To say Islam is intolerant is to generally claim that Muslims are intolerant. I don’t think you can seperate the claim from its implications.
I think it is worth noting that Islam was a liberatory movement in the age of its emergence and continued to be so for long after in many cases. Especially for women. It only became oppressive as it became part of the state. This was furthered by European imperialism in West Asia and North Africa. The Islam you see today can be dramatically different from the Islam of 1850.
Religion is superstructural. It is not the source of misogyny nor is it the source of oppression generally. It can be used to justify these things sure but it is not why they exist. I won’t pretend to fully understand the social relations within West Asia and their origin but it is certain that there are material rather than idealist reasons for their current state. Removing the religion would not remove the impetus for misogyny and oppression it would only remove its current justification.
These people must overcome these cultural struggles on their own terms and in their own time while we work on our own as well. The reason I worry about the original commenters perception of Islam is because such perspectives are utilized by our governments to justify imperialist aggression against Muslim majority countries. This imperialist aggression is wrapped in the language of helping their oppressed groups but never does anything of the sort. Cultures do not grow under imperial boots.
To say Islam is intolerant is to generally claim that Muslims are intolerant.
Absolutely not. Organized religions, such as Islam and Christianity (or rather, Catholicism, Shia etc.), are themselves power structures perpetuating values.
Criticizing a religion is no more a criticism of the individual believers than calling a national government (like the Russian one maybe) evil is equivalent to claiming all who share that nationality are evil.
I would also strongly dispute your claims regarding the history of islam, but don’t have time to take that discussion right now. My statements regarding islam as a religion in the current day I will stand by however.
Criticizing a religion is no more a criticism of the individual believers than calling a national government (like the Russian one maybe) evil is equivalent to claiming all who share that nationality are evil.
If one is to this then they must make it clear which the original commentor did not. They did not say “the religious hierarchy within islam is oppressive in order to preserve existing structures of power”, they just clearly implied Islam is intolerant without any addition of context. I believe my interpretation was reasonable within those bounds.
I also encourage you to look into how Bedouins treated women before Islam. Or anyone for that matter, it was often unpleasant to be a part of their society and Islam made their lives better.
I tend to assume people are saying what they are meaning. OP said “Islam is so tolerant” (sarcastically, implying the opposite) not “muslims are so tolerant”.
Language has meaning. In my country, statement no. 1 is constitutionally protected expression (criticism of a religion, whether in speech or print - originally implemented to prevent the church from censuring people) whilst statement no. 2 might get you dinged for “agitating against a demographic”.
I also encourage you to look into how Bedouins treated women before Islam. Or anyone for that matter, it was often unpleasant to be a part of their society and Islam made their lives better.
Anyway it seems like we just have different standards for how clearly our meanings should be articulated. Especially on topics such as these. This is likely because I come from a country where Islamophobia is so endemic. Statements like the original commenter made are something I often hear said sarcastly from people I know to be bigots. In my experience it has been people like this who supported our brutal invasions and/or sanctions of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Often times they are also the type to be sympathetic to Israel (or at least were at one point). They use their supposed disgust with the bigotry of the foreigner to mask their own bigotry and support for imperialist plunder. So perhaps I overanalyzed that persons statement but perhaps my experiences let me see things you might miss.
Finally, I wasn’t suggesting we discuss the revolution in Bedouin society caused by Islam I just think it is cool and interesting and something you should read about when you get the chance.
To say Islam is intolerant is to generally claim that Muslims are intolerant. I don’t think you can seperate the claim from its implications.
I think it is worth noting that Islam was a liberatory movement in the age of its emergence and continued to be so for long after in many cases. Especially for women. It only became oppressive as it became part of the state. This was furthered by European imperialism in West Asia and North Africa. The Islam you see today can be dramatically different from the Islam of 1850.
Religion is superstructural. It is not the source of misogyny nor is it the source of oppression generally. It can be used to justify these things sure but it is not why they exist. I won’t pretend to fully understand the social relations within West Asia and their origin but it is certain that there are material rather than idealist reasons for their current state. Removing the religion would not remove the impetus for misogyny and oppression it would only remove its current justification.
These people must overcome these cultural struggles on their own terms and in their own time while we work on our own as well. The reason I worry about the original commenters perception of Islam is because such perspectives are utilized by our governments to justify imperialist aggression against Muslim majority countries. This imperialist aggression is wrapped in the language of helping their oppressed groups but never does anything of the sort. Cultures do not grow under imperial boots.
Absolutely not. Organized religions, such as Islam and Christianity (or rather, Catholicism, Shia etc.), are themselves power structures perpetuating values.
Criticizing a religion is no more a criticism of the individual believers than calling a national government (like the Russian one maybe) evil is equivalent to claiming all who share that nationality are evil.
I would also strongly dispute your claims regarding the history of islam, but don’t have time to take that discussion right now. My statements regarding islam as a religion in the current day I will stand by however.
If one is to this then they must make it clear which the original commentor did not. They did not say “the religious hierarchy within islam is oppressive in order to preserve existing structures of power”, they just clearly implied Islam is intolerant without any addition of context. I believe my interpretation was reasonable within those bounds.
I also encourage you to look into how Bedouins treated women before Islam. Or anyone for that matter, it was often unpleasant to be a part of their society and Islam made their lives better.
Eh?
Do I need to say more than “Russia is evil”?
I tend to assume people are saying what they are meaning. OP said “Islam is so tolerant” (sarcastically, implying the opposite) not “muslims are so tolerant”.
Language has meaning. In my country, statement no. 1 is constitutionally protected expression (criticism of a religion, whether in speech or print - originally implemented to prevent the church from censuring people) whilst statement no. 2 might get you dinged for “agitating against a demographic”.
As mentioned, discussion for another day.
Now I gotta sleep tho but interesting chatting :)
cya
Yes lol, you do need to say more than that.
Anyway it seems like we just have different standards for how clearly our meanings should be articulated. Especially on topics such as these. This is likely because I come from a country where Islamophobia is so endemic. Statements like the original commenter made are something I often hear said sarcastly from people I know to be bigots. In my experience it has been people like this who supported our brutal invasions and/or sanctions of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Often times they are also the type to be sympathetic to Israel (or at least were at one point). They use their supposed disgust with the bigotry of the foreigner to mask their own bigotry and support for imperialist plunder. So perhaps I overanalyzed that persons statement but perhaps my experiences let me see things you might miss.
Finally, I wasn’t suggesting we discuss the revolution in Bedouin society caused by Islam I just think it is cool and interesting and something you should read about when you get the chance.