58% of Muslims want criticism of Islam Illegal!

[DogOnPorch]

I suppose I do have the freedom to do so?

But what kind of game are we playing if you ask ME questions but are unable to answer mine?

Have you some kind of unquestioning faith that makes you avoid reflection? If so, I understand.

No worries. We can get along quite well w/o each other's opinions.

[Michael Hardner]

No worries. We can get along quite well w/o each other's opinions.

Well done

[bleeding heart]

I do not find this. I can't imagine gangs of Young Socialists, Feminists and Union activists getting together in a quiet bar to secretly lambast Islam. I think they ignore it, as best they can, giving up a reluctant, "oh well, of course I don't like it, but...) when pressed.

Nor do gangs of free marketers, reactionaries and union busters collect, secretly or otherwise, for the purposes of lambasting Islam. The caricature is, well, a caricature, and is empty.

My point--an observational fact, not an arguable opinion--is that lefties do abhor and denounce the horrible behaviours under discussion here. Just not at the convenience of those who denouce it within a context of other political discussions.

It's just that when we're having a conversation about Bad Islam, with the correlative implication that "we" (the Western nations) are fighting such practices, often militarily, on principle...obviously folks aren't going to start nodding along in agreement. Because said premise is hostile to thought, morally relativist, and ultimately masturbatory.

That guiding premise might be in their imagination only.

Not on the whole, no. But in particular instances, yes, there is a politically correct tendency to downplay abhorrent things, and without good cause.

I'm not defending that; I'm pointing out that this is a phenomenon that has nothing particularly to do with the political Left. Every political discussion and debate has a whole history of things behind it, and it virtually always has other subtext in play.

For example, harshly criticize Israel, sit back, and watch the responses roll in. They're educational.

Or point out that the leading Western states themselves have routinely engaged in massive terrorist atrocities, at least through collusion and precipitation....and watch the profoundly unintelligent--and belligerent--remarks come flooding in....when people have the guts to engage the discussion at all, which they normally do not.

This is not a tu quoque argument--I'm not saying, "Oh yeah, but then what about [insert whatever]." I'm simply responding to your implication--maybe your explication--that this is something "the left" does, rather than an everday, common, multi-partisan component of political debate. Conservatives are every bit as beset by political correctness and other such weaknesses as are the Left.

My guiding premise when arguing on this point is the behaviour of Muslims, not the response by the west.

So you think the entire phenomenon of the cultural and military clashes are of muslim behaviour followed by legtimate Western reaction to it?

It's...oversimplified, to put it generously.

I generally agree with that response, especially when it is in retaliation,

I don't know how you can "generally agree with the response," when each and every situation is unique, and must be deciphered on its own merits or demerits.

It reminds of people defending the toppling of democracies, the torture of dissidents by the (Western-imposed) dictators, mass murders and, yes, terrorism....by saying, blandly, "The Cold War."

As if that covers, and justifies, everything.

but that's nothing to do with why I post on a thread like this, and I don't believe it should have any bearing on valid criticism.

I agree with you about valid criticism, but none of this is ever going to be viewed in a vacuum, for reasons I've already suggested. So when I've criticized Islam (as when I recently called it a "superstition," and Muhammad "a fraud") I contend there's nothing wrong with this...but to suggest it can somehow be free from contemporary political matters seems an amazing claim to me. If a person takes exception to my remarks because of related political matters, I think that's at least a reasonable approach; to be discussed in its own particulars, and then dismissed or accepted....and that it has nothing to do with "the right" or "the left" or whathaveyou.

For an analogy, again, look at Israel. Harsh criticisms of Israel are certainly not "wrong" unto themselves. But people often take exception to them, thanks to a larger history, and ongoing events.

That is understandable...and it also doesn't change the potential truth of the criticisms.

In othe words, we're not in total disagreement....it's just that one of us thinks this ubiquitous process is the fault of something called "the Left"... whereas the other guy thinks it is everywhere, and that the Left's guilt here is of holding itself to the same low standards of everyone else...which rather changes the indictment.

[Argus]

The matter of culture assumes that nations have monolithic and exclusive cultures, though so you're already starting to drift, but ok...

If one accepts the Islamic tenet that God is all, and that every part of life must submit itself to the will of God, that ones behavior as well as how a nation is governed must flow from the teachings of the Koran then one can see how nations which are widely separated geographically can have similar cultural views on a range of themes, from female modesty and subservience to the demonizing of Jews and other 'infidels' and the acceptability of violence against them.

[Argus]

Can you explain that one ? How is a religion separate from the culture of the nation where it lives ?

I would say that Catholic culture (for example) is different from the culture of Canada, because Canada prides itself on its secular nature and because there are people from many other religions here in great numbers. Now if you're talking about Muslim states the influence of Islam is far heavier, especially given none of those states has much interest in being secular (turkey once did but no longer). A religion is separate from a nation's culture insofar as a sizable number of the people of that culture don't take their religion terribly seriously.

How can you put the blame of "backwardness" - your word - on the religion so easily ? It's a pretty tough analysis to make

No, it's a very easy analysis to make if you contextualize it and compare it, for example, to our own secular culture. The tenets of most major religions flow from their origin many centuries ago. Some of those religions have updated the interpretation of those early creeds, notably most of Christianity. Islam has not done so, defiantly refused to, in fact.

I posted about an article I read on Nigerian mob violence, that lay the blame on some social factors. As simple as that was, it surpassed most of what we seen on here in terms of complexity.

Perhaps in your opinion.

Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business. -Irshad Manji

So if children are being taught how terrible Jews are in Muslim schools in Canada can we not infer that they are likewise being taught this in Muslim schools from Egypt to Malaysia? Would that not go for numerous other subjects unrelated to the 'three rs'? She wrote once about visiting her family, and the physical and intellectual poverty in which they lived. The lives of the women there, she described as miserable, and yet whenever anything bad happened, they simply shrugged and said "Insha'Allah", which roughly translates to "If God wills" or "It's God's will". She suggested this attitude among so many was why they don't strive to improve their lives more, why they accept so much injustice and cruelty, because whatever happens is God's will. She saw them as ground down by life but without any will to improve anything because it was simply God's will. If that is a universal attitude, and she portrayed it as such, it could help explain the backwardness of Muslim societies as compared to Western societies.

[Argus]

Sorry. If I had then I probably would have asked whether we're talking about Arabian culture... or Islam maybe.

One can understand why Arab culture would be rife with anti-semitism after generations of conflict, but how to explain the same attitude halfway across the world in Malaysia, which has no Jews anywhere nearby?

[Michael Hardner]

If one accepts the Islamic tenet that God is all, and that every part of life must submit itself to the will of God, that ones behavior as well as how a nation is governed must flow from the teachings of the Koran then one can see how nations which are widely separated geographically can have similar cultural views on a range of themes, from female modesty and subservience to the demonizing of Jews and other 'infidels' and the acceptability of violence against them.

Yes, they would have some commonalities there.

A religion is separate from a nation's culture insofar as a sizable number of the people of that culture don't take their religion terribly seriously.

I don't think that's true. Fundamentalists exist in other religions and countries, and they have their own cultures. I'm starting to think that your perceptions stem from a desire to 'square the curve' or in other words try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

No, it's a very easy analysis to make if you contextualize it and compare it, for example, to our own secular culture. The tenets of most major religions flow from their origin many centuries ago. Some of those religions have updated the interpretation of those early creeds, notably most of Christianity. Islam has not done so, defiantly refused to, in fact.

That's the problem - it's a very easy analysis to make. Already, in explaining it you're adding the complexity of the historic evolution as a reason for the 'backwardness' - not the religion itself. My question was how can you blame the religion itself, instead of the surrounding factors for what you see as 'backwardness' ?

So if children are being taught how terrible Jews are in Muslim schools in Canada can we not infer that they are likewise being taught this in Muslim schools from Egypt to Malaysia? Would that not go for numerous other subjects unrelated to the 'three rs'?

We already know that this is the case.

She saw them as ground down by life but without any will to improve anything because it was simply God's will. If that is a universal attitude, and she portrayed it as such, it could help explain the backwardness of Muslim societies as compared to Western societies.

It could "help". So you have illiteracy, poverty, lack of freedom, and this religion living admist these things. So, it seems that the idea is to put the blame on the religion and use that as a reason to keep people of that religion come to a place where there is literacy, wealth and freedom. The idea seems to be that people who come from such a culture are not redeemable, even though our system has worked for people from dissonant cultures in the past.

One can understand why Arab culture would be rife with anti-semitism after generations of conflict, but how to explain the same attitude halfway across the world in Malaysia, which has no Jews anywhere nearby?

I can't explain it, but it seems like it exists. I don't think that prejudice (or racism, xenophobia, discrimination or whatever this is) such as this can be boomeranged to say that this proves there's something wrong with Muslims. I don't know how to get there from that fact.