The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[garbon]

If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.

I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.

[Tamas]

Ok grumbler

[DGuller]

If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.

I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.

Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster?  If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? 

[alfred russel]

If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.

I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.

Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster?  If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? 

Suicide bombers?

[Martinus]

Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.

But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.

[sbr]

If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.

I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.

Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster?  If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? 

Suicide bombers?

Subscribed

[garbon]

Ok grumbler

Alright cool, so you were talking out of your ass.

[garbon]

Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.

But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.

No, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Tamas's assertion that Islam blends so easy into the legal/political sphere as it is set up to be so specifically clear about what should be done. I don't think that is actually true.

[Tamas]

Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.

But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.

No, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Tamas's assertion that Islam blends so easy into the legal/political sphere as it is set up to be so specifically clear about what should be done. I don't think that is actually true.

I said, actually, repeated what I read on several occasions at different places (a few times no doubt quoted on this very forum), that a potential explanation to the Christian world's quicker advancement past a stage compared to the Muslim one is that Christianity's holy text did not establish rules for society to follow, apart from moral guidelines. Which guidelines, BTW, were so unrealistic as to be a driving force behind progress, if anything.

Now I don't necessarily agree with that fully, but it does make sense in the present world's context. When somebody in Europe wanted to change human rights situation for the better (more lenient laws, gender equality etc) conservatives couldn't throw a perfectly applicable direct Jesus-quote at it to prevent it. Not so much with Islam, where for many centuries if you wanted a legislation to stick, you either had to allign it to a quote by Mohamed, OR pretend it was a quote and thus create a Hadith.

This is not a full-blown explanation of the Muslim world's troubles: you need a critical mass of backward people to have somebody who actually want to use these opportunities to prevent societal progress. But I am quite ready to believe that the different religions contributed in that factor.

[The Minsky Moment]

The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.

Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.

Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.

Key phrase "are claimed to be"
Islamic law is developed considerably later.
As it exists now, there is a strong legal aspect to the religion but not more so than say Judaism, which is the most similar analogue.

[Martinus]

The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.

Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.

Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.

Key phrase "are claimed to be"
Islamic law is developed considerably later.
As it exists now, there is a strong legal aspect to the religion but not more so than say Judaism, which is the most similar analogue.

But Judaism is an outlier. Because it is a purely ethnic, non-evengelical non-universalistic religion, it did not create a state (and, consequently, a state legal system) until mid-20th century by which time it has already become pretty Westernised and secularised so it is not really comparable to Islam or Christianity, that had many states and governments for most of the modern and pre-modern era.

And even despite the fact that it is a Western democracy and was heavily influenced by liberal/atheist thinkers, Israel is still pretty backward when it comes to some of its laws - it just isn't as backward as Muslim states.

So yes, I would say this supports Tamas's point quite well.

[The Minsky Moment]

because culture shapes religion, not the other way around.

When Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?

Quite a bit of what now passes as Islamic law is not Quranic but developed out of customary pre-Islamic practices and law of the conquered areas.  The political structure of Islam and Islamic regime also was shaped by Persian and Byzantine examples.

[The Minsky Moment]

But Judaism is an outlier. Because it is a purely ethnic, non-evengelical non-universalistic religion, it did not create a state (and, consequently, a state legal system) until mid-20th century by which time it has already become pretty Westernised and secularised so it is not really comparable to Islam or Christianity, that had many states and governments for most of the modern and pre-modern era.

And even despite the fact that it is a Western democracy and was heavily influenced by liberal/atheist thinkers, Israel is still pretty backward when it comes to some of its laws - it just isn't as backward as Muslim states.

So yes, I would say this supports Tamas's point quite well.

Except that until recently you could say the same for the Muslim world.  Modern Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran (pre 79) were secular states run under secular Westernized principles.

Problem is those regimes became delegitimized but at the same time suppressed and crushed liberal oppositions that might have provided a secular alternative.  The loyal opposition didn't exist.   Dissent was forced into the mosque.  "Islam is the solution" takes on persuasive resonance because it seems clear there is no other viable solution out there.

[Berkut]

Of course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.

I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.

Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".

i don't think the backhanded comments are necessary, but it's become clear you really have no interest in continuing this discussion with me. half the time you ignore my posts, and the other times you're throwing in some jab. (edit) and, apparently, taking something i've never argued and using it to mock me in other

I will admit that my interest level in discussing this with you declined considerabl once you started channeling Noam Chomsky, and jsut went full on logical fallacy. There really isn't much discussion to be had at that point.

[Admiral Yi]

Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.

The only specific rights I'm familiar with are the right to own property (not disregarded AFAIK), the right to divorce (not disregarded AFAIK), and a very generalized "equality."

What rights are being disregarded?