Since I have been banned from RichardDawkins.net I am forced to comment here about the insanity there. The following comment was brought to my attention by the ever prescient and entertaining Styrer. He asked for my commentary, and I plan to give it to him. Here is the link to the comment in question:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916
Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:
It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.
This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.
Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.
The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.
Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916
Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:
"Not that I am against [crucial edit] opposing Islam as a
religion, but not from the point of view of privileging Christianity and/or
Judaism, as Wilders
does. The Abrahamic
religions are after all cut from the same cloth; they have all drunk from the
same poisoned well of tribal barbarism.
Where I disagree with Hitch (and
Sam) is that Islam is inherently more barbaric or conducive to violence. Wrong.
The societies in which Islam predominates are today more backward, that is the
difference. When those societies were relatively more advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity"
It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.
"The societies in which Islam predominates are today more
backward, that is the difference. When those societies were relatively more
advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity. "
This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.
Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.
The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.
Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.
Posts
16 comments:
Marvellous.
Thank you for expanding beyond my abilities my own, inadequately erudite reply to the very polite but very wrong member of RD.net whose post is at issue here.
Your extraordinary acumen, Ibn Al-Rawandi, and your gift for sifting the shite from the shiteless are truly missed on RD.Net.
Keep up the exceptionally good work.
Thanks.
Styrer
Very informative, Al-Rawandi. Your insight has been missed on RD.net's front page. Here's hoping we'll see you there sooner rather than later. In the meantime, your entries here are greatly appreciated.
Hope your krav-maga practice is going well ^_^
Al,
As ever I learn a great deal from your insight.
Al
Know anything about these guys?
Seems we have a real live muslim convert and "international speaker" to boot coming to RD.net. Name of Hamza.
He seems to be linked to this.
http://www.hittininstitute.com/Publications.aspx
Al
This is his site if you are interested in having some fun.
http://hamzatzortzis.com/index.html
I am afraid I have no pity for converts.
Hmm, what would be the most embarassing thing he had to sign up for?
but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned.
"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus (20:13)
Descriptive(and not prescrptive) I suppose?
Deepak,
That verse is speaking of homosexuals, not a tribe of people, perhaps you should look at what the Islamic texts have to say about gays. Or perhaps more importantly, Polytheists (I can on guess you are from a Hindu culture from your name that is). And yes, we all know that the basis for homophobia lies within the OT. Nothing particularly thought prevoking from your post.
Dmitry,
Krav Maga is going well. I am going to Israel in May to continue study. Also been doing BJJ and boxing. Very exciting, progressing quickly, I am very pleased with my choice.
Nairb,
This guy seems to be yet another idiot trying to prove everything I say is true. Islam is inseperable from politics. I would love to see some of this guy's debates, or better yet his posts on RD.net.
Ibn al-Rawandi
That isn't my point. You attempted to downplay the Old Testament is horrid by stating it is descriptive (instead of prescriptive an argument used by people like Robert Spencer to further their agenda). You don't need to do this to prove that Islam is horrid. If you need to stoop to that level, then I am forced to question your bias/agenda
Deepak,
Although I am not an expert in the OT, I would say that it is specific in its targets. But this is largely irrelevant because I take the historical position that the Jews/Hebrews were actually Canaanites who took over at some point and fabricated an illustrious history of persecution and conquest to solidify their 'greatness'. So I don't consider many of those events real, while I consider the Qur'an to be more accurate in its description of destruction and death. In fact the OT is a muddled bit of theology, Karen Armstrong makes some good points about this in her book "The Great Transformation".
All this aside, aside from Leviticus which gives ridiculous laws for life, the OT is a descriptive history, which largely fits with some of the recent archaeological opinions that the OT was a fabricated history.
I am not downplaying the unpleasantness of the OT, I am giving an opinion of it, one based on my limited readings of Jewish history. However my reading on Islamic history has been much more extensive and I feel my analysis on the Qur'an is rather more accurate.
And not everyone who says Islam is worse than other religions is "biased" or has an "agenda". Decrying Islam as the nastiest cult of death on the planet, can be based on a reading of its texts and not a disdain for 'brown people' as you subtly insinuate.
Although I do appreciate the comment, and you are correct, commentary on the OT is superfluous to a critique of the Qur'an. Perhaps in the future I will avoid comparisons, as I often find they are problematic.
Hi Al, just like to say that we miss your input over at RD Net. Enjoy how your comments slice through bullshit especially the PC crap. Have you read either Lee Harris or Bruce Bauwer? They have some good insights on the subject. Anyways love your opinion.
Cheers
philosowizer,
I recall having read some of Harris, although I am going to look them up straight away. Thanks.
Just another comment regarding the Golden Age post. I’ve always had my suspicions about this so called Golden Age of Islam. Something about most of the explanations simply falls short of anywhere near satisfactory. I’m aware that societies and civilizations decay. That seems to be a reality. Greece, Rome for example: But the fact that if this was such a Golden Age why isn’t it more common knowledge. Why aren’t the names of these so called great scholars, thinkers, inventors, better known? Or at least in part of our social historical discourse the same way that Galileo is. Or even partially known. The local PC brigade would just tout western bigotry for not giving credit where credit is due. I don’t think so. And how could there have been much innovation in a society that’s pretty much closed shop and didn’t and doesn’t value new or different ideas. Not to mention openness.
Brilliant post Al. Not only informative but entertaining as Hell. Especially that line about the Caliph being stuffed into a carpet and rolled down the stairs of the palace. Horrifyingly ironic.
Ok, Thanks. Just in case I wasnt clear about it , I agree with the major points you make about the Islamic religion.
And not everyone who says Islam is worse than other religions is "biased" or has an "agenda".
Maybe not , but I am more likely to suspect it. e.g. if Robert Spencer writes "Why Islam is not a religion of peace" v/s "Why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isnt"
In which case do you suspect an agenda?
Philosowizer,
There was a golden age of learning in the Muslim world, but to say this was "Islamic" is false. First and foremost the men who brought Greek philosophy to Arabic were Christian (Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, and Ishaq Ibn Hunayn). Second, many of the great thinkers of the Islamic world were functionally apostates. They denied enough of the Islamic canon to be deemed outside the fold of Islam. Ibn al-Rawandi, the most notable early apostate, found that an approach based on Aristotalean rationalism (in Arabic: Mantiq) would lead to apostasy as the notion of 'prophecy' is fundamentally irrational.
1258 was a bad year for Abbassid Caliphs.
Deepak,
Of course I am suspicious of a Catholic who writes why Christianity IS a religion of peace. Although I would agree that Jesus' message was pacifist in comparison to Muhammad. However demonstrable history shows that Christians have not viewed their role as "followers of Christ" as a pacifistic enterprise.
None of which has any bearing on the facts which Spencer uses. I was very suspicious of Spencer, but I have reviewed his work and found no substantive errors, which is the only reason I pay attention to him. If he were to err, or lie, I would be the first to point it out.
Post a Comment