This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've discussed how certain theological claims of Islam are more brittle than its Abrahamic brothers before but I think you're not accounting for inertia and adaptation and the fact that these religions have absorbed enough from Judaism to follow the same path.
Judaism adapted because it had to, it once also had the problem of not being able to handle earthly failure. David's kingdom did not in fact last forever, despite the unconditional covenant. The Deuteronomist message of obeying to avoid punishment via curse and political cataclysm didn't really work out: given where the Jews were geographically, they got rolled over despite trying to be faithful anyway and we got apocalypticism instead.
Islam hasn't had to adapt, despite having a rough time in modernity, because it's had the demographic weight as a cushion against total calamity.
Here's the thing: a lot of these adaptations are already within the Qur'an. The Qur'an is inherited apocalypticism but paired it with a more high agency response in jihad (George Bush's invasion of Iraq led to a rise in apocalyptic feeling), it already has a detached corpus and distributed system of religious common law, and already has pragmatic adaptations to the inability to fulfill divine commands. It maintains the locale-weakness but Judaism shed this without dying.
Christianity is evidence that disconfirming events are no obstacle to human stubbornness. Too many people believe in Islam to stop, there's no reason to think it will not be amenable to the same cognitive dissonance management strategies the Jews and other apocalyptic cults were, especially given how much it draws from the former.
Especially if you just mega-super-duper-jihaded them. The Kabba didn't fall into a sinkhole, Mohammed's tomb wasn't hit by an asteroid. A kaffir President in the Dar-al-Harb (this is a concept a lot of Muslims don't think about but, trust me, it'll be relevant again) simply brought the war to Islam. It's not a refutation, it's a validation. That's what kaffir are supposed to do. It's the sort of attack that unites people. Plenty of Muslims were disgusted by 9/11 (what you see now from many younger Muslims in the West is a response to the idea that their elders apologized for a decade for something that had nothing to do with them, to no end), every Muslim will be aligned against the US if it robs all of them of the Hajj.
As for the lack of the Hajj: Islam would lose something in terms of being able to get everyone back on the same page yearly but modern telecomms allows that anyway. The Arabic tenor of the faith won't end because it's tied to the Qur'an itself which is portable and beyond questioning for Muslims (it's not really a problem, ime all of the criticisms of Western language dominance and so on apply mainly to Westerners and it doesn't even occur to Muslims to apply to Arabs). Why on Earth would it break the faith rather than lead to scholars simply accepting that a commandment that cannot reasonably be fulfilled doesn't count against someone? Hell, you can end up in an even worse situation: without Hajj some might suggest other ways of accruing religious status (jihad) count for more.
More options
Context Copy link