I am facing a conundrum though. I have really thought long and hard about how we can actually move forward from this current state of affairs and I simply could not come up with a better perspective than the one I am proposing. I think it is hard to refute on a logical level if you are willing to distance yourself from emotion and really allow yourself to view the situation from both sides. As a recent article on hacker news shows a main theme of it, seems also to be validated empirically [1]. Still, I actually do understand your point and reasoning. It is perfectly reasonable and logical. So in a sense I think we are both right. But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?
>>But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?
I'd like you to give some details of your approach, as I am not yet very clear about it.
In essence, I hope to have argued the point that one can reasonably conceive of any person as living in their own reality. A reality that is shaped by the need to survive in a given environment. To reach someone in there, you have to speak in a language they understand - not only verbally - but also on a (let's call it) knowing level. For example, concepts can mean different things in different cultures (e.g., family, country/state). If there are strong differences in understanding a productive conversation is going to be almost impossible. So there are a few options here (list not necessarily exhaustive):
1. Force someone to 'change' by action and either don't care about the other or hope that they come to realize the benefit of your actions, but that will likely be an edge case.
2. Ignore the lack in understanding and expect the other side to figure it out on their own (maybe guided by some actions, norms, etc.). I guess this is what has happened for a long time. It can work, but it seems a little bit like gambling.
3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face. One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding. But I also think that we can facilitate this with technology. A (global) translation network if you so will. I have the feeling a lot of people are already working on this... they maybe just don't know it yet :) We live in interesting times!
I think the quicker and more unpredictable change is going to be, the more we'll realize the benefits of option 3. If you don't know where you will end up in life, you gain a different perspective of what should and should not be. I guess the obligatory reference on this topic would be [1]. But I am also very intrigued by [2]. Sadly, I did not have time to read the book yet but I have had the time to read a summary paper he published in another textbook. If you are interested in the topic, it might be worth checking out :)
[1]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Justice-Ken-Binmore/dp/019979...
I have a small doubt about it. On its face, your proposition seems quite attractive (in fact, as a liberal I always try to live by it) but in some circumstances it is outright dangerous.
To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely.
So, I suggest the following, to continue with your suggestion:
>>One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding.
I agree that causing unnecessary conflicts is bad. But raising points regarding doubts about something is not only not bad it is required.
So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?
We can begin by asking these questions, and let us see if the other side at least allow these issues to be discussed publicly?
Yes, reciprocity is certainly required. I would argue it is actually what our existence is about. And yes, you have every right to fight for survival... I am just saying the other person has as well. I think what makes it difficult for you to understand me is that you still view yourself on the 'right' side and then only see a big large group of people demanding you to 'lower' yourself. You are fighting tooth and nail to stop that. As I said before it is understandable, it is your right and it is the same thing everyone on 'the other side' is doing. Stalemate again.
>> So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?
I get that you are freaked out by some passages in the Quran and believe that it is making believers less tolerant, less worthy, less whatever you wanna have it. But if you look at it without any values the Quran is 'just' a book. A very revered and at the same time hated book with the power to move people. How we behave or what we do does not depend on the book but what we make of it, how it fits to our lives and experiences. It is not the book or the religion that leads to the outcomes that we observe today but our interactions over generations. Of course we need to discuss things. But why not try it this way:
Who is considered as innocent in Islam? => who is considered innocent? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? => How much do we need to respect the other persons world view? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? => How should we deal with conflict? What is Islam's view on homosexuals? => What is our view on people with different orientations? What is even our view of women in the society?
If you were really open to discuss those issues you would see that there is arguably much wickedness going on both sides... I could give you lengthy examples relating to non-religious examples in the West where the answers to these questions seem - let's call it - inconsistent.
Anyway, that is just my view and it is necessarily incomplete. You have already enriched it with me being more aware of some of the wickedness in the literal interpretation of the Quran and the feelings that this might cause on both sides. I don't think that this a showstopper, though, it makes things more difficult - as a first step we would still need to demonstrate that 'infidels' are not a threat anymore. That we respect the religion and acknowledge and appreciate the insights in the Quran and also that allah does exist (in their reality)... As I write it like this I know it must read to you that I have lost my mind or that I am very naive. But then again, isn't also naive to think that things will magically get better if we keep on doing what we have been doing? Why not give it a chance? The result might surprise you. :)
Mein Kampf is also "just" a book.
No, I am not predetermining the outcome. Also I have not made up my mind about you. Yes, a person (including you) could be a productive member of society - even with his/her belief in his/her religion - but the person has to be content with just believing things said in his/her religion and must be content with following only those commands that are not illegal in this country and that means such a person should not start acting on the evil commands given in his/her religion. So as long as a Muslim person agrees and adheres to this humane code of conduct, I don't have any problem with him/her believing anything he/she likes and I don't have much problem with him/her following harmless commands (like, uttering the words 'insha allah' sometimes while speaking, or praying to their allah or on certain day slaughtering those animals that this country legally allows to be slaughtered to please their allah because they believe that their prophet muhammad, who claimed that he is the last prophet of their god allah, said that their god allah said that allah will be pleased and will send them to jannaht and will give them 72 virgin girls to enjoy sex-orgy forever in the heaven after their death if Muslims slaughter animals on some festival day and will be displeased and will send them to hell and burn them forever if they don't). See [1] for why this clarification.
I don't have problem with you or anyone believing such things and following such commands if it pleases you.
But if the person's "even with religion" qualification brings some evil elements of his/her religious beliefs like "waging jihad against the non-believers/apostates and killing them because their prophet said that their allah said to him on some hotline that 'hey muhammad my last messenger, tell your follower Muslims that non-believers/apostates are enemies of Islam/allah and hence it is a duty of every muslim to first try to convert them by trying to verbally convince them about the greatness of islam and then if they don't seem to get convinced wage war (jihad) against them in order to kill them and that if they fulfil this duty I (allah) will give them 72 virgin girls to play with forever in the heaven after their death and if they don't then I will rot them in the hell forever" and then if such a religious person acts according to such evil beliefs/commands then I have an objection to it. For the simple reason that this means my own life will be in danger because I am non-believer in Islam and I know I will not get convinced by the 'davaah'(invitation) a believer Muslim will first try with me.
The point is as long as you or any person does not physically attack and harm other people just because they don't take your/his/her religion seriously enough for you/him/her or make fun/ridicule of your/his/her religion or your/his/her prophet or your/his/her gods/allahs then I don't have any problem in accepting your proposition that you can be productive member of society - even with belief in religion.
>>Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?
How my ridiculing a scripture turns someone into a stereotype? People in the Europe,US have been ridiculing Bible, prophet jesus and trinity/god for quite a lot of time, has this caused any stereotyping of the Christians here? Hardly.
Similarly, ridiculing Quran, Hadiths, prophet muhammad and allah does not turn someone into a stereotype.
Yet one may ask, but still why ridicule? Because ridicule is a good way to bring out fallacies, inconsistencies and injustices in a system/situation/ideology to the notice of general public. Ridicule and satire have played an important role in engaging meaningful and educative discussions in the world. e.g. George Orwell's Animal Farm, 1984
>>You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now?
I believe to the core of my heart (as you have also pointed out) that most Muslim people are good and humanists but many of them are blinded by their faith and by their leaders' incessant efforts to keep them blinded and use them to wage wars.
Will a Islamic society ever allow people to openly claim they are homosexuals and then to live peacefully and to work/travel at public places?
I want the Muslims to take a notice of the fallacies, the inconsistencies and ultimately the evil found in Islam's core. I wish to bring out the evil aspects of Islam, so that Muslims can get rid of those aspects from their religion and reform it.
>>A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?
I disagree with few points here. I take issue with religions. Religions have known to cause a lot of human suffering essentially because they harbour/encourage a lot of hatred towards the unbelievers/apostates. Another issue I have with religions is that they encourage/coerce people to believe in various superstitions and evil things. Beliefs in themselves are not so much of a problem for a society. The real problems caused by religions are when they encourage/coerce believers to act according to those evil beliefs to force the non-believers to toe the line or to get rid of the non-believers/apostates.
Distribution of wealth and power is an important issue too but not the only issue. Also many religions finally boil down to political-power-games, and hence can be exploitative in this respect too. Christianity was very adept at this game, and was very exploitative and it was only after Christianity was rendered toothless the western world became more just and humane. Islam is also very adept at this power game and unfortunately even today is not rendered as toothless as it should have been.
No doubt the current situation in US bad for some people from a financial viewpoint, but still life in US is much better than that in religious societies. Again I wish you to consider the case of homosexuals.
But I am seeing that the Islamists are making more and ever more demands to accommodate their barbaric/ridiculous Islamic law (sharia) in the western democracies. This is scary. I hope the people realize this and stop succumbing to the demands of Islamists and instead engage in dialogue with those Muslims which are open to dialogues.
[1] http://cheznews.com/2016/09/13/isis-slaughter-prisoners-upsi...