This week in Islam

[Argus]

It's only the Islamic extremists that some are concerned with.

Maybe you'd like to give us a list of others we ought to be worried about?

Oh wait, I know. The US, the UK, Canada, and all those evil, western nations conspiring to make life miserable for the peaceful and freedom loving people of Russia, Iran and Sudan, right?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, that is a direct quote of YOURS. I was simply replying to it.

That's not honest, IMO - you're opening up an entirely new line of discussion by attributing the result [ie. 'violence'] to the religion of those parts of the world.

My comments, from the first, have been on extremism. You, on the other hand, have persistently attempted to lead the topic off into simple 'violence', probably because you think this will help you, as the great and noble protector of the Muslim world you are, to defend them.

I am actually just trying you to get to state what you're talking about. I provided plenty of quotes where you talk about violence. If you want to make it about 'extremism' then what is that exactly ? That's all I'm asking.

Again, you're drifting into ad hominem with your sarcastic and inaccurate description of what I'm doing on this thread. I'm not "defending them", I'm drawing an analogy about generalizations, one that you're failing to refute.

Instead, you go after me personally which is quite unlike you. This makes me think I have struck a nerve.

Because they desperately lneed you to do that, Michael. It's clearly your calling in life.

More ad hominem.

What would you like me to retract? That violence is endemic in the Muslim world?

I don't remember any more because I have spent days dealing with your dance around the facts. Look back on the thread - I think you made several quotes about violence then later said this wasn't about violence.

If so, then retract that you didn't say this was about violence when you did.

... but the modern interpretations are increasingly more rigid than in the past.

Cite ? Also, doesn't this point to cultural factors, then, and not the holy books themselves ? Cultural factors such as foreign influence, poverty and so on change with time, you see.

The folloers of the religion have not, in other words, noderated, but gotten more extreme, more intollerent, and more violent.

See my point above.

One can also go back to the Africa analogy once again and point to progress as the cultural impacts of colonialism, slavery etc. move further into the past.

No, it hasn't changed a jot. But your tactic of shifting the conversation away from areas you find indefensible (the extremism of the religion towards areas you think you can talk away has simply gone on too long and is boring me.

I'm not addressing the extremism of the religion, actually. I'm talking about root causes, I'm sure you can see that.

As I've already said, Islam is so much a part of life in the Muslim world that it shapes the cultures into its image. This is not something you wish to deal with because it makes you uncomfortable in your self-appointed role as the noble protector of the Muslim world from unkind words.

So, let's quit with the ad hominems then, given my extreme patience in dealing with your circular logic on this thread. You want to say that this religion "causes" people to be violent, somehow, but you provide no evidence that it could be the root cause other than these things happen elsewhere on earth.

When I countered with my analogy about African productivity, you:

- tried to restart the argument from square 1

- counter my question about the influences on Islam still resonating were countered with an admission that scripture interpretation varies over time

- tried to say I was arguing against the existence of extremism

- painted me as some kind of self-righteous individual

I thank you for following the discussion to this point, but I think that this thread should mark the end of the discussion that any particular religion 'causes' violence. I know in the future people will mischaracterize this thread, but the fact is that you and I have both been using reason - not emotion - and we have not establish that this religion 'causes' anything at all.

There may be prevalence of violence, depending on place and time, but you yourself are admitting that these things change over time and place and influence. I think we're at the point where we agree to disagree.

[Argus]

That's not honest, IMO - you're opening up an entirely new line of discussion by attributing the result [ie. 'violence'] to the religion of those parts of the world.

You mean I'm bringing it back on topic from your attempt to divert it.

I am actually just trying you to get to what you're talking about. I provided plenty of quotes where you talk about violence.

As a response to your bringing it up. Again, go back and read the start of this topic, or at least, my posts, and you can easily see where you decided to divert the discussion.

If you want to make it about 'extremism' then what is that ? That's all I'm asking.

Already dealt with at the start of this topic.

Instead, you go after me personally which is quite unlike you. This makes me think I have struck a nerve.

I'm impugning your motives, which is not a direct personal insult, but you're the one who shifted the tone with your nonsense about "Have the courage to stand behind your statements' when you're talking about your own deliberate derailing of the conversation. I find that personally insulting. You shift the conversation and then make accusations when I want to shift it back.

I don't remember any more because I have spent days dealing with your dancing around the facts.

And I am bored with your having spent days trying to obscure and deny the facts. If you can't discuss this honesty stop playing games.

One can also go back to the Africa analogy once again and point to progress as the cultural impacts of colonialism, slavery etc. move further into the past.

But Islamic extremism is not moving into the past, but strong and steady, if not actually growing.

I'm not addressing the extremism of the religion, actually. I'm talking about root causes, I'm sure you can see that.

I can see that you want to find a root cause OTHER than the religion, while brusquely dismissing that religion could be the root cause itself. The problem with that is you need to find a cause which can draw upon the culture of nations as disparate as Yemen and Indonesia, and explain why the same sorts of extremism exist throughout the Muslim world, be it in Asia, Africa, Europe or elsewhere.

The only unifying factor I can see is the detrmination amongst Muslims to live by "Islamic law" which is, by western standards, extreme. This is the heart of the subject. You refuse to find that more than a tithe of Muslims are extreme even while refusing to address the polls which say the majority of Muslims want Islamic law. Do you not think Islamic Law is extreme? Let's address a few parts of it. How about the fact that in order to succesfully prosecute rape under Islamic law, it has to be witnessed by four adult males (presumably not the rapists). How about adulterers being stoned to death? Gays being buried under walls? What about womens testimony in court being worth half that of a man? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Beating your wife? What about Islamic law and divorce? Men can divorce their women at will, by simply pronouncing "I divorce you" three times. Women can not divorce their husband except for two reasons, lack of support, ie, he doesn't pay the rent and buy food, or no intercourse for two months. There is no provision for divorce because he beats the crap out of her, for example. Now this is your root cause, and it spawns other things, such as honor killings and genital mutiliation, which are mere interpreations based on a culture of Islam.

Do you consider any of that to be extreme?

So, let's quit with the ad hominems then, given my extreme patience in dealing with your circular logic on this thread.

And given my extreme patience with your dishonest style of argument, you mean?

[Michael Hardner]

You mean I'm bringing it back on topic from your attempt to divert it.

?

There was a question of violence/extremism and you asked if religion was the reason behind it, basically. To say you were just replying to my point isn't correct.

Here's the genesis of this discussion:

MH: "Where would find such a Christian ? In some illiterate backwater where there is no education, torn apart by war and violence perhaps ?"

A: "Which describes most Muslim countries. So here's the question:

Are they backwaters, often torn apart by war and violence because they're Muslim?"

I am not trying to divert the discussion. I'd rather talk about 'violence' because it's more concrete and easier to define than 'extremism', that's all.

You shift the conversation and then make accusations when I want to shift it back.

It seems to be that I'm being very gracious by allowing you to change the discussion to be about 'extremism' - if you would only care to define that for me.

You already made these statements on this thread:

"It just seems to me that a disproportionate amount of the world's violence and barbarism seems to eminate from Mulim countries."

"But the situation with regard to religious violence and extreme intolerance amongst Muslims can't be ascribed to anything other than Islam"

"What causes Muslims in the US and Canada to want to blow up their fellow citizens?"

So as I say if you want to make it about 'extremism' instead of violence now, then I'm being gracious by allowing YOU to change it. It doesn't change my argument at all in any case. But I'm not the one changing it up.

And I am bored with your having spent days trying to obscure and deny the facts. If you can't discuss this honesty stop playing games.

I'm definitely not doing that - just trying you to understand the fallacies around generalizations and the dangers of attributing one religion as the cause of some portion of the world's ills - violence or 'extremism' - however care you may want to define that, if you ever do.

But Islamic extremism is not moving into the past, but strong and steady, if not actually growing.

Right - and you have postulated that it's because interpretations of the religion have changed due to ... [finish this sentence ?]

I can see that you want to find a root cause OTHER than the religion, while brusquely dismissing that religion could be the root cause itself.

Brusque ? The length of this thread defies that description. I have waited many days for you to respond to my point: I have shown you an analogy of Africa's GDP and you have wilted in your attempt to explain why measures of anti-social behavior correlated with religion is any different.

The problem with that is you need to find a cause which can draw upon the culture of nations as disparate as Yemen and Indonesia, and explain why the same sorts of extremism exist throughout the Muslim world, be it in Asia, Africa, Europe or elsewhere.

I don't need to find a 'cause' - you need to do that. I have a correlation, which is enough for me to say that this religion is associated, but does not necessarily cause, anti-social behavior of some types.

The only unifying factor I can see is the detrmination amongst Muslims to live by "Islamic law" which is, by western standards, extreme. This is the heart of the subject.

And I have a correlation with race and economic productivity, which shows why these generalizations are at best surface-level observations of behavior and do not say anything about what is signified.

You are presumptuous to think you can step past the proof and simply rely on your personal observations as evidence that the religion causes these behaviors. Your social lens is cracked, and you refuse to see that.

I don't care about anecdotes of brutality and extremism, there's no way to attribute the causes of this behavior properly - so simply pointing at someone in a turban and figuratively screaming the name of their religion over and over again is at best incorrect, and at worse insulting and destructive.

Your patience is not equal to mine because I'm still waiting for you to engage with my analogy about generalizations, which you steadfastly are avoiding. Instead you repeat that I'm "defending" them. I know that you're smarter than to make that mistake.

[WWWTT]

It's pretty obvious to most of us that someone who blows up markets full of civilians is a terrorist. Apparently you believe they're simply noble freedom fighters -- even though NONE of them are actually fighting for freedom.

Double standard!

WWWTT

[Argus]

I am not trying to divert the discussion. I'd rather talk about 'violence' because it's more concrete and easier to define than 'extremism',

Well, we can start with those examples I posted about Islamic law, you know the ones you deleted and failed to respond to. I'd like a response as to whether or not you consider such things to be extreme.

Right - and you have postulated that it's because interpretations of the religion have changed due to ... [finish this sentence ?]

There are a number of reasons, but the most obvious to point out would be the spread of wahabiism, which the Saudis have spent billions on promulgating over the last few decades. They've sponsored schools, opened Islamic study centers, paid for Imams, paid for mosques all across the world, with the only requirement being that the wahabi brand of Islam is taught.

Brusque ? The length of this thread defies that description. I have waited many days for you to respond to my point: I have shown you an analogy of Africa's GDP and you have wilted in your attempt to explain why measures of anti-social behavior correlated with religion is any different.

Your analogy was, from the start, ridiculously ill-conceived, as it attempted to correlate an economic measurement against behaviour.

There are a myriad reasons for Africa's GDP, but no matter. You are trying to compare something about one PLACE - which means they have many commonalities - with something about many places across the world. Given the myriad locations and cultures of the Muslim world, with only one commonality - Islam - it's difficult to explain a similar behavioural set any other way but attributing it to Islam.

I have a correlation, which is enough for me to say that this religion is associated, but does not necessarily cause, anti-social behavior of some types.

In trying to determine what might be causing a widely diverse population spread at a great distance across the other to act in a similar way we need some commonality. Can you identify any other commonality, besides Islam?

And I have a correlation with race and economic productivity, which shows why these generalizations are at best surface-level observations of behavior and do not say anything about what is signified.

Your analogy fails in that it deals with a geographically compact population, not a diverse one.

You are presumptuous to think you can step past the proof and simply rely on your personal observations as evidence that the religion causes these behaviors. Your social lens is cracked, and you refuse to see that.

Well, we have only one commonality, we have the surveys saying a majority of a given population (Muslims) want to adopt an extremist governmental and legal type, and we have thousands upon thousands of people murdering others across the globe in the name of Islam. I don't think it's presumptuous of me to suggest Islam is the problem. I think you're simply finding it impossible to accept that any identifiable ethnic or religious group anywhere can be described in a way which is unflattering.

I don't care about anecdotes of brutality and extremism, there's no way to attribute the causes of this behavior properly

Well, we could actually listen to what the people committing the brutality and extremism say. And they all seem to be saying it's Islam.

]

Edited May 22, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Well, we can start with those examples I posted about Islamic law, you know the ones you deleted and failed to respond to. I'd like a response as to whether or not you consider such things to be extreme.

I don't really remember, but let's just assume that they are in fact extreme ok ?

There are a number of reasons, but the most obvious to point out would be the spread of wahabiism, which the Saudis have spent billions on promulgating over the last few decades. They've sponsored schools, opened Islamic study centers, paid for Imams, paid for mosques all across the world, with the only requirement being that the wahabi brand of Islam is taught.

Ok.

You are trying to compare something about one PLACE - which means they have many commonalities - with something about many places across the world. Given the myriad locations and cultures of the Muslim world, with only one commonality - Islam - it's difficult to explain a similar behavioural set any other way but attributing it to Islam.

I already addressed this. One could make the argument about race as a factor in productivity by tracing the African lineage to the United States, for example. Please don't force me to repeat these ridiculous arguments any more - I already posted them once, which is more than enough.

The rest of your post ignores the point which I already made above - please address it.

[WWWTT]

Here's something!

WWWTT

[Guest]

I can see it now. The "Hey, at least I didn't start the First World War" defence.

Lawyers all over the world will be out of work.

[Shady]

Here's something!

WWWTT

That's definitely something. A lot of urban legands, false numbers, and fake equivalency. For instance, the Yom Kippur War is referred to as a war, not an act of terrorism conducted by Arab/Muslims.

[BC_chick]

That's definitely something. A lot of urban legands, false numbers, and fake equivalency. For instance, the Yom Kippur War is referred to as a war, not an act of terrorism conducted by Arab/Muslims.

Terrorism is defined by violent acts committed with a political agenda. All those examples fit the criteria, but what makes them different? The level of organization within the group committing the atrocities? If so, why are organized groups such as Hamas and Mullahs considered terrorists? The definition just changes as needed.

Even the level of organization aside, there is still a double-standard whenever a Muslim commits any type of crime. Had a Muslim walked into a Synagogue and killed 3 Jews it'd be terrorism. When a skinhead does it, it's a hate crime.

Edited May 22, 2014 by BC_chick

[Michael Hardner]

That's definitely something. A lot of urban legands, false numbers, and fake equivalency. For instance, the Yom Kippur War is referred to as a war, not an act of terrorism conducted by Arab/Muslims.

I think it's lame, but it shows the problems in picking out one type of extremism and building a case around that. Why we even try is beyond me. To succeed in establishing these things would just be an exercise in feeling smug about oneself IMO.

[cybercoma]

I can see it now. The "Hey, at least I didn't start the First World War" defence.

Lawyers all over the world will be out of work.

The point is that it's a double standard. That what we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority. Obama drops bombs using drones on grade school children and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. A terrorist sets off a car bomb near the entrance of a military site, killing 3 or 4 civilians and people lose their minds. The death of some civilians is condemned as the worst possible outrage ever, while the others are glossed over as collateral damage. At the end of the day, it's innocent people in the ground.

So people like Argus want to sit here and say that Muslims are a scourge on the earth and that their "culture" is the source of that. Meanwhile, the amount of death and destruction caused by non-Muslims around the world just in the last century is not even comparable and not even considered in these conversations about "violence." And why is that? Because at the end of the day Muslim violence is nothing but a soap box for intolerant bigots to flex their notions of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious superiority without any reflexivity whatsoever for the amount of violence perpetrated by "our" kind.

[Michael Hardner]

The point is that it's a double standard. That what we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority.

So people like Argus want to sit here and say that Muslims are a scourge on the earth and that their "culture" is the source of that.

Yes - which is why I'm trying to get them to be specific about what they're trying to measure when discussing 'extremism' or 'violence', and perhaps why they're reluctant to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sort that list by murder rate. If somebody had suggested murder rate as some kind of barometer of violence, I *might* have accepted that - but they didn't suggest it, so I checked it out myself. No predominantly Muslim countries in the top 20 that I can see - about 1/2 of them are Christian countries from central/south America and the others are African.

[cybercoma]

The use of those kinds of statistics are not helpful, imo. Acts of terrorism are not typically reported as murders. If you're looking for official stats of some sort, then we're going to need a definition of what's being looked at here as you said.

[Michael Hardner]

The use of those kinds of statistics are not helpful, imo. Acts of terrorism are not typically reported as murders. If you're looking for official stats of some sort, then we're going to need a definition of what's being looked at here as you said.

Well, that's the point. Terrorism is a specific kind of violent act, the definition of which is highly contentious. Murder stats would take that out of the equation.

[cybercoma]

Well, that's the point. Terrorism is a specific kind of violent act, the definition of which is highly contentious. Murder stats would take that out of the equation.

Right. I agree with most of this. What I'm saying is that murder stats are only murders that are discovered or known by police agencies. The skill and level of policing varies from country to country, so this will have an effect on those numbers. The dark figure of crime is going to differ from country to country, as some of the other contributing factors to whether a crime gets reported as a statistic or not is public's perception of the activity being a crime, their willingness to report the crime (which is a major problem in aboriginal communities here), victim's ability to trust their police force (in corrupt states this is a big problem), vigilantism instead of reporting it to authorities, the amount of technology in a country makes a difference (I'll get into it if you want me to, but suffice it to say for now). All of these contribute to what the reported number of those crimes are. In a country that has no central government and is in complete chaos, the violence rarely enters official statistics. International Observers try to estimate numbers, but it's not the same as the murder or violent crime rate stats that you're invoking here.

What I'm suggesting is that the conversation is a lot deeper than "show me the figures" would allow. Statistics are not the be all and end all of the discussion. Sometimes people like to invoke them without really considering what they measure and how they measure it. If that's not part of the discussion then we're missing most of the picture here.

[WWWTT]

That's definitely something. A lot of urban legands, false numbers, and fake equivalency. For instance, the Yom Kippur War is referred to as a war, not an act of terrorism conducted by Arab/Muslims.

I will agree that the number of millions of deaths would be impossible to verify! But no urban legends here my friend.

The core of my comment is the "double standard" that is imposed on Islam.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I think it's lame, but it shows the problems in picking out one type of extremism and building a case around that. Why we even try is beyond me. To succeed in establishing these things would just be an exercise in feeling smug about oneself IMO.

Internal conflict.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Yes - which is why I'm trying to get them to be specific about what they're trying to measure when discussing 'extremism' or 'violence', and perhaps why they're reluctant to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sort that list by murder rate. If somebody had suggested murder rate as some kind of barometer of violence, I *might* have accepted that - but they didn't suggest it, so I checked it out myself. No predominantly Muslim countries in the top 20 that I can see - about 1/2 of them are Christian countries from central/south America and the others are African.

Ironically, China, a predominant atheist country has a super low rate!

Look at the numbers for Macau and Hong Kong. Unfortunately Taiwan's rate is the highest of the Chinese states.

Japan is very low as well.

That must say something into the role of religion.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The use of those kinds of statistics are not helpful, imo. Acts of terrorism are not typically reported as murders. If you're looking for official stats of some sort, then we're going to need a definition of what's being looked at here as you said.

Link can still be used in this debate to show levels of violence which does have some relevance here.

WWWTT

[Shady]

I will agree that the number of millions of deaths would be impossible to verify! But no urban legends here my friend.

The core of my comment is the "double standard" that is imposed on Islam.

WWWTT

No, there is no double standard. You're referring to things that are mostly long in the past, versus Islamic extremism that exists today. As Bill Maher says, if he were alive in the 14th century, he would've rightly condemned Christianity. But we're not in the 14th century.

[WWWTT]

The use of those kinds of statistics are not helpful, imo. Acts of terrorism are not typically reported as murders. If you're looking for official stats of some sort, then we're going to need a definition of what's being looked at here as you said.

Executions by the state are also not reported as murders!

In other words, murders committed by the state!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

No, there is no double standard. You're referring to things that are mostly long in the past, versus Islamic extremism that exists today. As Bill Maher says, if he were alive in the 14th century, he would've rightly condemned Christianity. But we're not in the 14th century.

Good argument.

I will counter that, many western nations have not learned from past lessons and have not repaid for damages. You are assuming that since something has happened in the past, the statute of limitations is somehow applying. Good examples would be Iraq/Afghanistan.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The point is that it's a double standard. That what we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority. Obama drops bombs using drones on grade school children and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

Agreed!

Good example in your comment.

WWWTT