Rant on Islam comments

[2xx1xy1JD]

On a number of threads here, on Facebook and on the news, I keep seeing the same discussion. It goes something like this:

A: Islam is the worst religion ever! Keep the Muslim refugees out/Don't let a Muslim become president/Give extra restrictions or security screening. The religion is totally backward, Judeo-Christian values are so much better, it's a violent terrorist-supporting religion.

B: Islamophobia! The Bible is more violent than the Quran. Look at fundies/the LRA/the Crusades.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Meanwhile, everyone forgets that it's pretty hard to make generalizations about religions with more than a billion followers, or draw any conclusions from looking at a religious text alone without any regard for surrounding traditions/rulings/practices/history.

Most importantly - both groups utterly fail to look at actual trends today, or identify real sources of extremism or moderation. You know - stuff that might be helpful.

[morri]

I agree. Iyt is particularly interesting that it happens here were we mostly snark on christian fundies who are no better than their muslim counterparts in terms of openness , bigotry etc.

[2xx1xy1JD]

For starters, it would be helpful to look at:

1. The role of secularism.

Much of Christian history wasn't particularly rosy. The rise of secularism, though, meant that the powers of the established Churches were reduced. After everyone got sick of fighting religious wars, and after religious dissidents founded the United States, you had more of a notion of tolerance and a civil society that saw religion as a matter of individual conscience and not something to be controlled by government.

There are Muslim countries which embraced secularism - and there are those where secularism did exist, but then fell under attack.

2. Oral religious traditions, rulings and teachings.

Judaism is more than the Old Testament.

Christianity is more than the Bible.

Islam is more than the Quran.

3. Look at the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its spin-offs. Also look at the non-religious factors that fueled its growth.

4. Look at Syed Qutb - his writings on the West and jihad, and his influence. Look at who is publishing and distributing his works today.

5. Look at the connections between Saudi Arabia, World Association of Muslim Youth, the Muslim Student Associations and the North American Islamic Trust. Check out what they are publishing, what particular version of Islam they are promoting, what they are funding, and the extent of their growth in the past few decades.

6. Look at both smaller/dissident Muslim sects, and their treatment by the larger sects.

7. In the Shi'ite world, look at the influence of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his teachings, and where they are being spread today.

[Walking Cat Bed]

I think one of the big things to remember (which I have to do, too) is that any given news story is about an individual, not a "body of believers" (so to speak). For example: Josh Duggar is an unrepentant child molester, adulterer, and dirtbag. Rich Mullins was, by all accounts, kind, compassionate, and wanted nothing more than to share his gift (songwriting and music-making) with the world while helping those in need. Both claim Christianity, but are very different people who engaged in very different actions.

There are examples of wonderful and terrible people from every religion and ideology. I won't assume that everyone of a particular belief system is a Good Person any more than I'd assume they were abusive or intended to do harm to others.

[sawasdee]

2xx1xy1JD - thank you for measured and knowledgable posts. I sometimes have absolutely no experience that relates to your writings , but you push me to investigate. This is why I became interested in this forum - people of education, experience and knowledge who can expand my little world. Again, thank you.

[PregnantPornStar]

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that it is a "hot button topic" now. Much like vaccines, there are a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to Islam and people often know little about the religion. Even the religious often know little about the history and changes in their faith. I by no means am intending on bashing anyone or painting them as idiots, but 9/11 changed the world.

I am assuming that most of us are outsiders and are not Muslim. We are all looking in. Discussions need to happen with people who do have an inside perspective and can speak out about reform that does need to happen from within. I don't think any of us are denying that reform needs to happen in Islam and that it does have a long way to go. There are Muslims or ex-Muslims who do speak out and want to see changes. We all know that Christianity isn't going anywhere, but I think it is fair to say it is even less likely that Islam is going anywhere.

There are a lot of very serious human rights issues within Islam and in particular, in Islamic countries. Indonesia is probably one with the least issues, and there are still plenty of human rights issues there. I am not denying that we don't have issues in the Western World, but we don't need to ask our husbands permission to take birth control, we are not owned by our husband, we can wear what we want in public, we don't have to worry about homosexuals being thrown off buildings and if someone does kill someone for being gay, they can expect to spend a their lives in prison. Ignoring the issues only allows these things to continue.

While we are all over here talking about Ahmed, Maajid Nawaz is being called accusing him of "Islamaphobia" and calling him a "Porch Monkey" among other things. All for working with Sam Harris for reform.

Discussions are good. Honest discussions are better.

[nolongerIFBx]

I have said more than once lately, "I'm a Christian but I don't want to be judged by what people think of Westboro so I'm not going to judge every Muslim by his extremist counterparts."

[FundieFarmer]

I have said more than once lately, "I'm a Christian but I don't want to be judged by what people think of Westboro so I'm not going to judge every Muslim by his extremist counterparts."

I've made this argument too. I feel like a lot of the pushback I've gotten from it is from more closed-minded, older individuals...like Mother FF :lol:

[PregnantPornStar]

I have said more than once lately, "I'm a Christian but I don't want to be judged by what people think of Westboro so I'm not going to judge every Muslim by his extremist counterparts."

I am not saying there are not a lot of Fundie Christians, but I do think there is a difference. We are talking about speech (albeit hateful and disgusting speech) vs people connecting extremists within Islam to violence. But I get your point, that you want to look at people as individuals. To take that further, I think it is important to discuss what is good or bad about the individuals when discussing and trying to find how one's faith works within a humanistic and modern world.

[Walking Cat Bed]

I would say advocating the beating of children because they mispronounce a word, don't say "hi Mommy" cheerfully on command, or sending them to schools or camps to beat them back into submission (for such crimes as being gay or having an anxiety disorder) or abandoning adopted children because they're not perfectly happy and exceedingly grateful is extremely violent.

So is blowing up a government building or murdering children at their school or murdering doctors who provide abortion services.

Fundamentalist Christians in America are just as violent as they want to say Muslims extremists are.

[FundieFarmer]

Agreed, WCB. The problem is that they haven't been acknowledged on a larger scale because the violent acts haven't (for the most part) been wide-scale acts of violence.

A group of beaten children does not get the same press and windfall as an attacked building, and mainstream Christians are content to sit back and say those people are the outliers. They don't understand that while they get shelter because Christian violent outliers have flown below the radar, mainstream Muslims receive hatred and vitriol because Islamic violent outliers committed their acts on a giant and visible scale.

I can pull up some of the notes I have from a course on terrorism & counterterrorism I took about a year ago that speaks to this. The course is online somewhere too so if I find it, I'll post it here. It discusses in-depth much of what we've brought up here.

[PregnantPornStar]

The abuse within Christianity is it's own brand of effed up. I do find it odd that there is a desperate need to "fix" an ungrateful child or "gay" family member. Those are obviously only a couple of examples, but the holier than thou attitude from Christians is disturbing to say the least. I am surrounded by a lot of Christians and move frequently. I can easily say that simply mentioning that I am not religious when asked and pressed for an answer, I have easily been dismissed as someone not worthy of their friendship. Being that I am in a community where we are all in the same situation and move frequently, it is frustrating.

I do think there is something to be said that we don't live in a country where our laws are the bible. That breeds and entirely different culture and brings up a "check your privilege" thing. The very idea of biblical law is absolutely terrifying. I do recall having a conversation with a very Christian friend who was toying with the idea of us going back to Old Testament laws...and contemplating the possibility of a better world. I was horrified and told her so, pointing to exactly why that wouldn't work (Sharia Law was, of course, my example) She quickly recanted and seemed horrified that she even thought such a thing.

So, thank goodness we can have dialog like that without worrying about getting in trouble for it. Scary stuff.

[Terrie]

I am not saying there are not a lot of Fundie Christians, but I do think there is a difference. We are talking about speech (albeit hateful and disgusting speech) vs people connecting extremists within Islam to violence. But I get your point, that you want to look at people as individuals. To take that further, I think it is important to discuss what is good or bad about the individuals when discussing and trying to find how one's faith works within a humanistic and modern world.

Speech? Um, I'm looking at Waco, Oklahoma City (a response to what happened at Waco), the Atlanta Olympic bombing, the murder of Dr. Tiller, (as a very small sampling) and wondering "Where the hell is the speech? all I see is lots of killing."

[formergothardite]

Fundamental Christians haven't had the opportunity to build a country built on their fucked up beliefs. If they did it would be just as terrifying as the extreme Muslim countries. Even in this country fundie Christians do some really, really awful things and sometimes it isn't even illegal.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I would say advocating the beating of children because they mispronounce a word, don't say "hi Mommy" cheerfully on command, or sending them to schools or camps to beat them back into submission (for such crimes as being gay or having an anxiety disorder) or abandoning adopted children because they're not perfectly happy and exceedingly grateful is extremely violent.

So is blowing up a government building or murdering children at their school or murdering doctors who provide abortion services.

Fundamentalist Christians in America are just as violent as they want to say Muslims extremists are.

Some of the violence is connected to similar intolerant religious mindsets and teachings. Some language and terms and citations change, but the underlying messages can be surprisingly similar.

On a societal level, this is a good example of the importance of secular government and civil rights. Many of the things mentioned (severe beating of children, blowing up buildings, murdering abortion doctors) are illegal in the United States, and are prosecuted. Some of the things that are still permitted are allowed due to the influence of religious lobby groups. It's reasonable to fear what would happen without the protection of the Constitution and civil rights. It's also important, though, to acknowledge that having those civil rights is a form of privilege. The worst-case scenario, nightmare dystopia of A Handmaid's Tale is a current reality for millions of women, who are living under regimes that don't provide them protection.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Some of the violence is connected to similar intolerant religious mindsets and teachings. Some language and terms and citations change, but the underlying messages can be surprisingly similar.

On a societal level, this is a good example of the importance of secular government and civil rights. Many of the things mentioned (severe beating of children, blowing up buildings, murdering abortion doctors) are illegal in the United States, and are prosecuted. Some of the things that are still permitted are allowed due to the influence of religious lobby groups. It's reasonable to fear what would happen without the protection of the Constitution and civil rights. It's also important, though, to acknowledge that having those civil rights is a form of privilege. The worst-case scenario, nightmare dystopia of A Handmaid's Tale is a current reality for millions of women, who are living under regimes that don't provide them protection.

I guess the point I wanted to make (between classes and with lots of distractions) was this: violent people are violent people. Some claim Christianity as justification, some claim Islam, some claim atheism or their own deity. People who want to harm others will, and they'll use whatever justification they can fit with those intentions. And if someone has a psychological disorder that lends toward violent fanaticism or obsessive devotion...Whatever religious beliefs nourish those inclinations, especially if psychiatric care is maligned, will exacerbate those issues.

[Toothfairy]

The media is the worst. Christians do a lot of things but you do group them all together.

[Clementine]

Excellent post 2xx1xy1JD .

I am speaking from a European perspective and a big part of the problem here is that it is the big muslim organizations that get a lot of attention and that politicians choose to work with. More often than not, they are funded by Saudi or the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore have a very hardcore view on islam, more or less visible to outsiders.

Numerous politicians have been to the big MB mosque, none have visited the Bosnian moderate imam who uses his own basement as a mosque for his fellow countrymen who live in exile. The more moderate imams or organizations gets no foreign funding and are struggling to make ends meet and don't have the money or organizational skills to get attention in the press, from politicians. It's probably not even something they are particularly interested in, they just want to go on with their business.

That's a huge problem that should be discussed more imo.

I also think that so many people, including politicians, have very little understanding of how many brances of islam there are and how different they are. It's just not one big islam where you can lump all the muslims together.

I read a blogpost from a young muslim woman who was so tired of hearing how great it must be for her that a huge mosque was being built in her hometown. Her reply was "thanks, but I'm from a smaller muslim movement and the people at the big mosque are the people that use to kill us". The mosque is sunni and she was shia, if I remember correctly she was Alawite, same as president Al-Assad in Syria.

[latraviata]

Excellent post 2xx1xy1JD .

I am speaking from a European perspective and a big part of the problem here is that it is the big muslim organizations that get a lot of attention and that politicians choose to work with. More often than not, they are funded by Saudi or the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore have a very hardcore view on islam, more or less visible to outsiders.

Numerous politicians have been to the big MB mosque, none have visited the Bosnian moderate imam who uses his own basement as a mosque for his fellow countrymen who live in exile. The more moderate imams or organizations gets no foreign funding and are struggling to make ends meet and don't have the money or organizational skills to get attention in the press, from politicians. It's probably not even something they are particularly interested in, they just want to go on with their business.

That's a huge problem that should be discussed more imo.

I also think that so many people, including politicians, have very little understanding of how many brances of islam there are and how different they are. It's just not one big islam where you can lump all the muslims together.

I read a blogpost from a young muslim woman who was so tired of hearing how great it must be for her that a huge mosque was being built in her hometown. Her reply was "thanks, but I'm from a smaller muslim movement and the people at the big mosque are the people that use to kill us". The mosque is sunni and she was shia, if I remember correctly she was Alawite, same as president Al-Assad in Syria.

Alevis is a very small minority and are not considered to be muslims by the Sunni and Shiites they have to fear for their lives. Alevism is a very liberal (no head scarves, equal rights for women and no mosques) and non violent branch of islam, apparently Assad is an exception, but his opponents aren't exactly sweethearts either.

[Clementine]

Alevis is a very small minority and are not considered to be muslims by the Sunni and Shiites they have to fear for their lives. Alevism is a very liberal (no head scarves, equal rights for women and no mosques) and non violent branch of islam, apparently Assad is an exception, but his opponents aren't exactly sweethearts either.

Yes, and I think they believe in reincarnation and therefore are seen as complete heathens by both shia and sunnis.

[Cleopatra7]

Fundamental Christians haven't had the opportunity to build a country built on their fucked up beliefs. If they did it would be just as terrifying as the extreme Muslim countries. Even in this country fundie Christians do some really, really awful things and sometimes it isn't even illegal.

The Duggars wouldn't have been as successful as they were if they didn't have mainstream or moderate Christians supporting them. Along the way, they spouted extreme political views that would have gotten them branded as extremist had they belonged to any other religion. Instead, People and E! cooed over them as "old-fashioned" and "wholesome." It was only when another tabloid thought to investigate the rumors about Josh being a molester that the truth about the Duggars' beliefs was finally unmasked.

While acts of outright terrorism are thankfully rare among fundamentalist Christians, a more common tactic is using the machinery of government to get their beliefs turned into law. If you live in a blue state, you might not feel it so much, but if you live in a red state, you can definitely feel their influence, from onerous laws governing abortion access to whether evolution can be taught in public schools. Most posters probably know about how Catholic hospitals can deny care for certain procedures or ignore final directives that conflict with church teachings. From this perspective, Christian fundamentalists are quite violent, but use the force of the state to cloak their machinations in political legitimacy. Discrimination is nothing less than institutionalized violence with the aid of the legal system.

[samurai_sarah]

For starters, it would be helpful to look at:

1. The role of secularism.

Much of Christian history wasn't particularly rosy. The rise of secularism, though, meant that the powers of the established Churches were reduced. After everyone got sick of fighting religious wars, and after religious dissidents founded the United States, you had more of a notion of tolerance and a civil society that saw religion as a matter of individual conscience and not something to be controlled by government.

There are Muslim countries which embraced secularism - and there are those where secularism did exist, but then fell under attack.

(snip)

To add to the role of secularism, Talal Asad (1993) argues in "Genealogy of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam" John Hopkins University Press that secularism is an inherently Christian concept. It starts with Jesus saying to render upon Caesar what belongs to Caesar, thus removing religion from the realm of politics. Bear in mind that he doesn't say that it worked out that way historically, but that there is a Christian justification for the division between state and religion, coming from JC himself.

He posits that this idea does not exist in Islam, which makes secularism difficult to translate to a societal setting dominated by Islam. Very, very roughly, he's saying that Western ideas of secularism don't work well in societies dominated by Islam, because secularism is a Christian idea. Right or wrong, it's an interesting idea that he presents about the pervasiveness of philosophies, religious origins and lasting effects. If nothing else, it's food for thought.

[Terrie]

I have to wonder how rare Christian terrorism really is. I think it's more that we don't emphasize the Christian part the way we do Islam with those groups.

[Cleopatra7]

To add to the role of secularism, Talal Asad (1993) argues in "Genealogy of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam" John Hopkins University Press that secularism is an inherently Christian concept. It starts with Jesus saying to render upon Caesar what belongs to Caesar, thus removing religion from the realm of politics. Bear in mind that he doesn't say that it worked out that way historically, but that there is a Christian justification for the division between state and religion, coming from JC himself.

He posits that this idea does not exist in Islam, which makes secularism difficult to translate to a societal setting dominated by Islam. Very, very roughly, he's saying that Western ideas of secularism don't work well in societies dominated by Islam, because secularism is a Christian idea. Right or wrong, it's an interesting idea that he presents about the pervasiveness of philosophies, religious origins and lasting effects. If nothing else, it's food for thought.

I'm familiar with Asad's work, and I'm not too impressed by it. Many traditionally Islamic countries were actually more secular 50+ years ago than they are today. For much of the 20th century, Bangladesh, for example, had a very robust secular culture, something that Islamists are trying to snuff out. There are several factors that are responsible for the current anti-secular attitude in many Islamic countries. First, there is the perceived belief that democracy has been a failure and only a religious government can work. If the Cold War hadn't been going on in the mid-twentieth century and the US constantly interfering in the domestic policies of Islamic countries, perhaps these nations' experiments with democracy might have been more successful. I guess we'll never know. Second, the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia gave the Wahabbi establishment almost unlimited funding to spread their version of Islam across the globe. Third, while Asad says that "disciplines" in Islam have remained the same from the beginning of the religion, a quick survey of folk religious practices during the Ottoman Empire and in non-Arab Islamic cultures reveals that there was a lot of regional variation in how Islam was practiced; after all, Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab wouldn't have had a need to reform anything if all the Muslims he met were doing things exactly how Muhammad had done them.

Secularism in general is a relatively new concept, whether you live in a traditionally Christian or a traditionally Islamic society. On paper, at least, the Catholic church still doesn't believe in secularism and only reluctantly accepts it because it no longer has the ability to fight it off like it did in the nineteenth century. Even in the West, secularism is somewhat inconsistent. The UK is technically a theocracy, although its culture is much more secular than the US. The US Constitution is secular, but it's not uncommon for lawmakers to drone on about how their personal relationship with Jesus has laid it upon their hearts to do X, Y, or Z.

[nausicaa]

I have to wonder how rare Christian terrorism really is. I think it's more that we don't emphasize the Christian part the way we do Islam with those groups.

While I wouldn't argue with the idea that Islamic terrorism is more common than Christian terrorism, I have two words for people who think Christian terrorism doesn't and wouldn't happen: Eric Rudolph.

And he wasn't isolated in his beliefs. In the rural parts of North Carolina where he was believed to be hiding out, some shops would have signs up that said "Run Rudolph, Run!"