The Muslim Atheist and Friends: How To Peacefully Engage With Muslim Dissenters

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

This essay is meant to be a primer on a series in which I analyse (sic) the thoughts of Muslim Dissenters whom I define as atheists, agnostics or ex-Muslims who still maintain links to the Islamic cultural matrix. Contrary to what the title suggests, I actually welcome their presence in Islamic discourse.....

After all, the title of the most infamous book on Muslim dissent out there is ‘The Atheist Muslim’ by my Facebook friend, Ali A. Rizvi. The subtitle of his book is ‘a journey from religion to reason’. What this implies or rather insinuates is that religion is devoid of reason and that the journey towards atheism involves the use of reason to dispel myths. This is clearly a privileged view of reason but it is not atypical of the New Atheist movement (whom I term as ‘Atheo-fascists’).

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/personalislam/2018/02/muslim-atheist-friends-peacefully-engage-muslim-dissenters/#odaIv4DZoabE5uMa.99

[yallerdawg]

1. From the link:

...It is only through open conversations that we may refine our understanding of our own faith. It is also a religious matter that we help protect them from all those who wish them harm. This is no less than a Quranic principle – freedom of belief (Chapter 10 Verses 99-100). There is no such thing as the ‘apostasy law’ even if you subscribe to the Islamic tradition (which I decidedly do not). The Quran should be the primary source of law to the Traditionalist and it clearly gives that unconditional freedom. Nothing should abrogate that.

[guillaumeb]

2. In my view, the sub-title of the book, "From religion to reason", tells me much about the author.

As if one must choose between the 2 at all.

[yallerdawg]

3. Yes, as he mentions...

"So as you can see, ‘reason’ is not the sole ownership of anyone. It simply depends on the hypotheses one feeds into the logical system, much like any computer."

[Voltaire2]

4. Oh marvelous atheo-fascists.

Excellent framing. Yes anyone who dares to dispel myths with reasoning is clearly a fascist.

Also likely a dead person in Islamic countries such as Bangladesh.

[guillaumeb]

5. Dispel myths with reasoning?

Interesting framing that illustrates the attitude he speaks about.

[Voltaire2]

6. Exact words in posted text.

[Mariana]

26. They write books, make speeches, buy ads, and sue those who break the law.

Doesn't that make them fascists?

[Voltaire2]

27. Exactly. WWHD?

[trotsky]

7. But whenever questions are asked about your beliefs,

you declare them immune from reason and purely based on "faith."

Odd how insecure believers always want to have it both ways.

[guillaumeb]

30. Incorrect framing on your part.

Non-overlapping magisteria.

[trotsky]

43. Thank you for proving my point.

You just did it again.

[guillaumeb]

51. You prove a point every time you misframe in this manner.

But not the point you think it to be.

[trotsky]

55. Pretty sure it is.

You'd be able to let it go if not.

And you can't. LOL

[guillaumeb]

56. Speaking of "letting it go",

thank you for not sending any more personal messages. It was getting to be tedious deleting.

[trotsky]

59. Likewise!

Glad you have returned to radio silence!

[guillaumeb]

60. I decided that any response to your unsolicited messages was unnecessary.

[trotsky]

63. Aww that's cute.

I just wanted to join your massive fan club, is all.

You do SUCH a wonderful job showing what being a Christian is all about!

[guillaumeb]

68. There are dues, and an oath of course.

To join the fan club.

[MineralMan]

8. Atheists in many Muslim cultures risk their lives by

admitting their atheism, since that is considered to be blasphemy in some nations.

For many who have become atheists after holding theistic beliefs, the journey to atheism really is a journey to reason. Religion is generally based on the premise that a deity exists. When one no longer believes that premise, all arguments based on that premise become devoid of reason, due to a false initial premise.

It's dangerous ground for atheists in many Muslim cultures. In Christian cultures, being an atheist at least doesn't carry with it a threat of being convicted and executed for blasphemy any longer.

I don't see the book as anything unusual, though, other than that risk. "Atheo-fascists," though, is a vile appellation, indeed. The author draws a vile conclusion regarding atheists by calling non-believers such a name. I reject the conclusions because of that. It is, indeed, an "unreasonable" conclusion..

[yallerdawg]

9. Misconceptions?

Still, only a handful of apostasy executions are known to have occurred in Muslim-majority countries in recent decades.

An official of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, an advisory body created by Congress, said he knew of only four such cases: one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992.

The notion that classical Islamic law calls for the execution of apostates is widely known but often ignored in predominantly Muslim countries. Most have not adopted official laws against apostasy.

A recent report by the commission, which examined the constitutions of 44 predominantly Muslim countries, found that most included some protections for religious freedoms. Those protections were most common in countries where no role is provided for Shariah in the constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/weekinreview/in-kabul-a-test-for-shariah.html

[MineralMan]

10. And yet, such laws do exist,

which demonstrates the problem atheists have in those cultures. I recommend that atheists avoid them. Official executions are not the only way atheists die, either. They are also murdered in some Muslim countries for their disbelief.

[yallerdawg]

11. And more faithful Muslims are murdered in those same countries.

Just as here, the religious outrage occurs when it is used for political ends - when religion is "corrupted" for political purposes.

This is another universal trait of humanity.

[MineralMan]

12. Does that somehow make it OK in your mind?

Really? I'm sorry for you if you think that way.

[yallerdawg]

14. Promoting "the exception as the rule" in order to attack religion...

is not OK, either.

We have enough misconceptions going around.

ISIS and the Taliban kill far more practicing Muslims than any others. Car bombs and suicide vests know no religion.

[MineralMan]

16. I'm not attacking religion. I'm presenting my own

opinion about belief. There is a difference.

Christians, in fact, kill more Christians than any other group, too. Its the nature of the culture, which is dominated by those who are Christians, just as Muslims are dominant in Islamic cultures.

That's not the issue here, at all. The issues is killing people for their beliefs or disbelief. That is the issue. One death for such a reason is one too many. You will not stop me from speaking out about that, I promise.

You don't much like me. That's OK with me. I'm not here to promote my popularity.

[yallerdawg]

20. I'm debating, MM.

I like you! I want to be respectful and impersonal.

I just disagree on this one subject. I think it behooves us to support tolerance and inclusion.

One of the great fears and issues with Islam is our misconception regarding apostasy! I just think we should take a look at our assumptions.

[MineralMan]

22. I think you should start looking at your logic.

Really.

[guillaumeb]

33. It sounds as if he is attempting to put you on the defensive

instead of defending his argument.

My opinion.

[guillaumeb]

32. These sentences:

You don't much like me. That's OK with me. I'm not here to promote my popularity.

It is not about you, it is about your argument. Why assume anything else?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. "Most" "Some"

"Those protections were most common in countries where no role is provided for Shariah in the constitution."

[yallerdawg]

15. "4 executions in decades."

That's pretty specific.

[MineralMan]

17. But, see, it's only a few atheists who were killed for their non-belief.

So, it's OK, because religion...Feh! Do you have any idea how offensive that is?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'm afraid your last question has already been answered.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes, and it's an old, familiar answer.

I'm tired of it, frankly. Look for my latest OP. We'll see how that goes.

[guillaumeb]

34. Not the argument he made.

Or any here for that matter. So why did you attempt to change the focus?

[trotsky]

18. Well, see, the problem is clearly the atheists you see.

They aren't respectful enough of religion to just keep their mouths shut.

Thankfully the insecure believers on DU can't kill us for expressing our atheism and our skepticism about religion, but it still bothers them as much.

[MineralMan]

19. Right. And, you know, it's only a few who are killed, after all.

It's not so bad, really...

Fuck that!

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Killed. Denied marriage. Denied inheritance. Denied entry to universities. Etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Islamic_countries

[MineralMan]

28. Yes, those things, too. Second-class citizens.

Some would make non-Christians second-class citizens here in the good old USA, too, if they could. Some want to do that in the very worst way.

My worry is that the rest of Christians will look the other way as they take away the rights of non-Christians. "After all," they'll say, "All you have to do is become a Christian, you know..."

Perhaps even some here would say that. Hmm...

[Mariana]

40. We do know many Christians won't condemn a brother of the faith.

Even some here say that.

[trotsky]

25. Well I'm sure someone would report a murder to the proper authorities.

So yeah, no problem at all. Why are we making such a big deal about a few murders?

[guillaumeb]

35. More attempted hijacking to promote a favored meme.

And ascribing motivation never in evidence. Yours is a classic belief based response.

[trotsky]

44. Thanks for your analysis.

As ridiculous and false as it is, I understand your need to believe it.

[guillaumeb]

31. The journey to atheism is simply that.

It is not a journey to reason, because the atheistic position is unprovable. Reason has nothing to do with holding an unprovable position.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. So now we're confusing reason with empiricism.

That's great.

[guillaumeb]

47. No, some here insist that an unprovable position represents the "reasonable" opinion.

I understand the desire for such validation of an unverifiable position, but that desire for validation does not make the unprovable opinion the correct one.

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. Fascinating.

I have no proof vampires do not exist. Is it more reasonable to believe in vampires; is it more reasonable to disbelieve in vampires; or are both positions on the existence of vampires just as reasonable?

[guillaumeb]

80. Fascinating indeed.

[trotsky]

65. There you go trying to define atheism for others again.

Please stop. It makes you look like a hypocrite because you berate people for doing the same with your religion.

[guillaumeb]

70. Defining a process.

If you disagree with that definition, I understand.

[trotsky]

72. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

My work here is done.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. "Atheo-fascists"?

What the actual fuck?

[guillaumeb]

36. The author's term.

Needlessly antagonistic in my opinion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. A term you nevertheless felt worthy of sharing.

[Mariana]

39. Isn't passive-aggression lovely?

Right in line with Jesus's teaching.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. The attempted abdication of responsibility is humorous, at the very least.

[trotsky]

45. Pretty sure it was in the Sermon of the Mount, wasn't it?

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of god...
But even MORE blessed are those awesome passive-aggressive kids who taunt and insult others. They are truly righteous, dude!"

[guillaumeb]

49. Amateur attempts at analysis can also be interesting. eom

[guillaumeb]

48. In the interest of dialogue.

How else can we speak without understanding the opinion of the other speaker?

[Mariana]

52. So let us understand your opinion, Gil.

What is your opinion of the author, and of his characterization of those atheists who write books, make speeches, file suit when the law is being violated, and so on as Atheo-fascists?

[guillaumeb]

53. The article spoke of many things.

Not simply the small fragment you wrote about.

He also spoke about, in his opinion, the tendency of some atheists to negatively frame things about theists in the debate about faith.

[Mariana]

57. But I didn't ask about that.

I asked about your opinion about a very specific thing. After all, you said we need to understand each other's opinions. How can we understand your opinion if you won't say what it is?

[guillaumeb]

58. If you missed it, here is what I already wrote:

guillaumeb (21,233 posts)
36. The author's term.

Needlessly antagonistic in my opinion.

I think that clearly gave my opinion. Do you agree?

[Mariana]

61. It's also incorrect.

No commonly accepted definition of "fascist" includes the things the so-called "New Atheists" are doing.

[guillaumeb]

67. Which is why I disagree with his characterization.

I would brand some of the actions of the "new Atheists" as simply intolerance and condescension.

[Mariana]

71. Intolerance of people violating the law is a good thing.

I cheer the lawsuits brought on by the "Atheo-fascists".

Why post such hateful content here?

[guillaumeb]

73. Speaking of hateful content, and what constitutes it,

is this hateful content:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/123055976

It certainly seems so to me.

[Mariana]

74. Why post such hateful content in this group?

What about Christ's message to Christians to do to others as you would have them do to you? Has he changed his mind?

[guillaumeb]

75. I see that you ignored the link completely.

Is there a double standard that you do not wish to acknowledge?

Or is the word "hate" intended to call attention to accomplish something?


Read what I linked to and respond. Or refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to many.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. Oh, so that totes justifies posting hate speech.

My bad.

Proceed, governor.

[guillaumeb]

69. Is this hate speech?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/123055976

I await your explanation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Do two wrongs make a right?

I await your explanation.

[guillaumeb]

79. Interesting that you cannot or will not answer.

So is there an official double standard, and if so, what is it?

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. It's not interesting the slightest, actually.

You're not weaseling your way out of this. Own your shit.

[guillaumeb]

82. Confirming the accuracy of my earlier observation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. The only thing thus confirmed is your inability to behave like an adult.

What some other guy said in an unrelated thread doesn't change what you posted right here. Man up and own it.

[Voltaire2]

41. Upthread you claimed it was my framing.

Keep your story straight. Or make up your minds.

[trotsky]

46. He's admitted he's playing to a large unseen crowd.

He just gives the people what they want. No need for consistency.

[guillaumeb]

50. Is this you practicing your stand up routine?

It needs work.

[trotsky]

54. Nope, just stating what you have already claimed in this forum.

How's your fan club doing?

[Permanut]

62. Another attempt to label atheism as a religion..

From the article:

"..in the Atheist’s definition of the word ‘religion’ which can be understood as unscientific, irrational dogma, can Atheism itself not be reduced to a religion? After all, it does rely on metaphysical assumptions."

Wrong.

[trotsky]

66. Oh I'm sorry, has no one explained this to you yet?

Believers get to define atheism for us.

Atheists don't get to define religion for believers.

That's just the way it is.

[Permanut]

78. Didn't get the memo..

On the serious side, you have described the phenomenon in a nutshell. Not sure if it has a name, but includes cult thinking, narcissism, bullying, harassment, discrimination, greed, hate, persecution and willful ignorance, in varying degrees. I'm speaking here about the syndrome, not about any one person.