|
A rant. (I want this thread to be less about the religion and more about the social and cultural context. Just trust me that there is perfectly valid way to interpret the message in Western light, and in fact I will also claim that it is the "natural" way to read the Quoran coming from this culture.) I grew up in Germany comfortable middle-class and was raised more or less as an atheist. I was interested in that vague philosophical flavor of Protestantism that most Europeans ascribe to if they had to chose a religion. It somewhat matters to my perspective to bare with me. To this day I believe in the principal values and virtues that, I believe, follow from reformist Christianity and humanist education (however I do think these values can be derived from any number of frameworks and they have been provided to us for their value, not for the ideology). The magical thing when reading Quoran was that it was a perfect continuation, coming from my atheist/Protestant perspective. I was used to reading religious texts "in context" and frankly did not know about Hadiths and strict interpretation of Islam. I was lucky, I think. In the Quoran, it is not always clear who speaks to whom, who is meant and what is addressed. Because of this, even though it is not a historical document but a message, reading it the same way a European would read the Bible still works perfectly well. There are of course specific commandments. Those frankly make a lot of sense to me. For example, prayer, especially in the morning, provides an immense anchor to my day. It's also a weak form of yoga, basically. I stopped smoking, I don't really drink, I keep entirely to the woman I love and she keeps to me (which is why you will not find me in r/relationships). I defend myself if I have to, verbally, but I never attack and I always let off if an opponent changes his mind. I continue my inner struggle to better myself and the inner struggle to get close to God. Another things about Islam which seems pretty clear is that there is no central agency of interpreting Quoran. In the end, every Muslim has to find his own way to God, so to speak. Taking a virtuous, good, peaceful etc. life out of the Quoran is pretty obvious when one reads the message from a Western/Christian cultural perspective, at least to me. But not just me. When I read modernist, mystic or "progressive" interpretations I would arrive at the same conclusion. And after all the Quoran says to heed the message of all prophets, including Jesus, insofar as one, personally, considers the message intact. So it was a surprise when I heard about how other people deal with the Quoran. And that I am actually the minority among Muslims in the world. I was shocked to learn that supposed behavior of the Prophet was elevated far, far above the things in the Quoran. Where I read the book and would think the most important part is, basically, to be a good person, the majority thinks apparently that the most important part is how many times I wash my right toe before prayer. People know more about Hadiths and Sunnah than actual Quoran. And they do not differentiate which is in which. So are all the progressives wrong? Did I somehow misread the Quoran in my naive reading? Surely the book is the complete message, crafted for people of all times and cultures. So how come I interpreted it so differently from the norm? Why is that I read: "Don't oogle at the tits of girls, and dress modest in relation to what is appropriate in your time" while a Salafist reads the same passage as "Put black clothes around all woman until they suffocate"? I just can't help myself, no matter how often I read the passages. I just don't read that there. Why are basically all things interpreted from a pre-Islamic Arab cultural context? I was fortunate to travel and live in a couple of Muslim countries, whereas the majority of my time was in Turkey. Now, of course, it would be unfair to generalize too much, but let it be known that I have heard this story many, many times now so I am not unique. So I was stoked to go there, you know, be with people of my faith, pray in a real mosque and not in a backyard, etc. I was really happy to go. I expected people of virtue and faith. As you can guess the opposite is true. While I met many great people and, by friends, was treated very well, people as a whole are far less virtuous than in Europe. There's cheating, people litter, they don't care about the community and public goods. If the situation is anonymous, people are incredibly egoistic and vicious. Good deeds are done with a public audience (which is so comical if you read Quoran). Money rules. Status seeking is EVERYTHING. Only the most robust and enforced institutions hold...gently caress you got mine is the mantra of society as long as it's an anonymous situation. I could go on. Now this may be harsh, especially saying it about my Muslim brothers and sisters, but there is reason those countries are in the toilet, and it ain't (just) American Imperialism (although that doesnt help). But even with enough money these countries would not manage to come even close to Europe or America, because principles and institutions are nowhere close to what they need to be. Or education. Personal principles and mainly personal responsibility are not taught. If it is taught, it is a matter of violence (ironically one of the most radical Muslim converts in Germany, whom I do not support in any way, makes exactly this point here). Coincidentally, those are EXACTLY the countries where Islam is interpreted not on the basis of virtues, principles and philosophy, but on the basis of brain-dead dogmatic rituals. You can not imagine the motherload on idiotic rituals that the people have for every situation, usually even mixed with the local Shamanism or whatever substitute is available from the Prophet's time. Mainstream Muslims adhere to an interpretation that corresponds to desert tribe culture. I mean if we interpret this way, we would also have to start trading camels and goats again. And the crazy thing is that people do, even though their name is not Mohamed and they are clearly not addressed by that passage. I believe these things go together. The interpretation of the religion is the same as the Christians had pre-reformation. It is not a phenomenon of Islam, it's just us, the stupid humans. We have seen it before, giving away life responsibility to a dogmatic interpretation of religion. So why is it that this sort of Islam is expanding even in Europe? First, we need to recognize that people will find to Islam if we want it or not. Sometimes, a quick read of Quoran is enough. Sometimes people are drawn by the structure of life it gives. Sometimes, sadly less often, people are drawn in by the philosophical and mystical elements in it. Whatever it is, it is a fact of life in Europe. Second, we need to recognize that mainstream Muslim culture, which is basically Arab culture, has the almost exclusive interpretative authority in the world. In Germany, this is mainly the case through either extreme Sunni strands, or through more moderate and yet backward Turkish Islam via Ditib. Third, we have no alternative to offer. I am writing this out of Berlin, arguably one of the cities with the biggest opportunities to integrate Muslims. When looking for a Mosque to pray, one can either find backroom mosques organized by more or less extreme Arab strands, or go to one of the Ditib Mosques. Invariably this implies submitting to one of the two cultures. Being a German Muslim is extremely difficult. There seems to be no necessity to either understand or support different interpretations of Islam. One of these projects in Berlin, the "House of One", which is really cool and good, managed to get only 34% of donations for the minimum viable stage. It is just depressing. Politicians are either not informed or they willingly submit to Ditib, which by the way is directly controlled by the Turkish state. Instead of funding the existing progressive organizations, they integrate undesirable Muslim elements more tightly in our education system. Politics has to stop in appeasing organization funded by foreign states. What is mainstream now is mainstream because of money and presence. But it is BAD. It is bad in other countries and it will be bad here. It is culturally five hundred years behind what we have! European Muslims by and large do no subscribe to extremist views or were happy to find a community which provides a moderate interpretation. They find that the Imams sent to Europe and the organization in the mosque is far more traditionalist than what is reality in their personal life and opinion. Yet, no one gives a poo poo. Instead we use Islam as an enemy to unite against, not an ally. Instead of seeing that we, too, would be better off in intersection, we try to alienate Millions of Europeans instead of facing the real problem. I mean why would anyone want to be a progressive Muslim? You'll just get attacked from all sides now. Let me be clear. If this whole situation comes to a conflict, it will be our fault as well. What we need is a European Islam, funded in Europe and controlled in Europe, with participation of European Islamic scholars (which exist but now are delegated to writing popular books). We have to give those Muslims which correspond to our European values a platform, and provide a better alternative for moderate Muslims. The Quoran is supposed to continue, unite and complete the knowledge from the previous scripture, not abolish it. If applied correctly, it is meant to elevate culture, not depreciate it as is currently the case. There is a very simple litmus test. Is my life better or not? Everyone who lived in Muslim and European countries can answer this very definite if one is honest. It is not hard. It doesn't matter where the values come from. They were provided to discover through whatever means, religious or otherwise, and we see their gain when measuring the results against our life reality. What we have learned through hard struggle in how to truly apply the philosophy in the word of God for the gain of mankind is not foreign to Islam, it should be the basis for its interpretation. I dunno it all sucks im done
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
You're a bit all over the place there, so I'll respond with just a few points and tell me if you think I'm on the right track: 1) Religious injunctions have never been about virtue or morality in the sense we understand those words today. They are rather used as means of signalling one's commitment to the group. Religion, as a social phenomenon, fosters in-group and out-group mentalities, and the dictates of morality - which generally rest on the twin pillars of consistency and universality - do not square well with such parochial concerns. This is why all religious texts invoke different standards of conduct towards those within the group and those outside the group (the Quran included), and why overt signals of group adherence (like how one washes one's right toe) are often applied with greater stricture than more implicit or universal virtues (like living "a virtuous, good, peaceful etc. life"). 2) The exegesis and hermeneutics of a religious text is always guided by the contemporary concerns of the religious community, rather than by interest in the text itself. (And by community I don't mean the religion as a whole, but rather the largely autonomous groups within it. Every religion has fractured - and will continue to fracture - into hamlets of self-contained communities, that are largely indifferent to what other communities within the nominal religion as a whole are doing. To use a Christian analogy, schism is the natural state of religion, not ecumenicism. There is no Islam, only Islams.) The community will read into a text precisely what they wish to find, based on what they see as most important, and either ignore or contort the natural reading of any passages that may otherwise be seen to contradict those norms that the community has established as most central to its existence. This is a general problem with hermeneutics. As Gadamer said, we always come to a text with certain preconceptions, and these preconceptions necessarily shape how it is that we understand the text before us. There is no "objective" meaning of the text to which we can appeal, and our understanding of the meaning of a text is thus entirely dependent on our lived experiences. In ordinary circumstances this is no great problem; I may have incorrect preconceptions about the nature of Victorian England that warp my understanding of Great Expectations, for example, but this is unlikely to be of any further consequence to me in my everyday life. In religious hermeneutics, however, owing to the veneration of the texts in question (and the authority behind them), it is easy for believers to get trapped in a radicalising, hermeneutic loop. If the Quran instructs women to be modest, and my culture has a tradition of women wearing a veil, the former verse is interpreted in light of the latter cultural practice. I come out believing more firmly that the wearing of the veil is an injunction from God, and therefore believe that this is a practice that must be zealously applied, even though, of course, the Quran says nothing of the sort. My pre-conceptions have shaped my reading of the text, which in turn has strengthened (and rendered less flexible) my preconceptions. This is the radicalising hermeneutical loop which I believe is a problem in all religious traditions. 3) Given this hermeneutical loop - and its universality - progressive, mystical or allegorical hermeneutics will only make a difference to those who already have pre-conceptions which are open to progressive politics, mysticism or allegory in the first place. Someone with a conservative or literalist bent is only going to look at such hermeneutical programs and shrug, because they simply don't have the pre-conceptions necessary to understand the text in such ways in the first place. The key is to change the deeper pre-conceptions, not the more superficial ways that people read the Quran. If you want Muslim communities to have a more progressive attitude towards women, say, then the key is to change pre-conceptions about women (that they are demonstrably not inherently weak or submissive, for example) which would then allow the communities to develop more feminist readings of the Quran (which can then reinforce the new pre-conceptions). But the broader point here is that the specific content of the Quran is actually completely irrelevant - it's people's attitudes that matter, and waxing lyrical about the thoroughly humanistic nature of the Quran tells me nothing execpt where the bent of your pre-conceptions happen to lie (as you said, in "reformist Christianity and humanist education"). This is why a "European Islam" won't have any broad appeal; it will only work with those who already have pre-conceptions that which are already consistent with the values you're espousing. And if they already have those values then, frankly, they don't need Islam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
In addition to the various good points Blurred raised I wanted to say that a) the conception you're having of Islam right now is not necessarily the "standard variety" of Islam. As Blurred siad, there are actually tons of various Islams, and that's not only in space (i.e. the Islam practiced and believed by a Bosnian woman will be very different from a Saudi man and again from an Indonesian child etc.), but also throughout time. This radicalisation of Islam is actually fairly recent. I'm told that back in the 60s, virtually nobody was wearing the veil amongst Muslim women in Singapore, while now it's something like 90% iirc. This Islamic revival, which has been taking place since the late 60s/early 70s, can be seen as a reaction to Westernisation, Western cultural dominance, perceived own inferiority to that dominance and the failure of Marxist and pan-Arab/Ba'athist alternatives, So again: the conservatice interpretation of Islam and the various sacred texts is not the norm, but is driven by the political and economical developments and movements of the 20th century. b) The revival of conservative Islam might have been especially pronounced in Europe due to the diaspora situation of Muslims over here. Many Syrian refugees who have come to Germany actually feel that mosques in Germany are way too conservative - maybe their arrival here will (paradoxiaclly in the eyes of AfD supporters, I guess) eventually lead to a liberalisation of German/European Islam as well as weakening the strong dependency of many German mosques from the Turkish state, seeing as Erdogan is turning his country into a quasi-fascist dictatorship right now So, what to take from all this? You can't simply grow a "European" Islam by purpose. In a globalised world you have to give those Muslims living in your country the feeling that they're not some sort of alien who won't ever be a proper part of the community, you have to combat the roots of perceived inferiority and humiliation of the Muslim world, you have to support liberal voices within Islam etc. Nothing of this is something that "the West" can or should try to do by itself, but it's instead a two-way street, with both Muslims and Christians/Atheists/Jews/whatever else working at it. It's dependent on a thousand different factors and horrifyingly complex, and it's nothing that will be changeable in a short- or even middle-term, but will probably take a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Blurred posted:You're a bit all over the place there, so I'll respond with just a few points and tell me if you think I'm on the right track: Blurred posted:2) The exegesis and hermeneutics of a religious text is always guided by the contemporary concerns of the religious community, rather than by interest in the text itself. (And by community I don't mean the religion as a whole, but rather the largely autonomous groups within it. Every religion has fractured - and will continue to fracture - into hamlets of self-contained communities, that are largely indifferent to what other communities within the nominal religion as a whole are doing. To use a Christian analogy, schism is the natural state of religion, not ecumenicism. There is no Islam, only Islams.) The community will read into a text precisely what they wish to find, based on what they see as most important, and either ignore or contort the natural reading of any passages that may otherwise be seen to contradict those norms that the community has established as most central to its existence. Blurred posted:This is a general problem with hermeneutics. As Gadamer said, we always come to a text with certain preconceptions, and these preconceptions necessarily shape how it is that we understand the text before us. There is no "objective" meaning of the text to which we can appeal, and our understanding of the meaning of a text is thus entirely dependent on our lived experiences. Blurred posted:In ordinary circumstances this is no great problem; I may have incorrect preconceptions about the nature of Victorian England that warp my understanding of Great Expectations, for example, but this is unlikely to be of any further consequence to me in my everyday life. In religious hermeneutics, however, owing to the veneration of the texts in question (and the authority behind them), it is easy for believers to get trapped in a radicalising, hermeneutic loop. If the Quran instructs women to be modest, and my culture has a tradition of women wearing a veil, the former verse is interpreted in light of the latter cultural practice. I come out believing more firmly that the wearing of the veil is an injunction from God, and therefore believe that this is a practice that must be zealously applied, even though, of course, the Quran says nothing of the sort. My pre-conceptions have shaped my reading of the text, which in turn has strengthened (and rendered less flexible) my preconceptions. This is the radicalising hermeneutical loop which I believe is a problem in all religious traditions. In a very practical way your conclusions are not correct. There are two issues, broadly speaking. First, you misunderstand the form of preconceptions present in the Muslim community and the degree of flexibility within the religion, on which I will write on below. The second issue is your implicit assumption that preconceptions are invariant. You seem to believe that religion can not change these preconceptions or that religion is not involved in the creation thereof to the degree that it exceeds culture and community. And I can understand that sentiment especially if you are personally not involved in such matters. The reality is however, that our preconceptions are not static and they do involve in accordance with all sorts of influences, including religious pursuit and also, here we will agree more easily, social circle. According to your writing, it would not be possible to give up Western values for extremist views. I am speaking very practically here, things I have seen... this is of course not true. On the other hand we do see conversion to and from religions everyday from many backgrounds. So luckily, also the opposite happens. To give conservative views is something which happens almost naturally as well. I would remind you of, for example, young people coming to Europe, or stories of people leaving their parents house. These are situations where the environment changes and even though these people should be governed by preconceptions in your story, they clearly are able to evolve. The issue is rather, that we are social creations and we react and process the attitudes and preconceptions of our environment. Constantly. I am slightly confused how you would not agree to this fact, given that it is not at all exclusive to religion but applies to politics as well. In light of this, my current interpretation of any religious text will be fluid and socially determined. Then however, as Europeans, we can not and should not remove ourselves from the discussion. Other groups of much less desireable preconceptions are actively and successfully engaged here. Once again, your fatalist result that preconception will not change, is frankly not realistic. The state of European Islam is a direct consequence, in fact, of this sort of behavior. Blurred posted:This is why a "European Islam" won't have any broad appeal; it will only work with those who already have pre-conceptions that which are already consistent with the values you're espousing. And if they already have those values then, frankly, they don't need Islam. This is a rather elegant way to misunderstand the reality of the situation in Europe. It is this sort of thinking which is ultimately a huge problem for us. First, whoever needs Islam and for what, is a discussion we should be agnostic of. After all I myself betray your statement as it stands. I think we can agree, that conversion to and from religion is a fact of life, or else you will have to close your eyes to reality. Religions of course offer in themselves ways to change preconceptions. In Islam, this sort of reevaluation can be encouraged by the fact that things simply do not work well with the mainstream view, but that just as an aside. Finally, to come to the second mistake in your writing and the crux of this last quote. It is not true that the mainstream of European Muslim views as citizens corresponds to the Islam interpretation that we currently import into our countries. The importers are among the most extremist in the Muslim world as a whole, and they are as it stands solely responsible to tell Europeans about Islam. This interpretation, which is not compatible with the values that I think we both share, is actively at war with the usual Western institutions responsible for producing preconceptions, like schools, media and so forth. This war happens in the minds of many people, young and old, simply due to the fact that it's a majority society view against a religious matter. Also this is in no way unique in history. You are naive to think that our preconceptions are static, as I wrote above, but even more naive to think that they can not be manipulated. I have seen things which would probably shock you. Fact is, that the things which you consider static are changing every day, and words of authority spoken by community leaders are just as important as words in religious sources. The segmentation and segregation of Muslim communities should have given you a hint. People do not deal well with incoherent moral standards. That is why a larger percentage of Muslims decide strictly to sort themselves between the two choices. The unfortunate REALITY in Europe is that we force Muslims youth to decide to either abandon Islam for Western values, or to abandon Western values for extremist Islam. Your rhetoric that this group of conflicted Muslims does not exist and Muslims are uniformly conservative is foolish, even more so because even for a minimal group we would be best off in providing an alternative. I believe that this group is large, and I believe there would a great appeal. I know many Muslims who would be very happy with more moderate religious authority. But no matter the size of this group, it is a group that grows organically because of our European society no matter what. And the fact that Islam has a viable and large intersection with our non-religious cultural values is indeed very important, because it implies that a strong society can educate Muslim citizens in the same way it educates atheist or Christian citizens to share the preconceptions you think so vital. But to go about it, there needs to be a religious community available that is inherit to our society and not externally controlled counter to our objectives. This is not the case. In closing, the only way in which your fatalist view makes sense is if you see a monolithic, static Muslim community that does not share European values at all and is, in addition, unaffected by Western influences - even the youth. And on top of that, has already reached the most extremist state which is preached by foreign influences. Otherwise, European Islam is an absolute necessity if you don't want to reach that state. System Metternich posted:In addition to the various good points Blurred raised I wanted to say that Perhaps my view of mainstream is shaped too much by what is the mainstream HERE. System Metternich posted:b) The revival of conservative Islam might have been especially pronounced in Europe due to the diaspora situation of Muslims over here. Many Syrian refugees who have come to Germany actually feel that mosques in Germany are way too conservative - maybe their arrival here will (paradoxiaclly in the eyes of AfD supporters, I guess) eventually lead to a liberalisation of German/European Islam as well as weakening the strong dependency of many German mosques from the Turkish state, seeing as Erdogan is turning his country into a quasi-fascist dictatorship right now But why, pray tell, are you so determined to let this vital issue be solved by Syrian refugees? It seems we agree on almost every point, except that you guys are adamant that Muslims need to be structurally segregated from European views and society. This, however, is a state we have already achieved. System Metternich posted:So, what to take from all this? You can't simply grow a "European" Islam by purpose. In a globalised world you have to give those Muslims living in your country the feeling that they're not some sort of alien who won't ever be a proper part of the community, you have to combat the roots of perceived inferiority and humiliation of the Muslim world, you have to support liberal voices within Islam etc. Nothing of this is something that "the West" can or should try to do by itself, but it's instead a two-way street, with both Muslims and Christians/Atheists/Jews/whatever else working at it. It's dependent on a thousand different factors and horrifyingly complex, and it's nothing that will be changeable in a short- or even middle-term, but will probably take a long time. It's funny because you say a thing which is true, a thing which I also stated. But at the same time you seem to ignore the reality of the situation. There are very few Mosques I actually like to go to, because as a moderate Muslim both me and my wife would literally be in danger in some places or simply not welcome. This in Berlin. There are many times when I have to pretend to be more conservative than I am. And lol if you think I am somewhat unique here. (that being said, there is actually a moderate community in Berlin, but it has to meet in the community room of a Protestant church. Doesn't even have a single mosque. Now count how many the salafists have) And these are organizations that passively or actively get support from the German state. And also of course from outside. No we can not "grow" a European Islam. But what we can do is provide the option for one to exist, and this needs support. Ditib and whatever comes from Qatar or Saudis WILL FIGHT a moderate Islam. And Ditib in fact considers itself to be THE moderate Islam in Germany. Ditib! No. Here, all we have are some academic Islam scholars writing angry letters back and forth with Ditib and Muslimrat. And what this resulted in were death threats and finally giving up the academic/teaching positions because of that. Consequence for Islamic organizations in Germany: Nada. None. The lack of a moderate alternative is what breeds segregation and extremism. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Apart from tackling the foreign funding element, what other measures do you believe would be helpful? What was the reason that those death threats weren't acted on and how can they be prevented? More broadly, how can parochial authorities within Islam be minimized, without giving the impression of targeting the muslim community as a whole?
rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Quick bit about the Quran, Hadiths and sunnah. The quran is the base text, guidelines. The hadiths are in part the basis of Islamic jurisprudence, combined with the quran it is the established base from which an islamic community/nation can form their laws. They also talk about the finer points of islam, adherence, piety, social responsibilities and there on forth, it is a common view that some hadith were made in light of the culture that Mohammed resided in and thus do not necessarily apply to our modern world. In other words hadith where he speaks as the prophet of god, and other hadiths where he spoke as the leader of his community, the Islamic nation, even as Commander of the army or a judge/arbitrator. Sunnah is more simple: the prophet Mohammed is seen as the pinnacle of Islamic Piety, so following Sunnah is seen as a way of being a more pious Muslim by likening ones actions and intent to that of the Prophets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
The OP's quandary can be simply explained by wealth, education and privilege modifying sociocultural norms rather than religion. The reason why Northern Europe is virtuous etc is because it is wealthy and educated and conversely Turkey is poo poo because it is poor and uneducated. Religion is irrelevant and you're conflating the issues. Islam was much more moderate and Christianity was much more extreme in the past when the economic conditions were reversed. Wealth provides security and stability which moderates the behavior of humans as infrastructure improves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The OP's quandary can be simply explained by wealth, education and privilege modifying sociocultural norms rather than religion. The reason why Northern Europe is virtuous etc is because it is wealthy and educated and conversely Turkey is poo poo because it is poor and uneducated. Religion is irrelevant and you're conflating the issues. Islam was much more moderate and Christianity was much more extreme in the past when the economic conditions were reversed. So I may or may not be a bit harsh there. but what I am talking about, however, is neither poor nor uneducated people. I found the opposite to be true, actually. I wish the world would be simple, but it is not. I am sorry you think that culture and and religion have no impact on society and with more wealth we would all be okay. And in fact I used to think just like you.. you know from a priviledged perspective. But I found that these things do matter and there is a social dynamic which is not nearly as simple as "give em more money". Btw. lol if you think there aren't fantastically rich people in Turkey who fulfil exactly what I am talking about. Especially now. And the loving infrastructure in Istanbul is easily better than in many parts of Europe. Come on man. And yes education. Education both in schools and elsewhere. But who really educates there, especially after AKP? You know the answer. Let me reiterate. I came there with this culture-agnostic view just like you have. But if you see the country you live in going simultaneously forward in GDP, and down the drain otherwise, you will realize that culture matters a loving ton. And in fact it's exactly this sort of European supremacy thinking that is the danger. We think our culture is so superior that it will reign supreme as soon as people have enough cars. And we think that there is no danger at all to our culture because everyone wanna be like us. It's naive. Ask the Istanbul intelligentsia between ten.. twenty years ago and now, when things which were once certain are suddenly fragile. rudatron posted:Apart from tackling the foreign funding element, what other measures do you believe would be helpful? What was the reason that those death threats weren't acted on and how can they be prevented? More broadly, how can parochial authorities within Islam be minimized, without giving the impression of targeting the muslim community as a whole? Its obvious that this (not alienating and staying true to religious freedom) is the main issue and I welcome more ideas. The thread would be really noice if we could think up more options once we agree that we actually have a problem here. I think we need a couple of things. First, in Germany, I would want the states to fund specific research into a European based interpretation of the Quoran. We already fund excellence clusters for more general matters for example in Münster, and in fact the liberal academic elements in Germany almost all have connections thereto or come from there. Without funding theological research, we would probably have nothing now. So do that, but do it more specifically. The outcome here needs to be a guideline, interpretation and pedagogical concept which is completely in line with our values. We already the minimal case for this, which would be a Quoranist-progressive interpretation of Islam without Hadiths/Sunnah, but we should fix the scale of what is possible in regard to specific sections and coherence of these views. This sort of thing can only be accomplished by institutional actors such as universities. What we need more than just one interpretation is a framework in which the different elements fit. Anyway, the existing research funding has been invaluable in actually creating some sort of opposition, so more of that. Second, based on this, we need to implement a pedagogical concept at schools in which this European view is taught. It must be clear to every young person on what scale and base interpretations are possible and done in practice. Education at universities follows accordingly. All other areas where the public funds religious leaders (such as in prisons) are similarly important. The EU should also fund the poo poo out of every cultural project initiated in that manner. Direct funding is of course not possible, I would think. Third, as best as possible, the resulting community must be integrated. In Germany and some other countries where Church and State are not completely separated, this means giving the corresponding status to this organization (Körperschaft des öff. Rechts) as soon as that is possible. Also, some sort of fund should be set up with a secular-style board to promote beneficial society projects. To be honest, when the state can fund "church days", it could also fund a "mosque day". Whenever politics looks for a dialogue, these organizations must be included. In Germany, the conservative Muslim organizations have done everything to split up and marginalize liberal organizations while, against all odds, uniting to provide a single "voice for Muslims" (whether we want it or not). When Merkel wants to talk to "the German Muslims" she talks to a Ditib guy who is paid by Erdogan. Politics must get wise to that scheme asap. Fourth, aggressively promote liberal views. Specifically, because this will be the Islamic view which promotes cooperation and understanding between Abrahamic faith's, one should promote inter-faith projects. Certain current organizations will not be able to profit from this, because they do not believe in interfaith cooperation. Seek cooperation with the churches as well. In Germany, state must provide space for mosques. This is super important as it is indeed regulated. If need be, force Ditib to share its space. No one needs five different mosques in the neighborhood, so why is only organization XY allowed to use the space? Fifth, as far as Ditib and other organization goes, the state must give incentives to having European educated community leaders. This means money. Also, every community leader and organization has to adhere to our European values and to the respective constitutions. Organizations in violation will be disbanded, and more importantly foreign funding will be cut off. Do NOT allow foreign funded or foreign Imams to teach in our schools. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I think it's also important to keep in mind that people living in poverty often behave in ways that are considered inappropriate by wealthier people. There are a number of reasons this is the case (wealthy people defining that sort of behavior as "uncouth" , the poor living under more stress and thus caring less about stuff like littering, etc), but ultimately it is something caused by both 1. the relationship of a demographic with their society as a whole and 2. the actions of the government. Basically, religion isn't really a big factor and you're making a "correlation = causation" assumption because you went to a Muslim country and saw people behaving a certain way. You'd likely see a lot of similar behavior in other developing countries. (In particular, the stuff you mentioned about littering and caring about public goods is guided more by the government and the rate of poverty than by "culture". It's the same reason poor areas in pretty much any country are much cleaner and nicer-looking than poor areas. I don't know how strong this distinction is in Germany, but it is huge in the US; poor areas here look like third world countries sometimes.) edit: Basically, it's like if someone went to Honduras and decided "wow, it is unpleasant to live here because of the Catholicism*!" (I know this is a bit of an exaggeration since Turkey is in a much better state than Honduras, but the point that "people behave a certain way in a country that is predominantly _____ religion; ergo their behavior is because of their culture" is wrong still stands.) *I mean, this is partly true due to the birth control stuff, but you understand what I mean Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's also important to keep in mind that people living in poverty often behave in ways that are considered inappropriate by wealthier people. There are a number of reasons this is the case (wealthy people defining that sort of behavior as "uncouth" , the poor living under more stress and thus caring less about stuff like littering, etc), but ultimately it is something caused by both 1. the relationship of a demographic with their society as a whole and 2. the actions of the government. Ohhh don't get me wrong. It's literally not religion=reason. Sorry if that isn't clear. I know of other developing countries with similar issues, for different reasons that are not at all religion. I am looking especially at those which are similarly materialistic and (underneath a veil) capitalistic in class structure as Turkey. What I mean here is the specific interpretation and cultural enforcement of Islam, combined the lack of societal ethos focussing on immaterial principles, in which religious practice reproduces itself in society (it could be anything else but here its religion). Ytlaya posted:(In particular, the stuff you mentioned about littering and caring about public goods is guided more by the government and the rate of poverty than by "culture". It's the same reason poor areas in pretty much any country are much cleaner and nicer-looking than poor areas. I don't know how strong this distinction is in Germany, but it is huge in the US; poor areas here look like third world countries sometimes.) This threat was more about conservative Islam, its effect on culture and the results. Very specifically. I know there are million ways to make a country terrible, and tbh Turkey is not terrible at all, things considered. I have seen more trashy areas in a number of countries than in Turkey, United States even. But in this specific situation this way of living Islam is having a distinctively negative impact on the people. If the focus of the religion would be on different principles, it would be better. Of course, being dirt poor doesn't help at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:So are all the progressives wrong? Did I somehow misread the Quoran in my naive reading? Surely the book is the complete message, crafted for people of all times and cultures. So how come I interpreted it so differently from the norm? Why is that I read: "Don't oogle at the tits of girls, and dress modest in relation to what is appropriate in your time" while a Salafist reads the same passage as "Put black clothes around all woman until they suffocate"? I just can't help myself, no matter how often I read the passages. I just don't read that there. Why are basically all things interpreted from a pre-Islamic Arab cultural context? Honestly, it feels like you're letting your preconceptions lead you astray. When you converted to Islam, you saw through the lens of idealism, seeing the exact religion you wanted to see based on your cultural situation, place in life, personal beliefs, and historical context. When you went abroad, you expected everyone else would have that exact same perspective on Islam - and when you realized that wasn't the case, it was such a shock that instead of looking at the contexts in which their Islam exists, you proceeded to shout "oh Allah, the Islamphobes were all right all along" and descended into basically a borderline-racist rant about "inferior cultures" and how a "European Islam" is needed. I know, you're completely sure that you're not racist or condescending at all, and in fact you're incredibly indignant that I would dare accuse you of such a thing. In fact, by now you're probably about ready to dismiss me as a crazy reactionary, maybe even a tankie. But first, let's step back a minute here and look at your evidence of European cultural superiority: because Middle Eastern Muslims are vicious and mean in anonymous settings, display status-seeking behaviors and act virtuous in public, they litter, and rich people have disproportionate influence in their societies? Those are all things that are pretty drat common in European and Western societies as well - it's just that they're more commonly directed against outsiders, which you weren't until you left Germany. You mention Reddit in your post, so the only way you could possibly describe mean behavior when anonymous as a uniquely Middle Eastern trait is if you're not really thinking it through and are just seeking logical justifications for a deeper subconscious dislike that you can't put words to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, it feels like you're letting your preconceptions lead you astray. When you converted to Islam, you saw through the lens of idealism, seeing the exact religion you wanted to see based on your cultural situation, place in life, personal beliefs, and historical context. When you went abroad, you expected everyone else would have that exact same perspective on Islam - and when you realized that wasn't the case, it was such a shock that instead of looking at the contexts in which their Islam exists, you proceeded to shout "oh Allah, the Islamphobes were all right all along" and descended into basically a borderline-racist rant about "inferior cultures" and how a "European Islam" is needed. No I am surprised you are the first to call me racist, I mean that's really the obvious response to my post. Of course I would love to rather imply that I see a societal and cultural issue and I don't believe in race at all, bla bla, but you probably won't let me get away with it because if I, as a white person, say something like this it's at least blatantly brazen. So I accept this and was trying to make the point anyway. If you wanna put me on ignore or something I can not fault you. If you talk about evidence.. I have lived in other countries as a foreigner and I did not have that experience. One of these countries was the USA, and I was foreign there as poo poo, probably more foreign and strange than there for several reasons. The people there also were a lot poorer than the ones I met in Turkey. While I could list many things that I dislike or like there, they are distinctly different from my experiences in other countries. So your assumption that there is a binary state between foreign and not is simply not differentiated enough. Btw that Europe is its own sort of unpleasant to foreigners is NOT something you need to tell me, I see that everyday for my wive. Lol if you think I could live with a Muslim foreign woman and not get somewhat of a hint of this. But these are actually different, equally lovely issues if you wanna know. But let me spell it out: Europe is infinitly more racist towards Muslims than Muslim countries would ever be towards Europeans. But this is related to Christianity, if that, and not Islam, which is the topic here. Secondly, my statement is backed by the opinion of locals and by a other people who have lived both in Europe and there. It is not me who started talking about these sort of issues in the first place, but I guess you will not believe me that these are actually issues the people talk about there and it is all my invention. Thirdly, there are things which can not be directed against foreigners and still are a structural problem of society. In fact there are far, far less foreigners in those countries than in European countries and to think that the issues I speak of are somehow related to foreigners is really dishonest. These issues persists with or with me there and are by and large not even related to any interaction with me. Fourth, the issues are not exclusive to being poor or that certain things are not available there. That's true for many people there, but also true for many people in Europe and much more so USA and finally it's not who I am talking about, because those exhibit these behaviors despite having more money and better education than you and I both, probably. But in any case, my thesis is indeed that the way religion is practiced there has a distinct impact on these problems. It starts with obvious things like treatment of women in society (yes it's also poo poo elsewhere) but goes to the subtle point I was trying to make above. If you do not agree and consequently say that society, behavior and religious influence in those countries is completely fine, then you go with the guy above in saying that the literal only issue there is that people are poor and there's not enough money. And I think the extension of this, that our European values and systems will reign as soon as enough money is provided, is even more supremacist and quite frankly foolish. Sorry I mentioned reddit, there's thread on GBS I am reading about people getting cucked, that's why. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Ohhh don't get me wrong. It's literally not religion=reason. Sorry if that isn't clear. I know of other developing countries with similar issues, for different reasons that are not at all religion. I am looking especially at those which are similarly materialistic and (underneath a veil) capitalistic in class structure as Turkey. Yeah, if I wasn't clear I wasn't trying to say that you think religion (or Islam specifically) is causing this behavior, but you seem to be attributing it to a particular culture based around a specific interpretation of Islam. My point is that there are other causes for the stuff you're mentioning and that the culture's characteristics aren't caused by an interpretation of Islam so much as Islam is interpreted to fit a particular culture. In particular, a bunch of the things you mention can be seen in many other non-Muslim countries, which kind of defeats your thesis that they're being caused by an interpretation of Islam. One thing you might also want to keep in mind is that a lot of stuff that is considered rude or mean is not considered rude or mean in different cultures. A lot of the stuff you mentioned (minus the social conservative stuff) can also be seen in places like mainland China. In general, I think a lot of this stuff is just due to Turkey generally being a developing country and the European countries you're familiar with being developed. The social conservative stuff may be unrelated to that, but it can also be seen in many Christian countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, if I wasn't clear I wasn't trying to say that you think religion (or Islam specifically) is causing this behavior, but you seem to be attributing it to a particular culture based around a specific interpretation of Islam. My point is that there are other causes for the stuff you're mentioning and that the culture's characteristics aren't caused by an interpretation of Islam so much as Islam is interpreted to fit a particular culture. In particular, a bunch of the things you mention can be seen in many other non-Muslim countries, which kind of defeats your thesis that they're being caused by an interpretation of Islam. Ytlaya posted:One thing you might also want to keep in mind is that a lot of stuff that is considered rude or mean is not considered rude or mean in different cultures. A lot of the stuff you mentioned (minus the social conservative stuff) can also be seen in places like mainland China. In general, I think a lot of this stuff is just due to Turkey generally being a developing country and the European countries you're familiar with being developed. The social conservative stuff may be unrelated to that, but it can also be seen in many Christian countries. Edit: And then there is another thing. I know many people, not even poor people, really well off and comfortable people, who are moving away from these countries distinctly to get away from this religious culture (that is people have stated this to me). Not everything is bad of course, and I even know quite a few who end up detesting many parts of European culture, understandably. But I basically have a whole mailing list of people who left their homecountry because of the way society and religion works there. Like, specifically that. Or take the emerging Turkish expat community in Berlin who left because of you-know-who and the sudden fact that wearing a hijab and going to mosque and posting happy Friday will get you further in business than any skill. These are things which literally exist and I can not fathom that you guys think I am making this all up. On the flipside, I know ZERO people who left Europe to go to Saudi Arabia EXCEPT for the money (so the opposite of your statement). Sure there are good and bad things and I may have become insane down the line, but I have the distinct feeling that a shitton of people enjoy the religious influence of conservative Islam much less than you think they do. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I'm going to attempt to argue for your idea, from a slightly different perspective; specifically integration. I think there's something to be said for Europe, in an institutional/political sense, truly adopting Islam as another European religion. Our current policy of just outsourcing that poo poo to the (greater) Middle East is deliberately putting Islam at arm's length, where a politically/institutionally supported European Islam would send a clear signal that Europe doesn't consider Islam an outside force. I think that'd be valuable in itself, even before you consider the value of creating a more open and representative alternative for European Muslims. You can argue all you want about the reasons why Middle Eastern Islam is as conservative as it is, but the cause doesn't really matter in this context; what matters is that it currently exists as a sort of one-way exchange. (Though these societies are probably themselves subject to a near one-way-exchange with the West in terms of everything else) It can export its thought abroad, while maintaining itself at home, which at best creates religious institutions unresponsive to the desires of more liberal adherents, at worst create entirely rival interpretations of reality which are fundamentally at odds with the safety of the communities they exist in. The latter is obviously only one factor in radicalization, European attitudes are an important other, but that is why the shutdown of foreign funding must be followed by Europe embracing Islam at an institutional level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:No I am surprised you are the first to call me racist, I mean that's really the obvious response to my post. Of course I would love to rather imply that I see a societal and cultural issue and I don't believe in race at all, bla bla, but you probably won't let me get away with it because if I, as a white person, say something like this it's at least blatantly brazen. So I accept this and was trying to make the point anyway. If you wanna put me on ignore or something I can not fault you. What are "these sorts of issues", exactly? The main reason I suggested bias might play a part in your perspective is that except for littering, your list of problems with Muslim culture in the Middle East looks exactly like the top few items of an American progressive's list of the problems with American culture. Hell, Donald Trump alone ticks virtually every check box on your list. If you had said that these problems were worse in Muslim countries, I'd probably agree to some extent and we could discuss some other reasons for that besides religion and culture, but you put them forward as uniquely Muslim and that is just plainly ridiculous. That aside, I'd highly suggest reading more about the differences between Jewish practice in various countries, as it seems highly relevant to the discussion you're really trying to have. You see, Judaism worldwide is split into four main flavors. There's Orthodox Judaism, which is essentially original Judaism complete with all the cultural baggage of being a millenia-old religion, like prohibitions on intermarriage, extremely outdated gender attitudes, and so on. There's Reform Judaism, which originated in Germany in the 19th century as a new and updated Judaism in tune with Enlightenment ideals, and emphasized moral behavior over ceremonial rules. There's Conservative Judaism, which originated in America in the early 20th century and essentially sought to strike a middle ground between traditional Orthodox thought and the often-radical Reform school. And lastly, there's Haredi or ultra-Orthodox Judaism, an essentially fundamentalist school that has existed in various small movements since the 19th century but mostly rose to prominence over the last half-century; as the name "ultra-Orthodox" implies, it's far stricter and more observant than even Orthodox Judaism. Reform Judaism might very well be a prototype for what your "European Islam" might look like - it's by far the most progressive of the mainstream flavors of Judaism. It's the only one that has pretty much full gender equality, is openly pro-LGBT, accepts interfaith marriages, and so on. On the other hand, Haredi Judaism is something you absolutely need to pay close attention to if you think that progress is the only direction things can move on. Many Haredi attitudes wouldn't be out of place in Saudi Arabia; gender segregation in the name of "modesty" is taken to incredible degrees, LGBTs are called "abominations" and gay rights are treated as unacceptable, and Haredi schools generally treat secular education (like math and science) as unnecessary and teach as little of it as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What are "these sorts of issues", exactly? The main reason I suggested bias might play a part in your perspective is that except for littering, your list of problems with Muslim culture in the Middle East looks exactly like the top few items of an American progressive's list of the problems with American culture. Hell, Donald Trump alone ticks virtually every check box on your list. If you had said that these problems were worse in Muslim countries, I'd probably agree to some extent and we could discuss some other reasons for that besides religion and culture, but you put them forward as uniquely Muslim and that is just plainly ridiculous. Again, I bring the argument that I know many people who left these countries for Europe, stating basically the above. All of these, this should be clear, are educated and not poor (bc. otherwise its impossible to come to Europe). I believe it is irrelevant to talk about different countries, though. We must be focussed on what we are importing to our culture. What children get taught here. Let me be clear: No matter how minor you think this sort of influence may be, I would not want it on my children. This is the distinct impression I live with now, and that I share with my wife and other expats as well. What I really do want is an organized and moderate Islam in Europe. This can not be too much to ask. Main Paineframe posted:That aside, I'd highly suggest reading more about the differences between Jewish practice in various countries, as it seems highly relevant to the discussion you're really trying to have. You see, Judaism worldwide is split into four main flavors. There's Orthodox Judaism, which is essentially original Judaism complete with all the cultural baggage of being a millenia-old religion, like prohibitions on intermarriage, extremely outdated gender attitudes, and so on. There's Reform Judaism, which originated in Germany in the 19th century as a new and updated Judaism in tune with Enlightenment ideals, and emphasized moral behavior over ceremonial rules. There's Conservative Judaism, which originated in America in the early 20th century and essentially sought to strike a middle ground between traditional Orthodox thought and the often-radical Reform school. And lastly, there's Haredi or ultra-Orthodox Judaism, an essentially fundamentalist school that has existed in various small movements since the 19th century but mostly rose to prominence over the last half-century; as the name "ultra-Orthodox" implies, it's far stricter and more observant than even Orthodox Judaism. By the way I agree that radical Islam is a reaction. The radical Islam in Europe as well as the preceeding issues elsewhere. Specifically for Europe I think that there is no room for moderates at the moment. Clearly, it is difficult to integrate as a Muslim. On the other hand, to hang with the Muslim group you better be conservative. The rest was described pretty well by the first reply to my OP. Anyway, if there are moderate Muslims, and there must be because they grow up in Europe and go to school here, they are silent and marginalized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Does anyone else realize this is a copy/paste from reddit word for word even the responses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Does anyone else realize this is a copy/paste from reddit word for word even the responses. really i can't fathom why you think anyone here knows what you're going on about ir really cares at all about your run of the mill ludicrously lazy shitposting effort, dude   
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Yep, sure do, someone should get on that http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/i-m-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:A rant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
gently caress you because you made me google the op which is infinitely more effort than you deserve. It's not actually a c/p if anyone's wondering. Oh neat, I don't even have to quote any of your gobbledygook because your post is just a lovely satire of the op and it gets cropped out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, it feels like you're letting your preconceptions lead you astray. When you converted to Islam, you saw through the lens of idealism, seeing the exact religion you wanted to see based on your cultural situation, place in life, personal beliefs, and historical context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Okay I dunno what happend to this here thread of mine but I can assure you I have nothing to do with reddit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Okay I dunno what happend to this here thread of mine but I can assure you I have nothing to do with reddit. You made the bad&wrong choice to discuss a controversial topic. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Specifically for Europe I think that there is no room for moderates at the moment. Clearly, it is difficult to integrate as a Muslim. Are you kidding? It's only difficult to integrate if you are actively trying to not integrate. No one cares if someone is a Muslim if you'll shake hands with women (i.e. you are trying to integrate) and don't bring up religion at every opportunity trying to convert your coworkers. If someone's wearing a niqab or djellaba they'll have some problems, but then they're not trying to integrate very hard then, are they? I have plenty of personal experience with this, at least for Switzerland. E: Also your OP is incredibly rambling and barely coherent, FYI. Are you arguing for there to be an EU-sponsored state Islam, like so many Arab countries have done? That's an awful idea and goes against one of the 'achievements' resulting from about 300 years of European wars. VVV: Swiss-American, so I guess I might have very particular ideas about state religion. The Swiss policy is not quite as liberal as the US policy for religion, but it's a lot more hands-off than, say, France or Italy or Ireland or whatever. I'm not sure how it is in Germany. Saladman fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Saladman posted:E: Also your OP is incredibly rambling and barely coherent, FYI. Are you arguing for there to be an EU-sponsored state Islam, like so many Arab countries have done? That's an awful idea and goes against one of the 'achievements' resulting from about 300 years of European wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I call it the koran
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
How much Muslims were killed by
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:A rant. Blurred posted:You're a bit all over the place there, so I'll respond with just a few points and tell me if you think I'm on the right track: System Metternich posted:In addition to the various good points Blurred raised I wanted to say that caps on caps on caps posted:I suppose you want to talk about worldly institutions, because otherwise I would find it hard to agree with you. In a practical sense, since religion does invoke universality, its morality divides naturally into who adheres and who does not. However, for example in Islam, this divide is not the same divide as who is Muslim or not. The same is true with society, of course. As long as society and religion have the desirable intersection, the use of intra-group signals does not matter to society. For Christianity and Islam, at least, this is the case. But this is not as important to the discussion at hand. rudatron posted:Apart from tackling the foreign funding element, what other measures do you believe would be helpful? What was the reason that those death threats weren't acted on and how can they be prevented? More broadly, how can parochial authorities within Islam be minimized, without giving the impression of targeting the muslim community as a whole? Rigged Death Trap posted:Quick bit about the Quran, Hadiths and sunnah. cowofwar posted:The OP's quandary can be simply explained by wealth, education and privilege modifying sociocultural norms rather than religion. The reason why Northern Europe is virtuous etc is because it is wealthy and educated and conversely Turkey is poo poo because it is poor and uneducated. Religion is irrelevant and you're conflating the issues. Islam was much more moderate and Christianity was much more extreme in the past when the economic conditions were reversed. caps on caps on caps posted:So I may or may not be a bit harsh there. but what I am talking about, however, is neither poor nor uneducated people. I found the opposite to be true, actually. I wish the world would be simple, but it is not. Ytlaya posted:I think it's also important to keep in mind that people living in poverty often behave in ways that are considered inappropriate by wealthier people. There are a number of reasons this is the case (wealthy people defining that sort of behavior as "uncouth" , the poor living under more stress and thus caring less about stuff like littering, etc), but ultimately it is something caused by both 1. the relationship of a demographic with their society as a whole and 2. the actions of the government. caps on caps on caps posted:Ohhh don't get me wrong. It's literally not religion=reason. Sorry if that isn't clear. I know of other developing countries with similar issues, for different reasons that are not at all religion. I am looking especially at those which are similarly materialistic and (underneath a veil) capitalistic in class structure as Turkey. Main Paineframe posted:Honestly, it feels like you're letting your preconceptions lead you astray. When you converted to Islam, you saw through the lens of idealism, seeing the exact religion you wanted to see based on your cultural situation, place in life, personal beliefs, and historical context. When you went abroad, you expected everyone else would have that exact same perspective on Islam - and when you realized that wasn't the case, it was such a shock that instead of looking at the contexts in which their Islam exists, you proceeded to shout "oh Allah, the Islamphobes were all right all along" and descended into basically a borderline-racist rant about "inferior cultures" and how a "European Islam" is needed. caps on caps on caps posted:No I am surprised you are the first to call me racist, I mean that's really the obvious response to my post. Of course I would love to rather imply that I see a societal and cultural issue and I don't believe in race at all, bla bla, but you probably won't let me get away with it because if I, as a white person, say something like this it's at least blatantly brazen. So I accept this and was trying to make the point anyway. If you wanna put me on ignore or something I can not fault you. Ytlaya posted:Yeah, if I wasn't clear I wasn't trying to say that you think religion (or Islam specifically) is causing this behavior, but you seem to be attributing it to a particular culture based around a specific interpretation of Islam. My point is that there are other causes for the stuff you're mentioning and that the culture's characteristics aren't caused by an interpretation of Islam so much as Islam is interpreted to fit a particular culture. In particular, a bunch of the things you mention can be seen in many other non-Muslim countries, which kind of defeats your thesis that they're being caused by an interpretation of Islam. caps on caps on caps posted:Well the thing is that religion is an institution which propagates roles and institutional structure in that society. On an individual basis, there is a causal structure, even if as a whole both things are socially determined. Other countries have different institutions fulfilling the same role, which we could analyze at length. We also have those here. And they may lead to the same or different result. There are also no doubt circumstances that these countries share which have an impact on societal outcome. But itt doesn't really hurt my thesis, it goes perfectly well with roles and knowledge in society for there to be multiple reasons. I believe based on my experience that religion is a rather strong driver of propagating society with, on a macro level, is of course already there. And I know for a fact this to be the case for individual cases where I have seen it. And education and its relation to Islam is very important in these specific cases. School education but moreso parental education. I think the only way to not acknowledge this is if one has never been there. I know it's not proper argumentation, but I have these examples very clearly in my mind. A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm going to attempt to argue for your idea, from a slightly different perspective; specifically integration. I think there's something to be said for Europe, in an institutional/political sense, truly adopting Islam as another European religion. Our current policy of just outsourcing that poo poo to the (greater) Middle East is deliberately putting Islam at arm's length, where a politically/institutionally supported European Islam would send a clear signal that Europe doesn't consider Islam an outside force. I think that'd be valuable in itself, even before you consider the value of creating a more open and representative alternative for European Muslims. Okay. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Are you kidding? It's only difficult to integrate if you are actively trying to not integrate. No one cares if someone is a Muslim if you'll shake hands with women (i.e. you are trying to integrate) and don't bring up religion at every opportunity trying to convert your coworkers. If someone's wearing a niqab or djellaba they'll have some problems, but then they're not trying to integrate very hard then, are they? There are some people who say the following: "You can live your religion IN PRIVATE, but it does NOT belong to Christian Europe's cultural heritage". I am guessing that's your opinion taking the above (because otherwise I could wear whatever I drat please and still be treated of equal and not lesser worth). I would say that is the opinion of about 50-60% of people in Germany as well. That in effect means to integrate fully and be successful, one should give up the religion. That is the other side of what I was arguing. This constant hostility toward Islam as religion means that to integrate, I really have to make sure to keep it quiet. The point is I do not hurt the German cultural heritage whether I eat pork or not. If vegans don't eat pork, no one cares. It's fine. They are probably seen even less dangerous and more compessionate. This is not true for Muslims and the reason is that everybody associates Islam with terror, criminals and "Kanacken" in side alleys. And sometimes for good reason. Dude I am white as hell, I was born here before the Wall fell. I know the feeling when I go through certain parts of Wedding or Neukölln (whatever your equivalent is). But it is a bullshit feeling. Our association is just miscalibrated. And because only conservative Muslim institutions are allowed to survive in Germany, this association is reinforced. And that association helps the extremists (as ISIS called it their strategy of division) more than anyone else. Now imagine instead there was a European Islam where everybody knew that these Muslims share all the good and proper values of the constitution and are truly standup people, who you can happily share your Käsespätzle and Weissbier with, who will accept you eating pork roast and who would defend your right to do so. And imagine all Muslims would see themselves in the same way. And if there ever was a questions between European ideals and extremism, they would all stand united at your side. If THIS was the impression people would get of us, instead of being foreign, dangerous or at the very least stupid and poor, then there would be FAR less incentive for certain Muslims to find community with the extremists! I, as a European with European ideals, would find that desireable! And it's hard for me to comprehend that people who have gone to the same schools, read the same books and heard the same stories of our history would not think that this is the way to go. Then there is the other thing. The actual racism here. As it stands, Muslims have a bad image. If you are a brown person Muslim, like my wife, and are not doing proper things like running a kebap, kiosk or driving taxi, and perhaps even are more educated, there is discrimination. Then, there is downright racism. There's people yelling at you in the subway and making comments and stuff. "Scheiß Kanacke", never heard? That's just how things are I guess but lol if you think it doesn't happen. Also, jobs. I have a lot of experience with this, helping several people. My favorite story is this. Someone I know has been asked at a Siemens assessment center why he doesn't work in Africa, where he is more needed. He was then cut midday by saying that he "does not fit into the environment". He was far more qualified than the people in his group, like from Dorffachhochschule XYZ with zero experience. We even though about suing but of course that doesn't help anybody. This is something that happened in real life literal truth. Turks who are coming now to Germany (so actual Turk expats) have to deal with the fact that in Germany, Turks simply are not considered educated. So you can have the best degrees from Koc, Istanbul or Middle East Technical or what have you, and still when you come here people will try to get you callcenter and security jobs. At the Arbeitsagentur, at job fairs, everywhere. Oh man, there are many stories, especially in Bavaria and East-Germany. I think Switzerland is probably similar. Wait, didn't you guys ban building Mosques recently or something? If you ever wanna give yourself a treat, go to a JU meeting or a Schützenfest and let them find out your Muslim. Fun times. I know Germans and Swiss think that they are the least racist people on the globe but it is really, really not true. Edit: And don't pretend its not true. I know. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
The difference between a vegetarian and a muslim keeping halal for expressly religious reasons is that, absent the European Islam you desire, it suggests that the individual possess a myriad of problematic beliefs at best, and abhorrent ones at worst. I don't think many posters here would bat an eye at (privately) discriminating against someone who insisted on wearing a Confederate flag or judging negatively someone who expressed sympathy for Anders Breivik's motives if not his actions. If you're willing to concede that conservative Islam as practiced today is deeply flawed, then I don't see a difference between the above and discriminating against someone who is plainly displaying an adherence to conservative religion. Stupidity expressed as religiosity doesn't deserve special deference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:The difference between a vegetarian and a muslim keeping halal for expressly religious reasons is that, absent the European Islam you desire, it suggests that the individual possess a myriad of problematic beliefs at best, and abhorrent ones at worst. So if I understand you correctly I have the choice of either a) give up my religion, because any outside indication I might be Muslim opens up me & my family to _rightful_ and just discrimination on the same scale as if I would openly support mass murderers. b) become a Muslim extremist and be accepted in their community. c) pretend to be Christian, practice my religion in secrecy and hope nobody finds out Correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
There are numerous choices open to you outside the three contrivances you've described. For example, you could behave as a properly benign, secularized religious practitioner and treat your religion as cultural baggage by observing certain holidays and rituals but otherwise abandoning anything as ridiculous as a religious diet. But it's a moot point -- do what you want, but if you're going to wear your ideas, or a fidelity to certain ideas, on your sleeve, then prepare to be judged accordingly. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Are you kidding? It's only difficult to integrate if you are actively trying to not integrate. No one cares if someone is a Muslim Hahahaha, yes, (unjustified) discrimination against Muslims surely does not exist in Europe, this is certainly a thing which is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
The award for 'least racist people' probably goes to Americans, and that kind of says something.the trump tutelage posted:There are numerous choices open to you outside the three contrivances you've described. For example, you could behave as a properly benign, secularized religious practitioner and treat your religion as cultural baggage by observing certain holidays and rituals but otherwise abandoning anything as ridiculous as a religious diet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why would caps on want to do that? Why should they have to do that? 'Take it or leave it' isn't an acceptable response. The comparison between a confederate flag and islamic symbols is also really, really, really egregiously ugly, dude. Assuming there is a correlation between the extent to which someone is willing to live out their religious faith, and their possessing regressive viewpoints -- and I don't think that's very controversial; nobody is expecting progressive positions from the Amish or Hasidim -- then you can tell an awful lot about a person by how closely they adhere to dogma. Show me someone inordinately concerned about keeping halal (or kosher for that matter, or attending Church every Sunday), or who insists on maintaining an appropriately god-sanctioned wardrobe, and the safe bet is that they have terrible opinions on e.g., gay rights and women's rights, what happens to you after death, what role faith should play in the public sphere, etc. Your daughter comes home from school and tells you that their new friend cannot attend her birthday party because their family are strict Jehova's Witnesses who do not observe any holidays or secular celebrations. Quick: what can you infer about their stance on gay marriage? Are you scandalized by your prejudice, however accurate? e. I don't want to sound like an angry internet atheist so I should say that I believe this extends to the secular sphere as well. If someone comes to your door adorned with FLUORIDE = DEATH and INFOWARS buttons, asking you to sign a petition to ban chemtrails over your city, you can make some pretty accurate inferences based on that information and will proceed accordingly. Should the government pass laws to abridge their free expression? No. Is this person's sense of outrage at being handled suspiciously or scoffed at justifiable? Also no. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:How so? Are we to give every religious adherent the benefit of the doubt and assume they are practicing some Westernized Platonic ideal of their religion, and are otherwise perfectly liberal-minded and progressive? Nobody would extend that courtesy to someone with Asatru tattoos, or to someone proclaiming "heritage, not hate!" We extend that benefit of the doubt to Christians and Jews despite the fact that both regularly give reason not to, so yeah why wouldn't we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:We extend that benefit of the doubt to Christians and Jews despite the fact that both regularly give reason not to, so yeah why wouldn't we? e. Again, I'm not talking about someone who merely self-identifies as X and then proceeds along their merry way, practicing a severely neutered bastardization of their regressive or otherwise ridiculous ideology. I'm talking about people who, through acts or symbols, self-identify as earnest adherents who take their regressive and ridiculous ideology seriously. The more seriously, the more likely they are to be worth confronting. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
The confederate flag* was literally created in the context of trying to perpetuate slavery, there is pretty much nothing good about it. Islam on the other hand is a religion that has existed for over a thousand years and has many good and bad aspects to it. These two things are not comparable. * I know the flag we're talking about isn't the actual confederate flag, but given public perception it is for the purposes of this discussion
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:03
|
|