The Islamophobia split on the left.

[Smote]

For one thing, a written text about human experiences even today is going to be filled with violence. That is the human natural thing to do in reporting the violence that is going on around them. I am not sure why people do not judge themselves on their own human nature as opposed to their writings, accept for the fact that writings remove the issue away from the fact that humans are humans despite what they write down. We can then judge the writings and not necessarily our own human nature.

Extremism is just another method of removing one's nature a step away from their own reality so that they do not have to deal with their own humanness. Of course we do not want extremism to exist, but in reality they are the one's who are actually taking life to the fullest possible point. Most people limit themselves to the mundane.

Religion is supposed to be a way to transcend the "us vs them" tribalism that we have evolved with and is the cause of so many wars and so much violence. It's supposed to be about overcoming our animal nature. Sadly, religious differences are just another cause of tribalism, instead of a solution.

I am very glad that most people limit themselves to the mundane. They are much more reasonable to deal with. I would love for people to take their morality into their own hands as well. Of course, this type of attitude takes education, and is held back by religious indoctrination.

I also wish there were more secular community centers that dealt with moral problems or philosophy, so that non-religious folks could participate in the community-building beneficial side of religion as much as religious folk.

 

[luiz]

OK, yes, that's a bad example. Nonetheless, a good 90% of the violence and intolerance we see from Muslims come from Arabs.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Traitorfish]

Religion is supposed to be a way to transcend the "us vs them" tribalism that we have evolved with and is the cause of so many wars and so much violence.

Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, maybe, but most religious traditions don't have that built-in universalism. It's quite an unusual characteristic of religions, historically speaking, it's just a very powerful one, so has come to take up so prominent a place in the Western imagination that we struggle to imagine a "religion" without it. The claim that religion is "supposed" to be universalising only stands if we declare that most of what would be identified as religious belief and practice is not, in fact, any such thing.

Plus there's the whole issue of how you actually define universalism, and whether it actually precludes a militantly universalising tradition. Is an "us-versus-them" attitude necessarily "tribal" if the goal is to turn "them" into more "us"? There's an argument that Islamic fundamentalists, in their quest to impose their religious beliefs upon every square inch of the earth, are less tribally inclined than those who want to let every little sect do its own thing, they're just meaner.

 

[Funky]

There is an interesting split in my leftist media bubble video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZyC8ya_GvU&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ.

This Werleman guy (the one who speaks first in the video) is a fraud, trying to gain fast fame (and sell more books) by criticizing Sam Harris. Harris himself approached him in an attempt to clarify his views. But after a short email exchange between the two, Werleman's attitude towards Harris became only more disingenuous. The culmination point was his appearance at TYT in the video above, in which he grossly misrepresents Harris' views. It is an intentional slur of the most spiteful kind, which anyone only partially familiar with Harris' writing and speech can recognize easily.
Since then, Werleman has been caught out for plagiarism in literally dozens of cases. Instead of standing up to the charge, his reaction was to blame Sam Harris for plagiarism (which of course is unfounded). This pitiful man used the ways of deceit to gain reputation and failed miserably. He is not worth the effort.

 

[warpus]

IMO it's the problem is a meeting point between extremist theology and certain cultural artefacts that are a bit outdated from our point of view.

Islam just happens to be the religion of choice for a lot of the people who fall in that intersection. We've also seen Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist extremists and terrorists, it just doesn't happen nearly as often because the cultural conditions just aren't there.. usually. That and Islam seems to be more prone to fundamentalism and extremism than other religions, but again I think that is something to do with the culture of the people involved and not particularly anything inherent about the religion itself. Many people seem to do just fine practicing moderate islam.. Look at the largest Muslim country in the world for example.. Indonesia.. Is that place a breeding ground for terrorism? In some cases probably, but overall it seems to be a rather peaceful and moderate culture.

I think it's far more important to call out extremism wherever it happens, instead of attempting to focus on the religion.. I don't think that approach is going to help any. Moderates need to unite against the extremists. Yeah that's right, moderates in the west need to ally themselves with Muslim moderates around the world. That's the only way to fight this thing.

 

[timtofly]

Religion is supposed to be a way to transcend the "us vs them" tribalism that we have evolved with and is the cause of so many wars and so much violence. It's supposed to be about overcoming our animal nature. Sadly, religious differences are just another cause of tribalism, instead of a solution.

I am very glad that most people limit themselves to the mundane. They are much more reasonable to deal with. I would love for people to take their morality into their own hands as well. Of course, this type of attitude takes education, and is held back by religious indoctrination.

I also wish there were more secular community centers that dealt with moral problems or philosophy, so that non-religious folks could participate in the community-building beneficial side of religion as much as religious folk.

Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, maybe, but most religious traditions don't have that built-in universalism. It's quite an unusual characteristic of religions, historically speaking, it's just a very powerful one, so has come to take up so prominent a place in the Western imagination that we struggle to imagine a "religion" without it. The claim that religion is "supposed" to be universalising only stands if we declare that most of what is imagined to be religious belief and practice is not, in fact, any such thing.

Plus there's the whole issue of how you actually define universalism, and whether it actually precludes a militantly universalising tradition. There's an argument that Islamic fundamentalists, in their quest to impose their religious beliefs upon every square inch of the earth, are less tribally inclined than those who want to let every little sect do its own thing.

The only difference between spiritual leadership and human governance is the spiritual component. Religion is a "governmental" body and the more it relies on the compliance of the whole, the more it is universal and governmental. What Smote seems to prefer (as most anarchist) is that humans would be self limiting without a government. Being spiritual is still private and forming a religion is still not making something private universal. There is only one way to be universal and that is having the same mindset throughout humanity. No one is going to agree on whose mindset is going to win out. While being social creatures, we are still individuals with our own ambitions. Neither religion nor government will ever transcend human social disparity. The only way humans will transcend their human nature is the willingness to give up their own mindset to the uniformity of a central mindset. The worst way to do so is by force. The best way is to let it sneak up and happen without any one actually thinking about it.

 

[Borachio]

Not sure if that is a valid point - Christians did to each other and to other people some of the most horrifying things imaginable. Religion is no protection against barbarism.

You're right. It isn't a valid point. I didn't intend it to be one.

 

[Mouthwash]

What about the Taliban and associated groups? They're mostly Pashtun, I think. Plus there's a lot of activity in the former Soviet Union, mostly from people of Caucasian and Central Asian ethnicity. Hezbollah in Turkey is mostly Kurdish, and the Islamic insurgents in China are primarily Uyghur. Most of the Islamic terrorism in sub-Saharan Africa is carried out by sub-Saharan Africans. Not to mention ongoing terrorist campaigns in South-East Asia- in Indonesia, in Thailand and the Philippines.

Are there actually ny statistics on who actually makes up militant Islamist groups?

I'm not talking about "militant Islamic groups." I'm talking about the people themselves. Indonesia, for instance, has had an openly pro-Israel Muslim president. But in the Arab world, de facto allies of Israel have to publicly call for its destruction or risk getting butchered by their own people. Ali Salem got expelled from the Egyptian Writer's Syndicate for visiting Israel, Mithal al-Alusi has been almost killed for doing the same. It is quite literally taboo to view Israelis as humans or to empathize with them in any capacity. I recall after Shimon Peres organized an Israeli-Palestinian soccer match a PA official called it a crime against humanity.

This isn't normal.

 

[Arakhor]

Of course it's not normal, but in long periods of ongoing military and/or overt hostile action, it's easy to demonise the other side.

 

[Mouthwash]

Of course it's not normal, but in long periods of ongoing military and/or overt hostile action, it's easy to demonise the other side.

Most of the Arab states have never interacted with Israel in any meaningful way. And it's not normal even within the context of brutal ethnic conflict. What they hate is that Israel created a successful state on what Arabs consider to be 'Arab land' (a fascist notion) and this deprives them of moral authority. Oswald Spengler attributed European antisemitism to civilizations in different historical phases interacting. I think something similar has happened with Israel.

The Arab world is fascist to the core, and will die a painful death over the next century unless we do to them what we did to European fascism.

 

[timtofly]

Most of the Arab states have never interacted with Israel in any meaningful way. And it's not normal even within the context of brutal ethnic conflict. What they hate is that Israel created a successful state on what Arabs consider to be 'Arab land' (a fascist notion) and this deprives them of moral authority. Oswald Spengler attributed European antisemitism to civilizations in different historical phases interacting. I think something similar has happened with Israel.

The Arab world is fascist to the core, and will die a painful death over the next century unless we do to them what we did to European fascism.

I am not sure that inundating them with sex is going to work.

 

[Borachio]

Eh? How's that? European fascism died a painless death?

Oh, I see. I think. You mean the Arab world will die a painful death unless its fascism is expunged?

Hmm. Maybe. But then it's fascist to the core, you say.

 

[illram]

Just so we're all crystal clear Mouthwash, you are saying all Arabs are anti-democratic fascists? This is something inherent in the being of every Arab? Or is your view more nuanced than that?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not talking about "militant Islamic groups." I'm talking about the people themselves. Indonesia, for instance, has had an openly pro-Israel Muslim president. But in the Arab world, de facto allies of Israel have to publicly call for its destruction or risk getting butchered by their own people. Ali Salem got expelled from the Egyptian Writer's Syndicate for visiting Israel, Mithal al-Alusi has been almost killed for doing the same. It is quite literally taboo to view Israelis as humans or to empathize with them in any capacity. I recall after Shimon Peres organized an Israeli-Palestinian soccer match a PA official called it a crime against humanity.

This isn't normal.

Iran is also virulently anti-Israel, and it's not an Arab country. It's virulently anti-Arab, in fact, or at least the regime is. So that in mind, what reason do we have to think that the ethnicity of the citizens is the primary variable, here?

 

[Flying Pig]

I imagine I'd be quite hacked off if someone from a country that kept bombing my town organised a football match and presented it to the world as if we were just friendly neighbours having a kickabout rather than, you know, one group of people being occupied and killed en masse by another.

 

[Old Hippy]

Well any Muslim group anywhere in the world will have Arab influences. Mohammed was, after all, an Arab. But that doesn't change the fact that there are extremist Muslim groups in non-Arab countries as different as Nigeria, Afghanistan and Malaysia. So Muslim extremism is not an Arab issue it is... a Muslim issue.

but see I did not say it is an arab issue I said it has direct links to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi Islam, wahhabi influence is in places like the UK and Australia who are cuurently dealing with their citizens going overseas, through direct funding of mosques and programes and they funded inferstructure in nigera, afganistan and malaysia you mentioned boko harem before they are a breakaway group from saudi wahhabi ideology, a group eventually dissowned by Al Qaeda and malaysia, maybe we should ask a muslim...

The inroads of the Arab Wahhabi and Salafi variant of Islam into Indonesia and Malaysia lead to a growing assertiveness on the part of the fundamentalists. As fundamentalists strive to control and homogenize Islam, social harmony is the first casualty

In Malaysia and Indonesia traditional greetings used to be "selamat pagi," or "good morning." More and more, the greeting has been replaced by the Arabic "assalam aleikum." A few years ago, former president and influential cleric Abdurrahman Wahid suggested that Indonesians revert to customary greetings, and conservative Islamic leaders in Indonesia were outraged. This could be the tip of the iceberg for profound changes taking place in Islamic Southeast Asia and may have implications for other states throughout the region.

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/5514.the-wahabi-creed.htm

If it's a Muslim Arab problem I'd really like to know what's going on with the Taliban.

try googling saudi araba funding taliban or try aljazeera for their take on terrorist funding

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/12/20101251936167112.html

Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said in one cable sent in December 2009.

"In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qaeda's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

so even though you are correct saying it is a muslim problem it is actually a muslim problem with saudia sponsored wahhabi extremists...

 

[Mouthwash]

Eh? How's that? European fascism died a painless death?

Relatively so, yes. The Arab world is experiencing a collapse of civilization.

Just so we're all crystal clear Mouthwash, you are saying all Arabs are anti-democratic fascists? This is something inherent in the being of every Arab? Or is your view more nuanced than that?

The Arab identity is more of a national one than a racial one. Sure, there are people who propound liberalism, but the mood of the country is diametrically at odds with them.

Iran is also virulently anti-Israel, and it's not an Arab country. It's virulently anti-Arab, in fact, or at least the regime is. So that in mind, what reason do we have to think that the ethnicity of the citizens is the primary variable, here?

The regime is, because it can't have any sort of influence whatsoever in the Arab world without decrying the Zionist regime (you can see this in Turkey as well). But if you look at the (very liberal) ethnic Iranians, plenty of them are friendly to Israel outright. Even inside Iran forty percent of people think Israel should be recognized if it allows a Palestinian state; in the Arab world that number is a lot closer to zero.

I imagine I'd be quite hacked off if someone from a country that kept bombing my town organised a football match and presented it to the world as if we were just friendly neighbours having a kickabout rather than, you know, one group of people being occupied and killed en masse by another.

Peres organized the match to allow Palestinians and Israelis to interact in ways they usually don't. It was presented as a "match for peace," not a propaganda stunt about how swell things are going over there. I can apply your logic to other things: Civil rights activists want an interracial soccer match, black nationalists call it a crime against humanity because it doesn't convey the brutality of the white man.

 

[Flying Pig]

Peres organized the match to allow Palestinians and Israelis to interact in ways they usually don't. It was presented as a "match for peace," not a propaganda stunt about how swell things are going over there. I can apply your logic to other things: Civil rights activists want an interracial soccer match, black nationalists call it a crime against humanity because it doesn't convey the brutality of the white man.

It's not civil rights activists doing it, though, it's an Alabama police force. Even a 'match for peace' is itself a propaganda stunt. It presents the Israelis as trying to bring about peace and focuses attention on these sort of interactions, so people ignore the other interactions done with tanks and aircraft. I'm not denying that he may well have organised it in good faith, but it's quite short-sighted to miss that people on the (literal) other side of the fence might not see it so charitably.

Incidentally, what exactly is a 'collapse of civilisation'?

 

[Traitorfish]

The regime is, because it can't have any sort of influence whatsoever in the Arab world without decrying the Zionist regime (you can see this in Turkey as well). But if you look at the (very liberal) ethnic Iranians, plenty of them are friendly to Israel outright. Even inside Iran forty percent of people think Israel should be recognized if it allows a Palestinian state; in the Arab world that number is a lot closer to zero.

Okay, so, again, what do we have to think that the ethnicity of the citizens is the primary variable, here? I mean, the Arabs aren't intrinsically anti-Semitic savages, y'know, they're not Scots, so you've got to have some sort of reasoning behind all this.

 

[Gary Childress]

I completely disagree. In the grand scheme of things Jesus did not really have much of an impact on the amount of violence on the planet.

What sort of historical scenarios do you envision that would have lead to significant enough increases of violence, had Jesus not been born?

I don't know. I can't predict how things would be had there never been a Jesus Christ or Buddha or Socrates or anyone else. It's difficult enough just to understand the real past as opposed to hypothesizing about "alternative universes".

Maybe Christ was a savior only to himself. We humans are often faced with impossible choices and impossible situations that steer us toward greater and greater wrongs. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot we can do about many things in this world. Maybe a divine miracle could have prevented WW2 from happening. But God, for whatever, reason decided not to intervene with that miracle. millions perished as a result and nothing was solved. Maybe a miracle would have been better.