‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Unwitting Propaganda and Islam vs. Human Rights

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 June 2019 10:27
 

Here is a worthwhile article, in particular regarding change in Islam, both in the past and today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/opinion/arabic-numerals.html

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 June 2019 13:43
 

I thought the last paragraph was worth calling out:

Here is a more realistic explanation: The early Islamic civilization was creative because it was open-minded. At least some Muslims had the urge to learn from other civilizations. There was some room for free speech, which was extraordinary for its time. That allowed the work of towering Greek philosophers such as Aristotle to be translated and discussed, theologians of different stripes to speak their minds, and scholars to find independent patronage. From the 12th century onward, however, a more uniform and less rational form of Islam was imposed by despotic caliphs and sultans. So Muslim thought turned insular, repetitive and incurious.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 June 2019 17:15
 
icehorse - 04 June 2019 01:43 PM

I thought the last paragraph was worth calling out:

Here is a more realistic explanation: The early Islamic civilization was creative because it was open-minded. At least some Muslims had the urge to learn from other civilizations. There was some room for free speech, which was extraordinary for its time. That allowed the work of towering Greek philosophers such as Aristotle to be translated and discussed, theologians of different stripes to speak their minds, and scholars to find independent patronage. From the 12th century onward, however, a more uniform and less rational form of Islam was imposed by despotic caliphs and sultans. So Muslim thought turned insular, repetitive and incurious.

And that was when the civilization went into decline (the Ottoman Empire was Muslim, but it was mainly the Turks). The insular turn coincided with the Crusades, and the Mongols, outside threats.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 June 2019 17:16
 
icehorse - 04 June 2019 01:43 PM

I thought the last paragraph was worth calling out:

Here is a more realistic explanation: The early Islamic civilization was creative because it was open-minded. At least some Muslims had the urge to learn from other civilizations. There was some room for free speech, which was extraordinary for its time. That allowed the work of towering Greek philosophers such as Aristotle to be translated and discussed, theologians of different stripes to speak their minds, and scholars to find independent patronage. From the 12th century onward, however, a more uniform and less rational form of Islam was imposed by despotic caliphs and sultans. So Muslim thought turned insular, repetitive and incurious.

And that was when the civilization went into decline (the Ottoman Empire was Muslim, but it was mainly the Turks). The insular turn coincided with the Crusades, and the Mongols, outside threats. The Ottomans were something like Byzantium was for Rome, started off on a high but then became stagnant.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 June 2019 18:30
 

burt:

The insular turn coincided with the Crusades, and the Mongols, outside threats

Are you suspecting that it’s not just coincidence?

My understanding is that in the early days of Islam, when a lot of conquest was happening, Muslim conquerers were very open to stealing what was the intellectual property of the day. (Of course the same can probably be said of Christian conquerers.)

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15914
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 June 2019 19:46
 
icehorse - 04 June 2019 06:30 PM

burt:

The insular turn coincided with the Crusades, and the Mongols, outside threats

Are you suspecting that it’s not just coincidence?

My understanding is that in the early days of Islam, when a lot of conquest was happening, Muslim conquerers were very open to stealing what was the intellectual property of the day. (Of course the same can probably be said of Christian conquerers.)

No such thing as intellectual property then. Everybody took everything, if they were particularly nice they gave credit. The only defense was if the material was well enough known. At least early on, Muslims were encouraged to become educated.

 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  117
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
02 November 2019 17:06
 

The initial posting of the author of this thread topic, “icehorse”, I find rather ironic, given how much grief (“pushback” in Harrisonian terms) he or she gave me—with my hard anti-Islam stance—several moons ago on this forum.

Reading through that initial posting, I find myself in agreement with every point—albeit, there are nuances which ambiguously provide breathing space, so to say, for possible disagreements.  For example:

“When we say that most Muslims aren’t fundamentalists, we’re both wrong, AND we are spreading propaganda.”

It’s that “most” that may be a niggling burr under the collar.  On my former blog, a few of my over 1,500 postings (over a 10-year span) probed this problem of what I called “the dreaded A-word”—meaning the word “all”. I noticed over time this apprehension in the Counter-Jihad of saying “all Muslims”.  I saw constant and varied ways to sidestep in gingerly timidity this A-word and to anxiously assure the reader that they didn’t mean “all Muslims”.  I could point out that my advocacy of the A-word does not entail that I actually think I know that all Muslims literally desire to destroy the West and are actively behaving in support of that dream of conquest; but that when we fully digest and appreciate the problem (and danger) of Islam on a macro scale, and if we want to do our small part to try to protect the free world from eventual destruction,  we would come to the conclusion that we must advocate a point of view and logically consequent policy based on erring on the side of assuming all Muslims are equally dangerous. 

Now this point of view entails:

1) fully appreciating what the macro scale involves in this context;

and

2) fully appreciating what the problem (and danger) of Islam actually is (which, among many other moving parts, includes the devastating problem of taqiyya/stealth jihad).

I haven’t checked this forum in a long time, maybe over a year at least (I might have popped in here a few months ago to deposit a couple of comments; I can’t remember). 

Anyway, it’s a pattern I’ve noticed over the years many times: I encounter an apparently tough anti-Islam person, I engage them and articulate my tough anti-Islam stance, and invariably it turns out my stance is egregiously too tough for them to acquiesce to—leading one to wonder what invisible force field is preventing them from conceding the logic that has led me to my stance? And why, if my stance seems to be based on most (if not all) of the same premises as their stance is, they feel the need to draw a virtue-signalling line, separating them from my evident bigotry, racism, Islamophobia.  As I said up top, this is ironic, given that they are otherwise complaining about the mainstream doing that to them (and to Sam Harris).  Now, if I were advocating genociding Muslims, I would think their point would be a fair one. But I’m not.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
02 November 2019 17:35
 

My first reaction isn’t that your stance is too tough. I think it’s more that it doesn’t hold up well to debate.

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  117
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
02 November 2019 19:10
 
icehorse - 02 November 2019 05:35 PM

My first reaction isn’t that your stance is too tough. I think it’s more that it doesn’t hold up well to debate.

Debate about what? If my stance isn’t too tough, what would you debate about?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
02 November 2019 21:06
 
Hesperado - 02 November 2019 07:10 PM
icehorse - 02 November 2019 05:35 PM

My first reaction isn’t that your stance is too tough. I think it’s more that it doesn’t hold up well to debate.

Debate about what? If my stance isn’t too tough, what would you debate about?

I’m going from memory here, so forgive any minor errors:

I know I have often claimed that about half the world’s Muslims are fundamentalists. While I think Islam is bad news 98% of the time, it’s easier to defend the claim that half the world’s Muslims are fundamentalists. So it’s not about a debate between me and you. It’s more about the many experiences I’ve had debating Islamic apologists.

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  117
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
02 November 2019 23:42
 

“So it’s not about a debate between me and you. It’s more about the many experiences I’ve had debating Islamic apologists.”

Who are these Islamic apologists? Muslims or the non-Muslims of the West who continue to defend Islam? If both, what percentage would you allot each in terms of importance for debate?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
03 November 2019 07:59
 
Hesperado - 02 November 2019 11:42 PM

“So it’s not about a debate between me and you. It’s more about the many experiences I’ve had debating Islamic apologists.”

Who are these Islamic apologists? Muslims or the non-Muslims of the West who continue to defend Islam? If both, what percentage would you allot each in terms of importance for debate?

I’m not sure I understand how the question is relevant? I think Islam should go away entirely or at least be heavily reformed (beyond recognition). So I debate apologists of all stripes.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5706
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
03 November 2019 08:14
 
Hesperado - 02 November 2019 07:10 PM
icehorse - 02 November 2019 05:35 PM

My first reaction isn’t that your stance is too tough. I think it’s more that it doesn’t hold up well to debate.

Debate about what? If my stance isn’t too tough, what would you debate about?

I think your stance doesn’t stand up to debate because you won’t say what you’re defending (except, you know, “Western Civ”) and only propose an enemy of something fairly nebulous, and only attack positions that aren’t (according to you?) sufficiently tough. Your concept of debate itself is somewhat self-limited, and consists mainly in tooting a horn about the supposedly logical steps you have executed to arrive at your ‘position’.

[ Edited: 03 November 2019 08:23 by Traces Elk]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
04 November 2019 17:48
 

Traces Elk !

good to (virtually) meet you!

 
 
Hesperado
 
Avatar
 
 
Hesperado
Total Posts:  117
Joined  19-05-2015
 
 
 
04 November 2019 20:46
 

“I think your stance doesn’t stand up to debate because you won’t say what you’re defending (except, you know, “Western Civ”)”

Oh? Have you read enough of my essays to know whether I don’t say what I’m defending? Anyway, defending a society and its progress and freedoms from destruction, along with countless lives mass-murdered seems self-evident enough in this context.

“and only propose an enemy of something fairly nebulous”

Islam and Muslims may be diverse and complex, but not nebulous beyond that—certainly not so nebulous that the danger they pose evanesce.

“and only attack positions that aren’t (according to you?) sufficiently tough.”

It would seem to be a waste of time to attack positions that I think are sufficiently tough.

“Your concept of debate itself is somewhat self-limited, and consists mainly in tooting a horn about the supposedly logical steps you have executed to arrive at your ‘position’.”

This is like lemon meringue pie. I don’t know what to do with it (especially as I’ve already had a much more substantive chocolate mazurka).

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >