I became a muslim last night

[isitme]

so you think Islam is defined by what this or that muslim does and that's how it should be judged, not on the actual articles of faith or theology?

hmmm that's a bit mental, it would be like me converting to catholicism (actually as lapsed catholic I would be simply taking it up again) based on the fact I know quite a few gay people who still go to mass, a few divorcees and a fuck lot of catholics who masturbate, use contraception and generally compartmentalise their faith whilst they get on with living.

I mean it would just be pure bigotry for me to judge Roman Catholicism on it's actual teachings about women, gays, contraception and a whole host of other issues.

well that seems mental to you, maybe when you grow up a bit it won't. i'm not saying that you are bigoted for not going back to catholicism i'm just saying i wouldn't be shouting at you for doing it

 

[isitme]

You never answered my question, would you convert to Islam and if not why not?

yes i did, i said

i can't possibly say what i would do in that situation. if i had a family with a muslim girl and converting would be the best thing for my family i would probably put that before my own prejudices about the religion but i have no experience of muslims beyond the odd person i've chatted to briefly that i know of so i don't know....

 

[phildwyer]

punishable by death....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#In_Islam

and claiming faith which you do not have for your own personal reasons is considered by most muslims to be a form of apostasy....

Good point, and one of which I took account in making my decision to remain in the faith of my fathers. They don't do that sort of thing where I live--yet. But I suspect that the laws of the Muslim world will change quite radically in my lifetime, and not in a good way.

 

[ohmyliver]

Judaism and Islam both require male converts to have their foreskins hacked off with blunt instruments.

not islam. It's considered a good idea but not mandatory. In fact it's not even mentioned in the Koran.

 

[cesare]

Yeah they have fallen out with the Vatican many times, which to me is the times when they have taken themselves seriously, or rather taken their oaths and principles more seriously than many including the Vatican reckon they should.

I was only trying to give a pithy response regarding the transgressive potentiality of the law taking the law seriously, like the cop in a police corruption movie who finds himself an outlaw by following the letter of the law and not overlooking the little details that facilitate it's 'normal' functioning.

I see you edited after my response, I didn't see that until later. But I'm now confused - do you see the Jesuits in a relatively positive light with regard to the outcomes of where they have stood firm, or do you see them as jobsworths as implied in your second paragraph above?

 

[phildwyer]

And for your information Zizek does have quite a bit of interesting things to say on such matters

Revol, you're aware that Zizek is now calling for a return to Christianity, yes?

 

[kyser_soze]

Revol, you're aware that Zizek is now calling for a return to Christianity, yes?

TBF that could be some kind of giant situationist prank designed to shock his fanboiz out of their complacency.

 

[revol68]

Isn't that how all things should ultimately be judged? By their effects?

Well no, when I judge a book I've read I judge it on what I thought of it, I don't simply judge it on how others received it, because that is absurd, it leads to an infinite loop of deferred judgement, where no one actually formulates their own thoughts on it but instead delegates to the illusionary 'Other'. This brings me right back to the 'death of ideology' thing, whereby instead of arguing to try and change peoples minds about matters, we patronisingly accept it as simply 'their truth'.

I mean how does one judge Marx's writings, by their effects and if so what effects? By the Soviet Union, Cuba or China? By the Communist Parties of the world?

How do we judge Islam? By Hira from Big Brother, or by Osama Bin Laden? Do we judge it by the tolerance of multicultural Istanbul or Moorish Spain, or by Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran?

It is obvious that these are all very different scenarios and al represent different effects of Islam in different times and places. Doesn't that mean we should seek to judge Islam by what it actually teaches and those teachings can't simply be swept under the carpet because they are inconvenient to certain political agenda's be they fundamentalists or liberals.

 

[phildwyer]

TBF that could be some kind of giant situationist prank designed to shock his fanboiz out of their complacency.

Nah, its been implicit in his thought all along. He's a Hegelian by training.

 

[isitme]

Well no, when I judge a book I've read I judge it on what I thought of it, I don't simply judge it on how others received it, because that is absurd, it leads to an infinite loop of deferred judgement, where no one actually formulates their own thoughts on it but instead delegates to the illusionary 'Other'. This brings me right back to the 'death of ideology' thing, whereby instead of arguing to try and change peoples minds about matters, we patronisingly accept it as simply 'their truth'.

I mean how does one judge Marx's writings, by their effects and if so what effects? By the Soviet Union, Cuba or China? By the Communist Parties of the world?

How do we judge Islam? By Hira from Big Brother, or by Osama Bin Laden? Do we judge it by the tolerance of multicultural Istanbul or Moorish Spain, or by Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran?

It is obvious that these are all very different scenarios and al represent different effects of Islam in different times and places. Doesn't that mean we should seek to judge Islam by what it actually teaches and those teachings can't simply be swept under the carpet because they are inconvenient to certain political agenda's be they fundamentalists or liberals.

so you're a student of the koran?

 

[revol68]

Revol, you're aware that Zizek is now calling for a return to Christianity, yes?

I'll think you'll find he has called for a return to the liberatory nature of the split that is fundamental in Christianity over new age Buddhism and the like.

He remains an ardent atheist.

Maybe you should read his books instead of going on silly sound bites from publishers.

 

[revol68]

well that seems mental to you, maybe when you grow up a bit it won't. i'm not saying that you are bigoted for not going back to catholicism i'm just saying i wouldn't be shouting at you for doing it

So you don't see a difference between Islam a religion and what particular muslims are like, that seems very silly to me. As I said I could judge Islam by Hira from Big Brother or I could judge it by Osama Bin Laden, how could I decide who is more representative of the Islamic faith, would I not need to judge them against the actual teachings of the Koran?

As for insinuating I grow up, wise up you muppet, I'm the one mature enough to actually grasp the difference between a religion or ideology and what particular individuals and groups that claim to subscribe to it actually do.

 

[revol68]

so you're a student of the koran?

Eh no I'm not but I think any judgements on Islam as a faith should be more centred on it's actual teachings than on what things individual muslims get up to. Now whilst I'm not a scholar of the Koran I'm pretty certain that it like the other religions within the Judeo Christian sphere it is riven with sexism, homophobia and all sorts of arbitrary practices and forms of social control, which would seem to be borne out by the actually teachings and practices of the Muslim institutions, much as the sexism and homophobia of the Catholic church is.

 

[revol68]

I see you edited after my response, I didn't see that until later. But I'm now confused - do you see the Jesuits in a relatively positive light with regard to the outcomes of where they have stood firm, or do you see them as jobsworths as implied in your second paragraph above?

You misunderstand me I'm comparing them standing firm to the cop who finds himself on the wrong side of the law because he refuses to overlook the blindspots and double standards that facilitate the normal functioning of the law. I'm not calling the cop who does this a jobsworth, because it isn't the job he is being loyal to eg the orders, the rituals etc but the Law itself, much like the Jesuit who puts the teachings of Christ above actual Church.

 

[killer b]

another blow struck for rational atheism. no wonder everyone loves 'em - the shouting is sooo endearing.

 

[revol68]

another blow struck for rational atheism. no wonder everyone loves 'em - the shouting is sooo endearing.

Yeah cos those religious types are soo delightfully mild mannered whilst condemning you to hell for pissing off the commands of their supernatural daddy figure.

Also I'm not shouting I post in this style on everything, from Man United to Big Brother.

 

[phildwyer]

I'll think you'll find he has called for a return to the liberatory nature of the split that is fundamental in Christianity over new age Buddhism and the like.

The what?

 

[cesare]

You misunderstand me I'm comparing them standing firm to the cop who finds himself on the wrong side of the law because he refuses to overlook the blindspots and double standards that facilitate the normal functioning of the law. I'm not calling the cop who does this a jobsworth, because it isn't the job he is being loyal to eg the orders, the rituals etc but the Law itself, much like the Jesuit who puts the teachings of Christ above actual Church.

Ah, OK, I get you now, cheers. They are quite interesting though ... largest order in the RC church and yet the ones that have held firm against the Vatican the most (my impression). It almost seems as if they are of the church but also outside it.

 

[revol68]

The what?

May I suggest you read some of his books instead of spouting bullshit about him calling for a return to Christianity per se.

He calls for a return to the notion of the split between the subject and the object of the world, and argues that Christ's death on the cross is an Act that allows for the creation of a new subject because it is an external act that changes the conditions that sustain the self, he argues this is a more revolutionary position than the new age wankathon about introspection and detaching yourself from your desires (desires of course being what sustain the subject object split).

 

[phildwyer]

May I suggest you read some of his books instead of spouting bullshit about him calling for a return to Christianity per se.

He calls for a return to the notion of the split between the subject and the object of the world, and argues that Christ's death on the cross is an Act that allows for the creation of a new subject because it is an external act that changes the conditions that sustain the self, he argues this is a more revolutionary position than the new age wankathon about introspection and detaching yourself from your desires (desires of course being what sustain the subject object split).

In other words he calls for a return to Christianity. As I said.

 

[killer b]

Yeah cos those religious types are soo delightfully mild mannered whilst condemning you to hell for pissing off the commands of their supernatural daddy figure.

Also I'm not shouting I post in this style on everything, from Man United to Big Brother.

i know. that's why everyone loves you so.

 

[cesare]

May I suggest you read some of his books instead of spouting bullshit about him calling for a return to Christianity per se.

He calls for a return to the notion of the split between the subject and the object of the world, and argues that Christ's death on the cross is an Act that allows for the creation of a new subject because it is an external act that changes the conditions that sustain the self, he argues this is a more revolutionary position than the new age wankathon about introspection and detaching yourself from your desires (desires of course being what sustain the subject object split).

Isn't that just a cobwebby way of saying what Christianity has said all along

 

[revol68]

Isn't that just a cobwebby way of saying what Christianity has said all along

eh well yeah except it kind of jettisons the whole belief in an interventionist god who literally gave up his son as a zombie.

It's essentially a materialist reading of christianity, yes but since it rejects the whole God thing it's pretty far from being a call to actual Christianity.

 

[cesare]

eh well yeah except it kind of jettisons the whole belief in an interventionist god who literally gave up his son as a zombie.

It's essentially a materialist reading of christianity, yes but since it rejects the whole God thing it's pretty far from being a call to actual Christianity.

How can it reject the God thing without rejecting the Jesus thing too?

Also, entertaining the notion of Jesus and his Act of death on the cross is pretty fundamental to Christianity, no matter how it's wrapped up/interpreted.

 

[revol68]

How can it reject the God thing without rejecting the Jesus thing too?

Also, entertaining the notion of Jesus and his Act of death on the cross is pretty fundamental to Christianity, no matter how it's wrapped up/interpreted.

It's only a reading of it, Zizek (and Bloch and Benjamin before him) don't literally believe Christ was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. They are simply giving it a materialist reading in the same way you could read any piece of fiction, albeit this is a fictional text deeply woven into the fabric of our cultural and intellectual landscape.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's only a reading of it, Zizek (and Bloch and Benjamin before him) don't literally believe Christ was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. They are simply giving it a materialist reading in the same way you could read any piece of fiction, albeit this is a fictional text deeply woven into the fabric of our cultural and intellectual landscape.

Call me thick, but that does sound like spinning essays out of 'lip service'.

 

[Crispy]

(sorry to butt into the lofty conversation)

What, just snap your fingers, say some words and poof, you're a muslim? I hope either a)You really fuckin mean it or b)Are good at keeping secrets.

 

[cesare]

It's only a reading of it, Zizek (and Bloch and Benjamin before him) don't literally believe Christ was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins. They are simply giving it a materialist reading in the same way you could read any piece of fiction, albeit this is a fictional text deeply woven into the fabric of our cultural and intellectual landscape.

How clear is it that Zizek considers it fiction?

And if he does consider it fiction, why is he engaging with it?

 

[revol68]

Call me thick, but that does sound like spinning essays out of lip service'.

Nah it's just an essay meant to reassert a kind of materialist kernel within Christianity against the new age Buddhism and the like which whilst superficially claiming to more materialist are infact deeply idealist. It's essentially a continuation of the work of Bloch and Benjamin and I think Zizek uses it quite well to illustrate key parts of his thought.

 

[cesare]

Nah it's just an essay meant to reassert a kind of materialist kernel within Christianity against the new age Buddhism and the like which whilst superficially claiming to more materialist are infact deeply idealist. It's essentially a continuation of the work of Bloch and Benjamin and I think Zizek uses it quite well to illustrate key parts of his thought.

What's the essay called? And is it stand-alone or set within an ongoing line of thought?