Rant on Islam comments

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think that all of us have a general obligation to condemn horrible things.

In some situations, calling out violence and hatred takes away crowd cover. There are situations where something happens, and you don't know how the silent crowd feels. Are the bystanders supportive of the hater? Of the victim? Simply indifferent?

That said, I find pat "we condemn X" statements to be of limited use. It's too easy to issue a pat condemnation of something that everyone agrees is horrendous. It's harder to take a long look at what might have supported those views, to spell out exactly where you draw the line, and to speak out even if it involves people close to you.

[Terrie]

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.

Some "new atheist" style critics show an arrogance to their comments. Sort of "If you can see the nuances of what I'm talking about, it's because you have issues and are an apologist" attitude. But what concerns me is that the people who commit hate crimes are known for their nuanced thinking, and it's those people who we're worried about. So, yeah, we insist on people being explicit in talking about extremist Islam. Heck, in this very thread, I pointed out I like that one critic was explicit about opposing political Islam, and I was told I was wrong. When you're not allowed to point out that a critic is making a distinction, well, anyone who thinks that doesn't feed hate is being naive.

[Whoosh]

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.

Not only this, but in my experience these inaccurate generalizations tend to push those unjustly maligned or disparaged AWAY from the views of the speaker. So, for example, my boyfriend was more than willing to discuss many cultural and/or religious beliefs in an open and honest manner and to listen to questions and concerns that I had. I know from experience that being unjustly maligned or disparaged (typically not by me) based on his faith/nationality had a huge chilling effect on those conversations.

I keep trying to express this last thought and feel I keep falling short.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

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.

Absolutely. But IMO problems start right here. I feel I don't know nearly enough about Islam to have the intellectual right to point the finger to the wound, as I have no problem whatsoever doing it with Cristianity. Other people who know even less about Islam than I do, moved by the fear and the prejudices against the unknown, like to say that Islam as a whole is problematic and that if I don't see it I am too naive or too leftist and so I expose myself and our country to this incumbent catastrophe the "Islamic Invasion" with the consequent annulment of "our values" (that are to be determined since who makes this sort of reasoning probably doesn't share many values with me). This sort of statement enrages me to no end. It is patronizing and presumes that I don't understand that there's a very real problem de facto avoiding any discussion that goes in depth of the topic. Since we struggle so much to understand the nature of problems it's impossible to think about possible and successful solutions.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I wasn't trying to make a giant point with the links, but I found both things interesting and a bit relevant.

Islam is different than Christianity. We all obviously know this and again, I can rant for ages about Christians and Christianity. The violence within Islam is unique. I think denying that is either being a tad naïve r possibly too optimistic.

Reform absolutely needs to happen. Again, I am not saying it doesn't need to happen in Christianity, but I think it is important to note that another part of what drives radicals is that Islamic terrorist groups are majorly funded in one way or another, whereas anyone seeking reform is shunned.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

I'd like to have more of that discussion about reform here.

Another part of the discussion needs to be about the forces working against reform. What impact has Saudi-based funding had on Islam worldwide?

[Clementine]

I'd like to have more of that discussion about reform here.

Another part of the discussion needs to be about the forces working against reform. What impact has Saudi-based funding had on Islam worldwide?

A lot. If you follow the money to see who is financing the big mosques in the west or the big organizations, they more often than not lead to KSA or Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood has also been very good at setting up organizations and taking it on themself to speak for "the muslims" and the western politicians have fallen for it.

Lorenzo Vidino is seen as one of the best experts on the MB and here's one article where he explains the setup:

http://www.meforum.org/687/the-muslim-b ... -of-europe

I think this basically sums up what I have been trying to say in this thread:

In some cases, politicians simply fail to check the backgrounds of those who claim to be legitimate representatives for the Muslim community. As in the United States, self-described representatives for the Muslim community are far more radical than the populations they represent. In other cases, politicians realize that these organizations are not the ideal counterparts in a constructive dialogue but do not take the time to seek other less visible but more moderate organizations, several of which exist only at the grassroots level, impeded by financial constraints.

I know that there are immigrants from the Middle East or North Africa who are shocked when they come here and go to the local mosque. What is preached here is much more radical than they are used to from their home countries. The result is that a lot of them won't go back to the mosque and the people who continue to go to the mosque become more radical in their views.

[PregnantPornStar]

I'd like to have more of that discussion about reform here.

Another part of the discussion needs to be about the forces working against reform. What impact has Saudi-based funding had on Islam worldwide?

SA is despicable when it comes to Human Rights and do what they can to spread Wahhabism. Sadly, presidents going to suck up to the royal family for strategic reasons are not helping anyone out..other than the U.S. And SA I suppose. It certainly isn't helping the ME or Europe.

Refusing to take in refugees, but building 200 Wahhabi Mosques in Germany that they will oversee and operate is a perfect way to spread their ideals. THAT is scary. The Boston bombers subscribed to Wahhabism and ISIS also does.

So, petrodollars are spreading radicalization of Islam.

ETA: I am on Tapa and started to post, then got distracted. I didn't see Clementine's response.

Sucks that they get there to find the local Mosque to be one that is extreme fundamentalism paid for by a nation who couldn't help them out.

[Curious]

It is not okay. Nobody said it was okay.

Then why do you keep doing it?

[Whoosh]

The Boston bombers subscribed to Wahhabism...

Do you have a source that supports this statement?

[Clementine]

Do you have a source that supports this statement?

The trails to the radicalization of the Tsarnaev brothers go back to Al Qaeda, KSA funded training camps in Caucasus and wahabi-inspired preachers.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bos ... 19097.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04 ... wahhabism/

Russian authorities warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev having contact with radical islamists already in 2011:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston ... him-n60836

[formergothardite]

Then why do you keep doing it?

Exactly. And I think insisting on lumping all Muslims in with the extremist makes it really hard to have a conversation about issues in Islam. It would be hard to have a conversation about problems in Christianity if we lumped everyone in with the fundamentalist, but we don't. People typically specify what groups they are talking about when discussing Christianity.

[PregnantPornStar]

Then why do you keep doing it?

Do you realize what you just posted? That I made a distinction of those who do support sharia and those that don't...and then saying I lumped them together.

I haven't lumped muslims together anymore than the research has.

It is fine if you are hellbent on vilifying me, but you aren't doing a very good job.

[Whoosh]

The trails to the radicalization of the Tsarnaev brothers go back to Al Qaeda, KSA funded training camps in Caucasus and wahabi-inspired preachers.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bos ... 19097.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04 ... wahhabism/

Russian authorities warned the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev having contact with radical islamists already in 2011:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston ... him-n60836

I am well aware the Tsarnaev brothers have/had "trails" to things. I specifically asked for a source that supports the statement "The Boston bombers subscribed to Wahhabism... "

Seriously, can you not see how that is a very specific and exact statement?

[Clementine]

I am well aware the Tsarnaev brothers have/had "trails" to things. I specifically asked for a source that supports the statement "The Boston bombers subscribed to Wahhabism... "

Seriously, can you not see how that is a very specific and exact statement?

Why don't you request the court documents to read them more carefully and get the testimonies from the surviving brother. That's probably the most reliable sources.

[Whoosh]

Why don't you request the court documents to read them more carefully and get the testimonies from the surviving brother. That's probably the most reliable sources.

Or you could do that. PregnantPornStar made a VERY exact and specific claim. I asked for a source. Based on what you wrote, I don't know as even YOU think any of those sources would back this very exact and specific claim.

I will go through the sources you linked a bit later, but as of now the claim kid of sounds like "The Duggars subscribe to Catholicism". I can easily prove "trails" there.

Edited for riffles

[Clementine]

Or you could do that. PregnantPornStar made a VERY exact and specific claim. I asked for a source. Based on what you wrote, I don't know as even YOU think any of those sources would back this very exact and specific claim.

I will go through the sources you linked a bit later, but as of now the claim kid of sounds like "The Duggars subscribe to Catholocism". I can easily prove "trails" there.

Why are you being so rude? I am trying do discuss a subject that interests me and you are dismissing everything I write and sound really angry and are belittling what I write, even when I try to post sources.

I know nothing about getting court documents from the US, but that's what I do when there's a case I am interested in here. It's always best to read the interrogation protocols for yourself so I encourage you do do that, if it's possible.

EDIT: I found an interesting article about other extremists that have visited the same Boston Mosque as the Tsarnaev brothers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/08/us/cambridge-mosque/

[OkToBeTakei]

I would also like a detailed understanding of what PregnantPornStar means by Wahabbism. Or should I say her understanding of it :think:

[sawasdee]

Absolutely. But IMO problems start right here. I feel I don't know nearly enough about Islam to have the intellectual right to point the finger to the wound, as I have no problem whatsoever doing it with Cristianity. Other people who know even less about Islam than I do, moved by the fear and the prejudices against the unknown, like to say that Islam as a whole is problematic and that if I don't see it I am too naive or too leftist and so I expose myself and our country to this incumbent catastrophe the "Islamic Invasion" with the consequent annulment of "our values" (that are to be determined since who makes this sort of reasoning probably doesn't share many values with me). This sort of statement enrages me to no end. It is patronizing and presumes that I don't understand that there's a very real problem de facto avoiding any discussion that goes in depth of the topic. Since we struggle so much to understand the nature of problems it's impossible to think about possible and successful solutions.

This is so exactly my experience! I am not now in Europe, but part of an expat "western" community (Europeans, N.Americans, and Antipodeans) in Asia, and on the whole most people are right of centre.I totally identify with the statement above, and have a great deal of trouble counteracting the kneejerk opinions of some of my circle. This is exacerbated by the fact that some of them were in the fairly recent atrocity at the oilfield in Algeria; some of our friends never came home. Arguing for moderate Islamicism is not easy after that. I am not well enough informed to be effective in breaking down prejudice - so thank you,FJ, for my reading list gleaned from these this thread, and for the, on the whole , reasoned discussion and sharing of all views.

[Curious]

Do you realize what you just posted? That I made a distinction of those who do support sharia and those that don't...and then saying I lumped them together.

I haven't lumped muslims together anymore than the research has.

It is fine if you are hellbent on vilifying me, but you aren't doing a very good job.

Yes, I realize what I'm posting. I think my posts on this subject have been pretty clear and unambiguous.

Do you realize how YOU are posting? Do you think people are jumping on you because you ARE making a distinction? The problem is you are NOT making any distinction whatsoever and until I brought it up, you didn't make ANY reference to the other 50% of muslims, AT ALL.

Your answer to me is the first time in this 20something page thread that you have acknowledged that it's NOT ok to lump all muslims together, even though you have done it throughout the entire thread.

I don't think *I* am the one with the problem understanding.

[Whoosh]

Why are you being so rude? I am trying do discuss a subject that interests me and you are dismissing everything I write and sound really angry and are belittling what I write, even when I try to post sources.

I know nothing about getting court documents from the US, but that's what I do when there's a case I am interested in here. It's always best to read the interrogation protocols for yourself so I encourage you do do that, if it's possible.

Not trying to be rude at all, just frustrated with how this exchange has gone. My apologies if you were sincerely trying to answer the question posed. Here is how I am seeing this exchange:

-PregnantPornStar made a very exact and specific claim.

-I asked for a source.

-It appears you did not provide a source.

-I pointed that out.

-You told me to go get the court documents.

Without being rude, I will simply repeat the original question - PregnantPornStar, do YOU have a source to support the claim that the brothers "subscribed to Wahhabism"?

[PregnantPornStar]

Not trying to be rude at all, just frustrated with how this exchange has gone. My apologies if you were sincerely trying to answer the question posed. Here is how I am seeing this exchange:

-PregnantPornStar made a very exact and specific claim.

-I asked for a source.

-It appears you did not provide a source.

-I pointed that out.

-You told me to go get the court documents.

Without being rude, I will simply repeat the original question - PregnantPornStar, do YOU have a source to support the claim that the brothers "subscribed to Wahhabism"?

I likely would have shared what Clementine shared.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

Not the best link, but Clementine beat me to it.

[PregnantPornStar]

http://thebostonmarathonbombings.weebly ... ments.html

I have only so much time. If you care enough, have at it.

[Whoosh]

I likely would have shared what Clementine shared.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

Not the best link, but Clementine beat me to it.

Here is the text of that opinion piece. Perhaps I am missing the reference to Wahhabism. Maybe you are equating Wahhabism to something else and simply have not stated that?

"PROMINENT VOICES are already painting the Boston Marathon Bombings as the “next Sept. 11,†pointing to the influence of Al Qaeda or to the world’s Muslim community — as US Representative Peter King of New York has recently done. Anyone who does so is making a huge mistake.

Suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fit the model of self-radicalized terrorists — so-called “homegrown†terrorists — motivated to call attention to violence occurring against Muslims around the world. Analysis of the older brother’s YouTube account reveals a deep interest in Salafism, the fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam adhered to by Osama bin Laden. But this does not mean the Boston bombers were directed by Al Qaeda, or part of a broader Islamist conspiracy.

Rather, this case bears a close resemblance to the July 2005 London suicide bombings. Although these were inspired by Al Qaeda causes, the London bombers were largely self-radicalized and acting mostly on their own. The key point is that the London bombers were not a sleeper cell waiting to go off, or part of a broad wave of follow-on attacks. They were largely responsible for their own deadly acts, and few followed in their wake.

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had his hands laced by Somerville boxing club trainers in 2006.

ANNE REARICK

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had his hands laced by Somerville boxing club trainers in 2006.

Overall, the four London bombers were highly socially integrated and had tremendous respect for their social and economic conditions. For instance, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, drove his own red Mercedes, worked in one of his father’s several businesses, and was a trophy-winning cricket player who rarely missed his Wednesday night matches. Hasib Hussain, 18, was known for going to night clubs and holding frequent discussions about cars — little different from many teenagers, according to his friends. None had a history of outbursts or violence, or other signs of significant opposition to British life.

The Boston bombing suspects have a similar socioeconomic profile. Dzhokhar, an honors student, attended public school in Cambridge, was captain of his wrestling team, and was the recipient of a selective college scholarship award by the City of Cambridge. This hardly fits the model of someone who is socially alienated. Tamerlan, who was older when his family moved to the United States, was less comfortable among Americans. He nonetheless was a Golden Gloves boxer, dreamed of representing the United States in the Olympics, and was said to have enjoyed the movie “Borat.’’ Again, hardly out of synch with mainstream American life. Even his difficulties with assimilation are not unique for someone who emigrated to the United States as a teenager.

What about religious indoctrination? Although religion likely played a role, it is not the way most people expect.

What does Tamerlan’s growing interest in Salafism tell us about his motives? Religious fundamentalism is a consequence — not a cause — of politically motivated anger. Salafism makes a distinction between suicide and martyrdom — e.g. between killing oneself over personal issues like depression versus a self-sacrificing mission in defense of Muslims. So, Muslims willing to die for a political cause have a moral dilemma. Salafism resolves this dilemma.

What about the London bombers? All four were Muslims, but varied in their commitment to the religion. According to the British intelligence agency MI5, Mohammed Siddique Khan and Tanweer showed no signs of religious extremism, while Germaine Lindsay was a recent convert to Islam who was frequently unfaithful to his wife. Hussain was particularly religious, undertaking a hajj to Saudi Arabia in 2002. Salafism may nonetheless have played a role, but certainly not consistently so, and could easily be just as much a result as a cause.

The Boston bombing suspects were indeed religious Muslims, but millions of Americans are. That is hardly enough to consider someone to have been “indoctrinated.†It is possible that the older brother Tamerlan was indoctrinated during his six months in Russia, but that only confirms the profile of a transnational terrorist. They commonly seek affirmation from like-minded elites for a stamp of approval to gain the training required to carry out an attack. By definition, seeking out approval and training means one has already been self-radicalized.

What motivated the London bombers was a spiral of anger over perceived injustice by the West toward the Muslim world. As Tanweer revealed in a martyr video — his final testament to the world — “You will never experience peace until our children in Palestine, our mothers and sisters in Kashmir, our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq feel peace.â€

The ongoing interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, assuming that he is being honest, confirms that the Boston bombing fits this same profile. CNN reported on Wednesday that “he and his brother had no outside help, and that his brother became an Islamist thanks to the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.†If this account is correct, they were acting alone, driven by anger over US policies in the Muslim world — with religious fundamentalism serving merely as an enabler of a political cause."

[Whoosh]

http://thebostonmarathonbombings.weebly.com/latest-court-documents.html

I have only so much time. If you care enough, have at it.

Perhaps it is just me, but I can not get this link to work. Thanks, though.

[Mecca]

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 agree. I really, really wanted to stay out of this thread because, frankly it makes me rather cranky, but I believe I need to say something about the thought that moderate Muslims have remained silent and have not come out to condemn the actions of the extremists. That simply is not true. There have been numerous Muslim leaders, scholars and practicing Muslims that have come out against ISIS and the terrorist events. It appears their voices are not being heard and widely ignored, but I can give examples.

There was the letter of 120 Muslim Scholars that took ISIS to task point by point and condemned the actions of the group. Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents numerous countries and many, many Muslims around the globe, has made a public stand against the actions of ISIS and their mistreatment of Christians. My family is Australian, so we closely followed the situation recently at the cafe in Sydney. Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, Australia's highest Islamic office holder, came out and condemned the actions of the terriost. So did Rehin Ghauri and Keysar Trad. I was living in Chattanooga a few months back when all the mess happened at the recruiting sites. The local Muslim leaders in the area condemned the shooter's actions, worked with people within the community, and the Muslim community came together and gave the families $20,000 to help them out. I could go on and give many more examples, but it appears their actions and words will not be good enough for some and go ignored.

Now for a personal story. My husband is not Muslim, but for some reason many people thinks he is by the way he looks. Dark hair, darker complexion and a beard equals terrorist, I guess. His mother is Spanish, his father is Scottish, and he was born in Australia, for the record. Anyway, we were traveling to Canada on 9/11. A very long story short, we were grounded in Toronto due to the situation and could not get into the U.S. until everything settled down. My husband was a permanent resident at the time, but he was in the process of getting his U.S. citizenship. After everything settled down a bit, we had to rent a car to go back home because flying out was a nightmare. At the boarder coming into the U.S. we were forced out of our car at gunpoint, told to get on the ground, searched, and questioned. What a frightening ordeal that was, but after a few hours they allowed us to go back into the U.S. While traveling back to our home, you would not believe the treatment my husband received when we stopped just to fill our gas tank. In Ohio, a group of men, about four I believe, pulled up in a truck beside us, got out of the truck and threatened to kill my husband. We left immediately. This type of event occurred another time when driving home. Over the last few years, this type of situation has happened several more times. He has been told to go back home to the Middle East. People threaten to kick his ass, etc. My husband is an engineer and there have been clients that refused to allow him on site because of the way he looks. It is so bizarre, but it is also frightening.

So I say all that to say this, I can understand why anyone that is actually Muslim may want to keep a low profile at times. Not because they fear their own people, but because they fear the people in their everyday lives and community that fail to understand the difference between them and extremist and like to lump everyone that practices that religion in the bad category. If my husband that has no association to the religion gets judged solely based on his appearance and that gets him threatened with death and not allowed to work on some projects, I can't imagine the fear they must feel. We can't make everyone in the Muslim faith responsible for the actions of extremists. We don't do that with other groups, so why are these people different?