Oklahoma beheading - Islam is a disease

by Simon 1524 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Billyblobber

  Aslan does apologize, but his base logic is technically correct, putting him in the right on many of those issues, even if I don't agree with some of the details.
  
  For instance, he was correct on his recent CNN interview as far as his base point.

  The news media and editorial personalities do use a double standard and broad stroking when referring to Muslims (as they do with many other things) as compared to other large groups. They speak of extremism or minority sections, but frame it in a way in which you think of the whole. And they don't report the more liberal response to anywhere near the same level to the point where people like Simon just assume they don't exist (living in an area with the largest hub of Muslims in the country, I just happen to hear/see the Westernized Muslim side far more than the average American). The problem with this is that many people can't parse this and will turn this into a "rule," as we see in this very thread from various posters.

  This is something that the Watchtower did constantly (taking a subset, applying it to the whole), and these kind of equation tricks have worked ridiculously well in the past as well (GWB mentioning 9-11 and Sadaam in the same sentence or separated by only 1 or 2 sentences so much in speeches that a large portion of the public equated Sadaam with 9-11 in their minds, which helped support of the war - see polls at that time period).

  People hate nuance; they want everything to be a dichotomy. Good/evil, us/them, for us/against us, etc. The media's sloppy phrasing/reporting when it comes to the middle east/terrorism/Muslims/Islam has fed into an "us vs. them" mentality centered around 1.5 billion people with a wide range of views, morals, and opinions. People don't know the difference between Muslims and Islam, or an Islamic state and a majority - Muslim country because that kind of nuance isn't reported. It's irresponsible to feed into the general ignorance of the populace when it get's them anti-large swaths of people like that. That's what he was speaking against, and he was entirely correct. I don't agree with his level of apologism in general, but focusing on that does not make his point/stance any less correct in that instance.

  In real life, either/or dichotomies are almost always terrible - everything in life is full of nuance. People that left a high-control religion that basically forced that worldview as a way of control should be the first to know that.
• 

  Simon

  If what you say is factually correct it should be easy to find the voices of muslim dissent but sadly such voices are few and far between.

  The vast majority of 'moderate muslims' voice support for the core beliefs that extremists like ISIS are based on.

  Death to apostates. Death to homosexuals. Death to disobedient women. Death to non-believers.

  That is the 'moderate' muslim belief system.. If it is being mis-reported it's the other way - they are being given the label 'moderate' but people don't drill down into the beliefs to see whether they deserve to be labelled such. If there is any ignorance it's that the general population aren't fully conscious of what mainstream Islam teaches.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  'Death to apostates' - indeed.

  I remember seeing a debate on youtube, the motion was 'Islam is a religion of peace'. Arguing against was Aryaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray and some Dutchman. Arguing for, I think, was Maajid Nawaz, Mehdi Hasan and some American muslim woman.

  Hirsi Ali made the point that Islam was not a religion of peace because she is an apostate and needs round-the-clock protection. Nawaz tried to make the point that he has received death threats too but as he's still a muslim it's not Islam at fault. Douglas Murray then drilled home the fact that because people from both sides of the house needed protection, Islam in its present form is definitely not a religion of peace!

  Incredible! Well worth a look, I think it was an Intelligence Squared debate.
• 

  Billyblobber

  It is easy to find voices of Muslim dissent. A two second google search provides thousands of results. How is that "few and far between?"
  
  It's only hard to find if you aren't looking, or if you're only going by what is fed to you on your chosen media outlets.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Good post Billyblobber but don't expect anyone to agree with you. Your point about nuance is excellent. People love moral outrage and feeling they have the moral high ground and that is only possible if you have simple balck and white views. Nuance and deeper understanding quickly erode those easy moral judgements. hence the reason why the people how know the least about a subject often have the most vehement views. I have tried to provide that in this debate but it has fallen on deaf ears or opened me to attack from the 'answer my question yes or no' types.

  To give some of the that nuance I would refer back to cofty's three part delineation of: (1) mainstream or moderate Islam; (2) Islamists or political/radical/revivalist Islam - the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is the classsic manifestation of this; and (3) Islamic Fanatics - AlQaeda is the classic manifestation of this.

  This is in itself a simplification with lots of different groups covered by each category and some blurring of boundaries, particualry betgween (2) and (3). cofty saw them as interconnected, I don't.

  The approach of moderate muslims to politics is one of passivity. One of the features of orthodox Islam is its fatalism - this is summed up by the pervasive expression in the Musliom world - Insha'allah, which means if God wills. In substance things only happen if God wills it. You wait for things to happen - you don't amke things happen. Hence until the Arab Spring, Arab Muslims accepted repressive authoritarian regimes to the point that the joke in the Arab world was that the only way for a President to leave office was in a coffin.

  Islamists turned this on its head and derived a political philosophy of activism - in which the revival of Islam was dependent on action to create an Islamic State as an idealised form of government. The original enemy of Islamists was not the West but the secular governments of Muslim countries who they claimed were corrupt because they did not govern according to Islamic Law and the passive mainstream Muslims who allowed this to happen. Islamists discredit orthodox Islam in the same way the WBTS discredits Christendom. Islamists only emerged as a significant politrical force in the Muslim world in the second half of the 20th century as a result fo the failure of Arab nationalism as a political ideal, the victory of Israel in the Arab-Israeli wars with the help of the US, the failure of the Arab-Isreal peace process and deteroriating economic conditions in the region. Isalamists thrive on misery - one of the reasons they began attacking tourists in Egypt was to wreck the tourist industry so they could gather more members. I agree that the Fanatics are the extreme end of the Islamists - they have similar objectives to the Islamists but more violent means of achieving them and a greater focus on the West as the enemy. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was grist to the mill.

  So moderate muslims would generally be bemused by the calls from right wing commentators in the West to be more vocal against the Fanatics and the Islamists because: (1) they see their faith as personal not political and they don't see the Islamists and the Fanatics as representing Islam - they see them as an abberation; (2) they are not accustomed to speaking up about their faith in a political setting and they wouldn't see why they need renounce the tactics of ISIS because they do not see them as being part of what they understand Islam to be; and (3) they know that the Islamists and the Fanatics will not listen to them. If the Pope told the WBTS to stop shunning what do you think the response would be? So moderate muslims and moderate muslim leaders may start speaking out but not because they are under any illusions that this will change the behaviour of the Islamists and the Fanatics but rather to satisfy the calls in the West for them to do so.

  The big issue in all of this is how to stop moderates becoming disillusioned with being moderate and so become an Islamicist and how to stop Islamists becoming Fanatics. IS has become credible as a fusion between the Islamists and the Fanatics in that it claims to have established an Islamic State or Caliphate and so have achieved that political objective but have adopted some terrorist style tactics in what is ortherwise starting to look like a conventional style war. Perversely by effectively declaring war on IS the West has given them credibility. Since 9/11 the US has been hankering for a conventional war against Islamic extremists - they now have it but are they prepared to do what it takes to be victorious (namely commit ground troops). But what we (and I mean muslims and non-muslims throughout the world) really need to undestand and address is what is causing the alienation and despair that is driving muslims to become extremists.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Simon - your statement:

  "The vast majority of 'moderate muslims' voice support for the core beliefs that extremists like ISIS are based on.

  Death to apostates. Death to homosexuals. Death to disobedient women. Death to non-believers.

  That is the 'moderate' muslim belief system.. If it is being mis-reported it's the other way - they are being given the label 'moderate' but people don't drill down into the beliefs to see whether they deserve to be labelled such. If there is any ignorance it's that the general population aren't fully conscious of what mainstream Islam teaches."

  is utterly incorrect. How can you summarise the beliefs of billions of people in this way? What is your basis for this and don't use selcective literalism please. Billy's comment about people seeing things in black and white terms and avoiding nuance is absolutely applicable to your post.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  'cofty saw them as interconnected, I don't' - but we've seen 'ordinary' Cardiff muslims, at the boudary of zones 3 & 4, get radicalised and go to zone 1.

  Previously, Maajid Nawaz was a cultural or moderate muslim. He became radicalised and went to zone 2 or 1. In an Egyptian jail, he started to see the error of his ways and is now a liberal reformer, back at zone 4.

  When hindus and sikhs feel alienated or suffer racism, they don't become 'radicalised' and kill somebody. This is why this debate must be had.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  death to apostates, death to homosexuals 'is utterly incorrect'.

  Which muslim-majority country has gay pride marches?

  In which muslim-majority country can people leave Islam and can openly say so without fear?
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  LUHE - I accept that apostasy is problematic - a muslim yelling from the roof tops that Islam is false will create huge risks and apostasy carries severe sanctions in some muslim countries but fading or lapsing are possible and I doubt that a majority of moderate muslims would call for death for an apostate. Homosexuality is illegal in most muslims countries as it was in most Christian countries until relatively recently, but the penalties are not death and it is tolerated in most Muslim countries - I knew a number of openly gay muslim men in Egypt who worked at he school where I learnt Arabic, who had no issues. Death to disobedient women and to non-believers is absolutely and unequivocally not the belief of moderate Muslims. Fraz
• 

  Finkelstein

  Death to apostates. Death to homosexuals. Death to disobedient women. Death to non-believers.

  With that kind pressing indoctrination imposed onto Islamic followers, no wonder there is little opposition coming out of

  the body of its adherent followers around the world, concerning the ISIS movement.

  Speaking up against these doctrines of faith could result in being ostracized for these individuals or pointed out as being at least spiritual weak

  similar to Christian based dogma.