CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[ATM]

I'd say what T.Lex said was objectively interpretative. Reasonable from a secular point of view. If you wish to dispute that, and add a spiritual interpretation, you can do that. But that isn't evidence that it happened the way you say it did. Were you there? Did you see this angel? Do you have any objective evidence of its existence other than your faith's interpretation that it happened that way?

My faith's interpretation of what happened? What does that even mean?

I'm talking about Mohammed's and Muslims' claims of what happened. This is the Islam discussion thread, right? Don't try to make it something else.

 

[foszoe]

Yes, I should have been more explicit. I was really referring to the period beginning roughly mid-18th Century. Maybe a bit earlier than that. By then, from the western perspective, the important boundaries had been set. There were fights among the empires, including the Ottoman, but the spheres of influence were pretty much set.

I am not aware of the Ottomans - other than the Armenian genocide arguably - using religion as the reason for expansion. Of course, I am open to other perspectives.

I can introduce you to some Greeks who have first hand recollections of Ottoman treatment of their families. They are dying off now though, so we would need to be quick!

Dhimmitude was not a kind system. Oppression can lead to "forced" conversions which could, depending on perspective, be using religion for expansion.

 

[jamil]

My faith's interpretation of what happened? What does that even mean?

I'm talking about Mohammed's and Muslims' claims of what happened. This is the Islam discussion thread, right? Don't try to make it something else.

I'm not trying to make it something else. I'm trying to pin down exactly what you're trying to say. Again, it would help if you'd just say it rather than making vague references to "designer".

Mohamed claimed an angel spoke to him and he wrote it down. Since there's no objective evidence of angels, it's reasonable to interpret that in a secular sense rather than a spiritual sense. So, Mohamed either made it up to try to invent a religion for whatever reason: political power, fame, whatever. Or perhaps he hallucinated it. Or some other imagined event happened. A dream. Whatever. But I have no reason to believe that a literal angel actually spoke to Mohamed. Because of your frequent vague references to "designer", and your apparent belief in angels, it seems you were implying that an evil angel or perhaps Satan himself whispered that in Mohamed's ear, and that was the "designer". Is that reasonable? Only from an interpretation of faith. That's what "your faith's interpretation means."

I will concede the possibility that you meant this in secular terms, that Mohamed was the "designer" and that his design was to borrow and corrupt Abrahamic religions for his own purpose. But if that's what you meant, it certainly wasn't obvious. I am good at interpreting obfuscation, but not infallible.

 

[foszoe]

There were several saints generated through martyrdom under the Ottomans. They are called New Martyrs. Some died simply because they had a piece of land that was desirable so they were taken before a magistrate as a person who had recited the Shahadah and then recanted. There are numerous examples of similar occurrences. Those who took such actions I would call radicals. They were using the religion for their own purposes and gain. The millet system was built around religious identity. Devshirme was an Ottoman practice that also resulted in destruction of whole Christian communities and was not compatible with the traditional views of Dhimmitude.

Christian and Islam discussions should not center around politics and History, but rather dogma and doctrine. The Ottoman empire began long before 1700 so limiting discussion by that timeline seems to misconstrue the history as a whole.

To engage Islam on a doctrinal level, one needs to read St John of Damascus. He was a high ranking official in the Muslim world, for the Muslims recognized that their nomadic background did not serve well in the administration of cities so they would use officials from the conquered to maintain order.

St. John of Damascus: Critique of Islam

About him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

Well. No.

I may have missed something, but what battles of the Crusades happened after 1700? LOL

I am more familiar with the Euro-focused history, with less reading on the more eastern-focused history. (I'm generally familiar with St. Thomas the Apostle's evangelization in India, but that's about it.)

Based on my study and readings after that, the Ottomans settled into something like bureaucratic Islam. Holy wars were bad for business. Sure, occasional border wars for resources were part of the international system. But, (again the Armenian issue being a modern outlier) for the most part it was peaceful. We have to gauge "peaceful" on the curve appropriate for the time. Peaceful "despite" being an Islamic empire.

If you have the position that Islam was generating radicals during that period, again, I am open to those examples.

 

[churchmouse]

Just dropping by to check on you guys.

 

[ATM]

I'm not trying to make it something else. I'm trying to pin down exactly what you're trying to say. Again, it would help if you'd just say it rather than making vague references to "designer".

It wouldn't help you, it would actually be useless to you for me to do so at this point.

Mohamed claimed an angel spoke to him and he wrote it down. Since there's no objective evidence of angels, it's reasonable to interpret that in a secular sense rather than a spiritual sense.

You may find that reasonable, but I don't. I have no reason to limit myself to what you find reasonable.

So, Mohamed either made it up to try to invent a religion for whatever reason: political power, fame, whatever. Or perhaps he hallucinated it. Or some other imagined event happened. A dream. Whatever. But I have no reason to believe that a literal angel actually spoke to Mohamed.

I never claimed you were reasonable and you know I don't respect beliefs.

Because of your frequent vague references to "designer", and your apparent belief in angels, it seems you were implying that an evil angel or perhaps Satan himself whispered that in Mohamed's ear, and that was the "designer". Is that reasonable?

Yes.

Only from an interpretation of faith. That's what "your faith's interpretation means."

You have faith (believe) in many things which cannot be proven yet some are more or less reasonable than others. Beliefs (faith) do not dictate reality or reasonableness. Go ahead, try to argue with that.

I will concede the possibility that you meant this in secular terms, that Mohamed was the "designer" and that his design was to borrow and corrupt Abrahamic religions for his own purpose. But if that's what you meant, it certainly wasn't obvious. I am good at interpreting obfuscation, but not infallible.

I highly doubt Mohammed was the designer. I'd actually be shocked to find that was true. He simply couldn't have pulled a deception of this scale off or maintained it since.

 

[ATM]

Just dropping by to check on you guys.

Civil, stimulating discourse as far as the eye can see.

People are being respected, beliefs are being challenged and scrutinized.

 

[churchmouse]

Civil, stimulating discourse as far as the eye can see.

People are being respected, beliefs are being challenged and scrutinized.

I see this.
Carry on.

 

[jamil]

Okay. So I did interpret the obfuscation correctly. Thank you for admitting that, albeit as reluctant as that was.

It wouldn't help you, it would actually be useless to you for me to do so at this point.

You may find that reasonable, but I don't. I have no reason to limit myself to what you find reasonable.

The other side can say the same then. You claim you're being reasonable, and that the other side isn't. Well, back atchah. So now where are we? This is sort of the crux of what I find unreasonable about you. In our context I would define "reason" as the culmination of forming judgements from pumping the facts through a logical process. This process requires actual facts to work. Are there angels? That's just not provable. That belief requires faith. And you tend to make these statements of opinions rather than statements of fact.

I never claimed you were reasonable and you know I don't respect beliefs.

Mohamed claimed that an angel spoke to him.
The existence of literal angels is doubtful, given the lack of objective evidence.
Therefore it is doubtful that Mohamed was inspired by angels, good or bad.

The conclusion follows the premises, that if there are no angels, Mohamed was not inspired by them. It is a valid argument. You may disagree with the premises. But the argument is sound. THAT'S reason.

You have faith (believe) in many things which cannot be proven yet some are more or less reasonable than others. Beliefs (faith) do not dictate reality or reasonableness. Go ahead, try to argue with that.

I believe what I can reason from facts. Everything else I either tend to suspect, with varying degrees, is true or false. Until I have some evidence of literal angels, I'm going to tend to doubt their existence. That's reasonable. I will say though, that if you include faith as a contributor to your belief, I have no problem with that. If you present logical arguments which include faith as a premise, okay. But I'm going to tend to doubt the truthfulness of those premises.

I highly doubt Mohammed was the designer. I'd actually be shocked to find that was true. He simply couldn't have pulled a deception of this scale off or maintained it since.

You know. Sometimes people make **** up and it just goes far beyond what was imagined. Look at facebook. How the **** did that blow up as it did?

Again, I'm not disparaging faith. Every individual has an inherent right to guide their beliefs however they want whether by faith or facts or a hybrid of both. The only line I draw is when a belief drives one to initiate harm against someone else, such as the radical Muslims weaponizing sin by convincing "sinners" that killing infidels is the only way to avoid hell and have the rewards of heaven.

 

[T.Lex]

My point was that Islam has been violently expanding since it's inception. That's what it does, what it was designed to do. There has never been a peaceful time in the Islamic world.

By what measure are we comparing?

My larger point is that at any given time slice, Islam-founded governments were no worse than other comparable governments.

In the 1700s, my own ancestors included, America was so popular, in part, because people were being violently mistreated because of their beliefs.

There were several saints generated through martyrdom under the Ottomans. They are called New Martyrs. Some died simply because they had a piece of land that was desirable so they were taken before a magistrate as a person who had recited the Shahadah and then recanted. There are numerous examples of similar occurrences. Those who took such actions I would call radicals. They were using the religion for their own purposes and gain. The millet system was built around religious identity. Devshirme was an Ottoman practice that also resulted in destruction of whole Christian communities and was not compatible with the traditional views of Dhimmitude.

Christian and Islam discussions should not center around politics and History, but rather dogma and doctrine. The Ottoman empire began long before 1700 so limiting discussion by that timeline seems to misconstrue the history as a whole.

To engage Islam on a doctrinal level, one needs to read St John of Damascus. He was a high ranking official in the Muslim world, for the Muslims recognized that their nomadic background did not serve well in the administration of cities so they would use officials from the conquered to maintain order.

St. John of Damascus: Critique of Islam

About him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

Again, that is significantly before the time period I'm drawing attention to. Your Greek reference has me curious, though. Any easy links to elaboration on that?

My gut reaction - from a point of ignorance on the historic matter - is that it may have been comparable to the Armenian situation. Let me be clear: I am not saying that the Ottoman Empire was objectively peaceful. My opinion is that it was objectively no worse than any of the other governments/empires of the time when it came to killing people for land or other resources.

 

[T.Lex]

Quick side note, borrowing from the Ariana Grande bombing thread, regarding what to call the Muslims who are islamofascists. Other than islamofascists.

It occurred to me that it might be helpful for non-Muslims to think of it in roughly the same terms that other Muslims use. In much the same way that Christianity has different denominations, so does Islam. That is an important distinction (IMHO) for non-Muslims to consider.

So, hyper-generalized guide to Islam (this is not a history lesson - there are plenty of interwebz resources for that) by me, open to correction (in good faith).

Sunni - the largest group of Muslims, about 85%. Don't recognize a central authority, decisions made at a local level. Countries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia (although a separate sub-group).

Shia - about 10%, mostly in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and India. Have a centralized hierarchy with more emphasis placed on religious leaders for guidance.

Salafism - technically a subgroup of Sunni, but is a convenient label for the more extremely fundamentalist Islam. Daesh and Al Qaeda are considered Salafist Sunni.

A hypothetical was posted in the other thread about asking all "True Muslims" to stand up, and all of them do, regardless of extremist views. Perhaps the better example is to hypothetically ask which group of Muslims?

Perhaps there can be a consensus that, generally, Salafists are the "problem"?

Then, in this thread in particular, we could discuss the more generally accepted, non-extremist beliefs?

 

[spencer rifle]

Based on my study and readings after that, the Ottomans settled into something like bureaucratic Islam. Holy wars were bad for business. Sure, occasional border wars for resources were part of the international system. But, (again the Armenian issue being a modern outlier) for the most part it was peaceful. We have to gauge "peaceful" on the curve appropriate for the time. Peaceful "despite" being an Islamic empire.

I hope you will allow me to propose an alternate interpretation. The Ottoman Empire (and other Muslim-dominated countries) were not contained by any self-restraint on their part, but by the increasingly superior technology and military organization of their opponents. Included in this were motivation and economics. The Ottoman bureaucracy became more cumbersome while reforms in the West allowed Western countries to be lighter on their feet. I doubt the Ottoman Empire decided out of the goodness of their hearts to "liberate" Greece and the Balkans.

 

[spencer rifle]

Quick side note, borrowing from the Ariana Grande bombing thread, regarding what to call the Muslims who are islamofascists. Other than islamofascists.

It occurred to me that it might be helpful for non-Muslims to think of it in roughly the same terms that other Muslims use. In much the same way that Christianity has different denominations, so does Islam. That is an important distinction (IMHO) for non-Muslims to consider.

So, hyper-generalized guide to Islam (this is not a history lesson - there are plenty of interwebz resources for that) by me, open to correction (in good faith).

Sunni - the largest group of Muslims, about 85%. Don't recognize a central authority, decisions made at a local level. Countries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia (although a separate sub-group).

Shia - about 10%, mostly in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and India. Have a centralized hierarchy with more emphasis placed on religious leaders for guidance.

Salafism - technically a subgroup of Sunni, but is a convenient label for the more extremely fundamentalist Islam. Daesh and Al Qaeda are considered Salafist Sunni.

A hypothetical was posted in the other thread about asking all "True Muslims" to stand up, and all of them do, regardless of extremist views. Perhaps the better example is to hypothetically ask which group of Muslims?

Perhaps there can be a consensus that, generally, Salafists are the "problem"?

Then, in this thread in particular, we could discuss the more generally accepted, non-extremist beliefs?

The term I have found useful is "sharia supremacists." I have no problems with religions that do not state as their objective conforming our political system to their demands. Sharia is incompatible with our Constitutional system, such as it is.
“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.” - Dr. Martin Luther King

 

[ATM]

Okay. So I did interpret the obfuscation correctly. Thank you for admitting that, albeit as reluctant as that was.

If you couldn't interpret it correctly, I might have obfuscated it too much. Sounds like I had it about right despite your protests to the contrary.

The other side can say the same then. You claim you're being reasonable, and that the other side isn't. Well, back atchah.

What "other side"? Did I miss something? The "other side", those who were asked about the reasonableness of their adopted beliefs, seem to have wandered away from my questions in this discussion.

So now where are we? This is sort of the crux of what I find unreasonable about you. In our context I would define "reason" as the culmination of forming judgements from pumping the facts through a logical process. This process requires actual facts to work. Are there angels? That's just not provable. That belief requires faith. And you tend to make these statements of opinions rather than statements of fact.

Your definition and process seem quite limited to me. It doesn't allow for discovering or even approaching any truth that's not provable with facts already known. No advancement from where you are, really. What a limited subset of reality you must enjoy, just a tiny fraction of all that which is real yet unprovable.

Mohamed claimed that an angel spoke to him.
The existence of literal angels is doubtful, given the lack of objective evidence.
Therefore it is doubtful that Mohamed was inspired by angels, good or bad.

Can you point out the glaring fault in what you consider to be a reasoning process in this example?

The conclusion follows the premises, that if there are no angels, Mohamed was not inspired by them. It is a valid argument. You may disagree with the premises. But the argument is sound. THAT'S reason.

Reason dictates that after setting up such a faulty and unreasonable premise, even applying sound logical argumentation will produce unreasonable conclusions. Funny stuff.

I believe what I can reason from facts. Everything else I either tend to suspect, with varying degrees, is true or false. Until I have some evidence of literal angels, I'm going to tend to doubt their existence. That's reasonable. I will say though, that if you include faith as a contributor to your belief, I have no problem with that. If you present logical arguments which include faith as a premise, okay. But I'm going to tend to doubt the truthfulness of those premises.

Facts do not require any belief. There is evidence of angels and I've never heard any counter-evidence presented. You may tend to doubt the position which actually has evidence, because it is not proof, but then, you're just adopting the position without any evidence at all. How you consider that reasonable is beyond my comprehension. Most would just start at a position of not knowing one way or the other and begin to examine the evidence from a neutral starting point.

You know. Sometimes people make **** up and it just goes far beyond what was imagined. Look at facebook. How the **** did that blow up as it did?

And sometimes, **** is designed on purpose it just goes precisely as planned. With a basic understanding of human nature and our most common failings, we are ridiculously easy to manipulate and deceive.

Again, I'm not disparaging faith. Every individual has an inherent right to guide their beliefs however they want whether by faith or facts or a hybrid of both. The only line I draw is when a belief drives one to initiate harm against someone else, such as the radical Muslims weaponizing sin by convincing "sinners" that killing infidels is the only way to avoid hell and have the rewards of heaven.

Perhaps some just get anxious for their promised heavenly rewards and seek to institute such heavenly practices as a culture here on earth. What a few consider "heaven", many others would consider hell.

 

[T.Lex]

I hope you will allow me to propose an alternate interpretation. The Ottoman Empire (and other Muslim-dominated countries) were not contained by any self-restraint on their part, but by the increasingly superior technology and military organization of their opponents. Included in this were motivation and economics. The Ottoman bureaucracy became more cumbersome while reforms in the West allowed Western countries to be lighter on their feet. I doubt the Ottoman Empire decided out of the goodness of their hearts to "liberate" Greece and the Balkans.

Well, no country (IME) acts purely out of the goodness of its heart.

The US didn't exactly liberate west of the Appalachians for that purpose, either.

Rather, my point is that along with "modernization" systems tend to temper radicalism/extremism. That's why its considered... radical/extreme. It isn't the norm.

That kind of violence causes more bad things than good.

The Ottoman's brand of Islam necessarily became more utilitarian rather than fundamentalist.

What happened in Armenia was less about religion and more about land. That there were religious differences made it easier to rationalize taking the land.

Compared to today, the Ottomans were not sending spies to blow up the Habsburgs due to religious ideology.

The term I have found useful is "sharia supremacists." I have no problems with religions that do not state as their objective conforming our political system to their demands. Sharia is incompatible with our Constitutional system, such as it is.

I think "sharia supremacists" fits with islamofascist.

 

[ATM]

...Perhaps there can be a consensus that, generally, Salafists are the "problem"?

Nope, Islam, its designer and purpose, is the problem, not those deceived by it. Don't make this us vs. them and them and them and these others over here, that's a fatal trap.

Muslims are not my enemy.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Ottomans only really excel in an Archipelago area. Not great for landlocked regions.

Good to make an early push to the gunpowder tech and get those Janissary out.

It's alright to take over barbarian ships, but that's not going to be that beneficial in the long-run.

 

[T.Lex]

Dude, I think Civ III was the last game I bought that came on 3.5" disks.

 

[spencer rifle]

The Ottomans only really excel in an Archipelago area. Not great for landlocked regions.

Maybe not so much:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

 

[jamil]

If you couldn't interpret it correctly, I might have obfuscated it too much. Sounds like I had it about right despite your protests to the contrary.

The complaint was that you weren't straight up about it. What you said was ambiguous, especially to people who may never have experienced Christianity and some of its teachings about stuff like that. I had to prod it from you.

What "other side"? Did I miss something? The "other side", those who were asked about the reasonableness of their adopted beliefs, seem to have wandered away from my questions in this discussion.

"other side" refers to those who don't agree with you. Is that not obvious? The set of "other side" includes me, for example.

Your definition and process seem quite limited to me. It doesn't allow for discovering or even approaching any truth that's not provable with facts already known. No advancement from where you are, really. What a limited subset of reality you must enjoy, just a tiny fraction of all that which is real yet unprovable.

It's either true or false, or even kinda true or kinda false. I'll accept something into belief when I am to the point where there's enough evidence to say something is true or false. But yes, it means I don't tend to believe conspiracy theories or myths or things that don't have a high degree of supporting facts in evidence. For example, I am not inclined to believe the email from the Nigerian Prince.

Can you point out the glaring fault in what you consider to be a reasoning process in this example?

I told you that you can complain about the premises all you want. That's just part of arguing. You can argue that the premise is false.

Reason dictates that after setting up such a faulty and unreasonable premise, even applying sound logical argumentation will produce unreasonable conclusions. Funny stuff.

This is not correct. Saying that an argument is valid only means the conclusion follows from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If the premises are untrue, then the conclusion is false. It doesn't matter whether the conclusion is true or false to be a valid argument. It matters that the conclusion follows from the premise.

Facts do not require any belief. There is evidence of angels and I've never heard any counter-evidence presented. You may tend to doubt the position which actually has evidence, because it is not proof, but then, you're just adopting the position without any evidence at all. How you consider that reasonable is beyond my comprehension. Most would just start at a position of not knowing one way or the other and begin to examine the evidence from a neutral starting point.

If you're trying to establish that the existence of angels is a fact, you've failed to do that. Whatever evidence you have for angels requires you to already believe. I mean, whatever is your evidence, why couldn't another person explain the same thing from "magic"? The existence of angels is just something you have to just believe to believe it.

I am more inclined to suspect the most natural cause for things rather than the one that requires a belief in a specific supernatural thing. If it is supernatural, how would you know that it is YOUR supernatural belief that caused it? It requires circular reason to get there.

Another point, you can assert that because I can't prove a negative when the domain of discourse is unknowable, that your thing must be true since I can't prove it's not. But you can't prove it's not unicorn dust causing it either.

And sometimes, **** is designed on purpose it just goes precisely as planned. With a basic understanding of human nature and our most common failings, we are ridiculously easy to manipulate and deceive.

I understand human nature enough to know that people like to explain the world around them with things they already believe, whether those things are true or not.

Perhaps some just get anxious for their promised heavenly rewards and seek to institute such heavenly practices as a culture here on earth. What a few consider "heaven", many others would consider hell.

I think they do it for control. It serves a means to an end. Belief has been used to control people for a long time.