Can Fundamentalist Islam Survive In The Modern World?

[naomi24]

This question arises from last night’s excellent television documentary ‘Shot for going to School’ concerning the plight of Malala Yousafzai, shot by the Taliban for wanting an education. As well as offering a superb insight into the inflexible mentality of the fundamentalist, it highlighted the determined ambition of many girls like Malala who do want an education, and despite the fear and apprehension that such aspiration engenders within that society, are supported by parents and many other adults alike. I’ve long been of the opinion that with the advent of increasingly easily available world-wide communication a chasm is opening up between those Muslims who are determined to cling to the old ways and those who are no longer content to blindly accept the unjust and misogynous philosophy of their forefathers – but which faction will eventually succeed? The traditionalists – or those who favour progress?

[jomifl]

I think Keyplus resents being dependant on a society that is superior to that from whence he came whilst not benefitting from the word of god as promulgated by muhammed. It must cause constant mental turmoil which would explain why he is so often incoherent.

[naomi24]

Jom, Actually, you might have a point there. Eager to accept the benefits the west has to offer - but eager to see the demise of those benefits. Mmmm... interesting.

[emmie]

its odd to me that the worst exponent of this is Anjem Choudary, who spits on us essentially, yet takes lots of hand outs, how is that possible, he isn't ill, not disabled, and did work once, so why is the taxpayer funding this odious man and his family

[naomi24]

Allah knows!

[emmie]

but he doesn't pay, the British taxpayer does however.

[tonyav]

On the upside it looks like that captain hook bloke is getting the boot at long last.

[emmie]

that would be Abu Hamza, and he is already in USA.

[emmie]

Abu Qatada

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

[KARL]

I can't remember when I last had a look at the debates here on religion but it was months ago and Naomi and Keyplus are still at it :)

While I hold many/most of the views Naomi puts forward, especially the sadness over the dogma bit, I do feel there is too much stereotyping of “Islam” and “Muslim” behind statements in these discussions. Unfortunately, although I feel certain he would like to, I do not feel Keyplus succeeds in putting them right. What he has tried to say, and is correct in saying, is that regional customs, prejudice, discrimination, bias, etc. have been dressed up as Islam and those who dressed them up, and continue to dress them up, have until now got away with it to the point that not only they but much of the world's population see the two as one and the same. There is not a shred of evidence for Islam (i.e. stripped of the old pre-Islam habits and later bigotry) requiring the dress code that Westerners assume is mandatory - it is non-religious, old-fashioned misogyny built into society that requires this and it suits the misogynists to insist it is their god's will.

And, Keyplus, I genuinely hope that you allow your wife and daughter(s) to dress modestly in Western terms if they choose to, for within true/original Islam that is what is known to be asked for, modesty in the society you are part of – not any of the ones elsewhere, whether they purport to be more Islamic or not. If not then you are less of the man I hope you are and, trust me, I sympathise with your dilemma and definitely do not have a grain of keyplusphobia in me (you amused me with that one). That dilemma consists of choosing, as I imagine you are, between being true to the peer pressures of the culture that created you (your parents, your extended family, your friends, your roots) and on the other hand disagree with them because, in being too compliant with convention, they go against many things that deserve to be questioned by any intelligent individual. The solution lies in the importance of comprehending that those who see religion as something to be dictated to others are inevitably at least to some extent serving themselves. Intimidation, whether by others or self imposed, is very difficult to live with. That said, I sort of admire your tenacity on AB under such persistent bombardment – don't be goaded into stating things that within yourself you know have no part in your argument. You shouldn't put them forward. Everyone, you and your adversaries on here, should show less evidence of hasty bravado.

I also do not like the presumed superiority of the place and Keyplus being asked to show gratitude. Everything is relative and, in the rankings on far too many desirable criteria, the UK is well off the most impressive top – it is, however, no doubt comforting to brush that aside and instead compare with the lower end of the various lists. Christianity has a not-too-illustrious history and people should be careful not to crow too much when comparing the barbarism being exhibited in recent times, by and among Muslim populations, with Christian history “over here”.

[KARL]

Keyplus is undoubtedly correct, perhaps indirectly rather than in what he actually says (i.e. secularly, not religiously – I am not familiar with everything that has gone on in these discussions on AB), if he suggests that the likes of the USA and UK have shown poor judgment and no moral superiority through recent events and brought on themselves the polarisation and hatred by some Muslim societies or at least some within them. The excesses of pre-Reformation days brought about the Reformation of Christianity and the Reformation was bloody enough on its own. Comments within this thread express the belief that changes in Muslim societies will take time and I agree – but they will come as surely as the Reformation came, albeit centuries ago. Already there are lots of people within Islam, or more correctly those brought up in an Islamic environment, who are as free thinkers as anyone within the Western world - I know some personally and their religion is never in the way of our friendships. They know perfectly well that I do not share their opinions in this sphere but that I respect their right to hold them. For me there is no difference between smugly presuming/bestowing superiority by one's religion and doing so based on location and/or secular structures. Being the world's best in the UK is not the same as being the world's best across the world – perhaps not that everyone will understand what that sentence means.

But the pondering and arguments as to whether there is such a thing as a god or perhaps even gods will continue. For me the question was long since answered: Good people make good gods, bad people make bad gods. And that is the point: Religion is in the mind of the religious person and that is where it belongs, as a philosophy and not as a presumed natural law. As bigots have subsumed religion (e.g. misogynists in various religions saying their god requires misogyny), so the religious present religion as fact that towers supreme over us all – both are simply wrong. There is no verifiable evidence of any form of deity and there is also no proof that one does not exist. Atheists who pretend otherwise are as entitled to their belief as are the religious but they too are guessing.

To address the OP directly: Around five centuries ago or so you might not have thought that Christianity would still be here today, yet it is. Perhaps the majority of those living in Christian societies then would say today's Christianity is not Christianity at all, full of blasphemous doctrine and practices. They were used to the enforcement of different versions of the accepted truth. The minds of yesterday's Christians were different from those of today (well, most of them), and so it will be for Islam and Muslims. None of this should worry us, it's just evolution – this time it is evolution of popular philosophy as opposed to the species. Both Christianity and Islam share their tendency toward denying evolution, as they share so much else at the core of each of these religions that are generally worthy for their most basic aims of bringing civility to societies (when the zealots are subtracted from the better balanced majority).

[beso]

KARL // What he has tried to say, and is correct in saying, is that regional customs, prejudice, discrimination, bias, etc. have been dressed up as Islam and those who dressed them up, and continue to dress them up, have until now got away with it to the point that not only they but much of the world's population see the two as one and the same. //

You obviously know very little about what is actually written in the Qu'ran.

Misogyny is explicit. Murdering the enemies of Islam is explicit. Lying and cheating are explicit. Permission for rape and slavery are explicit.

Like those who exalt the Bible the so called moderates of Islam choose to ignore the reality of the fascist philosophy embodies by their foundational books and heroes.

[beso]

KARL //Christianity has a not-too-illustrious history and people should be careful not to crow too much when comparing the barbarism being exhibited in recent times, by and among Muslim populations, with Christian history “over here”. //

If you take the time to read the discussion you will see that atheists are also very critical of the Christian faith. Both faiths along with their ancestral Judaism are firmly rooted in the ancient, barbaric, misogynistic attitudes of ignorant men.

[beso]

KARL //I know some personally and their religion is never in the way of our friendships. They know perfectly well that I do not share their opinions in this sphere but that I respect their right to hold them.//

Do you also respect the right of fascists to hold their beliefs too? What about those who say that women should not have the same rights as men? Or those who beat their children with sticks?

Indifference to what can be shown objectively to be wrong reflects badly on the character of the morally weak.

[naomi24]

KARL, //I am not familiar with everything that has gone on in these discussions on AB//

That is evident.

//it is non-religious, old-fashioned misogyny//

Old-fashioned, certainly – but non-religious, definitely not. Read the Koran – and whilst you’re at it, have a look at the hadith – the unquestionable word of the Prophet Mohammed – that in some respects, even though Muslims deny it, takes precedence over the word of Allah (the Koran).

//I genuinely hope that you allow your wife and daughter(s) to dress modestly in Western terms if they choose to,//

‘Allow’? Can you see what you did there?

//the religious present religion as fact that towers supreme over us all//

And that is precisely what Keyplus does. Ask him.

//Christianity has a not-too-illustrious history…//

That is most certainly true – but in drawing a comparison between Christianity and Islam you are making the same mistake others make, for the simple reason that unlike Christianity, Islam is not solely a religion. It is a complete way of life guided by the immovable tenets of its literature. Although, fortunately, some Muslims choose to ignore the less savoury content of that literature, since it is regarded as absolutely infallible and beyond criticism, you will find few who will condemn any aspect of it, and therefore Islam is not a system that evolves. It cannot.

Incidentally, I don’t recall Keyplus ever being asked to show gratitude – certainly not by me.

[modeller]

We may deplore the use of Sharia Law but we shouldn't forget they got it from our OT and have added a few Islamic embelishments .
If we feel so strongly about it why haven't we removed it from our bibles ?

http://governmentinexile.typepad.com/government_in_exile/2011/02/is-sharia-law-derived-from-the-old-testament.html

[naomi24]

Modeller, apart from the fact that, in the main, neither Jews nor Christians act upon the punishments recommended in the bible, who would you suggest removes it - and do you really think its removal would encourage fundamentalist Islam to abandon Sharia Law?

Incidentally, with the exception of some of the wonky science contained within the Koran, which was lifted predominately from the Greeks, practically the whole lot was lifted from the bible – both old and new testaments.

[beso]

modeller //
We may deplore the use of Sharia Law but we shouldn't forget they got it from our OT and have added a few Islamic embelishments .
If we feel so strongly about it why haven't we removed it from our bibles ? //

It might be your Bible but it certainly is "ours".

All the Abrhamic tomes came from the same horrible beginnings and I reject them all.

[KARL]

To suit their aims, both Christians and Muslims pick and choose from the dictates put to them based on their books, have probably done so more or less from the beginning and no doubt will continue to do so. It is widely accepted that all the Judaic religions were at their core conceived with the aim of bringing order to society and the basic concepts regarding theft, murder, etc. being wrong are universally supported. Humans being what they are, there will be those who mold their religion because of the power it brings, both in the literal sense and also in a self-flattering holier-than-thou sense. I wrote of the visual stereotyping that is engaged in regarding dress – personally I find religious uniforms a bit annoying, precisely because of the “I am following the rule” advert they imply. I did not attempt or intend a sweeping statement on the less flattering details of Islam's dictates or conventions beyond pointing out that bad people make them worse – as people in other religions do to their own as well. Thus, beso, you will see that I agree with you. Anyone reading something else into what I wrote misunderstands it.

Of course atheists disagree with Christianity – they disagree with all faiths. But among the contributors to this thread are others who are not identifiable as being atheists. Some of these are expressing “Go back to where you came from” sentiments – or at least show appreciation of how much better life is “over here”. Frankly, I do not greatly mind what people think because, unlike fascists of all kinds (religious and non-religious), I do not hope to control anyone's thoughts nor do I think it is possible or even desirable. Tolerance does not equate to moral weakness What does matter to me, and probably to most people, is what people do – in many ways our behaviour is controlled (not least by laws) and I for one am in favour of that. Religious practice, Islam included, differs from place to place, community to community – it evolved at an early stage into different sects. It will continue to evolve, although each camp within it will be tempted to decry the other as being incorrect (nothing new there either).

There is no question that in Islam the male head of the household is intended to be in charge, supreme. Keyplus is a Muslim and his household/family presumably consists of a Muslim wife and Muslim children who therefore defer to his being in charge. Thus they will see him as having the ultimate say as to whether the females are sufficiently modestly dressed. This is simply so whether we approve or not and if he objects to something in this regard then he is disallowing it (successfully or not). This apart from what the word “allow” may legitimately be intended to mean and be used – I was not being absolutist when I used it as in the foregoing but had its looser meaning in mind (“not interfere”).

I definitely draw the line at enforcement, however tenuous, of religious beliefs or removing choice from others with one's actions based on them. But consenting adults do not go against that and it is pretty difficult to every time discern where parenting and indoctrination divide. For absolute decisions we rely on laws – which must evolve as society does. Each society generally decides its laws and the record of doing or undoing governments, laws, etc. of other societies of late is not an illustrious one.

[KARL]

My posting(s) were intended to suggest that none of this stuff on here is anything but opinions, religion and anti-religion (whether it is meant to lay down every move or just more loosely guide), short of enforcement. Foaming at the mouth/keyboard is pretty futile, especially as the views of many of the contributors are already well known and are repeatedly stated. It surprises me that there is apparently no room for agreeing to disagree – but is that not a description of a state of mind ? Also surprising is to have failed so utterly to have made the point to some that I agree with them where I do – my fault or theirs ? I was entering this thread without an encyclopaedic knowledge of all past threads on the Christian-Muslim-Atheist, etc. topics, and said so – does the AB holy book forbid such impertinence ? :)

[naomi24]

KARL, //does the AB holy book forbid such impertinence ?//

I have no idea what the AB holy book is, but as far as I’m aware no one, regardless of their philosophy, is precluded from posting in R&S. That said, those who choose to do so – atheist and religious alike - should not be surprised to meet opposition to their ideas.

I think you misunderstand the discussions here, but what you’ve said regarding Keyplus’ wife (who is a British convert) and his daughter deferring to his decision in their choice of attire is one example of the intrinsically male-dominated culture that is Islam - and subjugation of females is just one reason atheists offer counter-arguments here. (In fairness to Keyplus allow me to add that he says he doesn’t insist on the females of his household covering their heads. They do it by choice).

I can’t speak for those here who do not identify themselves as atheists, but I will venture to speak for those who do and say that the reason they bring their thoughts to AB is because they are aware of the damage and misery that religion can and does create to this world. You could say they’re doing their bit to encourage a more caring and compassionate society.

As for religion attempting to bring order to society, I don’t see much evidence of its success in the Muslim world.