The Islamophobia split on the left.

[Terxpahseyton]

Given the quality centuries old religious rule books tend to have - clinging to them with much seriousness is naturally always a problem.
Be it Islam, or Hinduism or Christianity.

Related to that is the problem of identity. Just as national identities, religious identities can cause grave conflicts if taken too seriously.

And Islam seems to have both issues in abundance. I am not comfortably though with saying that this was some kind of inherent trait of Islam as such. What actually is written in that book of course has some kind of relevance. But what matters is the social reality of it and it to me seems like a fool's errand to want to distinguish the one from the other. To want to be able to say 'Ah this is because of what Islam inherently is' rather than 'Ah this this what people make of it'. And hence I really see no use in discussing what Islam is or isn't. But only in what believers in Islam are or aren't. And to what different kinds of Islam that leads.

The problem that those are a bit more words. It is a bit more complicated. Only a bit, really. But that seems to suffice to motivate people to skip it. But that is IMO a very bad idea.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah, i stopped this halfway through, because the guy doing all the talking is either grossly ignorant and logically illiterate or lying and determined to leave no straw in Kansas.

I just watched the video
Care to elaborate?

 

[illram]

And hence I really see no use in discussing what Islam is or isn't. But only in what believers in Islam are or aren't. And to what different kinds of Islam that leads.

The problem that those are a bit more words. It is a bit more complicated. Only a bit, really. But that seems to suffice to motivate people to skip it. But that is IMO a very bad idea.

Right. Meaning, a real discussion must take into account all the various Islamic nations within the world's 1.5 billion muslims and all their various differences. Which as you say is a bit more words.

I think it is a lot more complicated though, not just by a small amount, but I agree that additional layer of complication is what compels people like Maher to cut through it. He is a media guy after all, he needs to say controversial things.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sorry, it seems I should have acknowledged your own post before doing mine.

Yes, I guess if we mean to discuss the whole phenomena of Islam we need to discuss it all.
But one can skip that if one just want to rant a bit against Islam - as long as one makes due use of qualifiers.

However, 'Islam is evil! ... As far as this particular manifestation there and there by those and those people is concerned' does not sell well enough, it seems.

You know what we would need - only people so polite and self-critical, that the most formidable Brit would feel ashamed of his or her rudeness, should be allowed to say a word on TV. Even if they aren't ranters - of which there seem to be a lot on American TV from what I gather - but just say anchorman, they seem to tend to lack a real grasp of what is going on. And it would be nice to see some acknowledgment of that.
I mean I can be pretentious or rant away. But nobody listens to me. So that is okay (I think... maybe not). But when millions do?
"Tonight, we humbly would like to present those news to you, as far as our limited abilities and capabilities allowed us to capture and understand them, and we are dearly sorry for any distortion or misrepresentation we may cause in the process."

I am starting to be annoyed by anyone on TV who isn't doing that. So anyone.

 

[luiz]

But if we recognize there are multiple practices and traditions founded on various interpretations, and there are others who follow those more moderate interpretations, then I don't think it is true to say Islam is one thing, and that single thing is harmful. Obviously Islam is many things, if it is subject to many interpretations. So the more interesting (and productive) question then becomes, why is a more extremist interpretation currently more popular? And what can be done about it?

If the expression of the religion is the issue, why focus on the religion? Focus on the acts and the specific actors. Why are 80% of Egyptians OK with stoning? Why are 40% if Indonesians? Why would anyone in their right mind join ISIS? Is it just "Islam?' Is that a satisfactory or useful answer? Not to me.

So I think it is unfair to say "Islam" is more harmful than Christianity. Currently popular and extremist interpretations of Islam, that currently hold political and social power amongst certain populations, are absolutely a problem. For the sake of argument we could agree they are more objective harmful than, say, right wing extremist Christian groups in the United States who hold political power. (I say for the sake of argument on purpose, I think reasonable minds can differ there.) But "what is it about Islam" is the wrong question. What is it about the populations that are adopting a particularly harmful interpretation of it is the more productive question, to me.

But again, what is being pointed out here is that even the "moderate" interpretations of Islam are worse than Christianity in subjects such as women's rights. It's not just that extremist Islam is more popular than extremist Christianity, even though that too is true.

I don't think that either "what is it about Islam" or "what is it about the populations adopting those positions" are questions that can be satisfactorily answered.

 

[warpus]

But again, what is being pointed out here is that even the "moderate" interpretations of Islam are worse than Christianity in subjects such as women's rights. It's not just that extremist Islam is more popular than extremist Christianity, even though that too is true.

I disagree, I know a moderate Muslim lady who interprets Islam in a way that affords women the exact same rights than a Christian lady living in Germany might get.

It makes more sense to focus on the culture here, rather than the religion, IMO. If you really want to figure out what's going on that is. Religion is only a part of culture.

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't see much difference between extremist Muslims and extremist Christians, except, maybe 400 years of Christians not being martyrs.

It may yet come back for them too, though.

Moreover, strangely, some of the most severe blood-letting in the C20th didn't involve Muslims at all.

When? In the last 2000 years, I don't think there has been a time. Now is one of the worst.

J

 

[Borachio]

Oh well. It depends what you're thinking of, I suppose.

I can't remember the last time a Christian was burned at the stake for heresy. Which is the kind of thing I was thinking of. That, and being thrown to the lions.

Of course, Muslims haven't been martyred that way either, for a long time. It's just that they seem to blow themselves up, and fly planes into buildings, with the express aim of martyrdom, on a regular basis. Behaviour which seems to be missing from the Christian community. (Not that it shouldn't be missing, I hasten to add.)

Still, maybe you count Americans soldiers being repatriated in body bags as a form of martyrdom too. I wouldn't know.

Or maybe you're thinking of Iraqi Christians who seem to be being persecuted for no good reason, I'll admit.

But don't let's dwell on this subject over much.

 

[Domen]

There is a difference between a regular martyr and a suicide bomber martyr or a jihad martyr.

Most of Christian martyrs were stoned to death or ripped off their skin alive by Non-Christians, without killing anyone.

The death count was quite unfavourable for Christian martyrs, whereas Muslim martyrs don't die alone.

 

[Gucumatz]

Its not religion thats the issue, its the society itself that is. Religion adapts to the economic and political situation of its surroundings. Poverty and lack of political freedom creates a venue for extremism, no matter the culture, religion, era, or people. When people get educated/more opportunities and see the problems of their homelands/peoples they have natural interest in solving these problems. In areas where people are made to feel like they don't belong [In this case immigrants in western countries], sometimes a few are vulnerable to being radicalized

This same pattern can be seen anywhere from the communist movements in the Americas in the 20th century, to ISIS today, to Fascist movements, colonial histories, etc. This current wave of extremism is not exclusive to Islam in the Middle East. Its just that this particular region and peoples in history are currently vulnerable to the multiple forces of extremism and they certainly won't be the last, Islam itself is not a confounding or even related factor here.

 

[Senethro]

How come noone gives the Sikhs crap for their violent past. I'm not saying anyone should, I'm just saying some people talk about Muslims like they're orcs from lord of the rings or something.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd guess the operative word there would be "past". But I have no real knowledge of Sikhism (or Islam for that matter), so that really would just be a guess.

 

[luiz]

Its not religion thats the issue, its the society itself that is. Religion adapts to the economic and political situation of its surroundings. Poverty and lack of political freedom creates a venue for extremism, no matter the culture, religion, era, or people. When people get educated/more opportunities and see the problems of their homelands/peoples they have natural interest in solving these problems. In areas where people are made to feel like they don't belong [In this case immigrants in western countries], sometimes a few are vulnerable to being radicalized

This same pattern can be seen anywhere from the communist movements in the Americas in the 20th century, to ISIS today, to Fascist movements, colonial histories, etc. This current wave of extremism is not exclusive to Islam in the Middle East. Its just that this particular region and peoples in history are currently vulnerable to the multiple forces of extremism and they certainly won't be the last, Islam itself is not a confounding or even related factor here.

Like that poor bin Laden or those poor doctors and engineers that carried out 9/11?? Those poor guys with so little opportunities? Except of course being far richer than the vast majority of westerners, that is.

We gotta stop with this victimization of terrorists. It just doesn't fit the facts.

 

[aelf]

I hear you. Terrorists of bin Laden's sort and bankers have quite a few similarities. To start with, both are not materially deprived; their reasons for harming society for the purpose of self-aggrandization are not born of material lack, I have to give you that.

 

[Tahuti]

Its not religion thats the issue, its the society itself that is. Religion adapts to the economic and political situation of its surroundings. Poverty and lack of political freedom creates a venue for extremism, no matter the culture, religion, era, or people. When people get educated/more opportunities and see the problems of their homelands/peoples they have natural interest in solving these problems. In areas where people are made to feel like they don't belong [In this case immigrants in western countries], sometimes a few are vulnerable to being radicalized

This same pattern can be seen anywhere from the communist movements in the Americas in the 20th century, to ISIS today, to Fascist movements, colonial histories, etc. This current wave of extremism is not exclusive to Islam in the Middle East. Its just that this particular region and peoples in history are currently vulnerable to the multiple forces of extremism and they certainly won't be the last, Islam itself is not a confounding or even related factor here.

That is a rather deterministic view, and one that is not particularly accurate either. It is more of a cultural thing: Islam is seen a be-all-end-all in most countries that have Islam. The Ex-Soviet countries are the largely the exception, and even then, only for certain subcultures within these countries. In the West, religion was eventually made to fit realities of daily life, whereas in the Islamic world, it was the other way around.

We gotta stop with this victimization of terrorists. It just doesn't fit the facts.

I agree. I notice that Islamic Fighters are more motivated by a search for meaning than poverty or despair.

 

[jackelgull]

I found this quote interesting

Abdullah explained that the reason ISIS has grown so much in such a short amount of time is due to its appealing salaries, which allow young people to support their families in ways that may not be feasible if they did not join.

“As we try to create jobs [for the youth]…ISIS today is providing…$1,000 a month in Saudi, which to people in Jordan is a middle class to higher middle class income,” he added.

Here is the article if you want to check it out.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/180694-isis-draws-new-members-offering-lavish-lifestyle-money-sex/

 

[luiz]

I hear you. Terrorists of bin Laden's sort and bankers have quite a few similarities. To start with, both are not materially deprived; their reasons for harming society for the purpose of self-aggrandization are not born of material lack, I have to give you that.

Well the CEO of Goldman Sachs (and thus according to the anti-banker tin foil hat crowd, the true Lord of the Universe) was born in a housing project and is the son of a post office clerk.

 

[Tahuti]

and thus according to the anti-banker tin foil hat crowd, the true Lord of the Universe

That got to be the Rothchilds.

 

[luiz]

That got to be the Rothchilds.

Rothschild conspiracy theories are so passé. It's all about Goldman Sachs now.

 

[Gucumatz]

Like that poor bin Laden or those poor doctors and engineers that carried out 9/11?? Those poor guys with so little opportunities? Except of course being far richer than the vast majority of westerners, that is.

We gotta stop with this victimization of terrorists. It just doesn't fit the facts.

You need the poor to be the footsoldiers of radicals. Bin Laden certainly wasn't poor, neither was Che Guevera. Both felt out of place in their relative societies and brought other "educated/rich" members to lead the gullible. Both were despicable people. This isn't about victimization of terrorists, its just acknowledging why they can come to be.

Al Qaeda's early leadership was made up of people who were well off. Not unlike almost every communist movement in the Americas. There is no doubt this is a level of the equation too, but without examining their fuel sources, you know the conditions on the ground, its not enough to simply point to these leaders.