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:My entire point, which you seem remarkably reluctant to consider, is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
I've considered that point, and addressed it, repeatedly. Most recently:
Jim wrote:2. "Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran."

I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people towards violence, then obviously he's promoting violence, which he would be doing anyway, with or without the Quran. I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people away from violence, then he will do a lot more to help improve the behavior of other Muslims than any non-Muslim can do.
Not really. You really do seem to be unclear on the meaning of words, or are decidedly incapable of using a dictionary, or are egregiously evasive. As I've argued before, simply believing that the Quran is the literal word of Gawd - and promoting it as such - is, ipso facto, "influencing people towards violence" because the Quran touts acts of violence as justified by the commands of Gawd hisself. As I said before, which I note you didn't bother to address:
Steersman wrote:As long as "moderate" Muslims insist that the Quran [piss on it and on the Prophet] is the literal word of Gawd, they are, essentially, fellow-travelers with the Islamists, and give aid to, comfort, and abet them: in a word, guilty of odious "influence".
Which, as I've said repeatedly, is underlined by what many people, including Pandavar, and Warraq, and many ex-Muslims have said.
jimhabegger wrote:From your responses and non-responses to my comments and questions, it looks to me like you don't really believe what you're saying.
Horse shit. Looks like you just don't want to face what I'm saying, and the facts that I'm using to justify my arguments.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#151

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 8:25 pm

Steersman wrote:My entire point ... is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
Would you agree that in order for that to have any meaning, and be worth discussing, we would have to agree on some conceivable way of disproving it? If so, please give me an example of a possible way that it can be disproved, if it is not true.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#152

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 8:58 pm

Steersman wrote:... simply believing that the Quran is the literal word of Gawd - and promoting it as such - is, ipso facto, "influencing people towards violence" because the Quran touts acts of violence as justified by the commands of Gawd hisself.
Are you saying it's true by definition, another one of your tautologies? If your definition of "influence" is "endorse some writings which contain some passages which some people interpret as promoting violence," then I agree with your statement, but have you said explicitly anywhere that you were defining "influence" that way?

All of this time I've been imagining that you were using that word in accordance with some dictionary definition, or common usage.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#153

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 9:19 pm

Steersman, your view that endorsing the Quran influences people towards violence is ambiguous in a way that affects my response to it. If it means "Sometimes, endorsing the Quran helps influence some people towards violence, then I can agree that it might be true. If it means "Endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence, always, under all circumstances, then I would say unequivocally that it's false.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#154

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 9:53 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:My entire point ... is that "moderates" also "influence" people to commit that violence.
Would you agree that in order for that to have any meaning, and be worth discussing, we would have to agree on some conceivable way of disproving it?
No. Because the quotes that I've provided, mostly from Pandavar though that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg, show that some if not many "moderates", by supporting madrassas and "foreign mullahs", basically "influence" some Muslims to commit violence; that they basically promote and condone such violence so are, to some degree, culpable.

Insisting on proof when the evidence is manifestly obvious suggests more than a minor degree of intellectual dishonesty - at best.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#155

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 10:13 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:... simply believing that the Quran is the literal word of Gawd - and promoting it as such - is, ipso facto, "influencing people towards violence" because the Quran touts acts of violence as justified by the commands of Gawd hisself.
Are you saying it's true by definition, another one of your tautologies? If your definition of "influence" is "endorse some writings which contain some passages which some people interpret as promoting violence," then I agree with your statement, but have you said explicitly anywhere that you were defining "influence" that way?
I don't think you've bothered to read anything that I've quoted or linked to - much less attempted to understand how they support my arguments. Kind of pointless to continue if that's the case - as Pandavar put it, "Islam does not compromise except to deceive. It does not negotiate except to hoodwink." And Islam does not ask questions except to dissimulate and to muddy the water.

And it's only a "tautology" because you're clearly unable to understand the plain meaning of words, and insist on conflating a general case with a particular one.
jimhabegger wrote:All of this time I've been imagining that you were using that word in accordance with some dictionary definition, or common usage.
And all this time I've been imagining that you had some intellectual honesty and integrity. Apples not falling far from the tree and all that:

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#156

Post by Steersman » Wed May 25, 2016 10:37 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, your view that endorsing the Quran influences people towards violence is ambiguous in a way that affects my response to it. If it means "Sometimes, endorsing the Quran helps influence some people towards violence, then I can agree that it might be true. If it means "Endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence, always, under all circumstances, then I would say unequivocally that it's false.
That is, maybe, a marginally valid point. However, consider:
peo•ple (pē′pəl)
n. pl. people
1.a. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers.
No justification at all for claiming or suggesting that I was insisting that "endorsing the Quran" was "influencing all people towards violence". And I have, rather pointedly and frequently, disavowed that assertion.

But one doesn't have to be particularly clever - just not dogmatic - to realize that, analogously, "endorsing driving without seatbelts" is not particularly ethical or credible, even if it were only a fraction of those driving without them who were killed or maimed.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#157

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 10:49 pm

Steersman, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. No matter how many examples I could show you of communities where most of the people in them endorse the Quran, and where there there is less violence than in most other communities, you would still say that the endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#158

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 10:52 pm

Steersman, I want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you refusing to provide any examples of how your views could conceivably be falsified?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#159

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 11:00 pm

Steersman, are you saying that you're refusing to consider any possibility that what you're saying about the influence of the Quran could be wrong? If not, then please give an example of how you could ever possibly know, if what you're saying about the influence of the Quran is wrong.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#160

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 11:25 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, your view that endorsing the Quran influences people towards violence is ambiguous in a way that affects my response to it. If it means "Sometimes, endorsing the Quran helps influence some people towards violence, then I can agree that it might be true. If it means "Endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence, always, under all circumstances, then I would say unequivocally that it's false.
Steersman wrote:No justification at all for claiming or suggesting that I was insisting that "endorsing the Quran" was "influencing all people towards violence".
That isn't what I said.

I'll try again:

If you're saying that every person who endorses the Quran is thereby helping to influence some people towards violence, then I say unequivocally, that is false. In other words, I'm saying that some people who endorse the Quran are not thereby helping to influence anyone towards violence. More that, I'm saying that some people who endorse the Quran are thereby helping to influence some people away from violence, without helping to influence anyone towards it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#161

Post by jimhabegger » Wed May 25, 2016 11:30 pm

If you deny that, would you deny this:

Some people who endorse the Quran are not doing it with the intention, conscious or unconscious, of promoting violence.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#162

Post by Steersman » Thu May 26, 2016 12:22 am

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. No matter how many examples I could show you of communities where most of the people in them endorse the Quran, and where there there is less violence than in most other communities, you would still say that the endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence?
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Saying that the Quran - largely a great steaming turd of barbarisms and hate - is literally the word of God is what underwrites ISIS. Regardless of how little violence there might be in some communities - honour among thieves - says absolutely diddly squat against how others use that same premise to justify their putting into practice what is condoned by your "holy book" [ha!].

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#163

Post by Steersman » Thu May 26, 2016 12:27 am

jimhabegger wrote:If you deny that, would you deny this:

Some people who endorse the Quran are not doing it with the intention, conscious or unconscious, of promoting violence.
That generally doesn't cut a lot of ice in most Western courts of law, although you might be more receptive to an Islamic interpretation. The latter of which is largely antithetical if not inimical to the former. But in the former case there is the issue of criminal negligence, the proof of which generally entails more or less severe penalties.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#164

Post by jimhabegger » Thu May 26, 2016 12:52 am

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. No matter how many examples I could show you of communities where most of the people in them endorse the Quran, and where there there is less violence than in most other communities, you would still say that the endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence?
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Saying that the Quran - largely a great steaming turd of barbarisms and hate - is literally the word of God is what underwrites ISIS. Regardless of how little violence there might be in some communities - honour among thieves - says absolutely diddly squat against how others use that same premise to justify their putting into practice what is condoned by your "holy book" [ha!].
If you're saying that any person, anywhere, who does not repudiate the Quran is helping to make ISIS more credible to some people, I disagree.

I think that people who promote using the Quran in ways that help turn people away from violence, is not only not helping to make ISIS more credible to anyone, he is helping to make ISIS less credible to more people who might be attracted to it, than anyone can who does not endorse the Quran.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#165

Post by Steersman » Thu May 26, 2016 1:22 am

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. No matter how many examples I could show you of communities where most of the people in them endorse the Quran, and where there there is less violence than in most other communities, you would still say that the endorsing the Quran helps influence people towards violence?
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. Saying that the Quran - largely a great steaming turd of barbarisms and hate - is literally the word of God is what underwrites ISIS. Regardless of how little violence there might be in some communities - honour among thieves - says absolutely diddly squat against how others use that same premise to justify their putting into practice what is condoned by your "holy book" [ha!].
If you're saying that any person, anywhere, who does not repudiate the Quran is helping to make ISIS more credible to some people, I disagree.
Well then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And there seems to be a rather large number of people who seem to agree with my argument: Pandavar, Rizvi, Warraq, and all of the folk tweeting under the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag. You might try getting your head out of your arse and actually try reading some of their perspectives.
jimhabegger wrote:I think that people who promote using the Quran in ways that help turn people away from violence, is not only not helping to make ISIS more credible to anyone, he is helping to make ISIS less credible to more people who might be attracted to it, than anyone can who does not endorse the Quran.
Fine. Think that as much as you want, but the facts of the matter - that you rather clearly refuse to face - strongly suggest that you're just whistling past the graveyard, blowing smoke out of your arse.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#166

Post by jimhabegger » Thu May 26, 2016 2:00 am

Steersman wrote:And there seems to be a rather large number of people who seem to agree with my argument: Pandavar, Rizvi, Warraq, and all of the folk tweeting under the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag.
I don't see how the number of people who seem to agree with you, or the names of some of them, are relevant to how much truth there is in what you're saying, even if they actually do agree with you.
You might ... actually try reading some of their perspectives.
I've decided now to read some of the articles you've recommended.
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:I think that people who promote using the Quran in ways that help turn people away from violence, is not only not helping to make ISIS more credible to anyone, he is helping to make ISIS less credible to more people who might be attracted to it, than anyone can who does not endorse the Quran.
Fine. Think that as much as you want ...
I think I went too far with what I said there, and I want to back away from it a little. I think that people who promote using the Quran in ways that help turn people away from violence, are not only not helping to make ISIS more credible to anyone, They are doing more to help make ISIS less credible to some people, than anyone can who denounces the Quran.

I'm not supposing that you'll agree with that, either, but I decided to post that revision anyway.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#167

Post by jimhabegger » Thu May 26, 2016 3:19 am

Steersman, your idea that people who endorse the Quran are helping to make ISIS more credible to some people, makes more sense to me than anything I thought you were thinking, about how endorsing the Quran helps promote violence, and I do think there might be some truth in it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#168

Post by jimhabegger » Fri May 27, 2016 7:25 am

Steersman, I've tasted some of the Kool-Aid you invited me to drink, and I didn't see anything I haven't already seen:

1. Reports of bad things people say and do in the name of Islam.

2. Some other people saying some of the same things you're saying.

If there's anything else besides that in your recommended reading, please tell me briefly what it is, and what you think is different about it from anything I've already seen.

I'm not denying that people sometimes say and do some atrocious things in the name of Islam. I'm not denying that the Quran might sometimes influence people towards violence. I am saying that sometimes the Quran influences people away from violence. I'm not sure you would deny that. Apart from that, there might be some disagreements between us about how many and how much of each. The idea that anyone who endorses the Quran is guilty of promoting violence might just be a way for you to avoid dealing with the issue of hurting innocent people, so I'm going to ignore that for now.

I'm not entirely sure that banning Islam and Muslims from a country would not reduce the frequency and savagery of violence in that country, but it seems unlikely to me. It seems much more likely that it would increase the frequency and savagery of violence, not only in that country but all over the world, more than it would have increased otherwise. People in that country would just invent new excuses for their violence.

I think that the frequency and savagery of violence all over the world will continue to increase, regardless of anything that any governments could do, even if they really tried, until enough people become civilized enough to turn it all around. I think that's already happening, but it hasn't advanced far enough yet for most people to see it, and of course you'll never read about it in any major media stories.

I don't think I have any chance of influencing the actions or policies of any governments, and even if I could, I'm not sure my ideas would work any better than theirs. In any case I don't think it would make enough difference to be worth the time and effort, which I think is much better spent in other ways, like learning to help reduce and counteract the damage, and helping to rebuild civilization, from the ground up, in villages and neighborhoods around the world.

Specifically for the problem of people using Islam as an excuse for violence, if I ever want to put any time and effort into that, I might try to find Muslims who are promoting ways of using the Quran to turn people away from violence, and try to learn to encourage and support them in that.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#169

Post by jimhabegger » Fri May 27, 2016 3:11 pm

Steersman, I'm finally seeing some appearance of logic in your idea that anyone who endorses the Quran is an accomplice in the worst crimes committed in the name of Islam. It's the same logic as the idea that anyone who endorses belief in God is an accomplice in the worst crimes committed in His name, and possibly for the same reason, to avoid dealing with the issue of hurting innocent people. It would not be logically consistent for a person to say that anyone who endorses belief in God is an accomplice in the worst crimes committed in His name, without agreeing with you that that anyone who endorses the Quran is an accomplice in the worst crimes committed in the name of Islam.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#170

Post by jimhabegger » Fri May 27, 2016 5:37 pm

The stereotype of Muslims in the minds of a lot of people, possibly most people, which has a long history and which is being pushed in media stories, is at least partly a racial stereotype, something along the lines of crazy, savage Arabs.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#171

Post by jimhabegger » Fri May 27, 2016 6:04 pm

Decades ago, one of the more popular stereotype for villains in movies and TV shows was Redskins. Then it was Russians. Then it was Arabs, who were conflated with Muslims. That racial stereotypes of Arabs as villains, and conflating them with Muslims, is still widespread, it's being pushed in media stories, and it facilitates dehumanizing Muslims.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#172

Post by jimhabegger » Sat May 28, 2016 12:22 am

Steersman, if you're saying that banning all Muslim practices, or excluding all Muslims from your country or mine, would not do any injustice to anyone, I disagree, with that. If that is not what you mean by "ban Islam," and "deport Muslims," then I agree with banning Islam, and deporting Muslims.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#173

Post by Steersman » Sat May 28, 2016 12:21 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I've tasted some of the Kool-Aid you invited me to drink, and I didn't see anything I haven't already seen ...
Only "Kool-Aid" because you refuse to consider the evidence in support of my argument - and that of many others, Pandavar, Rizvi, and Warraq for examples. You're just as bad as those who cry "islamophobe", or "misogynist", to deflect valid and justified criticisms of Islam and Muslims, or of "feminists". Rather "weaselly" at best.
jimhabegger wrote:I'm not denying that people sometimes say and do some atrocious things in the name of Islam. I'm not denying that the Quran might sometimes influence people towards violence.
But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider the question of why the Quran influences some people towards violence. And my argument, and that of many others including T.H. Huxley, is that it is precisely because most Muslims insist that the Quran is the literal word of Gawd.
jimhabegger wrote:Specifically for the problem of people using Islam as an excuse for violence, if I ever want to put any time and effort into that, I might try to find Muslims who are promoting ways of using the Quran to turn people away from violence, and try to learn to encourage and support them in that.
The only "Muslims" that I see doing that are those who accept that the Quran is "written by men, not the word of God" [Pew Forum Survey; Q38, p170]. Looks like you're more part of the problem than of the solution.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#174

Post by Steersman » Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Decades ago, one of the more popular stereotype for villains in movies and TV shows was Redskins. Then it was Russians. Then it was Arabs, who were conflated with Muslims. That racial stereotypes of Arabs as villains, and conflating them with Muslims, is still widespread, it's being pushed in media stories, and it facilitates dehumanizing Muslims.
Unmitigated horse crap: it has virtually dick-all to do with race - "Muslim" isn't a race, and almost all to do with ideology. And it is largely an entirely well-deserved and accurate stereotype:
List of Islamist terrorist attacks

And seems to me that Muslims, in general, are doing a pretty good job of dehumanizing themselves:
Bill banning child marriage fails in Pakistan after it’s deemed ‘un-Islamic’
Obscene Praise for the Pakistani Muslim Who Murdered a ‘Blasphemer’
Another Dead Blasphemer—in Scotland

The stench of Islamic extremism has become all too common among the religious and community leaders of the U.K. ....
Etc., etc., etc.

Just out of curiosity, have the Bahai actually and publicly repudiated and condemned that, the child marriage, the murdering of apostates? If they haven't then all of your talk, all of your blathering, about using the Quran to condemn violence is just so much hogwash - being charitable.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#175

Post by jimhabegger » Sat May 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Steersman wrote:... because you refuse to consider the evidence in support of my argument ...
False. Repeating a groundless, unsubstantiated and blatantly false allegation over and over, and ignoring responses to it, doesn't make it true.
Steersman wrote:... and that of many others, Pandavar, Rizvi, and Warraq for examples.
Repeating a question that you've ignored: How is the number of people who agree with some of your views, or a list of some of those people's names, relevant to whether it's true or not?
Steersman wrote:You're just as bad as those who cry "islamophobe", or "misogynist", to deflect valid and justified criticisms of Islam and Muslims, or of "feminists".
If you're referring to what I said about racial stereotypes and prejudices being promoted and used to facilitate dehumanizing Muslims, are you seriously denying that anyone is doing that? If you're objecting because that isn't relevant to whether your views are true or not, I agree. The use of racial stereotypes and prejudices to facilitate dehumanizing Muslims has nothing to do with whether your views are true or not, and it was wrong for me to throw that into the middle of a discussion of your views.
Steersman wrote:But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider the question of why the Quran influences some people towards violence.
False. I have considered that question, and addressed it, repeatedly and extensively. Repeating a groundless, unsubstantiated and blatantly false allegation over and over, and ignoring responses to it, doesn't make it true.
jimhabegger wrote:Specifically for the problem of people using Islam as an excuse for violence, if I ever want to put any time and effort into that, I might try to find Muslims who are promoting ways of using the Quran to turn people away from violence, and try to learn to encourage and support them in that.
Steersman wrote:The only "Muslims" that I see doing that are those who accept that the Quran is "written by men, not the word of God"
Not seeing something is one thing. Claiming that it doesn't exist is another. Are you claiming that there are no people who accept the Quran as communication from God, and who are using it to turn people away from violence?
Steersman wrote:"Muslim" isn't a race ...
I agree.
Steersman wrote:Just out of curiosity, have the Bahai actually and publicly repudiated and condemned that, the child marriage, the murdering of apostates?
According to Baha'i scriptures, the minimum age for marriage is fifteen, and people choose their own marriage partners, but their parents can veto their choice. Baha'i authorites promote obedience to the laws of the land, as much as possible without deception or treachery, so Baha'is observe the laws of their country for minimum age for marriage.

According to Baha'i scriptures, murder is condemned and prohibited, and there is no exception that allows for murdering apostates.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#176

Post by jimhabegger » Sat May 28, 2016 5:58 pm

Steersman wrote:... you refuse to consider the evidence in support of my argument ...
But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider ...
Is "agree with conclusion" part of your definition of "consider"?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#177

Post by Steersman » Sat May 28, 2016 6:48 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:... you refuse to consider the evidence in support of my argument ...
But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider ...
Is "agree with conclusion" part of your definition of "consider"?
More weaselling and intellectual dishonesty. Consider this earlier post of yours which is what I expect you're referring to:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, if you're saying that banning all Muslim practices, or excluding all Muslims from your country or mine, would not do any injustice to anyone, I disagree, with that. If that is not what you mean by "ban Islam," and "deport Muslims," then I agree with banning Islam, and deporting Muslims.
You're not agreeing with what I would construe - and have construed and described - as banning Islam and deporting Muslims; you're creating your own definition for such - one which doesn't make any sense at all - and expecting me to agree with it. Peddling strawmen and strewing boatloads of red herrings on the field. Hardly designed to redound to your credit, or to Islam's.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#178

Post by Steersman » Sat May 28, 2016 7:22 pm

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
Steersman wrote:But you rather clearly and pointedly refuse to consider the question of why the Quran influences some people towards violence.
False. I have considered that question, and addressed it, repeatedly and extensively. Repeating a groundless, unsubstantiated and blatantly false allegation over and over, and ignoring responses to it, doesn't make it true.
And "addressing it" hardly makes it false either. But I think we have rather different definitions for consider:
con·sid·er
v. con·sid·ered, con·sid·er·ing, con·sid·ers
v.tr.
1. To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision ....

That's the primary, the standard definition; yours seems to be see whether the statement comports with Islamic dogma, with your clear insistence, despite no proof, that the Quran is the word of "Gawd Himself". Kind of like Loyola and his Rules for Thinking with the Church:

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#179

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 29, 2016 12:02 am

Steersman, I've responded, in my closet thread], to your allegations about what I've been doing in this discussion.
Steersman wrote:You're not agreeing with what I would construe - and have construed and described - as banning Islam and deporting Muslims ...
What I'm agreeing with is banning Islam and deporting Muslims, leaving the meanings of "banning Islam" and "deporting Muslims" open to discussion and revision, as you have been doing.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#180

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 29, 2016 12:37 am

Steersman, I've revised what you called my "great summary" of your position, in accordance with your latest comments, and I'm posting the revision here, along with a revision of my responses to it.

1. "The Quran influences people towards violence, especially if they think of it as the word of God, which makes it a danger to society."

I think that the Quran can influence people towards violence, or away from it, regardless of whether or not they think of it as the word of God. I think it depends entirely on how a person uses it, which depends on heredity, conditioning and environment.

2. "Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he denies that the Quran is the word of God."

I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people towards violence, then obviously he's promoting violence, which he would be doing anyway, with or without the Quran. I think that if he's promoting ways of using the Quran that influence people away from violence, then he will do a lot more to help turn Muslims away from violence, especially those who think of the Quran as the word of God, than any non-Muslim can do.

3. You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

In reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, all I see is evidence of how much people falsify their reasons for their harmful attitudes and behavior.

I haven't seen or heard of any well-founded reasons for believing the pictures that opinion polls paint of popular opinions, and I see some very good reasons not to believe them.

4. To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't deny that the Quran is the word of God.

I don't think that would do anything whatsoever to help reduce violence, and I think it would dramatically increase the growth and spread of violence, all over the world, including in your country and mine.

Post Reply