Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[Timsup2nothin]

If you treat people as "the other" long enough then you get to resent them for embracing their "otherness."

 

[Hygro]

I can tell I'm getting older because the more I read about "integration" the more often I hear "be cool with teaching their daughters to have casual sex with me" or some variation thereof.

Where do I get in on this integration of yours

 

[Farm Boy]

Mine has some overhead. I'm generally inclined to think it's worth it.

 

[Hygro]

Do you offer a free trial? I learn better by doing.

 

[Agent327]

That's not the question that was asked though, the question was about "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets". Attacks of a specific type (suicide bombings) that have been used specifically against civilian targets for the effect that targeting civilians has.

This question didn't give them some vague framework as you're painting it, the question asked them directly if suicide attacks against civilians are okay, after there have been tons of terror attacks by people who claim to have done it to defend Islam.

In cauda venemum. But more to the point: the overwhelming majority of attacks and victims of Muslim-fundamentalist terror attacks are Muslim. Secondly, the average Muslim will tell you that IS and the like are not Muslim. In short, there is more nuance here than a simple poll question can show. I'd also like to point out that election polls, for instance, tend to be wrong. Lastly, the number of Muslims actually involved in violent attacks are less than 0.1 % of the total world population of Muslims. Traffic accidents kill more people, and they do so every year. You have a bigger chance to be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a terrorist attack.

This is probably true, but it does not change the fact that in this case Islamic texts are the tool that is being used here.

It is indeed remarkable that holy texts can be used by virtually anyone to claim virtually anything. (Also a generalization, but a rather accurate one.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is indeed remarkable that holy texts can be used by virtually anyone to claim virtually anything. (Also a generalization, but a rather accurate one.)

I tried that argument several pages ago. Ryika is apparently immune. I suspect it is genetics.

Not saying that it isn't a good argument...quite the opposite.

 

[Agent327]

I suspect it's more simple than that. 'Double standard' comes to mind.

 

[Ryika]

the overwhelming majority of attacks and victims of Muslim-fundamentalist terror attacks are Muslim.

Yes, I even said that in another post. How is this relevant to the question though? Even if 100% of all Islamic terrorist attacks were other Muslims in non-western countries, the problem, and the implication, would be the same.

Secondly, the average Muslim will tell you that IS and the like are not Muslim.

Yeah, but again, a sizable portion of the "average Muslim" also says that terror attacks to defend Islam are sometimes justified.
If that is not promoting violence, then I don't know what is.

In short, there is more nuance here than a simple poll question can show. I'd also like to point out that election polls, for instance, tend to be wrong. Lastly, the number of Muslims actually involved in violent attacks are less than 0.1 % of the total world population of Muslims. Traffic accidents kill more people, and they do so every year. You have a bigger chance to be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a terrorist attack.

Polls tend to be heavily influenced by the way the questions are worded. "If Islam were under attack, would actions against Civilians be justified?" will gain more approval than "Is committing terrorist attacks in the name of Islam justified?".

The question here was:
"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

That's a pretty neutral question, without any leading factors. I have no doubt that the people said what they really think. Why is it so controversial to take people by their word? Why are you doubting a poll by a well-respected polling agency that consistently found that a portion of Muslims say Civilian attacks are sometimes justified?

About the rest of your quote: Yes, obviously terror attacks have low victim counts overall, but that's once again not the issue. The issue was the mindset that Islam promotes in a sizable portion of its followers, and that terrorist attacks are a result of that. The fact that the large majority of people will never commit or assist in a suicide attack does not change that, after all, you wouldn't deny that people who preach about killing all the Jews don't promote antisemitism, just because they themselves don't actually follow through with what they preach. And you wouldn't then start explaining how the antisemitic mindset isn't actually responsible for the killing of jews.

It is indeed remarkable that holy texts can be used by virtually anyone to claim virtually anything. (Also a generalization, but a rather accurate one.)

Yeah but again, you're arguing against a point that I didn't even make. My whole post was a response to Lexicus who called KmDubya's post a "pernicious right-wing lie", and as far as I can tell, dismissed the connection between Islam and Islamic Terrorist Attacks. Later other people jumped on the train as well.

My only point is that there IS a direct connection, not that this connection is entirely unique to Islam, because obviously it is not.

To me this whole conversation boils down to:
Person A: "There is a connection between Islam and Islamic Terrorism."
Person B: "Nope."
Person C: "But I think there is. <shows some data>"
Person D,E and F: "Whow, why do you single out Islam?!"

 

[El_Machinae]

In cauda venemum. But more to the point: the overwhelming majority of attacks and victims of Muslim-fundamentalist terror attacks are Muslim. Secondly, the average Muslim will tell you that IS and the like are not Muslim. In short, there is more nuance here than a simple poll question can show. I'd also like to point out that election polls, for instance, tend to be wrong. Lastly, the number of Muslims actually involved in violent attacks are less than 0.1 % of the total world population of Muslims. Traffic accidents kill more people, and they do so every year. You have a bigger chance to be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a terrorist attack.



It is indeed remarkable that holy texts can be used by virtually anyone to claim virtually anything. (Also a generalization, but a rather accurate one.)

I don't think the expressed concern is so much suicide bombings, they're commonly understood to not be a statistical threat. I was concern about the ability to integrate when there's expressed justification of suicide bombings.

I run into a similar issue when dealing with prophet-ordained mass murders with fundamentalist Christians. They'll look for specific reasons why mass slaughter was justified in the old testament, and perform all types of moral gymnastics to do so. And the number of moderns Christians who very well might commit mass murder for God could very easily be 0.1%.

But the question that Rykia is highlighting really is concerning for someone trying to integrate. We live in a society where you're supposed to disapprove of suicide bombings that target civilians.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do you offer a free trial? I learn better by doing.

Sure, but it's the demo mode, so a couple of the options are disabled. 95+% functionality though, at least.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, but it's the demo mode, so a couple of the options are disabled. 95+% functionality though, at least.

Note that the demo mode always disables the most interesting options.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just the ones they think you'll pay money for.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just the ones they think you'll pay money for.

Isn't "most interesting ones" and "the ones you'd pay money for" basically the same thing? After all, when you get the most interesting things without paying money for them they invariably cost more in the long run.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think so?

 

[Agent327]

I don't think the expressed concern is so much suicide bombings, they're commonly understood to not be a statistical threat. I was concern about the ability to integrate when there's expressed justification of suicide bombings.

I run into a similar issue when dealing with prophet-ordained mass murders with fundamentalist Christians. They'll look for specific reasons why mass slaughter was justified in the old testament, and perform all types of moral gymnastics to do so. And the number of moderns Christians who very well might commit mass murder for God could very easily be 0.1%.

But the question that Rykia is highlighting really is concerning for someone trying to integrate. We live in a society where you're supposed to disapprove of suicide bombings that target civilians.

One might conclude that the fact that less than 0.1 % of Muslims actually conduct terrorism would point to a rather high percentage of integration. Something which is often overlooked by critics, just as the fact that a considerable percentage of ' integrated' citizens propose policies that are not ' integral' at all. In fact, the latter seem to pose a far greater problem for societies than the former.

If one takes the crazy ideas that plenty of citizens (and politicians) indulge in at face value, the only possible conclusion must be that society as we know it is disintegrating rapidly. Reality suggests otherwise, however. Reality also suggests one can make a political career out of 'alternative facts'. Personally, I don't think any of this means we are all doomed. Just because there are plenty of demagogues who can make a career out of perceived notions, doesn't mean there's actually any truth in it. Panic and dissent may be well for political careers (and parties), but in the end they're just an illustration of the wonderful thing that is freedom of speech. which, I believe, was one of ' our' core values.

 

[El_Machinae]

I tend not to worry about trends that boil at less than sociopathic schizophrenia (0.01% of the population). So, I am actually not concerned about terrorism at all. My belief is that liberal integration is more powerful in the longrun. But trendlines that run above regular sociopathy or antisocial disorder (2%) will bother me. It shows that there's a cultural issue at play that's concerning.

Is there some ratio of people responding "often justified" that would concern you?

 

[Agent327]

I am concerned about the rule of stupidity. I'm concerned about the fact that actually intelligent people may only constitute 0.1 % of the world population. I don't believe in 'the right to be stupid'. I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves. I'm not sure if that is a widespread belief.

 

[El_Machinae]

That doesn't answer the question, does it? It's even unhelpful. You might think you're smarter than normal, but it doesn't address any underlying concern.

Do you liken the acceptance of suicide-bombing civilians with people who would (say) just wanna glass the ME?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am concerned about the rule of stupidity. I'm concerned about the fact that actually intelligent people may only constitute 0.1 % of the world population. I don't believe in 'the right to be stupid'. I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves. I'm not sure if that is a widespread belief.

Keep in mind that intelligent is a relative thing. In any pair of people, one is more intelligent than the other, if you have access to sufficiently precise measurement. If you place an arbitrary line between this particular person and the next one above them and then say "everyone below the line we will call stupid" you are trying to remove the relative nature of what you are measuring...and the line, no matter where you put it, is still arbitrary.

Now, 'educated' is an entirely different matter. It is possible to be educated, almost no matter where you fall on that spectrum of intelligence. It is also possible to be ignorant...of some matters or all matters. I may be the smartest guy in the room, but if it is a room full of botanists I will be the least educated in regards to plants. Education is not a direct reflection of intelligence.

Are we obligated to educate ourselves, at least in matters upon which we are called to give opinions? I'd say so, and that applies no matter where we fall on the scale of intelligence. I would not claim that intelligence qualifies me to give an opinion on the identity of a plant in that room full of botanists. To give that opinion I would feel obligated to educate myself first.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm concerned about the fact that actually intelligent people may only constitute 0.1 % of the world population.

I'm going to assume that you count yourself in that 1-in-1000?