The Islamophobia split on the left.

[jackelgull]

Nobody seems to hold Christianity responsible for its blood past though, so what are you talking about?

 

[CavLancer]

I think many Christians realize the crusades were a mistake, back then everyone was at war and monarchies ruled, Democracies and the will of the people far in the future. The question these days is what is the will of the people of Muslim countries?

 

[onejayhawk]

Nobody seems to hold Christianity responsible for its blood past though, so what are you talking about?

To the contrary. The argument is that we have gone to excess in holding Christians responsible.

J

 

[MobBoss]

Nobody seems to hold Christianity responsible for its blood past though, so what are you talking about?

I beg to differ. Of course they do.

 

[Natan35]

I think many Christians realize the crusades were a mistake, back then everyone was at war and monarchies ruled, Democracies and the will of the people far in the future. The question these days is what is the will of the people of Muslim countries?

A good question. No Muslim to answer it, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

A good question. No Muslim to answer it, though.

Perhaps you can answer for your country.

 

[Esmer]

my understanding is that in Germany it would not be possible, like here in Australia, or the UK, has something to do with the constitution I believe, or maybe just the general laws etc. as a leftist why should I have a standpoint about something the muslims in my society, don't practice and promote that they should abide by the laws of the land, which actually prohibit it, so I am in agreement with the muslims here, it is not allowed.

Well, if they don't practice and promote it, they don't need to feel adressed when somebody talks about the topic. Moderate Christians don't need to feel adressed when somebody discusses and criticizes Young-Earth-creationism either.

maybe you could englighten me about why it is a 'thing' in Germany though...

Because a group of extremists once did take our parliamentary democracy away and replaced it with something horrifying. This was only possible because the democratic system itself gave them the opportunity to do so.
So yeah, the German understanding of free speech and freedom of beliefs may be different than the one in your country. Our historical experience is different.
I have no problem with criminalizing Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols for example.

 

[CavLancer]

A good question. No Muslim to answer it, though.

I see a picture of one of those vests with dynamite strapped to it, the existence of which is to blow up a bus full of random victims and I get a pretty good answer. The guts and sinews of women, children, the helpless and innocent spread among the wreckage speaks volumes. Or as this Muslim state spreads the reports of terrible atrocities against people who don't believe as they do, and there is an eloquence that requires no words.

 

[Arakhor]

Extremists of any sort are bad news, especially extremists with guns and a bad attitude.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I agree. But someone has to be the extremist, haven't they?

Any spectrum of views must include the ends, I think.

 

[svknoe]

[...] The point I am trying to make is that there is not a single manifestation of Islam that you can denominate as true Islam. Your issue is not with Islam, it's with parts of the Koran. If you make the point there are some truly disgusting passages in the Koran, you'd have few people arguing against you.

Although I agree that there is no body of beliefs, Islam, that is held unanimously by all Muslims, but it should still be possible to criticise Islam. If not it seems to me that we arrive at the conclusion that it is impossible to make statements at all about religions such as Islam or Christianity (perhaps also about ideologies such as nationalism, I don't know). Is this wrong?

If we are clear and specific about what we are talking about it seems that this entire problem goes away. Since Islam may mean different things to different people all we have to do when discussing it is to explain in which sense we use the word. As long as we don't say that 'The common beliefs held by all Muslims are horrible' and rather say something like that 'This set of beliefs (e.g. 'Death for apostates'), which often is a part of Islam, is horrible (horrible meaning very contrary to human well being).'

It also ends up putting you in a similar camp to Richard Dawkins, where (similar to many fundamentalists) I believe he thinks that religious moderates are fooling themselves and religion is completely antithetical to science.

Has he stated that such people should not be allowed to vote, or am I mistaken in interpreting you in that way? I have not heard any reasonable people maintain that religious people should not be allowed to vote.

Is it unreasonable to say that religious moderates are fooling themselves (in regard to the truth of their religious beliefs)? Either what they believe is true or it isn't. If there turned to exist some deity after all, I would be happy to admit that I had been fooling myself all along (or at least have been wrong).

In the degree that religion makes claims about facts about the world, it does seem to be antithetical to science. Other types of claims made by religion may not be, although those don't seem particularly interesting to me. In spite of this, many people hold both religious and scientific beliefs (while still functioning in society), of course.

[...] as a leftist why should I have a standpoint about something the muslims in my society, don't practice and promote that they should abide by the laws of the land, which actually prohibit it, so I am in agreement with the muslims here, it is not allowed.

That those views are held in other societies seems to be reason enough for that. One should absolutely criticise bad ideas held in other societies (e.g. 'Death for apostates'), if only due to the fact that people do suffer due to them in those societies.

Do someone need to hold an opinion in order to have a standpoint on it? I would strongly argue that one should condemn a standpoint such as 'All living beings should be tortured to death' regardless of whether or not anyone has actually said it. One could reasonably say the same about the relevant Islamic tenants.

 

[Arakhor]

Has he stated that such people should not be allowed to vote, or am I mistaken in interpreting you in that way? I have not heard any reasonable people maintain that religious people should not be allowed to vote.

Well, that's why I said 'similar'. I don't believe that Dr. Dawkins has expressed any views on voting, but he is extremely outspoken on atheist matters.

 

[Senethro]

I see a picture of one of those vests with dynamite strapped to it, the existence of which is to blow up a bus full of random victims and I get a pretty good answer. The guts and sinews of women, children, the helpless and innocent spread among the wreckage speaks volumes. Or as this Muslim state spreads the reports of terrible atrocities against people who don't believe as they do, and there is an eloquence that requires no words.

Does anyone else think the avatar of a little man and his huge cart of crap is especially appropriate right now?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@svknoe, with the nuance you included I agree that this would be a valid statement to make.

 

[Flying Pig]

If we are clear and specific about what we are talking about it seems that this entire problem goes away. Since Islam may mean different things to different people all we have to do when discussing it is to explain in which sense we use the word. As long as we don't say that 'The common beliefs held by all Muslims are horrible' and rather say something like that 'This set of beliefs (e.g. 'Death for apostates'), which often is a part of Islam, is horrible (horrible meaning very contrary to human well being).'

Why link it with Islam at all? If it's horrible, it's horrible no matter which religion does it, and criticising the belief in itself without drawing any other associations avoids the impression which quite a lot of 'disinterested' commentators (particularly on this subject give off - you get a fair few journalists et al talking endlessly about the horrible things believed by Muslims and the bad things done by Muslims but swearing blind that they have nothing against Muslims themselves. It doesn't really stack up.

 

[Gary Childress]

There is an interesting split in my leftist media bubble video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZyC8ya_GvU&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ. 2 people I find I often agree with have a severe split on how we discuss Islam, Muslims, and issues surrounding media, culture, politics. This reflects a broader split on this question on the left. At issue: is it correct, moral, fair to characterize Islam and Muslim beliefs as more pernicious than other religions, a root cause of violence, terrorism and oppression? Or is this bigoted, unfair and insensitive with the root of some of these problems obviously due to economic and political/historical colonial issues? I must say I am on the side of the supposed Islamophobes Harris and Maher. I will not suppress criticism of repressive, sexist, anti-liberal doctrines out of cultural sensitivity. Nor do I think it is moral to do so but in fact immoral. Where do you stand?

Nice interview of Ayaan Hirshi Ali here http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia for those who don’t mind reading.

Great post. I think I sort of agree with the two speakers on the right hand side of the screen in the Young Turks interview. From what little I know of Sam Harris, he doesn't seem to address the socio economic roots of violence and oppression, etc. Harris seems to attack the symptoms. Personally I think that if religions never existed there would still be violence and terror in the world. In fact I would think there would be more of it.

Jesus taught things like "turn the other cheek" etc. Had Jesus never been here to emphasize such things people would be killing each other much more readily than they do now. Religions usually spring up to address serious challenges to humanity. Many contemporary world religions sprang up around the time that human beings were congregating in large urban centers which created new problems that needed to be resolved. I don't think "atheism" is the answer to all our problems. People are going to do radically terrible things regardless.

 

[warpus]

Had Jesus never been here to emphasize such things people would be killing each other much more readily than they do now.

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?

 

[Borachio]

Well. If it wasn't for Christianity, the Vikings would still be raping, pillaging and plundering.

And the Romans wouldn't be throwing Christians to the lions. So, it's swings and roundabouts all the way.

 

[Old Hippy]

That those views are held in other societies seems to be reason enough for that. One should absolutely criticise bad ideas held in other societies (e.g. 'Death for apostates'), if only due to the fact that people do suffer due to them in those societies.

Do someone need to hold an opinion in order to have a standpoint on it? I would strongly argue that one should condemn a standpoint such as 'All living beings should be tortured to death' regardless of whether or not anyone has actually said it. One could reasonably say the same about the relevant Islamic tenants.

you made good points thoughout your post, I'll just respond to the quoted bit from me...

I agree, but again what does western criticism of predominately different cultures achieve... has Saudi Arabia made any progress, no it continues to receive support, and a noticeable absence of criticism, while media headlines and attention seeking speaking heads tell us the problem is with 1.5 billion followers of Islam So the reality of the situation is those that obey the laws of the lands in which they live, because they believe that is the Islamic thing to do, become the focal point of outright hatred. If it is serious criticism, people would say ISIS, or Saudi Arabian sponsored fundamentalist Islam, that would be having a standpoint, instead any initial criticism soon gets highjacked and becomes instead 'of a problem in Islam' but 'a problem with people who practice Islam' many of whom do not accept that Islam should have, or even practice the apparently relevant Islamic tenants they are critiqued for...

when and if Islamic critics call for an embargo against Saudi Arabia, I will support them, and think countries should ban Saudi Arabian funds coming into their country to support local groups, but I will not hold my breath that they are serious about addressing problems with Islam, they are just happy having a scapegoat to blame things on, like all Muslims

 

[Phrossack]

Well. If it wasn't for Christianity, the Vikings would still be raping, pillaging and plundering.

And the Romans wouldn't be throwing Christians to the lions. So, it's swings and roundabouts all the way.

The Norse did not stop their raids and attacks with conversion to Christianity. In fact, the Danes and Swedes went on crusades across the Baltic, conquered Rügen, Estonia, and Finland, slaughtered pagans or converted them at the point of a sword, destroyed religious sculptures, and generally let slip the dogs of war. Well into the 17th century the Swedes were raping, pillaging and plundering on a grand scale in continental Europe, leaving much of it a charred, starved, traumatized, corpse-filled wasteland for a while. They were quite nasty in the Thirty Years' War (just look up the "Swedish Drink") and afterwards.

Also, there's no evidence that the Romans ever threw Christians to the lions or massacred them in the Colosseum.