I mean I'm being more than a bit silly. The two obviously are different even if they are intimately related. Is it possible to criticize, say, modern Republicanism without making any claims of Republicans who endorse those view? If we are careful and tactful about it, probably. Mightyboosh tends not to be very careful and tactful about this, and then seems quite aghast at any implication he might actually be seen as insulting actual Muslims.

It's entirely possible that my views on the ideology of Islam are insulting to Muslims, highly probable I'd say. It's just not relevant to this thread which is about Islam and the fatwa, not rank and file Muslims since they didn't issue the fatwa. Hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding.

I can get laying a criticism on a specific fatwa, but I don't understand why you say "islam and the fatwa" as a contrast with "rank and file Muslims". Are rank and file muslims not a part of Islam? I don't think this thread is, or should be, about criticizing Islam writ large, it is about criticizing this one particular fatwa. But it keeps seeming to be that you want to establish "Islam" as this thing you can go around taking pot shots at (and yes "what about praying to mecca in space" is precisely that imo) but that this has this big clear division with Muslims themselves.

Consider your phrasing here:
I know you have gotten plenty of pushback on your brainwashing/indoctrination type views, but it is sort of reprising themselves here. Did you stop to think about how insulting such a view might be to Muslims? You aren't criticizing muslims when you criticize Islam, because those muslims only have those opinions because Islam taught/indoctrinated them into having them. in the attempt to make it clear that you hold this strong division between Islam and Muslims, you have sort of written the Muslim off as this passive person subjected to Islam. In reality, Muslims do actually think for themselves and consider various arguments for and against and may or may not support a particular fatwa and so on. They are far more active supporters than your "taught by islam" would seem to imply.

Without reading anything I imagine the logic goes like this

Committing suicide is prohibited In Islam
Taking a trip to Mars has 0% of success
0% chance of success = suicide
Trip to Mars= suicide
A trip to Mars is prohibited in Islam

That doesn't seem like crazy out there logic to me

Just because I wouldn't have voted for George Bush doesn't mean that I'll write off anyone who did. Islam is an ideology that I reject and because anyone involved at the highest levels of the institution of Islam is probably going to be a die hard adherent to that ideology I'll include them too, does that mean I should reject all Muslims out of hand too?

Which I long ago changed to a generally accepted view that there is social reinforcement for religious views and that religions seek to perpetuate their ideologies.


Why are so concerned about whether or not I'm offending Muslims? You've never taken me to task for offending Christians?

Uke, just by rejecting Islam I've offended Muslims, it makes me the lowest form of animal in their eyes (according to instructions in the Qur'an), I'm kafir. So by pointing out that IMO the act of praying in the direction of Mecca is simply a reinforcement technique and that that's highlighted by how difficult it would be to do off planet isn't really going to make my situation any worse and not saying it wouldn't improve it.

There's a lot I could say here but really it just boils down to 'no, that's not what I think and it's not what I've said'. There is a difference between an ideology, and it's adherents. That's all I've said, the rest is embellishment on your part.

Honestly I think that you're countering an argument that I haven't made. That Muslims might, or might not, think for themselves (you saw Ummah.com user tell me recently that ego and personal opinion have no place in Islam so unless he was completely wrong, that's something he was taught by 'Islam') is irrelevant to my claim that Islam suppresses freedom of choice. I only need to give one example to be right and I've given one ITT.

That's not quite correct, the trip may be successful but the Islamic seniors in question think that the participants are just going to die on Mars, presumably earlier than they would have if they had remained on Earth.

There's what I thought was an obvious issue with Islam and it's attitude to suicide that I'm surprised no one has brought up.

Do you also acknowledge that there is social reinforcement for other ,non religious , views, including views held by you personally, and that other social structures, and you yourself, also seek to perpetuate their and your ideologies ?

Such as?

such as work ethic, culture of work, cleanliness, not being rude, not swearing, holding knife and fork correctly, nationalism, pride in country, pride in town, dressing smartly, good timekeeping, respect for elders, respect for authority figures, importance of education, being healthy, having friends, being friendly, respect for family, culture of drinking, taboos about sex, sex being seen as highly important and significant, immorality of drugs, obeying orders, self image

is that enough? ( obviously , some of these will overlap with religious views, while secular people will still hold to and propagate these views)

OK, at first I tried to split them into two groups, yes and no, but it was too difficult so I'll tackle each individually (even though this has got nothing at all to do with the Fatwa the thread is about, I'll indulge your digression)


1) Work ethic - I've explained that if they want certain things in life, they'll need a certain work ethic, but since I can't know what they'll value as adults, I haven't 'pushed' any particular ethic

2) culture of work,- not sure what you mean by this or how I'd push a particular culture

3) cleanliness - Yes, I enforce this because I don't want to live with smelly kids and I've explained that generally in life if they don't want people to think they smell, they should wash but once they leave my house it's up to them

4) not being rude - I've explained that most people don't like rude people so it's up to them. I don't tolerate rudeness to me because it undermines my authority and I can't function as a parent without authority. Once they leave home, I'll give up that authority and quite rightly.

5) not swearing - same as cleanliness and rudeness (i don't kid myself that I can stop them swearing anyway)

6) holding knife and fork correctly - same as cleanliness and rudeness and swearing

5) nationalism - we've discussed why someone would think their country superior, I haven't expressed personal views on it

6) pride in country - as above

7) dressing smartly - we've covered the pros and cons, it's up to them though and to a certain extent we don't let them wear really shabby clothes because it might reflect badly on us as parents, not because smart is better than shabby, or whatever

8) good timekeeping - same answer as work ethic, to function in a society, being punctual is an advantage

9) respect for elders, respect for authority figures, - same answer as 4

10) importance of education - I've explained how being educated might benefit them but I can't make them learn or be interested in something that doesn't interest them, it's not actually possible

11) being healthy - ?? Nothing else on your list matters if you're not alive so assuming that you don't consider killing yourself through neglect as an equal life view to being healthy, then yes, I'm guilty of encouraging them to be healthy...

12) being friendly, respect for family, - same answer as 4

13) culture of drinking, - I've explained the effects and dangers of many drugs to them, not just alcohol. I expect them to use drugs (I haven't pushed it either way, no pun intended), at least they'll be doing it from an informed position

14) taboos about sex - I've explained why pedophilia and incest are taboos, nothing else has come up really that I recall

15) sex being seen as highly important and significant - I haven't said either way whether or not it's 'highly important and significant', those are your words. What I have tried to do is be open and give them the info they need to make decisions about sex.

16) immorality of drugs - I've explained why some people think drugs are 'bad' and why some don't. I haven't pushed a personal position

17) obeying orders - mostly the same answer as 4 but 'orders' are slightly different (unless you include 'instructions?), it would entirely depend on who was giving them and the circumstances, I don't know what I'd say about this, not enough info.

18) self image - doesn't really come up. I've tried to help them deal with school crap by explaining why kids act like they do but again, I haven't pushed a particular 'self image'.

This list includes different types of belief and that's something we've never managed to agree on, why teaching a child that 2+2=4 is different from telling them that a god exists, beyond doubt, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

I didnt mean for you to go through every single one and answer them. But given that you did, you have shown nothing, except to show that you accept, and propagate, societal values.

As I have said many times, I am not discussing whether the societal values you propagate are better or worse than others, simply that, if you accuse certain societies, or societal structures of propagating their values, then you have to accept the same charge yourself.

You are welcome to hold that your values are better, most people would agree that their values are better than other peoples. That has never been what my point is about.

You're still being far too general. I never said I didn't 'accept, and propagate, societal values' or that I reject them either, I've maintained from the start that I don't urge specific ideologies on my children because I happen to support them.

You're still barking up the wrong tree, your examples showed that. Take drugs as an example, that could be considered something on which subjective opinions vary enormously and my approach is to educate my children about drugs. At no point have I ever said 'drugs are bad' or 'drugs are good', which would be my subjective opinion. So I still disagree that I'm doing what religious parents do. At what point did you miss the number of times I said something along the lines 'I haven't pushed a personal position' during my answering all your examples? I knew I was wasting my time.

Anyway, I don't really want to do this again, in this thread, so if you want to continue this conversation can you find a different thread where we've been discussing it please.

You are pushing your personal opinion in examples 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10,11, and 12 at the very least. But I realise that you are never going to admit it.

And on the rest of them, society is pushing those opinons.

How can this be too difficult of a task? It's either "Yes, there is societal reinforcement for these beliefs" or "Yes, you seek to perpetuate these beliefs" or "No, these beliefs are independent of society and my beliefs."

Reading these is like when you said you don't "punish" your children, and that you just give them "alternatives" that they don't like.

You just can't let go of that characterization of religious households, can you? You need that characterization because otherwise your axiomatic disdain for religion will simply fall apart, and you'll reveal yourself to be a hypocrite and an anti-religious bigot.

Wrong, yet again. In 1 I described how I've told my kids about various work ethics and what reaction they can generally expect to them or why they might prefer one to the other. I've never once said 'you must work hard', or 'dodge work at every opportunity' or ever urged on them what I personally like to do.

I baffled as to why you can't see the difference between that and your inevitable assertion that I'm 'pushing my personal opinion'. Quite clearly, I'm not.

do you make them do their homework?

edit: It doesnt just matter what you say, it matters what you do as well. So you can say all sorts of things, and then act totally contrary to what you said. All these acts teach your children something about how you view the world, and how you want them to view the world

For example you can talk all big about how you want them to think critically, and form their own opinions, and then ride roughshod over their opinions and make them do things they dont want to do

Omg, this again, for real? Can't you see the difference between me making them do something and me making them believe something? Yes I make them do their homework because I don't want the Education authorities hassling me. Do I tell my kids that it's right that they must do their homework and that anyone who disagrees is wrong..?

No.

I've been super patient with you derailing thread after thread with this Neel but now I'd like you to stop, please.

No,I dont see the difference. Your motives for making them do something
directly stem from your beliefs about what they should do, and how they should behave. How else do you , and society transmit its beliefs to the next generation?

Yes, by making them do their homework, you are giving them the implicit message "It is right to do your homework", or, if you like, "you should do your homework"


Obviously, if the child doesnt agree that he should do his homework, then you think he is wrong, and he is forced to do his homework, by you.


Also, as pointed out before, you have a super strange idea of how religious parents are. I would guess that most religous parents do not tell their kids that its right to believe in god, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Some may, but I would guess its a minority.

Anyway, you are apparently the only parent in the history of the universe who has succeeded in passing on no beliefs to their children, and no societal values. congratulations.

Hippo Critters. Lol

I know this thread took a tangent, but if Mightyboosh is in fact unaccepting of religion while still being accepting of its followers, I see nothing wrong with that position.

The only potential problems would be how he allows his position to play out. Are the effects of his behaviors from this view more harmful than beneficial? If so, I would encourage him to reevaluate the behavior (why he made this thread) rather than his overall position.

the act of praying in the direction of Mecca is simply a reinforcement technique


I'm sorry, but it is NOT all you have said:
There isn't just ideology vs adherents. You give other characteristics like "rank and file" vs "highest level" and "die hard adherent" and that some are "taught by Islam". Are the highest level people not taught by Islam? Can the rank and file not be die hard adherents? It is as if you try to absolve the "rank and file" of responsibility for views since, after all, they are only taught by Islam, they are not die hard adherents of the highest level.

My view is that it doesn't make any difference to my position if every Muslim on the planet decides for themselves to ignore the Fatwa. The point is that it was issued by the institution of Islam, according to Islamic doctrine and that's what I'm 'finding a problem' with ITT. That Islam would be so controlling and attempt to suppress freedom of choice in this manner.

So it's the ideology of Islam, at least this aspect of it, that I'm criticising ITT, not the action of individual Muslims. But, do you imagine that I'm giving Muslims a general pass and have no issues with them?

That's not really my position, it's just not the followers that are under the microscope in this particular thread and I've been trying to separate them from 'Islam' for that reason. That's been mistakenly construed as me not having a problem with Muslims. I do actually have a priori issues with Muslims (the first being that they follow a faith that I have issues with), and I'm reasonably sure that on an individual basis once I knew exactly what they believed I'd find more.

It was probably thekid who caused this problem, and it resulted in Uke asking me this:

And the answer is, yes, here ITT.

That I'm not generally critical of Muslims when I post is actually a result of posting here and I've learned better.

But this is vacuous. Any and every normative system will have prohibitions or imperatives that "suppress freedom of choice". My library has a "no talking on the second & third floors" rule. Does this mean my library is suppressing freedom of choice? The UK government forbids me from buying nuclear weapons - is this "suppressing freedom of choice"?

As has been pointed out to you by Huehuecoyotl, this particular prohibition actually seems fairly reasonable. Once again, there is a germ of a sensible thread in your OP but you pick the worst, most easily rebutted examples imaginable to make your points. Why not education for women in Islam? Or severe penalties for apostasy? Why this example?

Yes you're right. 'Islam is bad because it suppresses freedom of choice' is not what I was trying to say and now I'm trying to articulate to you the point that I was intending to make, I'm struggling to clarify it to myself.

So what if I think the reasons for them being so controlling are reinforcement techniques based contrived and false justifications, it's not an argument, it's just an opinion.

I felt that the unusual context helped draw attention to this aspect of Islam in a way that can sometimes get lost in the noise because contexts are more familiar to us.

You didn't reply to my explanation for why I think it would be harder to pray in the direction of Mecca if you're off-planet, especially if you're on another planet. Earth and Mars have different orbital periods, in fact Mars has a retrograde orbit in relation to the Earth at one point in the cycle, so it seems obviously more difficult to me but you're no dummy and you disagree, I'd like to know what your reasoning is?