An Honest Talk - The Dude and Sher Khan

[Sher Khan]

First, some pleas and guidelines:

There is nothing to stop you, but I sincerely request the audience not try and pick apart either party and start yet another spiral of angry posting. There's plenty of other Islam threads for this. Any demagoguery whatsoever will be taken as an attempt to hijack this thread, and I will request to have it removed.

If something must be said, please phrase questions and opinions in the most polite and inquiring way possible. If you cannot, ask another poster who is able to do so on your behalf. But I would hope this thread not involve a battle royal or an unfair fight between many posters and the other party. It's selfish, but I would like to limit main discussion to only The Dude and myself. We are both free to answer a few posts, but I would rather include any points or questions raised by others in our back-and-forth rather than start a confusing web of conversation between multiple posters.

Let's keep individual quoting to a bare minimum. Frankly, it would be best to not have any used at all, and have discussions follow the style of essays sent back and forth rather than ridiculous quote-fests that stretch the mind and the page. Still, some quoting will be fine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, this will be something completely different. Yes, it's another Islam thread, but an experimental one. We all know how bad they get, how nothing gets accomplished, how dozens of pages are spent yelling without anyone coming to an agreement. Both sides are always soured by them, and they always end with both sides just as entrenched as before. Sure, that sounds like a lot of threads on TWC, but I think we can try for something new.

I'd like to try and get to know Dude a bit better, understand where he's coming from and what affects his views on Islam beyond the entrenched fortifications we all set up on the subject. I don't know where it'll go, or even if there will be anything to learn. But I think it'll beat butting heads on another endless Islam thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, The Dude,

In the past week or two, do you recall any encounters with a Muslim of any walk of life worth mentioning? I'd like to start out with a single event or issue and see where that leads us...

[The Dude]

Hmm, anecdotes. Actually the most recent encounter with a muslim I've had was with a muslim apostate who abandoned his faith for the most commonly heard reason; it's too violent. He still wasn't sure if there was a god or not, but he was definitely sure that Islam wasn't the sort of religion for a peaceful man to follow. He's Iranian and has been living in the Netherlands for twenty years now.

Isn't the punishment for apostasy in Islam death?

In contrast, there is another man at my uni who attends the same course as I do. He's a North African muslim though I'm not sure which country he's from since he's exceptionally dark skinned yet he's not a negro. Anyway, he's one of the most calm and peaceful men I've ever met and highly intelligent to boot. Would never have thought him to even be religious judging by how well he reasons. He's one of those people who reminds you that you can't generalise and that "Islam" is not one single entity. It's of course, defined by its followers. Just a shame that the majority of Islam's followers are not men like him, and that men like him have to come here to live a better life. I can never stop wondering about why the Middle East (here meaning everything between morocco and pakistan) is such a dump compared to where I live. All the countries there are muslim. How can that not be part of the problem?

[Scorch]

A question, Dude. Do you realise that Islam is about seven-hundred years younger than Christianity and other philosophies that predominantly influenced Western civilisation? If you look at how Christianity was dealing with the same sorts of problems 1300 years after its rise you see that Islam is leaps and bounds in front of Christianity.

[The Dude]

I realise that but I don't think timelines are that black and white. You basically say "yeah but christianity has a 700 years headstart". That's not true. There is nothing that says that a religion must have a certain age before it reaches a certain point of maturity. Christianity dealth with problems in a 14th century fashion. Crude and brutally, as was the trend. Islam deals with its problems in a 14th century fashion, except we've moved 7 centuries on by now.

[Scorch]

I realise that but I don't think timelines are that black and white. You basically say "yeah but christianity has a 700 years headstart". That's not true. There is nothing that says that a religion must have a certain age before it reaches a certain point of maturity. Christianity dealth with problems in a 14th century fashion. Crude and brutally, as was the trend. Islam deals with its problems in a 14th century fashion, except we've moved 7 centuries on by now.

That's not true. Now are you talking about Islam as a religion? Islamic doctrine? Islamic states? The issues with human rights that exist in Islamic states also exist in states where the demographic majority is of another religion; Russia and China, for example.

Why do you think that the Middle East is a dump? Do you not consider the fact that the entire region has been plagued by war over the last several hundred years, mostly due to the intervention of Western (Christian) powers and their interests in the area. Constant war is not good for the development of stable economies or any of the institutions that regulate finance and other things that make where you live 'better' compared to the "dump" that the Middle East is. This is clearly seen in many other situations in the world, both past and present, where religion is not a defining factor.

[The Dude]

I don't buy into self inflicted Western guilt trips, sorry. As interesting as this discussion is I'd like to try and keep it limited until Sher Khan replies to my first post.

[The Dude]

Sher Khan, I'll get back to you later.

[Gromovnik]

A question, Dude. Do you realise that Islam is about seven-hundred years younger than Christianity and other philosophies that predominantly influenced Western civilisation? If you look at how Christianity was dealing with the same sorts of problems 1300 years after its rise you see that Islam is leaps and bounds in front of Christianity.

So if I start a religion today, I can have human sacrifice and all that cool ancient stuff?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Just a shame that the majority of Islam's followers are not men like him, and that men like him have to come here to live a better life.

It is in my view that the majority of muslims are like him but they are either :
a) never met you personally
b)not newsworthy enough to make others realize that they exist.

My thoughs.

[Sher Khan]

On the first person, could you elaborate any further on his thinking process?

Also, since he's Iranian, he'd be alright in his apostasy if it was up to Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.



But on the second, some questions:

1) What is your stance on religious (what would you describe as religious) vs reason?

2) What role does religion play in your view in being a problem towards prosperity?

3) What role do you believe Islam plays in preventing that better life? Is it economic, or a matter of political freedom?

[The Dude]

On the first person, could you elaborate any further on his thinking process?

Also, since he's Iranian, he'd be alright in his apostasy if it was up to Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.

Well I can't verify his claims obviously but his motivation was for one part that the whole concept of a supreme god just made no sense to him anymore, and for the other part that he didn't like the sort of stuff that was being taught in his mosque and that especially since 9/11 he's seen a lot of muslims turn more and more devout. But I've only met him once so I can't say that much about him.

You also raise a good point about Montazeri. Because, you see, it is -not- up to him. That's one of the more unfortunate facts of Islam; for every muslim moderate there's a fundamentalist who's more like to be in power than the moderate.

But on the second, some questions:

1) What is your stance on religious (what would you describe as religious) vs reason?

Being religious means taking whatever dogma you're exposed to and rolling with it. Reason is, to me, understanding that the unexplainable remains unexplainable regardless of what you would like the explanation to be. To elaborate, it is my opinion that everyone who believes in any form of deity is simply wasting their time. There is a truth out there on what caused us to be, what gave birth to the universe and how life came about. Yet that truth is not reached by simply saying "it's a god".

No, we must wait for that truth to become clear through our own efforts, our own inquisitive nature. We must ask, ponder, debate, think, reason, process and structurise the things we learn and the things we can discover. Only then can any sort of answer be reached. Any sort of conclusion. That is reason. The everlasting search for answers to things we do not know or understand, and accepting that we don't until the answers are found. Not just settling for what some fancily dressed fool on a balcony in Rome or a chair in Qom thinks is the truth. What do they know? They're just people and just as much in the dark on things as you or me.

Here we stumble on one of the things I dislike about Islam so much: your prophet. Who was your prophet, if not just a recluse in a cave who decided to go mad one day and tell his friends that "god" spoke with him, only to then make up a bunch of nonsense and have his friends write it down just because he himself was illiterate. What exactly is so special about muhammad. He's just as much a fraud as that Joseph Smith guy from the Mormon Church or L. Ron Hubbard for that matter. Yet you are asked to submit yourself to him. Submission is a word I already don't like, nevermind submission to someone from so long ago who in all likelihood was a complete and total loon. A fact that, to me, is only reinforced by his hunger for war and the dozens of campaigns he led to convert people to his cave-inspired insanity. No offense intended, but I'm just writing down my vision as bluntly as possible so that there's no mistake as to what I think

Exactly how reasonable can someone be who follows a man like that? Not very, from where I stand. Being a muslim means accepting that there is no God but God and that Muhammad is his prophet. The former I can understand, because many people believe in god. The latter is what kills it for me. Imagine if North Korea would conquer the earth. People today consider Kim Jong Il a total nutbag. Now imagine what we would think about him 1000 years from now if NK would conquer us. If his official "biography" is anything to go by, we'd revere him just as much as muslims revere Muhammad today. Do you see my point?

I apologise for any offense caused, but as stated, I'm just making sure there is no misunderstanding about where I stand.

2) What role does religion play in your view in being a problem towards prosperity?

In my view religion kills creativity and initiative. The high clerics of any faith would rather you be a peaceful follower of dogma than an inquisitive person looking to find things out. Throughout history you will see examples of religion breathing down the neck of scientists who are trying to find out too much and eventually start discovering things that contradict theology. Obviously the grand imams and priests of the world didn't like that too much.

A prosperous country is one where citizens are free to pursue their goals and interests. Such creativity gives strength to the backbone of a nation. If you're going to limit that to what the quran allows and permits, or even encourages, then you're cutting out a great amount of potential strength.

This is the same mistake that supposed atheist states make too. By turning atheism into dogma, people like Joseph Stalin or Kim Il Sung also limit their people. In fact, history shows they were limited greatly. The same is true in Islamic theocracies, of which we know there are plenty. As I so eloquently described the muslim world to be a dump in an earlier post, I think I should elaborate on that. I call it a dump because the following things are true; their standard of living is lower than ours. Their freedoms are fewer than ours. The role of religion in their countries is greater than in ours. Individual wealth is less than ours.

A simple look at intergovernmental bodies that exist both here and there makes that clear enough. The EU meets almost every day and discuss economics, politics, military efforts, etc. When the Arab League meets, they are busy fighting over who is the greatest muslim. Just who are these childish people and why do they deserve to be leaders of countries? Just look at someone like Muamar Ghadaffi. What the hell kind of clown is that.

3) What role do you believe Islam plays in preventing that better life? Is it economic, or a matter of political freedom?

Political freedom mainly. The problem is that when you compare Islam and Christianity, a moderate muslim is still countless times more devout than a moderate christian. Most christians I know are pretty much closet atheists. They're not held back by what the bible teaches. Yet moderate muslims are held back by the quran. In the false assumption that they need a 1400 year old book to tell them what they can and cannot do, it is effectively impossible to live in the 21st century instead of the 7th.

[Wilder]

Political freedom mainly. The problem is that when you compare Islam and Christianity, a moderate muslim is still countless times more devout than a moderate christian. Most christians I know are pretty much closet atheists. They're not held back by what the bible teaches. Yet moderate muslims are held back by the quran. In the false assumption that they need a 1400 year old book to tell them what they can and cannot do, it is effectively impossible to live in the 21st century instead of the 7th.

So, first off, good thread, I'm glad to see folks approaching this issue, in good faith.

This particular point is something that I want to address, as I think it it reveals, what I feel is, a number of fallacious although understandable, assumptions regarding Islam and, more apropos to the context that I understand it best in, the modern political history of the Mideast.

I'm not gonna to it right now, because I'm about to go to bed, but I will write it out tomorrow.

Also, don't let me sidetrack you, I just want to put in my two cents.

[Sher Khan]

I apologize for the delay, it's been a rough weekend so far.

On religious and reason: So if religious is what you call dogmatic mysticism, do you mean to say that a man, this North African in our case, would be irreligious if he was reasonable, that is a man of modern science in the vein of Newton? I apologize if I'm being presumptuous on what you're saying.


On Muhammad: like the issue with Montazeri, I don't think this is the right place and time to pursue it as a matter of history. I'll leave this to a series of long essays I plan to do later. For the point on cult of personality, it's worth discussing.

While a revival of complete reverence for everything Muhammad is indeed a problem, I don't think this is a connection between the declaration of faith in Islam and modern hero worship of Muhammad. The Shahadah, the la ilahah phrase, carries no connotation that Muhammad is an icon to worship. It's point is the acceptance of his prophethood and his message. It's something that was created after Muhammad's death for the point of separating the new community known as Muslims from the Christian and Jewish populations around them, as a declaration of defiance of the EREmperor's authority by the nascent Caliphate.

Sorry, a minor point and again with the history. The important thing is your main point, the difference between a reasonable man and a man who follows Muhammad. I honestly don't think there's much of a dichotemy here, as our North African example is a testament to this dualism. After a 1000 years of loose history, there would be varied ways of looking at a founding hero. Frankly, one does not have to wait that long - Abe Lincoln was already being touted and quoted by both right and left just 50 years after his presidency.

The important point is how one looks at a founding hero. Muhammad is significantly varied enough through all his biographies and anecdotes to be a model for anyone, to the point where he is both the trumpeted alpha man of God in Khomeini's Iran and the democratic first-nationalist of 21st century Arab Nationalists. I acknowledge your perception of Muhammad, but would you be surprised or unconvinced if I were to say my perception of Muhammad - and most likely the North African reasonable man's perception as well - is very different?



As for any offense, you've no need to apologize or hold back. I've sat through far worse I'm sure this past few weeks.

In my view religion kills creativity and initiative. The high clerics of any faith would rather you be a peaceful follower of dogma than an inquisitive person looking to find things out. Throughout history you will see examples of religion breathing down the neck of scientists who are trying to find out too much and eventually start discovering things that contradict theology. Obviously the grand imams and priests of the world didn't like that too much.

A prosperous country is one where citizens are free to pursue their goals and interests. Such creativity gives strength to the backbone of a nation. If you're going to limit that to what the quran allows and permits, or even encourages, then you're cutting out a great amount of potential strength.

This is the same mistake that supposed atheist states make too. By turning atheism into dogma, people like Joseph Stalin or Kim Il Sung also limit their people. In fact, history shows they were limited greatly. The same is true in Islamic theocracies, of which we know there are plenty. As I so eloquently described the muslim world to be a dump in an earlier post, I think I should elaborate on that. I call it a dump because the following things are true; their standard of living is lower than ours. Their freedoms are fewer than ours. The role of religion in their countries is greater than in ours. Individual wealth is less than ours.

A simple look at intergovernmental bodies that exist both here and there makes that clear enough. The EU meets almost every day and discuss economics, politics, military efforts, etc. When the Arab League meets, they are busy fighting over who is the greatest muslim. Just who are these childish people and why do they deserve to be leaders of countries? Just look at someone like Muamar Ghadaffi. What the hell kind of clown is that.

Political freedom mainly. The problem is that when you compare Islam and Christianity, a moderate muslim is still countless times more devout than a moderate christian. Most christians I know are pretty much closet atheists. They're not held back by what the bible teaches. Yet moderate muslims are held back by the quran. In the false assumption that they need a 1400 year old book to tell them what they can and cannot do, it is effectively impossible to live in the 21st century instead of the 7th.

A lot to discuss here. I understand, I think, your adverse reaction to religion and progress. I can't agree, totally, from my understanding of history, but I do understand where you're coming from.

However, how much is this relevant today? What problems do you believe the Middle East can overcome if, hypothetically, they all become secular humanist in both government and society?

On moderates, what do you use to measure what is moderate? What in the Quran is holding back someone who is a moderate Muslim that does not happen for moderate Christians in the Bible?

[The Dude]

I apologize for the delay, it's been a rough weekend so far.

On religious and reason: So if religious is what you call dogmatic mysticism, do you mean to say that a man, this North African in our case, would be irreligious if he was reasonable, that is a man of modern science in the vein of Newton? I apologize if I'm being presumptuous on what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that for all the intelligence that this man displays, he's still religious. I see someone with the potential to be a lot more, yet he chooses to be silly and believe in god. Allah, no less, the silliest of them all. I can respect him for a lot of things as an individual, but I can't respect him for his choice in religion.

On Muhammad: like the issue with Montazeri, I don't think this is the right place and time to pursue it as a matter of history. I'll leave this to a series of long essays I plan to do later. For the point on cult of personality, it's worth discussing.

While a revival of complete reverence for everything Muhammad is indeed a problem, I don't think this is a connection between the declaration of faith in Islam and modern hero worship of Muhammad. The Shahadah, the la ilahah phrase, carries no connotation that Muhammad is an icon to worship. It's point is the acceptance of his prophethood and his message. It's something that was created after Muhammad's death for the point of separating the new community known as Muslims from the Christian and Jewish populations around them, as a declaration of defiance of the EREmperor's authority by the nascent Caliphate.

I understand that. If there was only the declaration of belief in god then there's nothing that particularly makes you muslim. I'm just saying; why be muslim at all? What's wrong with being a christian, that belief was around earlier. It seems to me that there was a perfectly good faith around at the time to follow yet this muhammad choose to make one of his own and worse yet, started to conquer places just so he could introduce this new idea of his. If you wish to believe in god and that muhammad is his prophet, you must ask yourself the question (and this is reason): -why- is muhammad his prophet. Well, you could take the easy way out here and say "because Allah chose him". Ok, fine. But looking at the whole history surrounding this man it seems obvious to me that he's a charlatan with a warmongering attitude that got taken a wee bit too seriously. Muhammad message seems too artificial, too contrived. Looking at Jesus Christ there's a man who spread a certain message to the region of Israel and was lifted to divine status after his death and the sacrifice he made for what he believed in. Christianity didn't spread properly until long -after- Jesus' passing because people apparently came to believe in his message. With Muhammad I just see a man who said "believe this or I will make you". And then went on to conquer stuff.

Sorry, a minor point and again with the history. The important thing is your main point, the difference between a reasonable man and a man who follows Muhammad. I honestly don't think there's much of a dichotemy here, as our North African example is a testament to this dualism. After a 1000 years of loose history, there would be varied ways of looking at a founding hero. Frankly, one does not have to wait that long - Abe Lincoln was already being touted and quoted by both right and left just 50 years after his presidency.

The important point is how one looks at a founding hero. Muhammad is significantly varied enough through all his biographies and anecdotes to be a model for anyone, to the point where he is both the trumpeted alpha man of God in Khomeini's Iran and the democratic first-nationalist of 21st century Arab Nationalists. I acknowledge your perception of Muhammad, but would you be surprised or unconvinced if I were to say my perception of Muhammad - and most likely the North African reasonable man's perception as well - is very different?

Of course your perception is very different, you are a muslim. But again I must point back at reason. Some part of you must agree with me that it is incredibly likely that through 1400 years of muslim history Muhammad was written to be a genius that he might never have been? Afterall, history is written by the victor. The fact that is that if Muhammad was a fraud then there is no reason to be a muslim because he made the world believe something that was only inside his head. I think he was a fraud. And I see in the acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet little else than blind obedience. There is no debate on why he deserves this title, or what the merit of his belief is. Nothing. There is just submission and that is it. That is not reasonable.

So I ask you. Why do you believe in Muhammad? Don't say that the content of the Quran speaks to your heart. I'm sure parts of it will speak to mine aswell, so that can't be it. Why would you, when looking at all the prophets of the world, decide to believe that Muhammad's message is true?

A lot to discuss here. I understand, I think, your adverse reaction to religion and progress. I can't agree, totally, from my understanding of history, but I do understand where you're coming from.

However, how much is this relevant today? What problems do you believe the Middle East can overcome if, hypothetically, they all become secular humanist in both government and society?

I'll have to think on this a bit.

On moderates, what do you use to measure what is moderate? What in the Quran is holding back someone who is a moderate Muslim that does not happen for moderate Christians in the Bible?

Let me use the following example to demonstrate. There is one christian guy in my class, the only one. He attends church every now and then, hasn't read the bible in a while, but does believe in god and jesus and claims that that's enough for him. What makes him a christian? His belief in that what the bible says is true, and he feels he doesn't have to read it all the time or attend church so often to believe this. My history professor is also a christian, but not one affiliated with any church because he feels that religion and faith are two different things. He needs the latter but not the former. He prays in his own livingroom. He can make fun of his faith when among nonbelievers and he does so quite easily but his belief in god and his personal connection to god is unshakeable.

Now we have the muslims at my school. They all classify themselves as moderate, normal muslims. All the women wear hijabs, all the men are growing beards. Most of them carry a pocket quran around. The school has made praying rooms for them, one for men and one for women. They all use these rooms as often as possible, mostly two or three times per day depending on how long the schoolday is. They all participate in Ramadan, as this is one of the five pillars of Islam. They all eat Halal. They can all read arabic, some can speak it.

Do you see the difference here? The "moderate" muslim is still bound to so many more rules than the moderate christian. They are -so- much more devout than the moderate christian. By Islam's standards, they are moderates because they engage in a western modern life and are trying to blend into our society. By our standards, they are many times more devout than most christians in this country.

[Yosemite]

Isn't the punishment for apostasy in Islam death?

in some sects it is

[Каие]

Hmm, anecdotes. Actually the most recent encounter with a muslim I've had was with a muslim apostate who abandoned his faith for the most commonly heard reason; it's too violent. He still wasn't sure if there was a god or not, but he was definitely sure that Islam wasn't the sort of religion for a peaceful man to follow. He's Iranian and has been living in the Netherlands for twenty years now.

A valid perception of his considering the current state of the Islamic faith and world right now at this period in time.

Isn't the punishment for apostasy in Islam death?

Define Islam as used in that sentence.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

Hmm, anecdotes. Actually the most recent encounter with a muslim I've had was with a muslim apostate who abandoned his faith for the most commonly heard reason; it's too violent. He still wasn't sure if there was a god or not, but he was definitely sure that Islam wasn't the sort of religion for a peaceful man to follow. He's Iranian and has been living in the Netherlands for twenty years now.

Isn't the punishment for apostasy in Islam death?

In contrast, there is another man at my uni who attends the same course as I do. He's a North African muslim though I'm not sure which country he's from since he's exceptionally dark skinned yet he's not a negro. Anyway, he's one of the most calm and peaceful men I've ever met and highly intelligent to boot. Would never have thought him to even be religious judging by how well he reasons. He's one of those people who reminds you that you can't generalise and that "Islam" is not one single entity. It's of course, defined by its followers. Just a shame that the majority of Islam's followers are not men like him, and that men like him have to come here to live a better life. I can never stop wondering about why the Middle East (here meaning everything between morocco and pakistan) is such a dump compared to where I live. All the countries there are muslim. How can that not be part of the problem?

You will meet many people like this. You should talk to Muslim doctors, they never shut up and are sooooo intelligient.

[Copperknickers II]

Why don't you use the fight club if you want a one on one? I will offer one statement, ignore it if you will -

The middle east is 'a dump'. Africa is 'a dump'. India isn't much better. Eastern Europe is 'a dump'. The UAE is one of the richest countries in the world.

There is one thing that links all of these places (except UAE), and that is not Islam, but post-Colonial power vacuum.

[sephodwyrm]

I haven't seen LeSTAT for the longest time!

I don't buy into self inflicted Western guilt trips, sorry.

We don't indulge it either.
I'd rather live in the "dumps" and "armpit" anyway. Living's too expensive in the US.
Don't them white folk think that people came from a giant's armpits anyway? It will be going back to where we all came from~~

[hellheaven1987]

We don't indulge it either.
I'd rather live in the "dumps" and "armpit" anyway. Living's too expensive in the US.
Don't them white folk think that people came from a giant's armpits anyway? It will be going back to where we all came from~~

Expensive but safer.

I have a Palestinian friend who told me he had to pass 17 guardposts just to next neighbourhood.