Al-Jazari

I have to say that by now you have insulted me, decent conversation, and reason by many things in your reply. You have great talent for making arrogance and ad hominems sound polite and subtle, which is something I can strangely appreciate in a twisted sense. Well played.

I will respond to some things you have asked from me. I do not expect a response, but will leave them here for others to read.

> But again, to be fair, I do not think there is some rational method, in a scientific sense, that proves one element of any religion right or wrong.

There are many with that capability. The quintessential one is Kantian ethics. One other method I will mention simply because I happen to have read it recently, is outlined in "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

> How, if you want to pretend the whole of Muslim society (and that is a lot of people, even the parts of it in the US) want to "live under early medieval law because their religion says so", I would love for you to show me where it says so.

I did not claim that the whole of Muslim society wants this, and I find it insulting that you put those words in my mouth. I was pointing out that opinions on upturning society are an important opinion in Muslim (sub)societies, as evidenced by opinion polls [1].

> Islam has problems. So do other religions. But if Islam has special religion status and special problems that proclude it from issues other religions avoided, I would love to hear them. Try to explain them rationally. You will see how bleak that looks.

I'll just leave the general argument as to why Islam does a particular bad job as a reference frame from which to perform critical thinking.

First up: do not interpret what I'm saying next as any sort of defence of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. Religion is a bad place to start building a society from in the first place. I'll limit my commentary to mainstream religions as they tend not to affect geopolitics.

Islam does a worse job of building an effective critical-thinking society than other mainstream religions. Some things that are uniquely combined Islam are the following:

- Islam has a text that is the literal word of God; not "words inspired" by God as is the case in many others. Since the word is taken to be literal, it is easier to commit apostasy as it is more difficult to hide behind interpretation.

- The penalty for deviating thought is death in all schools of Islam. Other holy texts also claim this, but certainly not all schools of other religions claim the same.

- No school of Islam has emerged that takes back on these opinions. The best of enlightenment you get is people claiming that people should get a second chance, but thought crime still leads to death.

Because of these issues, mainstream Islamic thinking is less open to deviating opinion, critical thinking, sensitivities, or at least the open discussion of topics. These issues make it easier to justify totalitarianism or elements thereof in an Islamic context. There is no "Reformed Judaism" version of Islam that is openly and widely practiced. And that appears to be a burden for every Muslim who wants to be a critical thinker and wants to build a society on freedom and progress.

[1]: A link directory that admittedly is focused on making a point (but that by itself does not make the point invalid): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

>If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran

First thing do you know arabic? Second have you read the Quran translation if you don't know arabic? Third, have you gone through all the verses personally in the Quran that "define" "God"?

If you haven't done any these, how can you come to that conclusion. Doesn't that go against the scientific method which you seem to quote so much. For someone who claims to quote facts.. don't you have a fraction of shame.

The Quran has a precise description of people like you - though subjective, very eerily objective. It still makes much more sense than you. Rough english translation in the literal sense and also metaphorically "Deaf, dumb, blind.."

(So this will have to been in parts, as I have easily exceeded the character limit, so below is part 1).

> I have to say that by now you have insulted me, decent conversation, and reason by many things in your reply. You have great talent for making arrogance and ad hominems sound polite and subtle, which is something I can strangely appreciate in a twisted sense. Well played.

Ok, I am not trying to play you, but I have to be honest, I do not see how you find so much offense with my general tone here. You flat out called me rude the first time around. I would usually not engage in such games, but I think it is fair to talk to you because you are putting a lot of time or effort into this. I do not think I have attacked you, but I guess I am coming up much ruder than you meant. So, ok. Sorry. I would rather take this as a good conversation, instead of turning it into a flame.

> There are many with that capability. The quintessential one is Kantian ethics. One other method I will mention simply because I happen to have read it recently, is outlined in "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

I think maybe I was confusing in what I mean. I think anyone, Kant or otherwise, can go around saying religion X or Y is right or wrong, or any elements of belief structures independent of that structure. That does not make it empirical, scientific, or rational. There will never be a mathematical proof that God exists, there is a heaven, that the rape is bad, usury is bad, etc. Should I stop being ethical in light of my belief there is mathematical proof for religion? No. But I notice you refer to ethics. I am not interested in ethics when discussing this topic. I mean beliefs, ideas, and religious prescriptions. I mean proving scienfically whether or not sleeping with another man's wife is the will of God or not? I understand I can reason about this, but I am putting a higher burden on myself (when thinking of reason) than "because it is bad." Even addition requires a proof in mathematics, and that is rigorous and difficult. Some people claim they have done so, but I do not see this as reason or rationality or whatever they call it. You can believe if you choose; that is OK. But I do not think ethicists are scientists with a rigorous scientific platform. That is why it is philosophy, and philosophy and theology are not part of the sciences. They work differently, and I oppose in Western history the Divine Watchmaker Theory (creation is so perfect, like a well-constructed watch, so there must a divine being, the Watchmaker/God, who created it) like I am disgusted by people who have told me years ago, before I even was interested in Islam, that the Quran refers to certain scientific facts well-established now that were certainly yet to be determined by contemporary science and therefore the book is divined from God. I think Kant might be more advanced with his proof of God (I studied it in college stateside years ago, and I do not remember it so well), but there is something silly about the whole process. There is no science or rationality to faith, why must me prove it exists with rationality or scientific analysis? You seem to be insulted by this notion, but that is just my opinion I suppose. I thought it was more common, but when I was taught about proofs of God (ironically I went to a Catholic university that taught a whole freshmen seminar on the topic called Problem of God), I thought I was not in the minority to see such endeavors as well-intentioned but pointless. Maybe I am out of touch. I do not mean to offend you, but I guess I misunderstood my position is not common like I believed it to be.

> I did not claim that the whole of Muslim society wants this, and I find it insulting that you put those words in my mouth. I was pointing out that opinions on upturning society are an important opinion in Muslim (sub)societies, as evidenced by opinion polls [1].

Yes, it is important. But that is my point. A radical minority opinion should represent the whole faith? I am not intending to put words in your mouth, but I rountinely encounter people, in the US and elsewhere like expats who live in the MENA region, that believe everyone thinks this. Not everyone does. Ironically, I live in a country in the Gulf that is one of the few that tries to put this into practice. Maybe the local community, ironically greatly outnumbered by Muslim and non-Muslim expat population that holds the country together, routinely complain about and disapprove of it. That is anecdote. But to me, polling information shows me people talk about, and some want it. Is all of America murderous because some of them support the dealth penalty? I know you, by now, are pretty clear you dislike my analogies. But drawing these kinds of lines is not reason with me.

(Part 3)

> - No school of Islam has emerged that takes back on these opinions. The best of enlightenment you get is people claiming that people should get a second chance, but thought crime still leads to death.

There are five schools of Islam (technically speaking, there are four, until the Jafriyyah School of Shi'a Islam, as recognized by the prominent scholars and figures in the Sunni schools in modern history quite late at a date I do not recall, which is an interesting political gesture by itself). I am not sure what you are referring to, but if it is bida'a, I somehow doubt that they have a consistent view on this. They are all hundreds of years old, and specializing in one of them is an academic lifetime all to itself. I assume some, probably the Hanbalist as you guessed from earlier, would demand death. The others, probably not. But I cannot be sure and that ironically is not easy to research in a short period (I just tried, haha). But rest assured you have a point: there orthodox bigots in Islam, just like fudamnetalist Christians and hardcore Orthodox Jews.

> Because of these issues, mainstream Islamic thinking is less open to deviating opinion, critical thinking, sensitivities, or at least the open discussion of topics. These issues make it easier to justify totalitarianism or elements thereof in an Islamic context. There is no "Reformed Judaism" version of Islam that is openly and widely practiced. And that appears to be a burden for every Muslim who wants to be a critical thinker and wants to build a society on freedom and progress.

Maybe in the sense they do not have a name. But there are many progressive Islamic scholars (I use that term as someone specializing in religion, not any academic of Muslim background). Tariq Ramadan comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan), and he is very well-known in MENA and out. There are others as well. The difference is Islam, because of perceived attack, encourages believers to emphasize unity and not discuss differences. The schools of Islamic law you mention are academic mainly, and any believer would not be concerned as it barely impacts their belief or praxis. In terms of practice, the only real dividie is between Sunni and Shi'a, and almost people when question about which one they are get cagey and will tell you they are Muslim, for the reasons they described. You are not supposed to make the difference between you and others a big issue. Only zealots, for political reasons, encourage this crap and you see the civil war it causes in Iraq and Lebanon. Many open people talk about it, but largely in Arabic, and I suppose you do not know it.

This has been a cool discussion though. I am sorry if you think I am ignoring your comments are being insulting in my dealing with you, but I am glad someone questions and asks. Without it we all accept the status quo and learn nothing.

> Two wrong conclusions in one sentence. Neither were the islamic world secluded (they were expanding beyond spain even after the crusades) nor did they 'miss' the so called enlightenment. In fact it can be argued that the european enlightenment was a result of the interaction of the dark age europeans with golden age of islamic spain (and other centers of learning during this time in the islamic world).

I think you are confusing the Renaissance (for which that is a fair description) with the Enlightment (which was several centuries later, and for which that is not a really a fair description, except insofar as the Renaissance laid critical groundwork for the Enlightment, and the Renaissance was, as you say, largely a result of interaction with the Islamic world.)