7 ms·
Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and
by mkoubaa 2y ago
Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that
- jl6 2y ago“Suppressed” would be more extremism. “Kept in check”? Yeah, that’s probably a good treatment for any religion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mkoubaa 2y agoKeeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.
- stef25 2y agoMake sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.
- mkoubaa 2y agoIt is important for government actions to be communicated clearly
- surfingdino 2y agoOn the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThe bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom
- surfingdino 2y agoWhen a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.
- mkoubaa 2y agoLiberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.
- quickthrowman 2y agoReligious freedom is fine. What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms. If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that. For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.
- mkoubaa 2y agoI couldn't agree more
- feoren 2y agoAnd the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.
- mkoubaa 2y agoAnd yet religious freedom begat liberalism, not the other way around
- hagbard_c 2y agoIslam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world. Ignoring this fact does not make the problem go away and only serves to undercut those who attempt to start an 'islamic enlightenment'.
- mkoubaa 2y agoActually it doesn't call for that
- hagbard_c 2y agoWhat does 'it' refer to here? Which islamic school and what branch of that school? Some do call for violence, others don't.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThe scripture, as such, does not. Interpretations of it may.
- hagbard_c 2y agoIs there anything else besides interpretation of scripture? If so, what? I gave a few examples in this thread of passages which can be interpreted - and in some cases are actually hard not to interpret - as calls to violence in the name of islam. What is your basis for claiming these are not actually such? Again, denying the problem exists does not make it go away and actually makes it harder for those who wish to reform islam.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThe point here is that scripture doesn't make claims. People do. Scripture is not a person. You seem to be arguing that the most correct interpretation of scripture is a literal one that ignores its context. If that's the case, then your hermeneutics has a lot in common with fundamentalist extremists. Those who wish to reform Islam are not in need patronization by islamophobic memes, I assure you.
- meowtimemania 2y agoI think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.
- mkoubaa 2y agoSome Islamic countries are family businesses that have international recognition as states for historical and geopolitical reasons. I don't take the actions of those countries seriously
- aprilthird2021 2y agoHow is this (what's described in the article) good in any way?
- mda 2y agoThe thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.
- ffgjgf1 2y agoWhat other options are there though when the other side has zero interest in secularism and will do whatever they can to institute a theocratic government when given the opportunity? Some (most?) forms of Islam are just not compatible with western style democracy and secularism. It’s unfortunate but I don’t really see any other realistic options of solving this besides “oppression”. Some countries like Jordan kind of partially pulled it off but they had very specific conditions which can’t really be replicated elsewhere.
- inglor_cz 2y agoIt is not just a religion, but a legal and societal system. A very medieval one. Few people care if you believe that Muhammad rode to heaven on a magic horse (Buraq). But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law, or different inheritance rules for sons and daughters where being female = being less valuable. The medieval-practical parts of Islam must definitely be kept in check, unless the country in question is willing to regress into some very dark ages. That is something that Ataturk understood very well when reforming Turkey.
- pseingatl 2y agoHand amputations for theft are not automatic, even in Saudi Arabia. Even pickpockets preying on pilgrims in the Prophet's Mosque do not automatically suffer the penalty. However, many believe that this is the case. The erroneous belief does tend to keep crime down.
- mkoubaa 2y agoIslamic law is understood by Muslims to be applied only in an Islamic state. In a secular state, the consensus understanding by Muslims is that the secular law is to be followed. A secular state need not suppress Islam
- inglor_cz 2y ago"A secular state need not suppress Islam" What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish? AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has already been at least a dozen civil wars around that issue.
- mkoubaa 2y agoA liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive
- protomolecule 2y agoYou are confusing the cause and the effect.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThis is a common take. I respect it but find it entirely unconvincing
- protomolecule 2y agoI find your take extremely naive.
- mkoubaa 2y agoI sometimes even have faith in democracy, believe it or not.
- protomolecule 2y agoHave you heard of Christian extremists in the USSR which is known for suppressing religion? Exactly. Likewise Islam in Tatarstan is completely benign.
- mkoubaa 2y agoThe US cold war strategy of supporting Islamic extremism in the USSR is well documented. I think the reading of history that you are suggesting is naive