Us vs. Them: The psychology of communication

Sean Cruz said:I mentioned at the start that my critique of the film was strictly from a linguistic standpoint. I’m not here to act as an interpreter for Islam as a religion; I’m analyzing the language itself. What bothered me during the screening was how poorly the language of the Bible was interpreted, which is why I brought up the various translations.
As for your other points, here is my take:
Pantheism may have roots in Christianity, but it doesn't support the kind of morality that is central to any monotheistic faith—pantheism doesn't align with monotheism at all; it’s essentially spiritual atheism. Deism is grounded in science, yet we know that no monotheistic religion is based on science; they rely on faith without empirical proof (there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God). Agnosticism doesn't deny God, but it doesn't acknowledge Him either. You could call it a form of skepticism, and from what I understand, skepticism isn't exactly embraced by monotheistic religions.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion—Islam recognizes Jesus as one of the "messengers," so I don't see the issue there. As for religious fanatics and nationalists, their opinions don't carry weight with me. They just spread hate, whereas the fundamental principle of any true faith should be love, not hatred.

@ David: I just saw your comment. If you revisit this thread, I’d appreciate it if you could answer a few questions:
1. How do Muslims recite their prayers in Arabic when most of them don't actually understand what they are saying? Don't they need one of those "interpreters" to enlighten them? From what I understand regarding prayer interpretation, it is recommended to pray in Arabic specifically because the language is so unique, ensuring there is no "confusion."
2. Why were the followers of Rumi killed because they thought he was equating himself with God, when he was simply in a trance when he uttered "Enel hakk"?
3. How do you interpret famous poets who wrote in Persian (like Omar Khayyam), whose poems sound blasphemous to some but are actually odes to God? Some of them are quite literally the most beautiful verses ever written.
If you truly represent what you claim to be, David, then you ought to understand the symbolism behind the moth burning in the flame, the wine, and the tavern keeper.

Best regards.

1. The Quran is the word of God, and as such, it acts upon the human soul regardless of whether the person understands the literal words being spoken. That’s the short version.
Let me give you an example...

There was once an old woman who recited (memorized) a specific Quranic verse in her prayers her entire life without knowing the translation. One day, a young, learned man came to her and translated that verse for her at her request. The old woman looked at him and said, "...that is exactly how I have always experienced it..."

2. The famous phrase "Enel Hakk" wasn't uttered by Rumi, but by Hallaj, which is why he
was executed. He was killed because he violated the Sharia laws as understood by the people of that era. The situation hasn't changed much today, at least regarding those extreme (which, in my view, are positively extreme) interpretations of faith; those levels of realization remain hidden. Quite simply, they aren't destined for paradise and have no affirmative impact on the progress of Islamic thought within the realm of religious law.

3. I am trying.😉
The moth burning in the flame is an allegory for "submerging oneself into the Divine Being, into which nothing else can enter except Him." Just as the moth is drawn to the light and rushes toward it, regardless of the fact that it will vanish within that light...

Wine symbolizes intoxication with divine love (ashq), while the tavern keeper is merely the vessel.

I'm not sure who labeled those poems as blasphemy? It could only be the "Wahhabis."

Generally speaking, Sufi "poems" are saturated with symbols because that is the only way to express the inexpressible—the realm of spirit and soul where the brain is stunned and the tongue is tied. Symbols exist to provide a glimpse of a vision that cannot be described with mere words.
One of the greats of Islamic thought who managed to describe the landscapes the human soul traverses on its path toward perfection using philosophical language is Ibn Arabi, the renowned Andalusian "philosopher." I put him in quotes because he wasn't a philosopher per se; he was simply capable of expressing himself with philosophical quality. If you come across his works, I recommend reading them, though if you enjoyed the Sufi odes to God, Ibn Arabi might not be your cup of tea, because philosophy itself is a bird without wings, and you cannot fly with it.

Jerry Green59 said:

Sean Cruz As specified by:
Pantheism. It’s one of those heavy concepts that people love to toss around at cocktail parties when they want to sound profound without actually having to commit to a specific doctrine. At its core, it's the idea that the universe and God aren't two separate things, but rather one and the same—that the divine is woven into every atom, every leaf, and every overpriced latte we consume. It’s a tidy little way to feel connected to the cosmos without the baggage of organized religion, though I suspect some might find it a bit too convenient. Still, there is a certain quiet logic to it. If everything is part of the divine, then even my questionable decision-making is technically part of a grand, cosmic design. That’s a comforting thought, isn't it? It doesn't align with any of the monotheistic religions, to be honest. That’s essentially just spiritual atheism.

Could you clarify? I'm not quite following.

Sean Cruz As I was saying:
@ David: I just caught your comment. If you find yourself revisiting this thread, would you mind answering a few questions for me?

The moderators have sent David some rather subtle hints that he isn't exactly welcome in this discussion.

Pantheism essentially rejects the traditional concept of God. The idea that everything—the entire universe—is God, and that we ourselves are part of that divinity, would be considered blasphemy under any standard monotheistic framework. On the other hand, spirituality doesn't necessarily have to be religious. We all strive to grasp the meaning of our existence; pantheists simply find that meaning in the world around them and within themselves. However, their perspective doesn't align with conventional religious definitions of God. In fact, they often avoid using the word "God" altogether. That’s why I used the term "spiritual atheism."

P.S. To me, Kastanedina suggests that every individual carries the truth deep within their subconscious. Yet, because this realization can feel so overwhelming and leave one feeling helpless, people fight to keep it buried where it belongs—it's worth its weight in gold. Even Jesus said—know the truth, and it will set you free.

steeleagle2 said:Best regards.

1. The Quran is the word of God, and as such, it acts upon the human soul regardless of whether the person understands the literal words being spoken. That’s the short version.
Let me give you an example...

There was once an old woman who recited (memorized) a specific Quranic verse in her prayers her entire life without knowing the translation. One day, a young, learned man came to her and translated that verse for her at her request. The old woman looked at him and said, "...that is exactly how I have always experienced it..."

2. The famous phrase "Enel Hakk" wasn't uttered by Rumi, but by Hallaj, which is why he
was executed. He was killed because he violated the Sharia laws as understood by the people of that era. The situation hasn't changed much today, at least regarding those extreme (which, in my view, are positively extreme) interpretations of faith; those levels of realization remain hidden. Quite simply, they aren't destined for paradise and have no affirmative impact on the progress of Islamic thought within the realm of religious law.

3. I am trying.😉
The moth burning in the flame is an allegory for "submerging oneself into the Divine Being, into which nothing else can enter except Him." Just as the moth is drawn to the light and rushes toward it, regardless of the fact that it will vanish within that light...

Wine symbolizes intoxication with divine love (ashq), while the tavern keeper is merely the vessel.

I'm not sure who labeled those poems as blasphemy? It could only be the "Wahhabis."

Generally speaking, Sufi "poems" are saturated with symbols because that is the only way to express the inexpressible—the realm of spirit and soul where the brain is stunned and the tongue is tied. Symbols exist to provide a glimpse of a vision that cannot be described with mere words.
One of the greats of Islamic thought who managed to describe the landscapes the human soul traverses on its path toward perfection using philosophical language is Ibn Arabi, the renowned Andalusian "philosopher." I put him in quotes because he wasn't a philosopher per se; he was simply capable of expressing himself with philosophical quality. If you come across his works, I recommend reading them, though if you enjoyed the Sufi odes to God, Ibn Arabi might not be your cup of tea, because philosophy itself is a bird without wings, and you cannot fly with it.

Greetings to you as well.

My first question was aimed at this: if ordinary people can feel God's message in their souls (regardless of language comprehension), why did you say that God grants interpretation only through certain "elites"? Some individuals have certainly reached higher spiritual levels than the average person, but that doesn't mean everyone else only understands God's message if these spiritual leaders explain it to them.

And what would I write if I wrote about Rumi? 🙈 I'm currently reading Rumi, so I drifted toward him. I was actually thinking of Hallaj. I want to believe that Hallaj met the end described in Karahasanov's novel "Eastern Diwan." Could you clarify this part: that true insights of that magnitude remain hidden. They are kept away simply because such views aren't "heavenly" enough and they don't offer any constructive progress to Islamic thought within the realm of religious law.

When I mentioned blasphemy, I was referring to laypeople who don't understand Sufi symbolism—to them, most of these poems sound sacrilegious. Meanwhile, believers can always fall back on that verse stating that Allah did not teach the Prophet poetry, nor is it appropriate for him.

You're spot on about Ibn Arabi—I struggled to connect with his writings when I first picked them up a few years back. My soul just craves that sense of flight.😉

Sean Cruz said:Greetings to you as well.

My first question was aimed at this: if ordinary people can feel God's message in their souls (regardless of language comprehension), why did you say that God grants interpretation only through certain "elites"? Some individuals have certainly reached higher spiritual levels than the average person, but that doesn't mean everyone else only understands God's message if these spiritual leaders explain it to them.

And what would I write if I wrote about Rumi? 🙈 I'm currently reading Rumi, so I drifted toward him. I was actually thinking of Hallaj. I want to believe that Hallaj met the end described in Karahasanov's novel "Eastern Diwan." Could you clarify this part: that true insights of that magnitude remain hidden. They are kept away simply because such views aren't "heavenly" enough and they don't offer any constructive progress to Islamic thought within the realm of religious law.

When I mentioned blasphemy, I was referring to laypeople who don't understand Sufi symbolism—to them, most of these poems sound sacrilegious. Meanwhile, believers can always fall back on that verse stating that Allah did not teach the Prophet poetry, nor is it appropriate for him.

You're spot on about Ibn Arabi—I struggled to connect with his writings when I first picked them up a few years back. My soul just craves that sense of flight.😉

Greetings.

The Quran consists of seven distinct levels. The first level is purely linguistic; it’s accessible to everyone. The second level is reserved for the chosen few. As for the third level and beyond, they reach such heights that discussing them is practically pointless—most modern-day Islam is built entirely upon that first layer, and even steeleagle2 only truly grasps the second. Let me give you an example...

Bismillah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

When you translate that, what you get is—In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

That’s just a translation. The core interpretation is that our actions should be performed solely in the name of God and for no one else—because God is the Merciful Compassionate.

The next level would be: In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The interpretation here is that the individual isn't actually separate from God; rather, one performs all actions through the name of Allah—it simply isn't possible otherwise. In this state, the person serves merely as a witness to Allah's actions and His manifestation. Effectively, the "self" ceases to exist. Human existence is purely a byproduct of divine existence. If we follow this logic to its conclusion, a person wouldn't even be capable of uttering that sentence without direct movement from God. In fact, the entire Library of Congress could be filled just by exploring the single letter "Ba." Everything contained within the Quran is found in the Fatiha; everything in the Fatiha is contained in the Bismillah; everything in the Bismillah is held within the first letter, Ba; and everything within Ba is contained within the dot of the letter Ba.

It’s clear that this individual is acting from a place of extreme self-reliance. By choosing to perform an action and then deciding to dedicate it to God, he is essentially asserting his own autonomy. It’s a way of saying, "I am the one in control here; I am the master of my domain." This mindset reeks of a misplaced sense of independence—a "me, myself, and I" attitude where the individual views themselves as the center of the universe. This directly contradicts the fundamental truth that God is One. To suggest that man exists on one side and God exists on the other creates a duality that simply doesn't align with the truth. You can't have two separate powers if there is only one.

At the end of the day, a literal translation is one thing, but the actual interpretation? That’s an entirely different story.

We’re putting in all this massive effort just to get that alternative translation to catch on with the public and really sink in. But honestly? We shouldn't hold our breath expecting people to actually grasp the core meaning. It’s just too heavy for the average person to wrap their head around.

This actually explains why extreme interpretations don't hold any weight when it comes to religious law. That’s all I’ll say for now—this subject matter is massive, and I’m worried we might be drifting off-topic. Besides, your questions are legitimate, even if I don't have all the answers myself. I know a thing or two, though.

Things finally started looking up today...🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlY-J...eature=related

Lila Sun said:On the flip side, look at the logic here—Europeans tend to view the Muslim perspective on women as inherently offensive; they label it regressive, claim it violates women's rights, and so on...

I suppose defending fundamentalism requires a healthy dose of cynicism, doesn't it? You seem to have conveniently left out the parts about hanging journalists, homosexuals, and victims of sexual assault (who are assaulted precisely because their culture forbids hanging virgins).

I am in complete agreement regarding the rights aspect, but if we elevate this discussion to the level of semantics—why exactly do we expect them to tolerate our mockery of their sacred symbols, much like those controversial cartoons in Denmark, when we spend all our time dismissing them as backwards? It feels like two distinct cultures that simply fail to grasp one another, yet we feel entitled to pass judgment on them, while the moment they criticize us, we hide behind the shield of "tolerance." Are we actually being tolerant toward their values? We aren't, are we? It’s simply because we view them through the lens of Western discourse and deem them outdated.

That isn't quite right. The reason you call them backward is that you are conflating an entire group with the individuals who burn embassies and wave flags for Hitler because he was a murderer of Jews. That is the crux of the condemnation, and frankly, it stems from these quasi-intellectual leftists who lump everyone together with fundamentalists and then insist that such behavior constitutes their actual "culture."

I agree with Zizek, though I wanted to emphasize what I consider the core driver of this friction—setting aside political realities and assuming it can't all be reduced to mere linguistics, though this touches on that semantic dimension—it is the fact that these two cultures lack any mutual understanding because they don't share a common vocabulary of meaning, largely because one side is incapable of viewing the other without a heavy layer of value judgments.
This brings us back to the idea that meaningful communication necessitates at least a minimal baseline of shared definitions. ☕

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of perfectly decent Muslims who would find your labeling of this behavior as "their culture" just as objectionable as anyone else.

ironmarlin1 said:I suppose defending fundamentalism requires a healthy dose of cynicism, doesn't it? You seem to have conveniently left out the parts about hanging journalists, homosexuals, and victims of sexual assault (who are assaulted precisely because their culture forbids hanging virgins).

I am in complete agreement regarding the rights aspect, but if we elevate this discussion to the level of semantics—why exactly do we expect them to tolerate our mockery of their sacred symbols, much like those controversial cartoons in Denmark, when we spend all our time dismissing them as backwards? It feels like two distinct cultures that simply fail to grasp one another, yet we feel entitled to pass judgment on them, while the moment they criticize us, we hide behind the shield of "tolerance." Are we actually being tolerant toward their values? We aren't, are we? It’s simply because we view them through the lens of Western discourse and deem them outdated.

That isn't quite right. The reason you call them backward is that you are conflating an entire group with the individuals who burn embassies and wave flags for Hitler because he was a murderer of Jews. That is the crux of the condemnation, and frankly, it stems from these quasi-intellectual leftists who lump everyone together with fundamentalists and then insist that such behavior constitutes their actual "culture."

I agree with Zizek, though I wanted to emphasize what I consider the core driver of this friction—setting aside political realities and assuming it can't all be reduced to mere linguistics, though this touches on that semantic dimension—it is the fact that these two cultures lack any mutual understanding because they don't share a common vocabulary of meaning, largely because one side is incapable of viewing the other without a heavy layer of value judgments.
This brings us back to the idea that meaningful communication necessitates at least a minimal baseline of shared definitions. ☕

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of perfectly decent Muslims who would find your labeling of this behavior as "their culture" just as objectionable as anyone else.

That is true, though I am certainly not defending fundamentalism; I made that distinction clear. My point is simply to examine the various ways meaning is constructed and to question whose definitions we are using when we judge Islamic perspectives.
It is obvious that no ideology violating basic human rights should be tolerated, but that leads to a secondary question: who defines those basic rights, and by what authority? Is it the West? (Which is essentially the critique leveled against the UN conventions).
If you want my personal stance, I am absolutely opposed to everything you mentioned above. However, that does not mean I won't interrogate the premises upon which certain values are labeled as universal. The West frequently tends to view these issues within Islam in isolation from their actual context, or through a purely Western lens. This prevents any meaningful dialogue, which is the only thing I am trying to emphasize here.
There is also a tendency to view extremists as the statistical average 😉, leading to the assumption that all Muslims are uneducated fundamentalists, which is simply not an accurate representation.

That isn't true. You call them backward because you identify them with the people who burn embassies and flags while cheering for Hitler because he was killing Jews. That is the only condemnation being offered, and it comes from quasi-intellectual leftists who equate everyone with fundamentalists and then label that behavior as their "culture."

You haven't fully read or understood my post. I am not calling them backward; rather, I am questioning the very framework by which we—as Western culture—label them as such based on our own specific context. This does not mean I support fatwas or the stoning of women for adultery; it just means the issue is far more complex than the black-and-white rhetoric currently dominating public discourse. In fact, I believe we actually agree on this point.

As I stated, there are plenty of decent Muslims who condemn what you are labeling as their "culture" and reject such stereotyping.

I suspect you might have misunderstood me. ☕ And frankly, I don't quite follow your last objection either.
I didn't even present a definitive personal opinion here; I merely attempted to analyze whose perspective is being prioritized and what the consequences of those viewpoints are. All I am saying is that matters aren't simple enough to slap a "backward" label on Muslims just because they were outraged by the Danish cartoons. Yes, fine, they may be viewed as backward because they don't respect certain free speech principles, but from their perspective, we don't respect their symbols either. That is where the breakdown in communication occurs. This is a much too layered issue for me to draw any profound conclusions in just two posts. 🤷But if you've got some ideas—please, lay them on me 😉

Even though we've drifted completely off-topic here 😁

electrictiger70 said:That is true, though I am certainly not defending fundamentalism; I made that distinction clear. My point is simply to examine the various ways meaning is constructed and to question whose definitions we are using when we judge Islamic perspectives.
It is obvious that no ideology violating basic human rights should be tolerated, but that leads to a secondary question: who defines those basic rights, and by what authority? Is it the West? (Which is essentially the critique leveled against the UN conventions).
If you want my personal stance, I am absolutely opposed to everything you mentioned above. However, that does not mean I won't interrogate the premises upon which certain values are labeled as universal. The West frequently tends to view these issues within Islam in isolation from their actual context, or through a purely Western lens. This prevents any meaningful dialogue, which is the only thing I am trying to emphasize here.
There is also a tendency to view extremists as the statistical average 😉, leading to the assumption that all Muslims are uneducated fundamentalists, which is simply not an accurate representation.

That isn't true. You call them backward because you identify them with the people who burn embassies and flags while cheering for Hitler because he was killing Jews. That is the only condemnation being offered, and it comes from quasi-intellectual leftists who equate everyone with fundamentalists and then label that behavior as their "culture."

You haven't fully read or understood my post. I am not calling them backward; rather, I am questioning the very framework by which we—as Western culture—label them as such based on our own specific context. This does not mean I support fatwas or the stoning of women for adultery; it just means the issue is far more complex than the black-and-white rhetoric currently dominating public discourse. In fact, I believe we actually agree on this point.

As I stated, there are plenty of decent Muslims who condemn what you are labeling as their "culture" and reject such stereotyping.

I suspect you might have misunderstood me. ☕ And frankly, I don't quite follow your last objection either.
I didn't even present a definitive personal opinion here; I merely attempted to analyze whose perspective is being prioritized and what the consequences of those viewpoints are. All I am saying is that matters aren't simple enough to slap a "backward" label on Muslims just because they were outraged by the Danish cartoons. Yes, fine, they may be viewed as backward because they don't respect certain free speech principles, but from their perspective, we don't respect their symbols either. That is where the breakdown in communication occurs. This is a much too layered issue for me to draw any profound conclusions in just two posts. 🤷But if you've got some ideas—please, lay them on me 😉

Even though we've drifted completely off-topic here 😁

I have my doubts. 😁The core of the issue here is that the moment you start drawing those sharp lines between "us" and "them," you’re essentially grouping everyone together and painting them all with the same brush as the extremists. It’s a bit ironic, really, because by doing that, you end up falling right into the very trap you claim to be trying to avoid—which is labeling an entire community based on the actions of a few radicals, while acting as if we somehow lack the capacity to grasp the nuances of their actual culture.

I have a nagging suspicion that you might have missed my point entirely. ☕ I have to say, I’m truly struggling to wrap my head around that last point you made; it's just one of those arguments that seems to drift quite far from the actual heart of the matter, leaving me somewhat adrift.
I wasn't actually attempting to stake out a definitive position here; rather, I was merely trying to untangle the various perspectives at play and examine what kind of fallout occurs when one particular viewpoint clashes with another. My only real point is that we shouldn't fall into the trap of oversimplifying things by slapping a "regressive" label on Muslims just because they were deeply offended by those caricatures in Denmark. It isn't quite that black and white.

You’re essentially doing exactly what I warned you about earlier. You keep conflating the entire Muslim population with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you pivot into this grand, symbolic analysis of two inherently contradictory cultures—all while failing to distinguish between actual hooligans and the core tenets of Islamic culture itself.

Sure, I suppose they’re retreating because they feel like their right to free speech is being trampled on, but if you step back and look at it from their point of view, there’s a certain logic to it—we aren't exactly out here flying their flags or posting their symbols either, are we?

It’s a bit of a paradox, really, if you stop to think about it. They don't actually possess any symbols of their own, which sounds like a void, but the reality is far more layered than that. You see, the very absence of those symbols has effectively become a symbol in itself—a sort of silent statement. It’s all driven by this rigid desire to steer clear of idolatry, a belief that by stripping away the outward imagery, they can somehow safeguard their spiritual purity. So, in an attempt to avoid worshiping an object, they've turned nothingness into their most defining icon.

ironmarlin1 said:I have my doubts. 😁The core of the issue here is that the moment you start drawing those sharp lines between "us" and "them," you’re essentially grouping everyone together and painting them all with the same brush as the extremists. It’s a bit ironic, really, because by doing that, you end up falling right into the very trap you claim to be trying to avoid—which is labeling an entire community based on the actions of a few radicals, while acting as if we somehow lack the capacity to grasp the nuances of their actual culture.

I have a nagging suspicion that you might have missed my point entirely. ☕ I have to say, I’m truly struggling to wrap my head around that last point you made; it's just one of those arguments that seems to drift quite far from the actual heart of the matter, leaving me somewhat adrift.
I wasn't actually attempting to stake out a definitive position here; rather, I was merely trying to untangle the various perspectives at play and examine what kind of fallout occurs when one particular viewpoint clashes with another. My only real point is that we shouldn't fall into the trap of oversimplifying things by slapping a "regressive" label on Muslims just because they were deeply offended by those caricatures in Denmark. It isn't quite that black and white.

You’re essentially doing exactly what I warned you about earlier. You keep conflating the entire Muslim population with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you pivot into this grand, symbolic analysis of two inherently contradictory cultures—all while failing to distinguish between actual hooligans and the core tenets of Islamic culture itself.

Sure, I suppose they’re retreating because they feel like their right to free speech is being trampled on, but if you step back and look at it from their point of view, there’s a certain logic to it—we aren't exactly out here flying their flags or posting their symbols either, are we?

It’s a bit of a paradox, really, if you stop to think about it. They don't actually possess any symbols of their own, which sounds like a void, but the reality is far more layered than that. You see, the very absence of those symbols has effectively become a symbol in itself—a sort of silent statement. It’s all driven by this rigid desire to steer clear of idolatry, a belief that by stripping away the outward imagery, they can somehow safeguard their spiritual purity. So, in an attempt to avoid worshiping an object, they've turned nothingness into their most defining icon.

No, that is simply your interpretation of what I meant. When I used the terms "us" and "them," I was referring to the West versus the East in terms of Muslim nations and cultures. I was not implying that I view them all as fundamentalists.

You are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. You are conflating all Muslims with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you attempt a symbolic analysis of two contradictory cultures, even though you are confusing rioters with actual Islamic culture.

Look, you cannot tell me that Muslim countries share the same value system as the West—which is what you seem to be suggesting now. Are you claiming that most Muslims didn't react to those caricatures and that it was just a small group of thugs? That is a convenient thesis, but I fail to see what evidence you have to support it. It is even harder to believe when you consider how pervasive fundamentalist propaganda is in the Middle East, and there is a reason for that. I am not justifying them; I am merely stating that there is logic to what is happening when you apply a Western context to it.

The situation is paradoxical because they lack symbols. The reality is that the absence of symbols has itself become a symbol, because they are forbidden from having them in an effort to prevent idolatry.

And who exactly are you referring to as "them" now? 🤣 You have just fallen into the exact trap you accused me of—you generalized all Muslims into a single group that "is not allowed to have symbols." 😁 See how easy it is to get caught in that logic? :P
There is a certain truth to your point about the absence of symbols becoming a symbol in itself. They are not permitted to question these symbols, yet we analyze this through our own lens—that of a liberal, rationalistic legacy born from the Enlightenment, where the very concept seems absurd because it strikes at the core of the Enlightenment order.
Anyway, I don't know. It is getting too late for me to untangle these complex Muslim-Western questions. ☕

electrictiger70 said:No, that is simply your interpretation of what I meant. When I used the terms "us" and "them," I was referring to the West versus the East in terms of Muslim nations and cultures. I was not implying that I view them all as fundamentalists.

You are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. You are conflating all Muslims with those specific individuals who "took offense" at the caricatures, and then you attempt a symbolic analysis of two contradictory cultures, even though you are confusing rioters with actual Islamic culture.

Look, you cannot tell me that Muslim countries share the same value system as the West—which is what you seem to be suggesting now. Are you claiming that most Muslims didn't react to those caricatures and that it was just a small group of thugs? That is a convenient thesis, but I fail to see what evidence you have to support it. It is even harder to believe when you consider how pervasive fundamentalist propaganda is in the Middle East, and there is a reason for that. I am not justifying them; I am merely stating that there is logic to what is happening when you apply a Western context to it.

The situation is paradoxical because they lack symbols. The reality is that the absence of symbols has itself become a symbol, because they are forbidden from having them in an effort to prevent idolatry.

And who exactly are you referring to as "them" now? 🤣 You have just fallen into the exact trap you accused me of—you generalized all Muslims into a single group that "is not allowed to have symbols." 😁 See how easy it is to get caught in that logic? :P
There is a certain truth to your point about the absence of symbols becoming a symbol in itself. They are not permitted to question these symbols, yet we analyze this through our own lens—that of a liberal, rationalistic legacy born from the Enlightenment, where the very concept seems absurd because it strikes at the core of the Enlightenment order.
Anyway, I don't know. It is getting too late for me to untangle these complex Muslim-Western questions. ☕

The propaganda isn't just heavy in the East; it’s quite potent in the West as well. If you actually take a moment to See who is footing the bill for many of the Muslim communities here in America, you'll find they are largely funded by the most reactionary elements coming out of Saudi Arabia. And regarding the embassies, the reality is that the vast majority weren't the ones setting fires. Most people acted much like Americans did during the debates over joining the EU. It was all very much "What does the West want from us, those filthy liberals?"—that classic, tired rhetoric.

So, who exactly is saying "they" now?🤣 You’ve essentially fallen right into the trap you just accused me of—you've generalized all Muslims into this single group that "isn't allowed to have symbols," using that very concept as a symbol itself.😁 See how that feels when someone uses your own logic against you? :P

Well, this whole issue concerning the symbols of Muhammad applies to the Muslim community as a whole. That isn't some clever rhetorical trick; it is a fundamental fact acknowledged by Muslims everywhere.🤷

There is a certain truth to what you're saying about their absence of symbols becoming a symbol in its own right. They aren't permitted to question these icons, yet we end up viewing the entire situation through our own lens—specifically, that liberal-rationalist legacy of the Enlightenment, where the mere thought of such restrictions seems utterly absurd because it strikes at the very foundation of Enlightenment order.

To me, this radical binary you're drawing between "Western Enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own biased perspective—strikes me as rather silly. The simple truth is that even in the most traditionalist Muslim societies, people rise up against such rigid orders (take Iran, for example) entirely independent of any Western Enlightenment or American values. Therefore, claiming this is merely our specific Enlightenment viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, because they are reaching those same conclusions on their own terms, without us.

ironmarlin1 said:The propaganda isn't just heavy in the East; it’s quite potent in the West as well. If you actually take a moment to See who is footing the bill for many of the Muslim communities here in America, you'll find they are largely funded by the most reactionary elements coming out of Saudi Arabia. And regarding the embassies, the reality is that the vast majority weren't the ones setting fires. Most people acted much like Americans did during the debates over joining the EU. It was all very much "What does the West want from us, those filthy liberals?"—that classic, tired rhetoric.

So, who exactly is saying "they" now?🤣 You’ve essentially fallen right into the trap you just accused me of—you've generalized all Muslims into this single group that "isn't allowed to have symbols," using that very concept as a symbol itself.😁 See how that feels when someone uses your own logic against you? :P

Well, this whole issue concerning the symbols of Muhammad applies to the Muslim community as a whole. That isn't some clever rhetorical trick; it is a fundamental fact acknowledged by Muslims everywhere.🤷

There is a certain truth to what you're saying about their absence of symbols becoming a symbol in its own right. They aren't permitted to question these icons, yet we end up viewing the entire situation through our own lens—specifically, that liberal-rationalist legacy of the Enlightenment, where the mere thought of such restrictions seems utterly absurd because it strikes at the very foundation of Enlightenment order.

To me, this radical binary you're drawing between "Western Enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own biased perspective—strikes me as rather silly. The simple truth is that even in the most traditionalist Muslim societies, people rise up against such rigid orders (take Iran, for example) entirely independent of any Western Enlightenment or American values. Therefore, claiming this is merely our specific Enlightenment viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, because they are reaching those same conclusions on their own terms, without us.

And if there is heavy propaganda everywhere, I think we can agree on that. ☕ While it wasn't the majority burning down embassies, there is an entire network of fundamentalist organizations growing stronger by the day, fueled by a sentiment that is increasingly anti-Western. And honestly, the West's own actions are just pouring gasoline on the fire. Or should I say oil? 🤣 Meanwhile, over here, media conglomerates are piling up, condemning Muslims left and right, and God knows how far that goes. But whatever. Maya said the world was ending in 2012, so maybe we’ll all be gone before we even finish fighting each other over caricatures, oil, or whatever the next big topic is—water, perhaps? 🤣

The whole issue regarding the symbols of Muhammad applies to all Muslims. This isn't some gimmick; it's a fact that all Muslims acknowledge.

True, but not every Muslim was involved in those embassy attacks, like you mentioned earlier. When you use "they," you're implying all Muslims. Basically, we're just going in circles. 😉 I really just wanted to point out that you fell for your own linguistic trap...☕

I find this radical division between "Western enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own lens—to be ridiculous. The reality is that even in the most conservative Muslim societies, people revolt against such orders (take Iran, for example), regardless of Western enlightenment or values. So, claiming this is merely our enlightened perspective is wrong; they arrive at these conclusions independently of us.

But I never said those people don't exist there; I was focusing specifically on our perspective of the East. Is that really so hard to grasp? 🙄 I wasn't suggesting there aren't people there who see things that way; I am simply questioning whether anything today is truly value-neutral or untainted by some established system of values...
But still—the symbolic power of the West remains greater than the symbolic power of the East. Therefore, it stands to reason that the West played a much larger role in the media construction of "Islam" and "Muslims" than the reverse. It's not as if people in Iran aren't watching satellite TV. 😉While we haven't exactly seen 😉
here in America, let's be honest. The real issue remains how they interpret our policies through the lens of their own value systems... and that's a conversation that could go on forever. Relativism is a very convenient tool 🤣

electrictiger70 said:And if there is heavy propaganda everywhere, I think we can agree on that. ☕ While it wasn't the majority burning down embassies, there is an entire network of fundamentalist organizations growing stronger by the day, fueled by a sentiment that is increasingly anti-Western. And honestly, the West's own actions are just pouring gasoline on the fire. Or should I say oil? 🤣 Meanwhile, over here, media conglomerates are piling up, condemning Muslims left and right, and God knows how far that goes. But whatever. Maya said the world was ending in 2012, so maybe we’ll all be gone before we even finish fighting each other over caricatures, oil, or whatever the next big topic is—water, perhaps? 🤣

The whole issue regarding the symbols of Muhammad applies to all Muslims. This isn't some gimmick; it's a fact that all Muslims acknowledge.

True, but not every Muslim was involved in those embassy attacks, like you mentioned earlier. When you use "they," you're implying all Muslims. Basically, we're just going in circles. 😉 I really just wanted to point out that you fell for your own linguistic trap...☕

I find this radical division between "Western enlightenment" and everything else—which you claim we only view through our own lens—to be ridiculous. The reality is that even in the most conservative Muslim societies, people revolt against such orders (take Iran, for example), regardless of Western enlightenment or values. So, claiming this is merely our enlightened perspective is wrong; they arrive at these conclusions independently of us.

But I never said those people don't exist there; I was focusing specifically on our perspective of the East. Is that really so hard to grasp? 🙄 I wasn't suggesting there aren't people there who see things that way; I am simply questioning whether anything today is truly value-neutral or untainted by some established system of values...
But still—the symbolic power of the West remains greater than the symbolic power of the East. Therefore, it stands to reason that the West played a much larger role in the media construction of "Islam" and "Muslims" than the reverse. It's not as if people in Iran aren't watching satellite TV. 😉While we haven't exactly seen 😉
here in America, let's be honest. The real issue remains how they interpret our policies through the lens of their own value systems... and that's a conversation that could go on forever. Relativism is a very convenient tool 🤣

It seems to me that we’ve reached a point where the West stands as the sole bulwark against fundamentalism. To suggest that our very opposition to such radicalism is what actually fuels its rise feels, frankly, a bit detached from reality. It’s like arguing that trying to put out a fire only makes the flames burn hotter—it just doesn't track with how things work on the ground. 🙄

Look, we really need to stop this circular logic because we’re just spinning our wheels at this point. You're making this sweeping generalization that implies every single Muslim was responsible for those embassy riots, which simply isn't the case—contrary to what you were claiming earlier. When you use "they" in that context, it creates this massive, unfair umbrella that blankets an entire population under the actions of a few. It's like blaming every driver in Chicago for one guy running a red light; it just doesn't hold up. We aren't actually moving the conversation forward if we keep falling back into these broad strokes. 😉 I really just wanted to tell you that you managed to trip me up with one of those linguistic cleverness tricks—the very same kind of rhetorical trap that ended up ensnaring you in the first place.☕

I didn't "fall for some linguistic trick," as some might suggest; rather, I was simply stating a truth that applies broadly to the entire Muslim community—to "them," if you will. 😉They’ll go out of their way to claim that their entire culture is essentially defined by the chaos we see unfolding in places like Iran, Libya, Somalia, or Saudi Arabia—as if those regions serve as some sort of cultural blueprint for them. It’s a peculiar kind of prejudice, really; they’re practicing a specific brand of racism that they themselves refuse to even acknowledge, much like the kind of "positive" examples you see popping up here on the forums all the time.

Now, I wasn’t suggesting that those types of people don't exist over there at all; rather, I was focusing my attention specifically on our own perspective regarding the East. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? 🙄 I never actually claimed that there aren't people over there who view things through that specific lens; I was simply posing a question about whether anything truly exists anymore—whether there is any ground left that isn't inherently value-neutral or, more importantly, untainted by some pre-existing system of values.

You’re making that same point again—that there are people who view things through "that specific lens"—but you’re failing to mention that this isn't some exclusive Western perspective. In fact, the very fact that they arrived at these conclusions entirely independently of Western influence proves just how flawed that radical relativism is. It’s the kind of intellectual dodge you see naive leftists using to justify, say, the expansion of a nuclear program in Iran. Their logic always follows the same tired pattern: they either lean into this extreme relativism where everyone is supposedly on equal footing, or they start deifying Western propaganda, treating it like an all-powerful God while completely ignoring the actual, tangible dangers staring them in the face.

But let’s be real—if the symbolic weight of the West still carries more punch than anything coming out of the East, then it stands to reason that the West has played a far larger role in constructing the media narrative surrounding "Islam" and "Muslims" than the other way around... As if people over in Iran aren't sitting there watching Western satellite broadcasts 😉 while we haven't even caught a glimpse of what's playing on Iranian TV 😉
The truth is, we have to consider how they interpret our programming through the lens of their own value systems... and we could go on like this forever. Relativism is a very convenient tool 🤣

Even when you're looking at television programming from Iran, it isn't hard to find clips on YouTube. You can actually find footage from their national broadcaster where a Jew pours water over a swastika, only for it to transform into the Star of David. Unfortunately, this kind of relativism is exactly what we should be avoiding, because it ends up throwing all Muslims into the same basket as those murderous regimes in the Middle East or Northeast Africa.

Sean Cruz said:Pantheism essentially rejects the traditional concept of God. The idea that everything—the entire universe—is God, and that we ourselves are part of that divinity, would be considered blasphemy under any standard monotheistic framework. On the other hand, spirituality doesn't necessarily have to be religious. We all strive to grasp the meaning of our existence; pantheists simply find that meaning in the world around them and within themselves. However, their perspective doesn't align with conventional religious definitions of God. In fact, they often avoid using the word "God" altogether. That’s why I used the term "spiritual atheism."

P.S. To me, Kastanedina suggests that every individual carries the truth deep within their subconscious. Yet, because this realization can feel so overwhelming and leave one feeling helpless, people fight to keep it buried where it belongs—it's worth its weight in gold. Even Jesus said—know the truth, and it will set you free.

I suppose Islam and pantheism aren't quite as disconnected as they might seem at first glance. 😁

Essentially, the entire manifest world is somewhat like waves. Everything emanates from God. So, one could argue that nothing truly exists outside of Him. As for how close these two ideas actually are, maybe the film behind the scenes will provide the best explanation. 😉

Back to the topic: regarding Wilders' Fitna, there is a discussion about the movie happening over on the religion subforum. 🙂 Cheers.

rowdyhawk10 said:I suppose Islam and pantheism aren't quite as disconnected as they might seem at first glance. 😁

Essentially, the entire manifest world is somewhat like waves. Everything emanates from God. So, one could argue that nothing truly exists outside of Him. As for how close these two ideas actually are, maybe the film behind the scenes will provide the best explanation. 😉

Back to the topic: regarding Wilders' Fitna, there is a discussion about the movie happening over on the religion subforum. 🙂 Cheers.

I'll check out the film. 🙂

ontopic: regarding Wilders's Sedition, people are discussing the film over on the religion subforum right now. 🙂

Right now, I have so many "pending" replies that I don't have the bandwidth to dive into that thread too. I also have other messages I need to get back to, so feel free to link my previous posts from here if they end up being useful (keeping in mind my analysis is linguistic rather than theological). 🙂