Muslims. How do people feel about them?

[Ekim23]

 

[bankside]

You're a keen observer, Bankside, but I think in this case you may be out of your depth. Which isn't a bad thing, unless you subscribe to the position that scholars should be omniscient. How could one actually observe hundreds of millions enough to make characterizations--down to percentages--about Islam as it happens all around the globe? I would guess that sort of thing actually requires dedicated study by someone specializing in Islam, or perhaps a layperson who is immersed in the culture and has traveled a lot. I'm interested in armchair observations, but with plainer recognition of their nature.

My own minimal and anecdotal experience with Islam is limited to a single country, and the people I've met in masjids, districts, homes and whatnot. Most I would describe as culturally Muslim, but not in a way that would verify for me the 'eid muslim.' Rather than having vague, habitual, or lipservicey feelings about their Muslim faith, they displayed a profound connection and loyalty to their community. Islam was lived, and many seemed fiercely proud of their religion.

I have no idea if Islam happens similarly in Mauritania, Turkey.....Morocco.....Azerbaijan.....Maldives.....Albania......

The question is how that connection is mobilised, and by whom.

My specific numbers are...not really hyperbole...but I do admit they were intended to animate my point (they aren't all crazy jihadis) rather than meet the criteria of some kind of quantitative methods research project. I will leave it to you to judge whether I'm out of my depth (though I should warn you I can hold my breath for a long time) and return to my armchair. The armchair where I read this excellent piece by Gwynne Dyer:

http://vueweekly.com/front/story/rebuking_the_ignorant/

The young Egyptian protesters who overthrew the Mubarak regime on Saturday have accomplished what two generations of violent Islamist revolutionaries could not. And they did not just do it non-violently; they succeeded because they were non-violent.

They also succeeded because they had reasonable goals that could attract mass support: democracy, economic growth, social justice. This was in marked contrast to the goals of the Islamist radicals, which were so unrealistic that they never managed to get the support of the Arab masses.

 

[FirmaFan]

The experiences of the schizophrenic personality instruct us that those voices that speak in our head are as much a product of our vivid imagination, as they are of believing that we are Napoleon Bonaparte.

With schizophrenics, it is abnormal dopaminergic neuron activity.

Then there is the experience of those who calmly accept that they are the recipients of words that could only be spoken by The Logos. That is a story as old as time it self.

And, as I stated before, not a single person, written about or otherwise, that has claimed to have spoken to "The Logos" or whatever has been able to produce any knowledge or information that could have come only from a divine source. Unless you are the person who has received "words that could only be spoken by The Logos" what reason does anyone else have to believe the person who received said communication?

If I claim that I have talked to god, you would undoubtedly require some sort of evidence to the truthfulness of that claim, yet to the claim that some are said to have spoken to god in the pages of a 2000 year old book you believe without question? I am quite curious to understand the process of logic that allows one to exempt religious beliefs from the skeptical scrutiny that is applied to every other facet of life.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The question is how that connection is mobilised, and by whom.

My specific numbers are...not really hyperbole...but I do admit they were intended to animate my point (they aren't all crazy jihadis) rather than meet the criteria of some kind of quantitative methods research project. I will leave it to you to judge whether I'm out of my depth (though I should warn you I can hold my breath for a long time) and return to my armchair. The armchair where I read this excellent piece by Gwynne Dyer:

http://vueweekly.com/front/story/rebuking_the_ignorant/

Of course any reasonable person would agree with you that all Muslims are not crazy jihadis. But that was only partially your point and was not what I've disagreed with.

I took issue with your conception of a universal "eid muslim."

I hope you will forgive me for holding you to very high standards...standards I might not expect of others. I haven't as much influence from my little perch outside the world of education. Sometimes I will squawk.

 

[kallipolis]

I took issue with your conception of a universal "eid muslim."

As do I, with those who presume to know every single Muslim; and know them to be Islamic terrorists.

 

[kallipolis]

If I claim that I have talked to god, you would undoubtedly require some sort of evidence to the truthfulness of that claim,

yet to the claim that some are said to have spoken to god in the pages of a 2000 year old book you believe without question?

I am quite curious to understand the process of logic that allows one to exempt religious beliefs from the skeptical scrutiny that is applied to every other facet of life.

No! I would never presume to question your very personal experiences, beyond believing that you believe, that your experiences satisfies all that you believe.

The Logos does not speak through a book, rather within our ear shot; or within our person. (1)

I am not the one playing the role of the interrogator, therefore am not questioning the personal experiences of those who make claims to converse with God.

As has been mentioned on this forum some several hundred times over the past few years that I have been posting here, faith is an intensely personal experience that is evidently embraced by the person of faith. Thus the proof that the sceptical researcher demands is only available to the one living the faith experience.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

 

[BearSalam]

faith is an intensely personal experience that is evidently embraced by the person of faith. Thus the proof that the sceptical researcher demands is only available to the one living the faith experience.

 

[bankside]

faith is an intensely personal experience that is evidently embraced by the person of faith. Thus the proof that the sceptical researcher demands is only available to the one living the faith experience.

Personal! That makes it rather absurd to proclaim the insights of that experience as a universal truth for all, doesn't it? Or at the very least, absurd to display incredulity and dismay when others don't share in that assessment of universality. And probably also very peculiar to rely on that experience alone when faced with testimony of the contradictory personal experiences of others.

 

[kallipolis]

Personal! That makes it rather absurd to proclaim the insights of that experience as a universal truth for all, doesn't it? Or at the very least, absurd to display incredulity and dismay when others don't share in that assessment of universality. And probably also very peculiar to rely on that experience alone when faced with testimony of the contradictory personal experiences of others.

There lies your dilemma. Not mine. I am not the person seeking proof, beyond that which my faith experience reveals to me. Nor am I seeking to convert you, or anyone else to my beliefs.

 

[kallipolis]

Kall, a Swiss researcher showed that skeptics' thought processes are impaired, anyway. Something about too little dopamine in the temporal lobe impairs their thinking....

I am a research scientist who has not been made aware of this research.

I doubt its authenticity.

I appreciate the humour.

 

[Telstra]

There lies your dilemma. Not mine. I am not the person seeking proof, beyond that which my faith experience reveals to me. Nor am I seeking to convert you, or anyone else to my beliefs.

not you but alot of people of faith seeks to convert people.

Christianity and Islam put pressure on people to convert. No wonder the 2 religions spreads so fast around the world. It is really a mind virus. I was infected that is why know ...

 

[kallipolis]

not you but alot of people of faith seeks to convert people.

Christianity and Islam put pressure on people to convert. No wonder the 2 religions spreads so fast around the world. It is really a mind virus. I was infected that is why know ...

Totally unlike the crusading atheists who appear with great regularity on this forum, and with grim determination attempt to convert the theist from their beliefs.

The irony amuses me.

 

[kallipolis]

Kall, it was not meant to be humor; it was true.

The research skews "believers", too. It was found that believers saw patterns that didn't exist, while skeptics couldn't see patterns that actually existed.

It was seen that skeptics who were given L-dopa (a dopamine agonist) were better able to see the patterns that actually existed.

It's easy to draw the conclusion that both believers and skeptics' thinking is impaired to a certain extent. To wit:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ParanormalBeliefs.htm

Thanks, Johann - I haven't time to read this now, as my bed calls me to sleep.

I'll give it a going over to morrow, and will return with my comments.

 

[Telstra]

Totally unlike the crusading atheists who appear with great regularity on this forum, and with grim determination attempt to convert the theist from their beliefs.

The irony amuses me.

Who?
I never knew one who is trying to convert anyone on this forum.

I'm talking about people of faith outside this forum.

 

[heroesnhunks]

I don't care much for organized religions that force women into specific subservient roles. But I don't know enough aout islam to say if it is necessarily the RELIGION that does that so much as the men in control of it?

I DO like the mind virus metaphor.

All that said - I think people can and should follow ANY religion that works for them AS LONG AS THEY CAN MANAGE TO BALANCE IT'S TENETS WITH a basic modicum of human decency and maintain their own independent ability to make their own decisions and not blindly follow what the religious leader says... just because they said so.

Blind faith is ANY religion without contemplation of issues is dangerous.

 

[SteveyBoyLA]

The first thought that comes to my mind is a people not given to tolerance of non-Muslims. A closed society whose populace is consumed by their faith and driven by religious dogma.

However, I find the current events in Northern Africa very encouraging - the demonstration, by a large part, from the youth against oppressive regimes. What I see, or at least hope, is an gradual embrace of some of the very Western values and freedoms admonished by Islamic extremists such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the very principles of democracy.

I think it will take the generation of young Islamists to change the negative stereotypes many of us Westerners have towards Muslims by continuing to use the Internet and social media e.g., Facebook, Twitter, that allows for a more open exchange of values, cultures, religion, lifestyles, human rights, etc.

 

[Queerwitch]

Personally, I'm not a fan of Islam, nor do I care for the other 2 Abrahamic faiths. The Sufis are more liberal, but I imagine they are a minority within the religion.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have the same outdated hangups over sexuality. All 3 (excepting Reform/Reconstructionist/some Conservative Jews and a liberal Christian minority) are biased against LGBT people, and generally against anyone who doesn't share their worldview.

I think that's the danger in these revealed religions, whose members cannot think for themselves, but rely on "inspired" scriptures to tell them what to do, how to live, who to love, and who to hate. They think they have the truth, and everyone who doesn't worship their deity is lost or damned or less of a person somehow. And so, you have Islam and Christianity converting by the sword. It's really awful.

 

[SteveyBoyLA]

^^^^ Well said Queerwitch, particularly about the "inspired" scriptures to tell them what to do, how to live, who to love, and who to hate.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Obviously, this forum is rooted in non-Muslim geography.

But I still feel it would be improved if we could think about ourselves in a way that didn't assume us and "them."

Anyone who is gay-friendly is part of this community imo, regardless of background. We will be stronger collectively if we can envision a wider world.

 

[kallipolis]

Obviously, this forum is rooted in non-Muslim geography.

But I still feel it would be improved if we could think about ourselves in a way that didn't assume us and "them."

Anyone who is gay-friendly is part of this community imo, regardless of background. We will be stronger collectively if we can envision a wider world.

As a fellow idealist I can support the sentiments expressed here.

W. C. Fields took a humorous view of human prejudice when saying:

"I'm free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."

Your reference to envisioning a wider world is better understood when we travel the world, and discard the baggage which we accumulated in an earlier life.

Mark Twain said that:

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness."

A French philosopher, Voltaire reminds us that:

"Prejudice are what fools use for reason."

Reason enough to believe that idealistic sentiments are best placed in context when we recognise that the Muslim person shares the same fears, aspirations and prejudices that each of us demonstrates all to often.