This week in Islam

[Argus]

No Argus, most of the Iraqis killed were not killed by Iraqis in those two wars. And Saddam didn't get anywhere near as many bad guys who were attempting to commit treasonous acts against their country. But you're right about the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians is miniscule to the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis.

I never said that so don't congratulate me on your imagination. The fixation people have with the Palestine issue has nothing to do with any care or concern with Palestinians, for they show no such care or concern with Arabs and Muslims being slaughtered in far higher number everywhere else in the world, usually by each other. The only care or concern they show is for Muslims being killed by ... Jews.

I know of an actual story to prove it.

Cite? No, I didn't think so.

[Argus]

Well, since that has nothing to do with my analogy - I don't I need to.

My point was about generalizing groups based on salient factors.

Sure, I get it. But generalizing groups isn't the same as generalizing individuals, and I provided cites on surveys of Muslim attitudes which pretty clearly sure majorities almost everywhere support Muslim law, however brutal that law.

Point being the determination of you and others to suggest that extremists represent only a small fraction of the Islamic world isn't born out by facts.

If your neighbor was a devout Christian who felt gays should be murdered, that any woman who tried to divorce her husband should be beaten, that Biblical law should apply to all, you'd have no issue declaring them extreme. But when it comes to Muslims you and others seem to have an entirely different criteria.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, I get it. But generalizing groups isn't the same as generalizing individuals, and I provided cites on surveys of Muslim attitudes which pretty clearly sure majorities almost everywhere support Muslim law, however brutal that law.

You don't just generalize by saying "this group has this attribute"... you go farther by asking "why ?" and implying that there is something in their group-ness that causes the result. This is a crucial difference. If you're not doing that, then why even call out the group's commonalities (in this case religion) and tie it to the (negative) result ?

Point being the determination of you and others to suggest that extremists represent only a small fraction of the Islamic world isn't born out by facts.

If your neighbor was a devout Christian who felt gays should be murdered, that any woman who tried to divorce her husband should be beaten, that Biblical law should apply to all, you'd have no issue declaring them extreme. But when it comes to Muslims you and others seem to have an entirely different criteria.

You can't control for cultural factors as easily as that. If we found a Christian who had such views, you could easily bet that there were other factors that could be seen as a "cause".

I see now that you actually did respond to me earlier in the thread, and I missed that. I should have looked harder, as you usually do follow up - my apologies. Let me have a look at that now.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry but how does it show they're 'inferior'? It shows they're poor. If they find that insulting, well, that's not my problem.

Not poor. Poor is the result. It's about being unproductive, which some could/would characterize as lazy, lacking drive, resourcefulness, innovation intelligence.

How is that 'inferior' ? You can see how, I think.

The data I posted had nothing to do with GDP but with cultural sophistication or backwardness. Unsurprisingly, many of the nations at the bottom of the list are African or Muslim or both. Again, if some Nigerian finds that insulting (Nigera is near the bottom of the list), that's not my problem.

As I expected: "I think that you would be ok with this characterization of the situation, as reflected by the data."

The fact is that any nation or people whose cultural makeup is heavily influenced by a religion which came into existance many centuries ago and which has undergone no reformation or modern reinterpretation are going to be culturally backward. I can see why the members of that culture would find such a description insulting but that does not make it untrue.

You draw a direct line between those things and the resulting violence, though. And since you can't control for cultural factors it's the same as my Africa analogy.

As I pointed out, one wayward poster was completely in step with your logic until I brought the Africa analogy to his attention, and he quit the board in disgust, perhaps self-disgust.

[Argus]

You don't just generalize by saying "this group has this attribute"... you go farther by asking "why ?" and implying that there is something in their group-ness that causes the result.

Is that not a fairly logical thing to do? If a group has a similar failing, as compared to other groups, one asks what is causing this failing.

You can't control for cultural factors as easily as that. If we found a Christian who had such views, you could easily bet that there were other factors that could be seen as a "cause".

Would you care to posit what those other factors are given the commonality of such views across the world among Muslims?

[Argus]

Not poor. Poor is the result. It's about being unproductive, which some could/would characterize as lazy, lacking drive, resourcefulness, innovation intelligence.

What 'some' would characterize it as is not my problem. Poor is not debatable. The causes are.

You draw a direct line between those things and the resulting violence, though. And since you can't control for cultural factors it's the same as my Africa analogy.

Brutal religious violence is not the norm anywhere other than nations where there are sizable Muslim populations. And this violence is not confined to a particular cultural background. It spans the globe. On the other hand, Islam is an all-encompassing religion which imbues every aspect of a believer's life, and in that manner becomes part and parcel of their culture. So if you look at the commonality of religious violence and socially backward beliefs from Indonesia to Iraq to Syria and Egypt, the only common factor seems to be Islam.

As I pointed out, one wayward poster was completely in step with your logic until I brought the Africa analogy to his attention, and he quit the board in disgust, perhaps self-disgust.

Or more likely disgust at trying to argue with a man determined to ignore all logic in his noble quest to protect the 'brown man' from criticism.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

This week in Islam, we again hear about that quaint habit of protecting women from lust, as practiced in Egypt. Oddly, there do not appear to be any methods in use to protect men from lust.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27322088

[Michael Hardner]

What 'some' would characterize it as is not my problem. Poor is not debatable. The causes are.

Not your problem, but it's analagous to your attribution of negative attributes to groups.

Brutal religious violence is not the norm anywhere other than nations where there are sizable Muslim populations.

But you're not talking about my analogy. You could talk about extreme poverty being associated with the African group.

Or more likely disgust at trying to argue with a man determined to ignore all logic in his noble quest to protect the 'brown man' from criticism.

You appear to be going after my motives but you haven't actually said anything about my analogy and why the group attribution logic that I have presented holds for religions but not races, at least as far as I can tell with you.

[Argus]

You appear to be going after my motives but you haven't actually said anything about my analogy and why the group attribution logic that I have presented holds for religions but not races, at least as far as I can tell with you.

I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. The circumstances which create poverty in Africa can be ascribed to a combination of geography (poor conditions for the development of higher level civilizations), history (colonialism and its quick departure, leaving unskilled people in charge of 'countries' filled with multiple nations, and cultures which have evolved from that.

But the situation with regard to religious violence and extreme intolerance amongst Muslims can't be ascribed to anything other than Islam given their wide disperasal across the earth, showing up in the US, Canada and UK, as well as throughout Asia and the Middle East.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. The circumstances which create poverty in Africa can be ascribed to a combination of geography (poor conditions for the development of higher level civilizations), history (colonialism and its quick departure, leaving unskilled people in charge of 'countries' filled with multiple nations, and cultures which have evolved from that.

It's an analogy - which seems to be working to examine the ideas behind this abstraction. So let's continue and flip it back:

"The circumstances which create violence in Islamic countries can be ascribed to a combination of geography (poor conditions for a centralized government to deliver services), history, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

But the situation with regard to religious violence and extreme intolerance amongst Muslims can't be ascribed to anything other than Islam given their wide disperasal across the earth, showing up in the US, Canada and UK, as well as throughout Asia and the Middle East.

Addressing this - you could also extend this to the African example. The fact is that these people come from places where geography, history have had an impact and they take these factors with them when they leave.

[Argus]

It's an analogy - which seems to be working to examine the ideas behind this abstraction. So let's continue and flip it back:

"The circumstances which create violence in Islamic countries can be ascribed to a combination of geography (poor conditions for a centralized government to deliver services), history, etc.

In EVERY Islamic country and ONLY in Islamic countries? I don't think so!

What causes Muslims in the US and Canada to want to blow up their fellow citizens? Why don't Buddhists try blowing us up? Or Jews? Or Hindus? Or Baptists?

[cybercoma]

In EVERY Islamic country and ONLY in Islamic countries? I don't think so!

What causes Muslims in the US and Canada to want to blow up their fellow citizens? Why don't Buddhists try blowing us up? Or Jews? Or Hindus? Or Baptists?

Timothy McVeigh, Kevin Harpham, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph....Damn Muslims.

[Shady]

Timothy McVeigh, Kevin Harpham, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph....Damn Muslims.

Good list. What's that, one per decade? LOL.

[Shady]

And was Ted Kaczynski religious?

[Michael Hardner]

In EVERY Islamic country and ONLY in Islamic countries? I don't think so!

We're getting into the details here. There are Islamic countries where there isn't much violence, and there are non-Islamic countries where there is.

What causes Muslims in the US and Canada to want to blow up their fellow citizens? Why don't Buddhists try blowing us up? Or Jews? Or Hindus? Or Baptists?

I don't know what causes it but there's no way to say definitively that it's their religion because you can't control for it. Now I just walked you through the analogy for people of African ancestry, can you now see the perils of generalizing as you do ?

[Michael Hardner]

And was Ted Kaczynski religious?

The thing is, there's no way to control for the variable of religiosity.

If a religion caused people to be violent, what would the reason be ? There are factors outside the religion coming into play.

For somebody to pick a "reason" and say that is the "cause" is just an exercise in feeling better about yourself IMO.

[cybercoma]

The thing is, there's no way to control for the variable of religiosity.

If a religion caused people to be violent, what would the reason be ? There are factors outside the religion coming into play.

For somebody to pick a "reason" and say that is the "cause" is just an exercise in feeling better about yourself IMO.

Intelligence communities have already determined that terrorism is politically motivated first. They become radicalized in politics, then adopt the religion primarily as a way of earning support and deflecting criticism (religions are sacrosanct and all that).

[Shady]

You guys can continue to deny the Islamic prominence in terrorism all you like. But it's a fact, and it's reality. Eventually you'll just have to deal with it. Despite the battle between the progressive/multicultural side of your brain with the logic and reason side.

[Argus]

In keeping with the theme of the topic, we have the latest example of how Islam differs from other religions. None of the other religions kill you for trying to leave.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27424064

[Michael Hardner]

You guys can continue to deny the Islamic prominence in terrorism all you like.

We haven't denied that.

Despite the battle between the progressive/multicultural side of your brain with the logic and reason side.

Well, your own logic just failed with that post, and now you're going after our intelligence rather than working with the argument in front of you.

[Michael Hardner]

In keeping with the theme of the topic, we have the latest example of how Islam differs from other religions. None of the other religions kill you for trying to leave.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27424064

Ok, but another example of an atrocity by an extremist kind of leaves our discussion about group generalizations in the dust doesn't it ?

[Argus]

Timothy McVeigh, Kevin Harpham, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph....Damn Muslims.

No one has ever claimed that all terrorism comes from Muslims. But for ever guy like this you can come up with there are a thousand Muslim terrorists.

Why?

[WWWTT]

Timothy McVeigh, Kevin Harpham, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph....Damn Muslims.

Good list. What's that, one per decade? LOL.

Forgot one, Robert Pickton!

Remember him?

Just remember, if you're white non Muslim and your victims are prostitutes and mostly native, there is a different standard on you as opposed to being Islamic!

If you are Muslim, you have to walk a very fine line because you will be held to a higher standard!

Just look at the title of this thread, that sais a lot just in itself!

WWWTT

[Argus]

We're getting into the details here. There are Islamic countries where there isn't much violence, and there are non-Islamic countries where there is.

But we're not speaking strictly about violence, as in terrorism (and there are few Muslim countries which don't have religiously inspired terrorism). The question is whether 'extremism' is widespread (by our standards) in the Muslim world. Sure, there are Muslim countries with little violence, mainly because they're autocratic dictatorships. But does that mean there are no extremists there? If they're stoning people for adultery then that's being done in Allah's name, because it comes from the Koran. To my mind that's extremism, and if the majority of people support it well...

I don't know what causes it but there's no way to say definitively that it's their religion because you can't control for it.

Can you come up with any other common denominator?

Now I just walked you through the analogy for people of African ancestry, can you now see the perils of generalizing as you do ?

You said nothing about African ancestry. You spoke about Africa. There is a difference. In the first case, you're speaking about genetics. In the second you're speaking about geography and history.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Argus