1 2 > 
 
   
 

Islam, Taqiya and religious dialogue

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2813
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
03 August 2016 01:38
 

I am frustrated by a common reaction to actions by Muslim communities or individual, be they positive or negative:

if we are talking about acts of violence, homophobia, sexism etc. we say “that’s typical Islam”.

But if we encounter cases of secularism, religious tolerance and integration, someone will claim that this is just a case of:

“Lying to the Unbelievers”

Now, this is deeply problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly, it precludes any kind of open conversation.

It seems that there is nothing Muslim moderates can do to convince skeptical Westerns that they are honest and serious.

[ Edited: 03 August 2016 13:00 by Twissel]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 August 2016 08:31
 

They would go a long way towards convincing me if they openly established a secular sect. Remember that such a sect would be extremely controversial in the Islamic world, and would fly in the face of most Islamic thinking.

Once again, this sentence (spoken by Mr. Khan at the DNC), is oxymoronic, and that’s Muslims’ fault:

“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
03 August 2016 08:34
 
Twissel - 03 August 2016 01:38 AM

 

Now, this is deeply problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly, it precludes any kind of open conversation.

It takes two sides for an open conversation. Are you open to the possibility that the charge could be true?

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9665
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
03 August 2016 09:01
 
Twissel - 03 August 2016 01:38 AM

“Lying to the Unbelievers”

This alone makes it very difficult to believe Muslims.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  479
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
03 August 2016 12:45
 
icehorse - 03 August 2016 08:31 AM

They would go a long way towards convincing me if they openly established a secular sect. Remember that such a sect would be extremely controversial in the Islamic world, and would fly in the face of most Islamic thinking.

If by “secular” you mean non-religious, that’s stupid.  No person of religion is going to establish a non-religious sect.

Once again, this sentence (spoken by Mr. Khan at the DNC), is oxymoronic, and that’s Muslims’ fault:

“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”

Another stupid comment.  Obviously, you don’t grasp the principle of “undivided loyalty” or you wouldn’t make such a claim.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2813
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
03 August 2016 12:55
 
Celal - 03 August 2016 08:34 AM
Twissel - 03 August 2016 01:38 AM

 

Now, this is deeply problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly, it precludes any kind of open conversation.

It takes two sides for an open conversation. Are you open to the possibility that the charge could be true?

That’s the whole point: if I have to entertain the possibility that my Muslim negotiating partners might just be trying to deceive me, why (following Game Theory)  should I risk believing them?
In the end,  this is a much greater problem for Muslims than us, since there seems to be no way for them to definitely establish trust.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7686
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 August 2016 12:57
 
lynmc - 03 August 2016 12:45 PM
icehorse - 03 August 2016 08:31 AM

They would go a long way towards convincing me if they openly established a secular sect. Remember that such a sect would be extremely controversial in the Islamic world, and would fly in the face of most Islamic thinking.

If by “secular” you mean non-religious, that’s stupid.  No person of religion is going to establish a non-religious sect.

Once again, this sentence (spoken by Mr. Khan at the DNC), is oxymoronic, and that’s Muslims’ fault:

“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”

Another stupid comment.  Obviously, you don’t grasp the principle of “undivided loyalty” or you wouldn’t make such a claim.

I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you.

But I will say that you should start by buying yourself a dictionary.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
03 August 2016 13:02
 
Twissel - 03 August 2016 12:55 PM
Celal - 03 August 2016 08:34 AM
Twissel - 03 August 2016 01:38 AM

 

Now, this is deeply problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly, it precludes any kind of open conversation.

It takes two sides for an open conversation. Are you open to the possibility that the charge could be true?

That’s the whole point: if I have to entertain the possibility that my Muslim negotiating partners might just be trying to deceive me, why (following Game Theory)  should I risk believing them?
In the end,  this is a much greater problem for Muslims than us, since there seems to be no way for them to definitely establish trust.

Sorry, I don’t follow your response. Do you have an open mind about the subject you started or not?  IOW, are you open to the possibility you may be wrong?

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  479
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
03 August 2016 15:02
 
Celal - 03 August 2016 08:34 AM
Twissel - 03 August 2016 01:38 AM

 

Now, this is deeply problematic for a number of reasons, but mainly, it precludes any kind of open conversation.

It takes two sides for an open conversation. Are you open to the possibility that the charge could be true?

Let me start by assuming you’re lying whenever you profess support for tolerance and secularism.  You can claim atheism all you want, I won’t believe it, as you appear to have made a religion of hating Muslims, and you worship at the feet of your demi-god, Sam Harris.

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21694
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 August 2016 16:39
 

So, I work with some Muslim health care providers.  I generally give another person the benefit of the doubt until they show that I should not.  If a secular or moderate Muslim appears to deal with me in good faith, I reciprocate. Maybe he/she has not really bought into Taqiya, and just wants to live in the West, with no nefarious plans. Quite frankly, it’s going to be a long, long time before Muslims are a majority or even a really powerful minority here, so I’m not worried about the consequences of that.  Catholic Hispanics will outpace them for decades.  For the most part, I don’t think Taqiya is something I need to worry about, unless the person shows me that he is deceitful in some way.

As for the majority Muslim nations, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2813
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
03 August 2016 21:48
 

@Celal

Sorry for not being clearer.

All I have expressed so far is a concern that the practice of Taqiya, from a purely rational POV, makes interfaith dialogue virtually impossible.
This is obviously a built-in mechanism in Islam to prevent defection and ease co-existance. But it’s an anathema to integration.

We might need some kind of Blockchain-model of interaction to establish any degree of trust.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
03 August 2016 22:36
 
Twissel - 03 August 2016 09:48 PM

@Celal

Sorry for not being clearer.

All I have expressed so far is a concern that the practice of Taqiya, from a purely rational POV, makes interfaith dialogue virtually impossible.
This is obviously a built-in mechanism in Islam to prevent defection and ease co-existance. But it’s an anathema to integration.

We might need some kind of Blockchain-model of interaction to establish any degree of trust.

The concern isn’t even that Muslims may lie, it is simply that given the claims Islam makes,  an interfaith dialogue is axiomatically impossible.  Islam claims all that came before it is no longer valid, corrupted. Islam makes the claim that adherents of the other two religions , Jews have been damned; Christians have gone astray. What’s more is that these claims are from Allah. Finally they reaffirm these beliefs about the followers of the other religions several times a day if practicing Islam.

With that as a pre-condition; How is any inter-faith dialogue possible?  I say impossible.  I tested it out with many of Imams. They did not disappoint. Inter-faith dialogue has become an industry, and it is as sincere as Rev Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson working on race relations. No one believes in this stuff… But it sounds good!

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2813
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
03 August 2016 23:09
 

Judaism and Christianity both claim to be the only true ways to follow God. That is not the obstacle,  or at least not the first one.

For me, the concept of Taqiya undermines even the possibility of trust: generally, we determine trustworthiness by past behavior: how dependent has the other one been so far?
Once we have some credibility,  we carefully guard it: the concept of honor comes into play here.
Break your word,  even under unimportant circumstances,  and your reputation with everyone,  friend or foe, might suffer greatly.

But Taqiya gives Muslims a cop-out: if the deception is towards an unbeliever, breaking your word does not cause a loss of face with the faithful - it might even gain you reputation.

This makes playing the prisoner’s dilemma game against a Believer different to someone without such a loophole.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  479
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
04 August 2016 07:57
 
icehorse - 03 August 2016 12:57 PM
lynmc - 03 August 2016 12:45 PM
icehorse - 03 August 2016 08:31 AM

They would go a long way towards convincing me if they openly established a secular sect. Remember that such a sect would be extremely controversial in the Islamic world, and would fly in the face of most Islamic thinking.

If by “secular” you mean non-religious, that’s stupid.  No person of religion is going to establish a non-religious sect.

Once again, this sentence (spoken by Mr. Khan at the DNC), is oxymoronic, and that’s Muslims’ fault:

“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”

Another stupid comment.  Obviously, you don’t grasp the principle of “undivided loyalty” or you wouldn’t make such a claim.

I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you.

 

This isn’t surprising, since there aren’t enough crayons or time in the universe for anyone to make sense of your nonsense.

“Secular sect” is in fact an oxymoron, unlike anything in ‘“As patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country…”’ which you claim is.  I’m curious, what exactly do you think is contradictory about “patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country?”

 

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  479
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
04 August 2016 08:05
 
Twissel - 03 August 2016 09:48 PM

@Celal

Sorry for not being clearer.

All I have expressed so far is a concern that the practice of Taqiya, from a purely rational POV, makes interfaith dialogue virtually impossible.
This is obviously a built-in mechanism in Islam to prevent defection and ease co-existance. But it’s an anathema to integration.

We might need some kind of Blockchain-model of interaction to establish any degree of trust.

From wikipedia (which I admit, I don’t always believe, but in this case I don’t have any better information):
“Taqiya (???? taqiyyah/taq?yah, literally “prudence, fear, caution”)[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]”

In other words, doing the same thing Catholics did under Protestant England or Jews and Muslims under the Spanish Inquisition, pretending to hold a faith they didn’t really have in order to save themselves from being burned at the stake or hanged for their faith.  But with religious sanction, which would otherwise forbid lying.

In what way does this make interfaith dialogue virtually impossible?

 

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2813
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
04 August 2016 08:18
 

Different schools of Islam put different barriers for “lying to unbelievers’ on their adherence. Some say its only allow to avoid direct, possibly life-threatening persecution. Other say it ok in order to avoid any disadvantage as long as ‘no innocent are harmed’, and variations of that.


If I can not be sure that I am dealing in ‘good faith’ with someone, how can even know what he/she really thinks?
After basically every terror attack, Imans and religious leaders of the community are interviewed and asked to condemn the act. By some interpretation it is perfectly acceptable for the person to lie about his views if that will spare him negative consequences.

So if we don’t really know where many Muslims stand on an issue, how can we find common ground?

 
 
 1 2 >