Rant on Islam comments

[OkToBeTakei]

I think it's a quick instinctive reaction, that is resolved almost immediately. Like OKTBT,, I had the same reaction in the 70s and 80s to Northern Irish accents, and I don't think I need help - it is a brief, irrational moment, recognised as such by me. A little passive- aggressive dig, maybe? What worries me are those for whom it is not a brief moment, and who filter all their feelings about Muslims through it.

ETA I wonder if they are wearing that really sexy underwear that I used to see the ladies buying in Knightsbridge.....It was all satin and lace and to die for!

Just a LITTLE passive aggressive dig :lol:

I think it is instinctive. I think it has become, if we are honest a part of travel. There is a reason we all take off our shoes now. A reason our hand baggage is curtailed. I doubt anybody with a brain does not let their mind go there. As you said it is those who carry that moment of prejudice or fear and attach it to a whole group of people and into every situation.

[Clementine]

Yes except the sources and quotes you have used on previous threads do not support what you are attempting to say now. Hint. The Daily Mail is not exactly to be taken seriously.

As for the bolded. Mmm Okay. You are talking about moderate Europe. That would be the part not agreeing with you. The ONE people agree with being the side you agree with. Strangely enough I read all types of sources and some I wish I never had due to posters here. You can call me dishonest all you want if it makes you feel better. It really has no concern on the bigger issues. *shrug*

Where did I post a link to Daily Mail? I don't read it, except to look at Oscar gowns. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm of mixed feelings on saying moderate Muslims have the burden of taking a stance against extremist violence. On the one hand, I think all people should take a vocal stance against all violence. On the other hand, why do we require Muslims to specifically take such a stance? To go back to an example I used earlier, the Norway shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, was a right-wing Christian who was motivated by anti-Islamic views. But no one said that Christians or critics of Islam had to specifically denounce his violence. So why are Muslims specifically assumed to support extremism until they prove otherwise?

I recall many Muslims voicing their disgust at the atrocity, The red herring that Clementine is throwing is that they did not out right tweet 'jesuischarlie.'

As for the above, yes. Mentioned previously IRA terrorists. There was never such an outcry or blaming of all catholics for the actions of a few :think:

[OkToBeTakei]

Where did I post a link to Daily Mail? I don't read it, except to look at Oscar gowns. You must be confusing me with somebody else.

In the refugee thread. You were ALLUDING to the fact that the father of the young child drowned was perhaps a trafficker and also that he had left a perfectly good job in Turkey to recklessly flee to Europe.

As he was a Kurd with no papers your assumptions and what you were trying to allude to was incorrect.

[Clementine]

In the refugee thread. You were ALLUDING to the fact that the father of the young child drowned was perhaps a trafficker and also that he had left a perfectly good job in Turkey to recklessly flee to Europe.

As he was a Kurd with no papers your assumptions and what you were trying to allude to was incorrect.

It wasn't just reported in The Daily Mail and if I remember correctly, I said that there were conflicting reports about his previous history.

I still think that the father was reckless to take his family on an overcrowded boat, without lifejackets, to Greece when he wasn't in immediate danger in Turkey.

[OkToBeTakei]

It wasn't just reported in The Daily Mail and if I remember correctly, I said that there were conflicting reports about his previous history.

I still think that the father was reckless to take his family on an overcrowded boat, without lifejackets, to Greece when he wasn't in immediate danger in Turkey.

Well maybe you should go back to the thread and read. I think 2XX did a fairly comprehensive explanation for you.

[PregnantPornStar]

I know I'm going to regret this, but...

You realize when you say 50% of Muslims believe in Sharia law that leaves and EQUAL 50% that do not right?

Why is it ok to lump the 50% that don't in with the 50% that do?

It is not okay. Nobody said it was okay.

However, we now have a group of people that DO support Sharia Law. Let's discuss that group. As we have seen in the research, that can mean different things for different people.

So, when we are talking about Sharia and this group that supports it, is supporting it good or bad? I am sure we all think stoning women for adultery is completely unacceptable, but are there things you think are acceptable? What if the woman saw jail time instead of stoning? Or had to pay a fine? Would that be okay? I annoy think of a valid reason it would be okay.

[OkToBeTakei]

It is not okay. Nobody said it was okay.

However, we now have a group of people that DO support Sharia Law. Let's discuss that group. As we have seen in the research, that can mean different things for different people.

So, when we are talking about Sharia and this group that supports it, is supporting it good or bad? I am sure we all think stoning women for adultery is completely unacceptable, but are there things you think are acceptable? What if the woman saw jail time instead of stoning? Or had to pay a fine? Would that be okay? I annoy think of a valid reason it would be okay.

Within that 50% how many specifically said that stoning for adultery was acceptable? It's not by the way, for clarity purposes.

I was just wondering if the research was that specific and if so within the 50% agreeing with some aspects of sharia law, how many ticked the stoning for adultery?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree that education can be an important aspect of combating terrorism in some cases - but I also agree that it vastly oversimplifies the problem to simply focus on education alone. As you pointed out, there are well-educated people of all faith systems who turn to radicalism, just as there are people with not so great educations (or no educations at all) who turn to it as well.

I could be wrong here, but maybe what PregnantPornStar was attempting to say was that a lack of education can make a person more susceptible to radical movements? If so, that's absolutely something I can agree with. We see it with the Christian Fundies we snark on all the time; my favorite example being the Duggar kids. And its a truth that is found throughout time and place in History as well - the less educated you are, the easier you are to control. The invention of the printing press was one of, if not the most, revolutionary inventions in the history of mankind because for the first time ever the average person had access to the written word. . . and once a person learns how to read the words there is no going back because they are able to understand for themselves what is being said and don't need to rely on others (such as an Imam or Priest or Rabbi) to tell them what it means.

But, as you pointed out, education isn't the only approach that needs to be examined. We need to look at other things as well. In the Tsarnaev brother's specific situation, we need to understand why these two young men - one of whom was apparently very intelligent and full of promise - would turn to violent means in the way they did.

Was it simply attending the wrong Mosque with the wrong people? Was it viewing the wrong websites and videos online? Was it because they felt isolated and alone in their new country? Did they feel accepted by their peers here or by their peers in their native country? What about their parents and extended family - did they play a role in turning them towards extremism? Did they have the right opportunities to succeed here or were they denied opportunities?

The same types of questions need to be asked concerning those in other nations who turn to extremism: is it truly only a lack of education that leads them to join or are there other reasons? Do they join out of fear for their lives and the lives of the ones they love? Do they feel as if these extremist groups are their nation's protectors - for instance, do they feel like these groups are going to protect them from bombs dropped by other nations? Are they looking for a way to combat some of the influences from western nations? Are some of the people who join simply looking for opportunities and think that these groups can provide them (such as Oskar Schindler, the German man who joined the Nazi party in order to pursue economic advantages)?

I feel like this is a very complex, multi-layered issue. Education may be an important part of it in some areas of the world, but it isn't the end all, be all of answers by any means.

I was reading the CNN coverage of the trial: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/us/tsarna ... index.html

The frustrating thing is that we don't know exactly where everything went wrong.

The evidence seems to show that he was a well-liked, fairly successful kid. He did well in high school, was on the wrestling team, did volunteer work, and the teachers had only good things to say. He had a scholarship and financial aid to study at university. His parents and older brother were troubled. He was distracted by family problems and was flunking out of university. For him personally, there was no drama of being the victim of racism or a rejected outsider - just the not uncommon story of a guy facing family issues and struggling in university. That bit of distress seemed to be the wedge that made him vulnerable to the extremist al Quaida propaganda that he got from his brother. Tamerlan was the instigator, but Dzhohar was enough of a true believer to go along with it, deliberately place a bomb right near a bunch of kids including Martin Richard, and scrawl a manifesto about wanting to be a martyr in the boat.

[Whoosh]

It is not okay. Nobody said it was okay.

However, we now have a group of people that DO support Sharia Law. Let's discuss that group. As we have seen in the research, that can mean different things for different people.

So, when we are talking about Sharia and this group that supports it, is supporting it good or bad? I am sure we all think stoning women for adultery is completely unacceptable, but are there things you think are acceptable? What if the woman saw jail time instead of stoning? Or had to pay a fine? Would that be okay? I annoy think of a valid reason it would be okay.

So perhaps it would help to move the conversation forward if you could phrase things as "the problem with Muslims who believe in a form of Sharia law that promotes the stoning of adulterous women is..." rather than "the problem with Muslims is..." Clearly, no one here condones such a practice and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

For example, I don't say "the problem with Christians is that they make me fearful when I walk to the grocery store". Instead, I say "the problem with the radical pro-lifers that protest outside of Planned Parenthood daily is that they occasionally make me nervous when I walk to the grocery store". Those two statements are miles apart.

[Whoosh]

I was reading the CNN coverage of the trial: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/us/tsarna ... index.html

The frustrating thing is that we don't know exactly where everything went wrong.

The evidence seems to show that he was a well-liked, fairly successful kid. He did well in high school, was on the wrestling team, did volunteer work, and the teachers had only good things to say. He had a scholarship and financial aid to study at university. His parents and older brother were troubled. He was distracted by family problems and was flunking out of university. For him personally, there was no drama of being the victim of racism or a rejected outsider - just the not uncommon story of a guy facing family issues and struggling in university. That bit of distress seemed to be the wedge that made him vulnerable to the extremist al Quaida propaganda that he got from his brother. Tamerlan was the instigator, but Dzhohar was enough of a true believer to go along with it, deliberately place a bomb right near a bunch of kids including Martin Richard, and scrawl a manifesto about wanting to be a martyr in the boat.

For such a brief synopsis, that (in my opinion) is an extremely useful and balanced assessments of the role Dzhokhar's role in the tragic events. His brother Tamerlan's story is far more complex. His story is also quite incomplete and leaves so many unanswered questions. While Tamerlan's story is also therefor highly frustrating, it at least offers some suggestions as to where steps may have been taken to prevent the events that transpired.

[PregnantPornStar]

Within that 50% how many specifically said that stoning for adultery was acceptable? It's not by the way, for clarity purposes.

I was just wondering if the research was that specific and if so within the 50% agreeing with some aspects of sharia law, how many ticked the stoning for adultery?

Page 54 breaks that down.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/w ... report.pdf

[sockinshoe]

I recall many Muslims voicing their disgust at the atrocity, The red herring that Clementine is throwing is that they did not out right tweet 'jesuischarlie.'

As for the above, yes. Mentioned previously IRA terrorists. There was never such an outcry or blaming of all catholics for the actions of a few :think:

I also think that Muslims shouldn't have to tweet "jesuischarlie" to show what good guys they were. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons that were offensive to a wide range of Muslims (as well as other religious groups). You can condemn an act of violence without immediately endorsing whatever the victims stood for. I heard many Muslims say stuff like "I disliked their content. They have a right to publish it, and can continue if they want. I find it distasteful and offensive, so I prefer not to associate with it. However, they do have a right to free speech and I find the shootings abhorrent and evil, no matter how I feel about the content". I think that's pretty fair.

[PregnantPornStar]

So perhaps it would help to move the conversation forward if you could phrase things as "the problem with Muslims who believe in a form of Sharia law that promotes the stoning of adulterous women is..." rather than "the problem with Muslims is..." Clearly, no one here condones such a practice and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

For example, I don't say "the problem with Christians is that they make me fearful when I walk to the grocery store". Instead, I say "the problem with the radical pro-lifers that protest outside of Planned Parenthood daily is that they occasionally make me nervous when I walk to the grocery store". Those two statements are miles apart.

I think it may be fair to say "A problem in Islam is...." Because the people who ticked off that they are in favor of it doubtfully would have without Islam, or at least that being a part of Islam. So, maybe it would be good to say "okay, this part of Islam needs to see progress. Stoning women is unacceptable in a modern and civilized world."

[PregnantPornStar]

I also think that Muslims shouldn't have to tweet "jesuischarlie" to show what good guys they were. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons that were offensive to a wide range of Muslims (as well as other religious groups). You can condemn an act of violence without immediately endorsing whatever the victims stood for. I heard many Muslims say stuff like "I disliked their content. They have a right to publish it, and can continue if they want. I find it distasteful and offensive, so I prefer not to associate with it. However, they do have a right to free speech and I find the shootings abhorrent and evil, no matter how I feel about the content". I think that's pretty fair.

I don't think every single individual should speak out, but I do think those that want to should be supported and given attention. It is a brave thing to do and will help progress happen where it needs to happen.

It is frustrating to see Muslims speak out and then get criticized as being racists themselves.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I guess that members of the indigenous peoples in America would have a different opinion. They tend to always be forgotten in the debate about immigration and when USA and Canada are held up as examples of "successful immigration".

I specifically wrote that MULTICULTURALISM has been successful in Canada.

Quick Canadian history lesson:

Colonized by the French, who proclaim the area to be New France. Colonized by the English, who claim some areas for England and eventually win the fight with the French for control. Each group forms some convenient alliances with some Native groups, but also fights against Natives when convenient, plus spread diseases. There are treaties, but the overall view by the Europeans is that the Natives are not equal and not really "civilized". Indian Act is passed in 1876, based on some rather racist principles. All of this happens PRIOR to multiculturalism. Following the Indian Act, the Canadian Indian residential school system grew. This system was funded by the Canadian government and administered by churches (Catholic, Anglican, United Church), and children were basically taken away from their villages and placed in these schools, where the goal was to separate them from their Native languages, beliefs and way of life. Along the way, there was also a hell of a lot of abuse. This system basically destroyed Native family life and caused unbelievable amounts of damage.

Immigration from other European countries increased around the turn of the century, esp. in Western Canada. Restrictions on non-white immigration were lifted in the 1960s, and by 1971 multiculturalism was said to be official policy.

In other words - white colonial racism led to the oppression of Native Canadians, and it was the opposite of the more tolerant attitude that promoted multiculturalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicult ... _in_Canada

The majority of immigrants settle in the big cities, which is also where most of the commerce and culture are. Here's a description of the demographics of Toronto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

[OkToBeTakei]

Page 54 breaks that down.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/w ... report.pdf

That's quite misleading. In the report it says that the percentage asked was a subset who were first asked if they wanted sharia law practised in their countries. So the percentages asked were not the percentage of each country but that subset.

Of that percentage I can't find numbers. For example if their data is based on 100 people or 5. For it to be accurate it would need to be the same amount in each individual country. In some countries for example it says they only asked in specific regions.

Again it is not in any way to support or certainly not demonstrate support for those who wish archaic and cruel judicial punishment. Rather for the sake of accuracy.

[formergothardite]

I think it may be fair to say "A problem in Islam is...." Because the people who ticked off that they are in favor of it doubtfully would have without Islam, or at least that being a part of Islam. So, maybe it would be good to say "okay, this part of Islam needs to see progress. Stoning women is unacceptable in a modern and civilized world."

I got called out here for doing this with Christianity. I would make post saying things like "Christians believe this....", "Christianity teaches this..." "A problem with Christianity is this..." while meaning a fundamental version of Christianity. After having it explained to me that what I was saying wasn't accurate and that I was lumping all Christians in with more fundamental believers I have made an effort to be more specific when I write so I won't lump all Christians in with the fundamentalist.

So instead of saying something like "A problem with Christianity is that is encourages hatred towards people who are gay." I would now say something like " A problem with some fundamental Christian teachings is that it encourages hatred towards people who are gay." It is worth the few extra seconds of writing to make sure that I am not lumping everyone in with extremist.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Just a LITTLE passive aggressive dig :lol:

I think it is instinctive. I think it has become, if we are honest a part of travel. There is a reason we all take off our shoes now. A reason our hand baggage is curtailed. I doubt anybody with a brain does not let their mind go there. As you said it is those who carry that moment of prejudice or fear and attach it to a whole group of people and into every situation.

I know you are being honest about your gut reactions, and appreciate the difference between having a gut reaction and acting upon it.

At the same time - we can change our gut reactions somewhat by challenging them with facts. The "shoe bomber", for example, didn't "look Muslim", whatever that means. His mother was of white English descent, his father was Jamaican. The current trend seems to be that those who convert in prison or self-radicalize are over-represented among terrorists, and they can be from any background. We also know that those who are planning terrorist attacks make efforts to blend in.

[Whoosh]

I think it may be fair to say "A problem in Islam is...." Because the people who ticked off that they are in favor of it doubtfully would have without Islam, or at least that being a part of Islam. So, maybe it would be good to say "okay, this part of Islam needs to see progress. Stoning women is unacceptable in a modern and civilized world."

You don't seem to be able to hear me. If you think it is fair to say "A problem in Islam is there is a belief it is acceptable to stone women for the crime of adultery" - well, my ex-boyfriend would disagree with you. So would most if not all his friends that I had the pleasure to meet. In fact, based on the Pew data, only 15% of his countrymen that are Muslim believe Sharia law should be the law of the land. Of that 15%, only 29% believe that that law should be applied to non-muslims. Using my math, that means that only about 4.35% of his countrymen who are Muslim believe that Sharia law should be law of the land AND should be applied to non-Muslims. Of that 4.35%, only 21% believe that stoning is an appropriate punishment for the crime of adultery. Again, according to my math, that means that LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of his countrymen who are Muslim believe that women should be stoned to death for the crime of adultery. My suspicion is that the soldiers who were granted refugee status in Utah after the Bosnian war would be less likely than those who stayed behind to hold such beliefs. Therefore, my belief is that FAR LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of those young men believed that women should be stoned for the crime of adultery under Sharia law which would be applied to everyone, regardless of religion, as the law of the land.

Can you see why my ex would find your insistence on using gross, sweeping generalizations offensive? Can you see why *I* might find it offensive? Can you see why this type of statement might actually be counterproductive to your cause? Can you look at the data and perhaps see how you might reframe or rephrase your statement to make it more accurate?

Edited as I should not have rounded down if I am trying to be accurate...

[OkToBeTakei]

I know you are being honest about your gut reactions, and appreciate the difference between having a gut reaction and acting upon it.

At the same time - we can change our gut reactions somewhat by challenging them with facts. The "shoe bomber", for example, didn't "look Muslim", whatever that means. His mother was of white English descent, his father was Jamaican. The current trend seems to be that those who convert in prison or self-radicalize are over-represented among terrorists, and they can be from any background. We also know that those who are planning terrorist attacks make efforts to blend in.

Oh absolutely. I was trying to demonstrate prejudice and how as you said it needs to be checked. More pointedly due to the gross generalisations in this thread.

Extremists come from all parts of the world. All walks of life and and many differing cultures.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I also think that Muslims shouldn't have to tweet "jesuischarlie" to show what good guys they were. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons that were offensive to a wide range of Muslims (as well as other religious groups). You can condemn an act of violence without immediately endorsing whatever the victims stood for. I heard many Muslims say stuff like "I disliked their content. They have a right to publish it, and can continue if they want. I find it distasteful and offensive, so I prefer not to associate with it. However, they do have a right to free speech and I find the shootings abhorrent and evil, no matter how I feel about the content". I think that's pretty fair.

I also heard a lot of conservative Catholics saying that they called for it and they deserved it for their cartoons about the Pope. But none even for a moment assumed that this was the opinion of Catholics in general.

[Terrie]

I think that everybody who lives in a democracy should defend it.

White Christian Scandinavians had absolutely no problems coming out condemning Breivik or go to the demonstrations to show respect to his victims. Facebook was filled with photos with a Norwegian flag. We were all in it together, against extremism.

Again, I have yet to see any proof that Breivik was religious at all. He describes himself as "culturally Christian" and claims to have no personal faith. Like the majority of Scandinavians, I'd say.

What about critics of Islam? Sam Harris basically proclaimed that he didn't have to address the Norway shooting, because he had nothing to do with it (see samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-chris-hedges/) -- can you imagine the response if moderate Muslims said the same thing in response to a terrorist attack.

[FundieFarmer]

I appreciate OKTBT's honesty, too. Sometimes we fear admitting to our gut reactions, because while we have them instinctively, we also realize they are wrong. I think there's something to be said for everyone who has them checking themselves and moving forward without that fear. I think it's good that we can discuss it here, as well.

As far as Muslims needing to speak out...I don't know that they need to do it on a massive scale, but I've experienced people from all walks of life speaking out against people who claim similarities to them when something goes wrong. Usually it's a FB post along the lines of, "It is such a shame that ________ distorted the beliefs and tenets of ______ and committed this horrible action on behalf of _________. As a __________, I don't condone those actions at all, and am sorry to see something I love so distorted." In those blanks, you can insert any passion, religion, hobby, what have you. I don't think it's all that uncommon but I do think it helps to break down some of the barriers that are automatically put up when something terrible happens that can be attributed to a certain organization or belief.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Just wanted to also point out that focusing on SPECIFIC teachings and sources of extremism isn't the same as giving a pass to anything in Islam.

Quite the opposite.

When you condemn an entire group, or use information that is not accurate, it's easy to dismiss your comments as "Islamophobia". It's harder to dismiss information that is accurate and specific.