This week in Islam

[dialamah]

Its frustrating when people claim that  Muslims, as a group,  are ignorant, violent, misogynistic, liars, incipient murderers of women and gays and pedophiles ..and want this accepted as 'legitimate criticism' of Islam.    

It's frustrating that the constant insistence that the only true practice of Islam is the one practiced in Saudi Arabia and among extremists is met by silence or agreement by all but myself, and two or three others on this board.  

It's frustrating that any attempt to highlight or focus on moderate Muslims who don't practice violence, who don't believe in killing gays or honor killings, who are horrified by pedophilia is met by silence, disbelief or derision.  

Criticizing Islam is one thing; calling Muslims names and denying moderate or progressive Muslims even the right to call themselves Muslim is something else.   

Where is the support on this board for moderate or progressive Muslims or Islam?  It's shouted down and denied legitimacy by the likes of DoP, Argus, Gohs Shena and others; it's also denied by those who do not challenge the all-encompassing claims about Muslims as a 'death cult' or the 'requirements' of Islam for murder and terrorism.

If people are serious about supporting reform of Islam, they need to stand up and talk about the reformers within Islam, including the billions of people who silently go about their daily lives with no thought of killing or raping anyone.   Silence while these Muslims are lumped in with groups like ISIS or the Saudi regime, unquestionning acceptance that outrageous stories are the norm among Muslims worldwide, this does not help those who would reform Islam.  Instead it means they have to deal with the growing anti-Islam rhetoric worldwide, including those who would kill them because they've been persuaded that all Muslims are extremists.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1) Its frustrating when people claim that  Muslims, as a group,  are ignorant, violent, misogynistic, liars, incipient murderers of women and gays and pedophiles ..and want this accepted as 'legitimate criticism' of Islam.     

2) Criticizing Islam is one thing; calling Muslims names and denying moderate or progressive Muslims even the right to call themselves Muslim is something else.   

3) If people are serious about supporting reform of Islam, they need to stand up and talk about the reformers within Islam, including the billions of people who silently go about their daily lives with no thought of killing or raping anyone.   

1) Since you have made this statement - what is legitimate criticism then ?

2) What is it ?  

3) If people supported reform, that would mean acknowledging moderates and maybe even treating them like every other immigrant in history, ie. allowing people of their religion to enter the country.

 

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Its frustrating when people claim that  Muslims, as a group,  are ignorant, violent, misogynistic, liars, incipient murderers of women and gays and pedophiles ..and want this accepted as 'legitimate criticism' of Islam.    

It's frustrating that the constant insistence that the only true practice of Islam is the one practiced in Saudi Arabia and among extremists is met by silence or agreement by all but myself, and two or three others on this board.  

Or seven or eight or nine...

No one has ever said Saudi Arabia practices the only true Islam. However, Saudi Arabia, being the home of Mecca, as well as being filthy rich, has enormous influence in the Muslim world. And it is hardly unique in its treatment of women. Iran is as bad, as is Sudan or Afghanistan or Yemen. As for Egypt, where your sister lives, 95% of Egyptian women have been the victims of female genital mutilation, a practice which continues. Honor killings of women are rampant in Lebanon and Jordan. And nowhere in the Muslim world, NOWHERE among 50 Muslim countries around the world, do women have anything like equal rights.

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It's frustrating that any attempt to highlight or focus on moderate Muslims who don't practice violence, who don't believe in killing gays or honor killings, who are horrified by pedophilia is met by silence, disbelief or derision.  \

There certainly are some. But your attempt at focusing on them usually come when someone points out the enormous misogyny in the Muslim world, and you do it as a distraction and defense of the Muslim world, not to help or encourage moderates. You simply cannot bring yourself to accept that extreme misogyny (by our standards) is not practiced by a few extremists within Islam but by the majority of the Muslim world.

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Criticizing Islam is one thing; calling Muslims names and denying moderate or progressive Muslims even the right to call themselves Muslim is something else.   

And who here does that? Not I. I've spoken admiringly of some moderate Muslims who speak honestly about the misogyny and bigotry practiced by so much of Islam and inherent in so much of its dogma and literature.

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If people are serious about supporting reform of Islam, they need to stand up and talk about the reformers within Islam,

And stop talking about the excesses and brutality and bigotry and misogyny of your beloved Islam!

No, I think not.

 

 

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) If people supported reform, that would mean acknowledging moderates and maybe even treating them like every other immigrant in history, ie. allowing people of their religion to enter the country.

Would that not imply some sort of values test on potential immigrants to determine who actually IS a moderate?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

Would that not imply some sort of values test on potential immigrants to determine who actually IS a moderate?

If that's helpful, then sure.

[Goddess]

Also, from that article, she discusses the ones who shout down any criticism of Islam as being very problematic and impeding any progress made by Muslims (and non-Muslims) who speak out, but it is other Muslims that have caused her to fear for her life.  

 

Quote

she becomes a danger to the entire edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and fact-deficient balderdash forming the mainstream left’s view of Islam as a “religion of peace” distorted by a few deranged miscreants.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Goddess

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

If people are serious about supporting reform of Islam, they need to stand up and talk about the reformers within Islam, including the billions of people who silently go about their daily lives with no thought of killing or raping anyone.

I believe this is exactly what this woman is talking about.  Both this woman and the Nawaz guy disagree vehemently with you on the numbers.

Since there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, saying that "billions" of them are peaceful is just as damaging to moderates as saying they are ALL violent.

Quote

she becomes a danger to the entire edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and fact-deficient balderdash forming the mainstream left’s view of Islam as a “religion of peace” distorted by a few deranged miscreants.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Goddess

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Since you have made this statement - what is legitimate criticism then ?

2) What is it ?  

3) If people supported reform, that would mean acknowledging moderates and maybe even treating them like every other immigrant in history, ie. allowing people of their religion to enter the country.

 

 

1.  Criticizing the patriarchy that is an integral part of the Quran and Islamic teaching.  It's this patriarchy that disempowers women and leads to the adoption of misogynistic practices such as FGM and honor killings, things that are common among many people regardless of religion.   A patriarchal religion lends credibility to those practices, even if the practice is not explicitly directed within the original teachings.

Someone who says "Muslims practice FGM and honor killings because they are misogynistic"  ignores the reality of who actually practices such things.   It makes "MUSLIMS" the bad guys, instead of the practice - which is not limited to Muslims.   It misses the point, which is that a systematic disempowering of women (patriarchy) includes more than FGM and honor killings.   It includes the notion that the woman doesn't need to know about finances, because 'the man is the one who takes care of it', or that if a woman is left a widow, well she can just marry her husband's brother, that a woman cannot be seen by a man (who's not a relative) unless she's completely covered, that a woman cannot go out without being accompanied by a male relative.   The pervasiveness of 'women as children' and need to be submissive to and controlled by men within Islam is a huge problem, in my opinion - more for women than for men, but men also are subject to stupid rules and expectations.    One example is that my brother-in-law cannot enter the home of his ex-wife, the home which he pays for and the ex-wife he supports, to visit his daughter.   How stupid is that?  Another expectation of Islamic patriarchy is the that a man must have a home, complete with furniture, linen and dishes, before he can even think about looking for a wife.  What this means in poorer countries is that they have to wait until their 30s of 40s before they can marry because it takes that long to accumulate the required material resources; as a result the only women available to them are often significantly younger (not children; legal age for marriage in most Muslim countries is similar to that in Canada).  

Criticizing this patriarchy doesn't mean one can't also condemn FGM and honor killings and point out how neither is part of the Quran, but even if FGM and honor killings disappeared tomorrow from Islamic societies, it would still exist around the world - and Muslim women would still be wearing ugly sacks, would still be expected to subjugate themselves to their husbands because of the patriarchy that is such an inherent part of Islam.

More later, gotta go for dinner.

 

 

 

2.  

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Saudi Arabia, being the home of Mecca, as well as being filthy rich, has enormous influence in the Muslim world. And it is hardly unique in its treatment of women. Iran is as bad, as is Sudan or Afghanistan or Yemen. As for Egypt, where your sister lives, 95% of Egyptian women have been the victims of female genital mutilation, a practice which continues. Honor killings of women are rampant in Lebanon and Jordan. And nowhere in the Muslim world, NOWHERE among 50 Muslim countries around the world, do women have anything like equal rights.

Sad but true, and this reminds me of the female actress from Pakistan who was openly critical of the way women are treated there, and was consequently murdered by her own brother.

[dialamah]

 

On 3/17/2017 at 9:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1) Since you have made this statement - what is legitimate criticism then ?

In my opinion, legitimate criticism focuses on the ideas without simultaneously claiming Muslims are 'bad'.   "Islam teaches that homosexuality is wrong and this results in severe human rights violations against gays in Islamic countries, from social discrimination to jail time to death" is legitimate criticism.   Saying "Islam requires that Muslims throw gays from roofs; do you want this in Canada?" is Islamaphobic fear-mongering.   

Criticizing the violent interpretation of passages related to jihad is legitimate; claiming that violent jihad is a requirement of Islam and Muslims is Islamophobic fear-mongering.   Not to mention, making violent jihad a requirement of "true" Muslims is helpful to those extremists who want violent jihadists to join their ranks.  So why do that?   Why not instead make the peaceful jihad a requirement of "true" Muslims?   The Qu'ran clearly supports both interpretations.

There are other things, of course, but I hope these examples clarify what I think are the difference between legit criticism, and the painting of every Muslim with the same Wahhabi brush, aka Islamaphobia.   The biggest problem I have with this broad-brush tendency is the way in which it denies legitimacy or even existence to those people who are working to reform Islam.   If all Muslims support killing gays, then the ones who don't are irrelevant; forgotten, or not even seen, let alone supported.   If people only hear about Sisi's crackdown in Egypt on 'debauchery' (aka gays), then they don't hear about the concert that was canceled by Jordanian authorities because the band contained a gay member, who then rescinded the order within 24 hours, due to widespread condemnation.

It is the Danger of the Single Story explained by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.   In it, she tells of her experience in growing up in Nigeria; she moved to the US to attend college, and shocked her roommate by knowing English (English is the official language of Nigeria), listening to Mariah Carey (and not African Tribal music) and knowing how to use a stove.   This roommate's expectation of an African woman was the result of a 'Single Story' of Africans presented by Western media:  "Beautiful landscapes, beautiful animals, filled with incomprehensible people fighting senseless wars, dying of poverty and aids, unable to speak for themselves and waiting to be saved by a kind white foreigner."

If 'legitimate' criticism of Islam is allowed or required to presuppose only a single story of Muslims as backward, homophobic, misogynistic and violent, then what about the Muslims who are none of those things?   Where is their story told?  

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:29 AM, dialamah said:

Criticizing Islam is one thing; calling Muslims names and denying moderate or progressive Muslims even the right to call themselves Muslim is something else.   

 

 

On 3/17/2017 at 9:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

2) What is it ?

Bigotry, at the very least.

 

[dialamah]

23 hours ago, Goddess said:

Since there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, saying that "billions" of them are peaceful is just as damaging to moderates as saying they are ALL violent.

 

100s of millions who neither rape nor murder, then.  Is that ok?

 

[DogOnPorch]

22 minutes ago, dialamah said:

100s of millions who neither rape nor murder, then.  Is that ok?

 

Meanwhile, in Paris...yet another Islamic terror attack. Or was this fellow also 'mentally ill'?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Meanwhile, in Paris...yet another Islamic terror attack. Or was this fellow also 'mentally ill'?

Well, at least he's dead.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, at least he's dead.

The Jihadi who dies goes to sort of a Paradise Plus...as well, he gets to included several family members (living or dead). It's diabolical.

Incredulity aside...

Edited March 18, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Meanwhile, in Paris...yet another Islamic terror attack. Or was this fellow also 'mentally ill'?

How many Parisian Muslims didn't attack, today?  More than one, do you suppose?  Are they mentally ill?   What about all the Muslims in Canada, the States, the UK who didn't attack anything today or yesterday or even the day before.   Don't they get a shout-out, too?   Do the violent actions of this ONE Muslim today negate the actions of all the non-violent Muslims today?

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How many Parisian Muslims didn't attack, today?  More than one, do you suppose?  Are they mentally ill?   What about all the Muslims in Canada, the States, the UK who didn't attack anything today or yesterday or even the day before.   Don't they get a shout-out, too?   Do the violent actions of this ONE Muslim today negate the actions of all the non-violent Muslims today?

 

How would it be if everytime someone committed a crime, the news organizations were obligated to provide the names and addresses of all those who didn't commit a crime?

I mean, who'd watch that report?

Edited March 18, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when other people are not doing evil - Not Blaise Pascal

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

How many Parisian Muslims didn't attack, today?  More than one, do you suppose?  Are they mentally ill?   What about all the Muslims in Canada, the States, the UK who didn't attack anything today or yesterday or even the day before.   Don't they get a shout-out, too?   Do the violent actions of this ONE Muslim today negate the actions of all the non-violent Muslims today?

 

This is what is know as: The Acceptable Casualties Argument.

How many deaths as a result of Islam are allowable in my society? Any clue?

10? 100? 1000?

 

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

How would it be if everytime someone committed a crime, the news organizations were obligated to provide the names and addresses of all those who didn't commit a crime?

I mean, who'd watch that report?

 

How about if every time a non-Muslim committed an act of terror, it had days of media coverage with political figures denouncing non-Muslim terrorism and promising to keep us safe?    Watch Trump play this up to support his ban, and remember how he ignored the Muslims killed in Quebec, once he found out the killer wasn't Muslim.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

How about if every time a non-Muslim committed an act of terror, it had days of media coverage with political figures denouncing non-Muslim terrorism and promising to keep us safe?    Watch Trump play this up to support his ban, and remember how he ignored the Muslims killed in Quebec, once he found out the killer wasn't Muslim.

 

 

If any group conducted bombing/terrorism campaigns like Islam, they'd also be singled out.

Islam, however, is the KING of terrorism.

Comparable events can be found in Mexican Drug Cartels...violence wise.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How about if every time a non-Muslim committed an act of terror, it had days of media coverage with political figures denouncing non-Muslim terrorism and promising to keep us safe?    Watch Trump play this up to support his ban, and remember how he ignored the Muslims killed in Quebec, once he found out the killer wasn't Muslim.

 

I'm pretty sure that is what does happen.  Are you basing your ire on what Trump does? 

Are you of the opinion that Islamic terrorism is over reported?  What should the news organisations do when a Muslim kills or tries to kill someone because they think their God thinks it might be a good idea?  Stick to the sports?

Edited March 18, 2017 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

...  Watch Trump play this up to support his ban, and remember how he ignored the Muslims killed in Quebec, once he found out the killer wasn't Muslim.

 

Nice try...but Trump's ban is about vetting in threat nations identified by the Obama Administration.   So I guess Obama hates Muslims too ?

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I'm pretty sure that is what does happen.  Are you basing your ire on what Trump does? 

Are you of the opinion that Islamic terrorism is over reported?  What should the news organisations do when a Muslim kills or tries to kill someone because they think their God thinks it might be a good idea?  Stick to the sports?

Acceptable casualties.

Bury the dead and move on...Islam is Peace.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Are you of the opinion that Islamic terrorism is over reported?  What should the news organisations do when a Muslim kills or tries to kill someone because they think their God thinks it might be a good idea?

 

 

Here's what I mean - attacks related to Islam are given much more media attention than attacks from other actors:

 

Quote

 

The media give considerably more coverage to terrorist attacks by Muslims — particularly if the perpetrator is foreign-born — than to attacks by anyone else, according to a new study.

Muslims commit far fewer terrorist attacks than non-Muslims, the research found, but when attacks by Muslims do happen they are written about 4.5 times more than other attacks.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

In total, the team — academics Erin M. Kearns, Allison Betus, and Anthony Lemieux — documented 89 attacks committed by different perpetrators in the United States during the five-year period examined.

Between 2011 and 2015 in the United States, Muslims perpetrated 12.4 per cent of those attacks.

 

 

 

 

Quote

"In other words, whether intentional or not, US media outlets disproportionately emphasise the smaller number of terrorist attacks by Muslims — leading Americans to have an exaggerated sense of that threat," the researchers said.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

Here's what I mean - attacks related to Islam are given much more media attention than attacks from other actors:

 

You do understand why that is, right?  It has nothing to do with Islamophobia, racism, bigotry, etc.  It has to do with numbers, and the reason for those numbers.