Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

For endless numbers of endless posts about the same endless techniques
jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#1

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:19 pm

One way I see to help to reduce anti-Muslim prejudices, is to diversify people's images of Muslims, and of Muslim-majority societies. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while, posting images of Muslims, and articles about life in Muslim-majority societies, showing their diversity.

One way I see to help counteract the effects of anti-Muslim prejudices, is to show kindness to Muslims. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while too, posting in a Muslim Facebook group, but I got kicked out! :lol:

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#2

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:09 pm

jimhabegger wrote:One way I see to help to reduce anti-Muslim prejudices, is to diversify people's images of Muslims, and of Muslim-majority societies. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while, posting images of Muslims, and articles about life in Muslim-majority societies, showing their diversity.

One way I see to help counteract the effects of anti-Muslim prejudices, is to show kindness to Muslims. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while too, posting in a Muslim Facebook group, but I got kicked out! :lol:
Nothing wrong with showing kindness, but the best way to help to reduce anti-muslim bigotry (I term that I prefer to "islamophobia", because it centers muslims as people, not islam as a religion) is to find ways to promote integration. Prejudices reduce when minorities become part of the culture and the institutions of their host country instead of being separated in their own parts of country.

For example in the US Italians were subjected to prejudices which gradually waned when they started to be part of society at large. The same was true for Jews: anti-semitism still exists but it has greatly reduced once American Jews became accepted in society at large and stopped living in their own separated communities. This is a long, complex process that requires institutional involvement at all social levels, from central government to local communities.

Kindness isn't enough, especially if it's just on the Internet. Education is key (a poorly educated person is much more likely to be prejudiced, and an immigrant who doesn't know the local language and culture is going to have a very hard time fitting in), along with reducing ghettoization, improving work conditions of people in poor areas (muslims or otherwise), create neighborhood commitees dedicated to mutual help, and (IMHO) creating some sort of common civil service for all people (local-born AND immigrants) to attend and get benefits (work experience, fast-track to citizenship, etc.) when they can socialize with people who don't belong to their community, work together as equals towards a mutually beneficial social project (ex: street sweeping, elderly care, environmental projects, etc.) and get themselves known to people outside of their communities (local-born can know immigrants and vice versa).

This of course requires participating in the same activities of people outside the community: children in school should take part in gym classes and swim classes, women should join local groups instead of being relegated to their homes, people should be actively involved in getting to know the local language and culture, etc. The more people know each other, can understand each other and work together towards a common goal, the less prejudiced they'll be (and this works both ways: non-muslims will be less prejudiced against muslims and muslims will be less prejudiced against non-muslims, for example less muslim men will think that "western" women are soulless temptresses).

The burden of those integration projects falls on everyone. Governments should encourage them, local communities should encourage them and take part in them, and people within the muslim communities should encourage them and take part in them. Integration isn't a one-way street.

This is why figures who reject integration projects, like imams who preach that "westerners" are out to "mollify" muslims, or that "western" women are shallow whores, or that integration is a "Zionist" plot, AREN'T HELPING ANYONE, exactly like right-wing fanatics who assault muslims or people who preach all day about "banning islam" (*coughs* Steersman *coughs*).

I've been working in community outreach projects, teaching Italian to immigrants to Switzerland, for a few years, and largely pro-bono, when I have some free time. I don't say this to brag, since I haven't devoted as many hours as others have, and actually between work and free time I have probably neglected those projects more than I should have.

What I'm saying is that there are things that people can do outside the Net which are probably better than what you can do on the net. Not that I'm saying that you already don't take part in charitable projects and community outreach projects: you probably do and I seem to remember you mentioned something along those lines. What I want to argue is that kindness on the Internet isn't nearly as effective.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#3

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:57 pm

Basically actions speak louder than words.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#4

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:28 am

Kirbmarc wrote:Education is key ...
- and training.

I agree with everything in that post. I like it a lot. I agree that offline work can be more fruitful than online work.

I think the integration needs to go both ways. I think that there should be people from the dominant cultures integrating into the other cultures. In fact, I think there should be people from every culture spending time with people from other cultures, in their cultures, preferably even living among them, and working with them, side by side.

I especially like this:
... creating some sort of common civil service for all people (local-born AND immigrants) to attend and get benefits (work experience, fast-track to citizenship, etc.) when they can socialize with people who don't belong to their community, work together as equals towards a mutually beneficial social project (ex: street sweeping, elderly care, environmental projects, etc.) and get themselves known to people outside of their communities (local-born can know immigrants and vice versa).

This of course requires participating in the same activities of people outside the community: children in school should take part in gym classes and swim classes, women should join local groups instead of being relegated to their homes, people should be actively involved in getting to know the local language and culture, etc.
... and this:
I've been working in community outreach projects, teaching Italian to immigrants to Switzerland, for a few years, and largely pro-bono, when I have some free time. I don't say this to brag ...
You're doing exactly what I've always wanted to do in Internet discussions: exchanging ideas and experiences in this kind of work. Tell me more!

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#5

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:56 am

jimhabegger wrote:You're doing exactly what I've always wanted to do in Internet discussions: exchanging ideas and experiences in this kind of work. Tell me more!
There's not much to tell, actually. I have a PhD in corpus linguistics and I've studied Second Language Acquisition intensively. My job is to review the Italian language and German language syllabi of elementary, middle and high school in my canton, to monitor teaching with routine inspections, assess data from schools, private and public, and suggest improvements.

When I'm not working I've also spent some hours drafting teaching plans and working as a teacher myself for some private institutions that teach Italian to immigrants to Canton Ticino for free. I've done this without getting paid, although I've gotten some money for expenses (not much). I've reviewed and assessed learner performances, instructed other teachers how to develop their Italian as a Second Language (ISL) syllabi in an effective way, recorded teacher-student sessions (with explicit consent of course) to develop a corpus of utterances of ISL learners, etc., all to improve teaching of ISL and assess eventual issues.

Basically I've done my job, only for adult learners instead of minors, and for free. I've also been asked to settle some issues about ISL courses attendance, and during the course of the resolution of those issues I've met with objections to ISL attendance classes for women by some local "community leaders", one of which was a Salafi imam, who were actively discouraging women from coming to ISL classes with spurious arguments/scaremongering/false claims.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#6

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:02 am

Good. Many streams make a river. Thanks for sharing that with me.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#7

Post by Steersman » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:20 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:One way I see to help to reduce anti-Muslim prejudices, is to diversify people's images of Muslims, and of Muslim-majority societies. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while, posting images of Muslims, and articles about life in Muslim-majority societies, showing their diversity.

One way I see to help counteract the effects of anti-Muslim prejudices, is to show kindness to Muslims. I was trying to do that on Facebook for a while too, posting in a Muslim Facebook group, but I got kicked out! :lol:
<snip>
This is why figures who reject integration projects, like imams who preach that "westerners" are out to "mollify" muslims, or that "western" women are shallow whores, or that integration is a "Zionist" plot, AREN'T HELPING ANYONE, exactly like right-wing fanatics who assault muslims or people who preach all day about "banning islam" (*coughs* Steersman *coughs*).
"exactly like", eh? ;-) But not a particularly credible analogy. For one thing, you might note that I'm not "preaching all day" that particular gospel, although there's much cause to do so. And for another, I don't recollect - prepared to stand corrected - that you've ever really honestly and forthrightly addressed the arguments of Anthony Flew, Ibn Warraq, and Anjuli Pandavar, to wit:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHddYcMVYAATJ00.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHddYcMVYAATJ00.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGH80O_U0AAOjlk.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGH80O_U0AAOjlk.jpg

All very well for you to be "working in community outreach projects", and you're to be commended for your efforts. Although you might reflect on a quote falsely attributed to Churchill to the effect that "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain".

But that you and jimhabegger and various islamopologists too numerous to mention apparently ignore that issue or try to sweep it under the carpet just raises questions as to whether the lot of you are just the proverbial "useful idiots", or manifest snakes-in-the-grass.
Kirbmarc wrote:What I'm saying is that there are things that people can do outside the Net which are probably better than what you can do on the net. Not that I'm saying that you already don't take part in charitable projects and community outreach projects: you probably do and I seem to remember you mentioned something along those lines. What I want to argue is that kindness on the Internet isn't nearly as effective.
All of that just looks like pissing against the wind. Lots of evidence to justify the contention that Islam and Muslims, in large, are congenitally incapable of, or unwilling to, change, to reform, to repudiate the barbarisms and savagery that is an intrinsic and essential part of Islam. You might wish to reflect on the "success" of the efforts of a fairly well known and well regarded Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on that front:
Muslim Reform Group Reached Out to 3,000 US Mosques, Got Only 40 Responses
FEBRUARY 24, 2017 3:16 PM BY STEPHEN M. KIRBY

In December 2015, a small group of Muslims met in Washington, DC to discuss the reform of Islam. With media fanfare, they named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), issued a Declaration for Muslim Reform, and became the new face of “Muslim reformers.”

There was just one fundamental problem: the MRM never had support from the larger Muslim community.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the MRM founders, admitted this on January 30, 2017, when he was interviewed in an article in The Federalist about the MRM’s recent one year anniversary: A Muslim Reformer Speaks Out About His Battle Against Islamism And PC. Jasser was asked about how many mosques the MRM had initially approached for support in 2015 and the nature of the responses from those mosques. Jasser’s answer was eye-opening:
Jasser wrote:We spent significant resources on this outreach over a period of ten months. We reached out through snail mail, e-mail, and telephone to over 3,000 mosques and over 500 known public American Muslims. We received only 40-plus rather dismissive responses from our outreach, and sadly less than ten of them were positive. In fact, one mosque in South Carolina left us a vicious voice mail threatening our staff if we contacted them again.
So the MRM made over 3,500 contacts within the Muslim community, but received only a little over 40 responses, of which less than ten were positive. ....
Rots of ruck but you're pissing against the wind and fiddling while Rome burns; you might have the time and energy to do so, but I kind of doubt that Western "civilization" does.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#8

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:37 pm

Do you think islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents, or do you think it's learned, Steers? Do you think that people are inherently religious, or that religion is taught? How do you explain the secularization of European (and, to a lesser extent, of American) Christians?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#9

Post by Steersman » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:02 am

Kirbmarc wrote:Do you think islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents, or do you think it's learned, Steers? Do you think that people are inherently religious, or that religion is taught? How do you explain the secularization of European (and, to a lesser extent, of American) Christians?
You're still fucking evading the question: is Islam flatly incompatible with democracy and the Western concepts of human rights or not? Yes or no? For bonus points, what do you think rational actors, rational countries, should do, vis-à-vis Muslim immigration and presence, if the answer is in the affirmative?

But to answer your red-herring questions, of course I don't think "Islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents". But that doesn't absolve Muslims or their parents for the barbarisms, savagery, and manifest psychosis and egregious hatred that is a direct consequence of the promulgation, teaching, and propagation of the tenets and "principles" of Islam: https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/statu ... 7809604608

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE45IibUwAEpuzZ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE45IibUwAEpuzZ.jpg

Nomani has the right idea but the experiences of her and Jasser clearly shows their efforts, their calls for reform, are falling on deaf ears - and those of the deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid.

As for the "secularization of European (and American) Christians", you might consider that that was a result of literally hundreds of years of internecine warfare between Catholics, Protestants, and secularists, and the eventual emigration to America of those who, in part, had had their fill of that. You want to repeat the same process with Muslims in Europe? In addition, you might note that - as I've repeatedly stated and illustrated by quotes of people like Shadi Hamid - Islam is manifestly not at all like Christianity: there's a bedrock claim that the Quran is the final word of Gawd himself and that it is blasphemy to attempt any reformation at all. Ignoring that, trying to whitewash away that difference, is just playing, intentionally or inadvertently, the role of "useful idiots" and snakes in the grass.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#10

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:09 am

Steersman wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Do you think islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents, or do you think it's learned, Steers? Do you think that people are inherently religious, or that religion is taught? How do you explain the secularization of European (and, to a lesser extent, of American) Christians?
You're still fucking evading the question: is Islam flatly incompatible with democracy and the Western concepts of human rights or not? Yes or no? For bonus points, what do you think rational actors, rational countries, should do, vis-à-vis Muslim immigration and presence, if the answer is in the affirmative?
In the form of the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, no, islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. But most people have only a superficial, limited interest and knowledge of the religion they claim to belong to. They follow what the authority figures in their communities tell them to do. So if you manage to change the view of the authority figures in time you'll change the views of the followers, too. Most people see religion the same way they see superstition (there's no fine line between the two): a ritual to cleanse of senses of guilt, deal with pain and loss, excuses for the failures, and hope for the future. They care very little for theology: they simply listen to what "scholars" tell them, and assume it's just the way it goes.
But to answer your red-herring questions, of course I don't think "Islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents". But that doesn't absolve Muslims or their parents for the barbarisms, savagery, and manifest psychosis and egregious hatred that is a direct consequence of the promulgation, teaching, and propagation of the tenets and "principles" of Islam:
I'm not saying it absolves anyone, but it's an opening for gradual change. If something is taught, not innate, it can be countered.
As for the "secularization of European (and American) Christians", you might consider that that was a result of literally hundreds of years of internecine warfare between Catholics, Protestants, and secularists, and the eventual emigration to America of those who, in part, had had their fill of that. You want to repeat the same process with Muslims in Europe? In addition, you might note that - as I've repeatedly stated and illustrated by quotes of people like Shadi Hamid - Islam is manifestly not at all like Christianity: there's a bedrock claim that the Quran is the final word of Gawd himself and that it is blasphemy to attempt any reformation at all. Ignoring that, trying to whitewash away that difference, is just playing, intentionally or inadvertently, the role of "useful idiots" and snakes in the grass.
Yes, reformation is blasphemy. No, I'm not calling for reformation WITHIN the religious institution. Just like Communism couldn't reform from within, but it died when people started to become disaffected with it, islam will also lose strength when people will stop liking it. This process will happen the more we support secular and wishy-washy "cafeteria" muslims and turn THEM into the intellectual authority within muslim communities, and promote integration and assimilation.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#11

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:47 am

Steersman, I've changed my mind. I think I was misunderstanding what you mean by banning Islam, and deporting Muslims. Considering what I think now that you mean by that, I might agree with you.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#12

Post by Steersman » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:22 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I've changed my mind. I think I was misunderstanding what you mean by banning Islam, and deporting Muslims.
How so?
jimhabegger wrote:Considering what I think now that you mean by that, I might agree with you.
What do you think I "mean by that"?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#13

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:15 pm

Steersman, what I see you doing is dynamically customizing the definitions of "Islam" and "Muslims," in a way that makes it right in your view to ban Islam and deport Muslims. It doesn't seem to matter to you what "ban Islam" or "deport Muslims" means, specifically, in practice. All that seems to matter to you is to say those words, "ban Islam," and "deport Muslims." If I defined "Islam" and "Muslims" the way you do, dynamically customizing the definitions in a way that would make it right in my view to ban Islam and deport Muslims, then obviously I would agree to it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#14

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:44 pm

The point is that it's futile to have a discussion with you about whether or not to ban Islam and deport Muslims, because you define the terms however you want to, for whatever you're saying to be true.

It might be less futile to have a discussion about what can make it right to ban some practices, and deport some people, but that would have to wait until I learn to better manage living online and offline at the same time, if that ever happens.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#15

Post by Steersman » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:03 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, what I see you doing is dynamically customizing the definitions of "Islam" and "Muslims," in a way that makes it right in your view to ban Islam and deport Muslims.
Horse crap. You might get your eyes checked if that's what you "see". Seems I've been painfully clear on what "Islam" and "Muslims" mean, both here and in the Islam & Islamists thread. If you still disagree then you might be a little more explicit - if you're capable of that.
jimhabegger wrote:It doesn't seem to matter to you what "ban Islam" or "deport Muslims" means, specifically, in practice. All that seems to matter to you is to say those words, "ban Islam," and "deport Muslims." If I defined "Islam" and "Muslims" the way you do, dynamically customizing the definitions in a way that would make it right in my view to ban Islam and deport Muslims, then obviously I would agree to it.
More horse crap. I've pointed multiple times to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Greece (1923) and India (1947) as examples of precisely what I mean by banning and deportation. You might try learning to read.

And I might note you still haven't answered my previous questions.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#16

Post by Steersman » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:19 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:Do you think islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents, or do you think it's learned, Steers? Do you think that people are inherently religious, or that religion is taught? How do you explain the secularization of European (and, to a lesser extent, of American) Christians?
You're still fucking evading the question: is Islam flatly incompatible with democracy and the Western concepts of human rights or not? Yes or no? For bonus points, what do you think rational actors, rational countries, should do, vis-à-vis Muslim immigration and presence, if the answer is in the affirmative?
In the form of the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, no, islam is not compatible with liberal democracy.
Hallelujah! ;-) Thanks for (finally) explicitly admitting that. Although I note you didn't really try for the bonus points. Or maybe you're a devotee of Dr. Pangloss in thinking that clasping vipers - AKA Islamic Fifth Columns in our midst - to our breasts constitutes the best of all possible worlds.
Kirbmarc wrote:But most people have only a superficial, limited interest and knowledge of the religion they claim to belong to. They follow what the authority figures in their communities tell them to do. So if you manage to change the view of the authority figures in time you'll change the views of the followers, too. Most people see religion the same way they see superstition (there's no fine line between the two): a ritual to cleanse of senses of guilt, deal with pain and loss, excuses for the failures, and hope for the future. They care very little for theology: they simply listen to what "scholars" tell them, and assume it's just the way it goes.
Not sure that really means diddly squat, or is particularly cognizant of the nature of Islam, particularly that subscribed to by most prospective Islamic immigrants or even those already here. No doubt many Muslims in Western countries tend to be of the "cafeteria" variety - the Pew Forum Survey suggests some 10-20% of American Muslims see the Quran as written by man and not the literal word of gawd. But a disturbingly large percentage, particularly those outside of such countries, are of the contrary view: https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/898391892857106433
https://twitter.com/zlando/status/812963723560230913

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg

Any idea when you plan to have converted all those hundreds of millions of Muslims in favour of Sharia, and death for apostasy & adultery? Fuck 'em, fuck 'em all into the ground even. Islam should be considered treason and sedition, and earn the proponents the bum's rush and a one-way ticket to the nearest Islamic shithole. Anne Marie Waters seems to have the most sensible point of view: https://twitter.com/AMDWaters/status/779307155715489792

At least short of those favouring the nuclear option (from orbit, just to be sure) ...
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:But to answer your red-herring questions, of course I don't think "Islam is an inherent property of people born from muslim parents". But that doesn't absolve Muslims or their parents for the barbarisms, savagery, and manifest psychosis and egregious hatred that is a direct consequence of the promulgation, teaching, and propagation of the tenets and "principles" of Islam:
I'm not saying it absolves anyone, but it's an opening for gradual change. If something is taught, not innate, it can be countered.
True. Though still looks to be trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a teacup. When the Islamic thugs you're importing vastly outnumber those you convert to "cafeterianism" then the Ship of State is going to eventually sink taking all those you supposedly defend with your "liberalism" with it.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:As for the "secularization of European (and American) Christians", you might consider that that was a result of literally hundreds of years of internecine warfare between Catholics, Protestants, and secularists, and the eventual emigration to America of those who, in part, had had their fill of that. You want to repeat the same process with Muslims in Europe? In addition, you might note that - as I've repeatedly stated and illustrated by quotes of people like Shadi Hamid - Islam is manifestly not at all like Christianity: there's a bedrock claim that the Quran is the final word of Gawd himself and that it is blasphemy to attempt any reformation at all. Ignoring that, trying to whitewash away that difference, is just playing, intentionally or inadvertently, the role of "useful idiots" and snakes in the grass.
Yes, reformation is blasphemy. No, I'm not calling for reformation WITHIN the religious institution. Just like Communism couldn't reform from within, but it died when people started to become disaffected with it, islam will also lose strength when people will stop liking it. This process will happen the more we support secular and wishy-washy "cafeteria" muslims and turn THEM into the intellectual authority within muslim communities, and promote integration and assimilation.
Any idea how many kids being run over by the "Truck of Peace", how many cartoonists massacred, it will take before your program of "integration and assimilation" is deemed successful? I geddit that you have some sympathies for "peace-loving Muslims" and "cafeteria-ists". But it sure looks like you're letting your feelings get the better of your reason. You may wish to consider and reflect on another cogent post by Pandavar on the topic, specifically:
Pandavar wrote:Nothing can do the world and humanity a greater disservice than to suggest that the wave of terrorism that’s been unleashed upon the world is somehow a deviation from Islam, when it is precisely what Islam is. So we are concerned not to hurt the feelings of all the peace-loving Muslims in the world, in most cases including our own, gentle parents, then we need to find another way. It is unforgivable to lie to them just because we cannot be honest with ourselves.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#17

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:56 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:In the form of the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, no, islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. But most people have only a superficial, limited interest and knowledge of the religion they claim to belong to.
So if you manage to change the view of the authority figures in time you'll change the views of the followers, too.
This process will happen the more we support secular and wishy-washy "cafeteria" muslims and turn THEM into the intellectual authority within muslim communities, and promote integration and assimilation.
As I said before, you have my vote. I like the strategy and tactics I see you promoting, but I have some questions about your ways of thinking about them.

What do you mean by "wishy-washy" and "cafeteria," and do you think of it that way in your own mind, or are you only using those terms to communicate to people who do think of it that way? Are you contrasting that kind of Islam with the kinds that practice and promote atrocities in its name?

1. By "wishy-washy," do you mean less committed, less devoted, less invested, in whatever the person thinks of as "Islam"? Less committed, less devoted, less invested, in what you think of as "Islam"?

2. By "cafeteria Muslims," do you mean Muslims who pick and choose whatever pleases them, from the menu of Muslim beliefs and practices?

3. Do you think that, statistically, people who practice and promote the kinds of Islam that are compatible with liberal democracy and enlightenment values, are picking and choosing what pleases them, more than the ones who practice the worst kinds; or that they are less committed, less devoted, less invested, in whatever they think of as "Islam"?

4. If there are people who actually believe in the Quran as the word of God, and who honestly and sincerely study it with the purpose of trying to understand His purposes and prescriptions, and put them into practice, do you think that, statistically, that leads people more to the worst kinds of Islam, than to the kinds that are compatible with liberal democracy and enlightenment values?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#18

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:47 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, what I see you doing is dynamically customizing the definitions of "Islam" and "Muslims," in a way that makes it right in your view to ban Islam and deport Muslims.
Steersman wrote:Horse crap. You might get your eyes checked if that's what you "see". Seems I've been painfully clear on what "Islam" and "Muslims" mean, both here and in the Islam & Islamists thread. If you still disagree then you might be a little more explicit - if you're capable of that.
jimhabegger wrote:It doesn't seem to matter to you what "ban Islam" or "deport Muslims" means, specifically, in practice. All that seems to matter to you is to say those words, "ban Islam," and "deport Muslims." If I defined "Islam" and "Muslims" the way you do, dynamically customizing the definitions in a way that would make it right in my view to ban Islam and deport Muslims, then obviously I would agree to it.
Steersman wrote:More horse crap. I've pointed multiple times to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Greece (1923) and India (1947) as examples of precisely what I mean by banning and deportation. You might try learning to read.
I agree, what I said was horse crap, and not really trying to communicate. There's some truth in it though. I see now that in this case, like in some others where we've disagreed, there might not be as much disagreement between us as I thought. Part of what I was seeing as a disagreement about actions and policies, was only a disagreement in defining the terms.
And I might note you still haven't answered my previous questions.
If you have any friendly interest in what I think about anything, try asking again, in a post without any insults, and with a question mark at the end of the question.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#19

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:01 pm

Kirbmarc, maybe the illusion that people who practice the best kinds of religion take their scriptures less seriously, is because they don't wave their scriptures around, and batter people with them, as much. That doesn't mean that they take them less seriously. Just the opposite.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#20

Post by Steersman » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:29 pm

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>
I agree, what I said was horse crap, and not really trying to communicate.
Something we finally agree on.
jimhabegger wrote:There's some truth in it though.
Slim to none.
jimhabegger wrote:I see now that in this case, like in some others where we've disagreed, there might not be as much disagreement between us as I thought. Part of what I was seeing as a disagreement about actions and policies, was only a disagreement in defining the terms.
You still haven't made any attempt at all to explain the specifics of your argument, despite my asking.
jimhabegger wrote:
And I might note you still haven't answered my previous questions.
If you have any friendly interest in what I think about anything, try asking again, in a post without any insults, and with a question mark at the end of the question.
I did so already, Post #12. Which you haven't bothered to even try answering. Not really something that any "honest interlocutor" would do ...

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#21

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:29 pm

Steersman, Post 13 was my answer to your questions in Post 12.

Note that I said "if you have any friendly interest in what I think ..." Do you? If you say so, I'll take your word for it, and I'll give you an example of what I mean by a disagreement in defining the terms.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#22

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:36 pm

Steersman, if you tell me, in a post with no insults, that you have a friendly interest in understanding what I meant by a disagreement in defining the terms, I'll try to help you understand it.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#23

Post by Steersman » Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:10 am

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, Post 13 was my answer to your questions in Post 12.
What a fucking idiot. You agreed that your post 13 "was horse crap, and not really trying to communicate."
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/statu ... 0809152512
jimhabegger wrote:Note that I said "if you have any friendly interest in what I think ..." Do you? If you say so, I'll take your word for it, and I'll give you an example of what I mean by a disagreement in defining the terms.
Either honestly and directly answer my questions in 12 or do fuck off.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#24

Post by Kirbmarc » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:12 am

jimhabegger wrote:What do you mean by "wishy-washy" and "cafeteria," and do you think of it that way in your own mind, or are you only using those terms to communicate to people who do think of it that way? Are you contrasting that kind of Islam with the kinds that practice and promote atrocities in its name?
The contrast is between those who can tell apart between private beliefs and the public sphere, and don't believe that everything has to be taken literally, and those who create and promote atrocities not out of malice, but because they genuinely think that religious laws should apply to the entire society, and that anyone who opposes the implementation of those laws is evil and needs to be dealt with. There's no such distinction between public and private sphere in the Qu'ran or the ahadith, not surprisingly since this concept wasn't around at the time they were written. But in a modern society this distinction is crucial.
1. By "wishy-washy," do you mean less committed, less devoted, less invested, in whatever the person thinks of as "Islam"? Less committed, less devoted, less invested, in what you think of as "Islam"?

2. By "cafeteria Muslims," do you mean Muslims who pick and choose whatever pleases them, from the menu of Muslim beliefs and practices?
Pretty much. Although it's more about "whatever allows them to live peacefully in a liberal democracy" rather than "whatever pleases them"
3. Do you think that, statistically, people who practice and promote the kinds of Islam that are compatible with liberal democracy and enlightenment values, are picking and choosing what pleases them, more than the ones who practice the worst kinds; or that they are less committed, less devoted, less invested, in whatever they think of as "Islam"?
Well, the Qu'ran and the ahadith are full of pre-modern principles that clash with liberal democracy and enlightenment values, so picking and choosing, or interpreting, or caring less about religion is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for living peacefully in a liberal democracy.
4. If there are people who actually believe in the Quran as the word of God, and who honestly and sincerely study it with the purpose of trying to understand His purposes and prescriptions, and put them into practice, do you think that, statistically, that leads people more to the worst kinds of Islam, than to the kinds that are compatible with liberal democracy and enlightenment values?
The biggest and most influential centers for studies of islam, from Al-Hazar University to King Saud University, all promote views that are not only incompatible with liberal democracy and enlightenment values, but highly intolerant and sectarian.

The more tolerant and less sectarian (although not necessarily more keen on liberal democracy) schools of islam are far less influential these days, and need to interpret a lot of passage in the Qu'ran and the ahadith less literally (for example arguing that "cutting off the head" actually means "arguing so well that there is no possible rebuttal").

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#25

Post by Kirbmarc » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:18 am

jimhabegger wrote:Kirbmarc, maybe the illusion that people who practice the best kinds of religion take their scriptures less seriously, is because they don't wave their scriptures around, and batter people with them, as much. That doesn't mean that they take them less seriously. Just the opposite.
I frankly don't care about how seriously you take your religion, as long as you're able to tell apart your private choices from imposing your morality onto society. If you can be separate your private beliefs from your public policy and choices, more power to you.

For example you can privately believe whatever you want about drinking alcohol, or adultery, or women dressing in a way you don't like, or apostasy. The problem comes when you want legal, para-legal or social (vigilantism) enforcement of your private beliefs. The Qu'ran and the ahadith mandate a public enforcement of religious morality because that's what was the norm at the times they were written. Today this is no longer the case, at least in liberal democracies.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#26

Post by jimhabegger » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:27 am

Kirbmarc, thanks. That's very helpful, and informative. Thank you.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#27

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:31 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Kirbmarc, maybe the illusion that people who practice the best kinds of religion take their scriptures less seriously, is because they don't wave their scriptures around, and batter people with them, as much. That doesn't mean that they take them less seriously. Just the opposite.
I frankly don't care about how seriously you take your religion, as long as you're able to tell apart your private choices from imposing your morality onto society. If you can be separate your private beliefs from your public policy and choices, more power to you.

For example you can privately believe whatever you want about drinking alcohol, or adultery, or women dressing in a way you don't like, or apostasy. The problem comes when you want legal, para-legal or social (vigilantism) enforcement of your private beliefs. The Qu'ran and the ahadith mandate a public enforcement of religious morality because that's what was the norm at the times they were written. Today this is no longer the case, at least in liberal democracies.
Nice bit of analysis, and some facts, more or less, to back them up. Although I rather doubt habegger is able to separate beliefs from policy, or to give any serious thought to your earlier observations on the incompatibility of Islam and Western democratic ideals and principles.

But somewhat apropos of which, and to underline the above, a recent post over at Gatestone Institute:
Islam in Switzerland: The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Jihad
  • What you would never know, from all this hand-wringing about "Islamophobia," is that only a few weeks before the conference, the country's media had reported on a popular imam in Biel who, in his sermons, "asked Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Russians, and Shiites."
  • The imam in question, Abu Ramadan, preached that Muslims who befriended infidels were "cursed until the Day of Judgment" -- which, of course, is not radical at all, but is straight out of the Koran.
  • The crisis is real. But, says Swiss Muslim author Saïda Keller-Messahli, Swiss politicians, "especially on the left," refuse to address it. Instead of trying to defend their country from radicalism, they think their job is to "protect minorities and multiculturalism."
  • Mosque kindergartens and youth groups, too, are "places of religious indoctrination" for Swiss Muslims. So are the German-speaking public schools, in which imams are permitted to teach classes in Islam using instructional materials from Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
If you listen to some of Switzerland's pollsters and government officials, the country is suffering from a serious and ever-intensifying crisis -- anti-Muslim bigotry.

In August, a study concluded that Swiss Muslims "are generally well integrated into Swiss society." Their main problem? They face "Islamophobia."

Another study the same month found that the percentage of Swiss non-Muslims who feel "threatened" by Islam had more than doubled since 2004, from 16% to 38%. ....

The picture Keller-Messahli paints is a grim one. Is there any hope for change? Well, during the last few days it has become clear that at least some Swiss officials do not wish to remain silent about the enemy within. On September 21, it was reported that federal prosecutors had brought charges against the president and two members of the board of the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ICCS), the country's largest Islamic organization. The charge: making videos in Syria featuring a top Al-Qaeda member and posting them on YouTube and other sites.

Only days later, the lower house of the Swiss parliament voted by a narrow margin to prohibit mosques from taking foreign money and to require that imams preach in the local language. The upper house has yet to debate the bill; the Federal Council, which constitutes the government's executive branch, opposes the measure on the grounds that it places Muslims "under general suspicion" and "fuels the argument of extremists." ....
My emphasis, but about time. #BanIslam, deport the fucken lot, burn the mosques to the ground and plow the land with pig's blood.

If habegger is actually serious about "Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices" - which I rather doubt - then he would be front and center in those efforts.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#28

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:18 am

Steersman wrote:
Mosque kindergartens and youth groups, too, are "places of religious indoctrination" for Swiss Muslims. So are the German-speaking public schools, in which imams are permitted to teach classes in Islam using instructional materials from Saudi Arabia or Turkey
The part I highlighted is pure, 100% fake news. I work in the public school system, it's impossible for an imam to teach classes in Islam. If they did they'd be violating the charters of public education, and there'd be daily governmental inspections on the schools which allowed them to do so. Mosque kindergartners and youth groups ARE dominated by the Salafi, but public schools? No way. I work in the system, and I review school syllabi, talk with principals, teachers, parents and children. If something like that had happened I'd have noticed, and there'd have been an uproar so big that it'd have made front page news. Not to mention that I'd have PLENTY of material to document it.

I checked the link you posted and there's NO evidence that this happens in the public school system. The link quoted in the Gatestone Institute talks about "écoles coraniques", Quranic schools, which aren't public schools. The article linked (here, in French) is actually a very well argued and well informed look at Wahabi/Salafi infiltration of mosques and "muslim community centers" in Europe thanks to GCC/Saudi funds, something I've written about AT LENGTH, and something that NEEDS to be countered.

The Gatestone Institute post adds on unsubstantiated allegations about imams preaching islam in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, with not a single shred of evidence.
Keller-Messahli has just published a book entitled, Switzerland: An Islamist Hub ("Islamistische Drehscheibe Schweiz"). It is sort of a field guide to Islam in Switzerland. The country's mosques belong to various networks based here and there in the Muslim world; many of the imams have been trained in Egypt or Saudi Arabia; many of the mosques receive funding -- and take orders -- from organizations in Turkey. In her book, Keller-Messahli draws all the connections, follows all the money trails, and spells out the poisonous articles of faith. And she prescribes strong medicine: monitor the mosques, cut off the foreign cash, and expel the preachers of jihad.
And I agree to all of that. That's what I've been recommending all the time on this board. You seem to be forgetting of what I write every time you read my posts, and call me an "apologist" because I don't support YOUR plan of banning islam and expelling all people with a muslim background unless they "piss on the Qu'ran". FFS, Steers.
Only days later, the lower house of the Swiss parliament voted by a narrow margin to prohibit mosques from taking foreign money and to require that imams preach in the local language. The upper house has yet to debate the bill; the Federal Council, which constitutes the government's executive branch, opposes the measure on the grounds that it places Muslims "under general suspicion" and "fuels the argument of extremists." ....
That's what I've recommended all along, Steers. Cut off foreign financing, monitor the mosques. It's literally in every third comment I've made on this board. But then you go on to write things like these:
My emphasis, but about time. #BanIslam, deport the fucken lot, burn the mosques to the ground and plow the land with pig's blood.
Don't you see ANY difference between what you write and what your sources support? Or for that matter, do you even stop to verify the accuracy of your sources by reading the original articles they quote? I understand you may not speech French, but Google translate is your friend. Again, FFS, Steers, do some fucking research.

Wahabi/Salafi infiltration in Switzerland IS a real problem, and solutions MUST be implemented. But you have to start from REAL data, not PJ Watson-style exaggerations, and you can't jump from "there's a real problem with Salafi/Wahabi preaching, and in general with islamic preaching which still teaches ideas incompatible with modernity, and islamic communities and society as as a whole need to deal with it" to "ban islam, deport the fucking lot, burn the mosques to the ground". Also, scaremongering with fake news like "there are imams teaching islam in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in Switzerland" helps no one.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#29

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:55 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote: <snip>
Mosque kindergartens and youth groups, too, are "places of religious indoctrination" for Swiss Muslims. So are the German-speaking public schools, in which imams are permitted to teach classes in Islam using instructional materials from Saudi Arabia or Turkey
The part I highlighted is pure, 100% fake news. I work in the public school system, it's impossible for an imam to teach classes in Islam. If they did they'd be violating the charters of public education, and there'd be daily governmental inspections on the schools which allowed them to do so. Mosque kindergartners and youth groups ARE dominated by the Salafi, but public schools? No way. I work in the system, and I review school syllabi, talk with principals, teachers, parents and children. If something like that had happened I'd have noticed, and there'd have been an uproar so big that it'd have made front page news. Not to mention that I'd have PLENTY of material to document it.
Ah, the benefits of having editing privileges ... ;-) You might at least indicate "Edited for X reasons ...", just to keep the books straight. :-)
Kirbmarc wrote:I checked the link you posted and there's NO evidence that this happens in the public school system. The link quoted in the Gatestone Institute talks about "écoles coraniques", Quranic schools, which aren't public schools. The article linked (here, in French) is actually a very well argued and well informed look at Wahabi/Salafi infiltration of mosques and "muslim community centers" in Europe thanks to GCC/Saudi funds, something I've written about AT LENGTH, and something that NEEDS to be countered.

The Gatestone Institute post adds on unsubstantiated allegations about imams preaching islam in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, with not a single shred of evidence.
But I did post the article with the intent of getting the opinion of someone close to the ground where the events supposedly happened - thanks for the clarifications. But you may wish to comment on Gatestone and correct the author; not something I could really do.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Keller-Messahli has just published a book entitled, Switzerland: An Islamist Hub ("Islamistische Drehscheibe Schweiz"). It is sort of a field guide to Islam in Switzerland. The country's mosques belong to various networks based here and there in the Muslim world; many of the imams have been trained in Egypt or Saudi Arabia; many of the mosques receive funding -- and take orders -- from organizations in Turkey. In her book, Keller-Messahli draws all the connections, follows all the money trails, and spells out the poisonous articles of faith. And she prescribes strong medicine: monitor the mosques, cut off the foreign cash, and expel the preachers of jihad.
And I agree to all of that. That's what I've been recommending all the time on this board. You seem to be forgetting of what I write every time you read my posts, and call me an "apologist" because I don't support YOUR plan of banning islam and expelling all people with a muslim background unless they "piss on the Qu'ran". FFS, Steers.
Don't really "forget" about that. And think I've agreed that the idea might have some utility. But I'm pretty sure I've argued many times that that is just pissing against the wind unless we're willing to face that fact - which you've only belatedly done - that Islam is simply incompatible with democracy. Just bloody well fooling ourselves if we think that wasting good money on chasing our tails over Saudi preachers is going to have lasting value when the root of the problem is the Quran and Islam itself. Your "plan" is better than nothing I suppose, but still looks like fiddling while Rome burns.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Only days later, the lower house of the Swiss parliament voted by a narrow margin to prohibit mosques from taking foreign money and to require that imams preach in the local language. The upper house has yet to debate the bill; the Federal Council, which constitutes the government's executive branch, opposes the measure on the grounds that it places Muslims "under general suspicion" and "fuels the argument of extremists." ....
That's what I've recommended all along, Steers. Cut off foreign financing, monitor the mosques. It's literally in every third comment I've made on this board. But then you go on to write things like these:
My emphasis, but about time. #BanIslam, deport the fucken lot, burn the mosques to the ground and plow the land with pig's blood.
Don't you see ANY difference between what you write and what your sources support? Or for that matter, do you even stop to verify the accuracy of your sources by reading the original articles they quote? I understand you may not speech French, but Google translate is your friend. Again, FFS, Steers, do some fucking research.
Impossible for me, even with Google translate, to determine whether the articles hold any water or not - why I wanted your perspective. Gatestone generally looks credible as did the author:
Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist.
And, like I say, "monitoring the mosques" means absolutely diddly-squat when the Quran and Islam themselves are the roots of the problem. Like putting a bandaid on a paper-cut finger while hemorrhaging from an amputated leg.
Kirbmarc wrote:Wahabi/Salafi infiltration in Switzerland IS a real problem, and solutions MUST be implemented. But you have to start from REAL data, not PJ Watson-style exaggerations, and you can't jump from "there's a real problem with Salafi/Wahabi preaching, and in general with islamic preaching which still teaches ideas incompatible with modernity, and islamic communities and society as as a whole need to deal with it" to "ban islam, deport the fucking lot, burn the mosques to the ground". Also, scaremongering with fake news like "there are imams teaching islam in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in Switzerland" helps no one.
Good to see that more people, particularly in the public eye, are recognizing the problem, or at least the tip of it, i.e., "Wahabi/Salafi infiltration". But, as I've argued from square-one, until we face the basic incompatibility of Islam and Western democracy we will be "straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole".

Though I'll readily concede that #FakeNews really helps no one, and peddling it is just shooting oneself in the feet.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#30

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:34 am

Kirbmarc, I'm enjoying your posts in this thread, very much. I'm really glad for the ideas and information you've been posting here. Steersman, thanks to you too, for stirring up the pot.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#31

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:58 am

Steersman wrote:Though I'll readily concede that #FakeNews really helps no one, and peddling it is just shooting oneself in the feet.
Good. Then maybe you'll stop quoting opinion polls.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#32

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:26 am

Steersman, I can't find any page on the Web that shows how those numbers in Post 16 were derived from the Pew Poll. Can you?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#33

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:40 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:Though I'll readily concede that #FakeNews really helps no one, and peddling it is just shooting oneself in the feet.
Good. Then maybe you'll stop quoting opinion polls.
Don't think you understand much about opinion polls or the statistical sampling on which they're based ...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#34

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:46 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I can't find any page on the Web that shows how those numbers in Post 16 were derived from the Pew Poll. Can you?
You mean relative to this graph?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg

As indicated, the data is from a 2013 survey, and I think the links may have changed. These seem to be what the graphic is based on:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... -overview/
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... report.pdf

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#35

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:03 pm

Steers, those numbers do not appear anywhere in that report. My question is, how were those numbers derived from that report? None of the pages where I found those numbers, shows how they were derived from the report.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#36

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:04 pm

None of the pages where I found those numbers show how they were derived from that Pew report.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#37

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:11 pm

Steersman wrote:Don't think you understand much about opinion polls or the statistical sampling on which they're based ...
You're quite wrong about that.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#38

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:16 pm

jimhabegger wrote:None of the pages where I found those numbers show how they were derived from that Pew report.
Guess you're not looking closely enough; guess you don't know as much about sampling and opinion polls as you apparently think you do ...

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#39

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:01 pm

Steersman, as I understand it, you're saying that the beliefs and attitudes of most or all Muslims, including those who live in liberal democracies, are helping perpetuate the worst kinds of violence, and that those beliefs and attitudes are inevitable consequences of accepting the Quran as the word of God, or whatever else people might mean by calling themselves Muslims. Also, as I understand it, you posted that graphic in support of the view that the number of Muslims with those beliefs and attitudes is disturbingly large. I hope you'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm wondering if the actual numbers, and what the actual questions were that people were answering, would make any difference in your conclusions. For example, there was no such question as "T/F Sharia should rule." Some Muslims, when given a choice between supporting and opposing the possibility of allowing Muslims to inherit in accordance with Muslim inheritance laws, chose "support" rather than "oppose." Most Muslims in Europe and North America were opposed to imposing any part of Sharia law on non-Muslims.

If a more accurate and relevant representation of poll data found, for example, that more than 90% of the Muslims surveyed in Europe and North America are opposed to imposing Sharia law on non-Muslims, and opposed to all the acts of violence in the name of Islam, that we've seen in media stories, would you still be using those polls in support of the view that the number of Muslims with beliefs and attitudes that help perpetuate the worst kinds of violence, is disturbingly large?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#40

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:08 pm

jimhabegger wrote:None of the pages where I found those numbers show how they were derived from that Pew report.
Steersman wrote:Guess you're not looking closely enough; guess you don't know as much about sampling and opinion polls as you apparently think you do ...
Those numbers on that graph, 1.62 billion, 1.39 billion, 1.1 billion, 748 million, and 584 million, do not appear anywhere in that Pew report. Can you point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those numbers were derived from that report?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#41

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:10 pm

Steersman wrote:Guess you're not looking closely enough; guess you don't know as much about sampling and opinion polls as you apparently think you do ...
Wrong again.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#42

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:58 pm

Steersman, if a more accurate and relevant representation of poll data found, for example, that more than 90% of the Muslims surveyed in Europe and North America are opposed to imposing Sharia law on non-Muslims, and opposed to all the acts of violence in the name of Islam, that we've seen in media stories, would you still think that the violence we've been seeing in the name of Islam is an inevitable consequence of whatever people mean by calling themselves Muslims?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#43

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:37 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:None of the pages where I found those numbers show how they were derived from that Pew report.
Steersman wrote:Guess you're not looking closely enough; guess you don't know as much about sampling and opinion polls as you apparently think you do ...
Those numbers on that graph, 1.62 billion, 1.39 billion, 1.1 billion, 748 million, and 584 million, do not appear anywhere in that Pew report. Can you point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those numbers were derived from that report?
FFS. Take a look at this Pew Forum PNG:
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... forweb.png
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... forweb.png

And the "Moderate side of Islam" graphic:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_goqYzU0AAkKmd.jpg

Notice the bit in the PNG about the "Global median of 28%" of all Muslims in favour of "Executing those who leave Islam". Given the 1620 million Muslims in the world, that works out to 454 million Muslims in favour of "Death for leaving Islam". Which is in the same ballpark as the 584 million shown in the "Moderate side of Islam" graphic; the difference is probably due to the difference between median and average.

Similarly with "Wife should obey husband", 1390 million in "Moderate side of Islam" graphic. And the Pew PNG (above) states "85% of Muslims think wives should obey their husbands" which works out to (0.85 * 1620) equals 1377 million - fairly close.

In both cases I expect if one were to calculate the numbers in each area then the results would correspond to the "Moderate side of Islam" graphic.

Like I've said repeatedly, don't think you understand sampling and polls.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#44

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:05 pm

Steersman, My question was:

"Those numbers on that graph, 1.62 billion, 1.39 billion, 1.1 billion, 748 million, and 584 million, do not appear anywhere in that Pew report. Can you point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those numbers were derived from that report?"

I didn't ask for your speculations about how a person might come up with numbers close to those. I could have done that easily, myself. I'm asking if you can point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those precise numbers actually were derived from that report, which is the only reference given for that graph.

There is a link in that report, to another report, which includes some population figures that may or may not have been used to calculate those numbers, but it might take many hours to do all the calculations. if you can find any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those precise numbers actually were derived from that report, please tell me where.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#45

Post by Steersman » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:23 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, My question was:

"Those numbers on that graph, 1.62 billion, 1.39 billion, 1.1 billion, 748 million, and 584 million, do not appear anywhere in that Pew report. Can you point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those numbers were derived from that report?"
You're either trolling, willfully obtuse, clueless, or a fucking idiot. I showed you how those numbers are calculated based on the statistics for the sample - the percentage in the sample is the basis for the inference as to the entire population.
jimhabegger wrote:I didn't ask for your speculations about how a person might come up with numbers close to those. I could have done that easily, myself. I'm asking if you can point to any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those precise numbers actually were derived from that report, which is the only reference given for that graph.
It's not "speculation" - it's the science and mathematics of sampling. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
jimhabegger wrote:There is a link in that report, to another report, which includes some population figures that may or may not have been used to calculate those numbers, but it might take many hours to do all the calculations. if you can find any explanation, anywhere on the Internet, of how those precise numbers actually were derived from that report, please tell me where.
Read the effen article. And/or search the Net for additional clarifications or elaborations.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#46

Post by jimhabegger » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:11 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:In the form of the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, no, islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. But most people have only a superficial, limited interest and knowledge of the religion they claim to belong to. They follow what the authority figures in their communities tell them to do. So if you manage to change the view of the authority figures in time you'll change the views of the followers, too. Most people see religion the same way they see superstition (there's no fine line between the two): a ritual to cleanse of senses of guilt, deal with pain and loss, excuses for the failures, and hope for the future. They care very little for theology: they simply listen to what "scholars" tell them, and assume it's just the way it goes.
Yes, reformation is blasphemy. No, I'm not calling for reformation WITHIN the religious institution. Just like Communism couldn't reform from within, but it died when people started to become disaffected with it, islam will also lose strength when people will stop liking it. This process will happen the more we support secular and wishy-washy "cafeteria" muslims and turn THEM into the intellectual authority within muslim communities, and promote integration and assimilation.
I'm still wondering how much of this is how you really think of it yourself. Why do you do you use "wishy-washy" and "cafeteria," to distinguish the Muslims you want to support from others? How are they more "wishy-washy," and selective in the parts of Islam they believe and practice, than other Muslims? Why do you equate the spread of a more liberal and enlightened Islam with Islam losing its strength, and people not liking it?

Maybe you think of the best kinds of Islam as being less authentically Islam than the other kinds.

It might make a difference. If you yourself think of the Muslims you want to support as turning away from Islam, or as less authentically Muslim than others; if you yourself think of their own personal beliefs and practices in depreciating terms; it might undermine whatever you can do to promote and support the changes you want to see.

Some, possibly even most in number and influence, of the Muslims working for the changes you want to see, see their Islam as *more* authentic, and *more* faithful to God's purposes and prescriptions in the Quran, than the kinds of Islam opposed to theirs.

While I was thinking about this, it struck me as curious that people spreading anti-Muslim propaganda are themselves promoting the same interpretations of the Quran that are being used to excuse the worst kinds of violence, and insisting that Muslims who interpret it any other way are wrong. Doesn't that seem like curious behavior to you, for people who allegedly want to stop violence in the name of Islam?

One possible explanation I see for some of it is people having conservative religious backgrounds themselves, and still being attached to their old ways of interpreting scriptures, even though they've renounced and denounced them.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#47

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:41 pm

jimhabegger wrote:I'm still wondering how much of this is how you really think of it yourself. Why do you do you use "wishy-washy" and "cafeteria," to distinguish the Muslims you want to support from others? How are they more "wishy-washy," and selective in the parts of Islam they believe and practice, than other Muslims? Why do you equate the spread of a more liberal and enlightened Islam with Islam losing its strength, and people not liking it?
Because of what is written in the Qu'ran and the ahadith. You keep arguing about those things as if the Qu'ran and the ahadith didn't exist, or weren't followed literally by a lot of people.
Maybe you think of the best kinds of Islam as being less authentically Islam than the other kinds.

It might make a difference. If you yourself think of the Muslims you want to support as turning away from Islam, or as less authentically Muslim than others; if you yourself think of their own personal beliefs and practices in depreciating terms; it might undermine whatever you can do to promote and support the changes you want to see.
I don't care about "authenticity". However a lot of people do, and they're the ones pushing for religiously-based laws, whose negative consequences we all know. Should I just pretend they don't exist and islam is just peachy?

By the way, what the hell even *is* islam? For a lot of people, probably the majority, islam is the Qu'ran and the ahadith, and there's plenty of bad stuff in the Qu'ran and the ahadith. If you can interpret that bad stuff in a better way it's good for you, but the fact that you have to *interpret* it clearly implies that the original texts had *issues*.
Some, possibly even most in number and influence, of the Muslims working for the changes you want to see, see their Islam as *more* authentic, and *more* faithful to God's purposes and prescriptions in the Quran, than the kinds of Islam opposed to theirs.
Good for them. But the risk here is to shield the ones who want religious laws from criticism, with the pathetic excuse that "they're not real muslims" while they base their demands on the Qu'ran and the ahadith. I don't give a shit about which islam you think is "more authentic", but the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Qu'ran and the ahadith is full of terrible stuff that needs to be discarded. Find any justification you want to discard it, but stop shielding the people who DO use the Qu'ran and the ahadith to justify terrible stuff from criticism, and STOP pretending islam is a-OK and criticism of islam-inspired attitudes is "anti-muslim propaganda" just because some people find ways to improve islam.

Hell, most of those who improve islam are THE FIRST TARGETS of the traditional/literalist crew. The gay imams you talked about receive death threats and are harassed by LOTS of other MUSLIMS, not by Dawkins or Sam Harris. Stop trying to give islam a pass because reformers exist.
While I was thinking about this, it struck me as curious that people spreading anti-Muslim propaganda are themselves promoting the same interpretations of the Quran that are being used to excuse the worst kinds of violence, and insisting that Muslims who interpret it any other way are wrong. Doesn't that seem like curious behavior to you, for people who allegedly want to stop violence in the name of Islam?

One possible explanation I see for some of it is people having conservative religious backgrounds themselves, and still being attached to their old ways of interpreting scriptures, even though they've renounced and denounced them.
Because those are the literal interpretations, and a lot of people follow them. Reform is good but it needs *non-literal interpretations*, and the literalist crowd is very, very quick to call for the heads of all reformers by calling them blasphemers.

Is this so hard to understand?

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#48

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:18 am

Discussing islam with Jim reminds me of when you criticize someone's child:

"Your son needs to find ways to control his temper, he's been in ten fights his year"

"But he's a good kid at home! The others are provoking him! That's not how he normally acts, he had some bad moments! This is not his real self!"

"I'm not saying he needs to be put in jail, but he needs to find ways to deal with his issues in a more mature and less violent way"

"You're just hating my son! Why don't you punish the ones who got him into the fights? This is so unfair!"

"We ARE punishing them, but the fact that your son keeps getting into fights with many different children, including some who used to be his friends, show that there is a problem with his behavior, and that's why I'm talking to you. As a parent you have a responsibility to help your son to outgrow his violent tendencies"

"It's the world that is cruel to my son! He's just lashing out! You all hate us, you hate us so much!"

Fifteen minutes later the son punches his parents who made excuses for him...

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#49

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:47 am

Kirbmarc, it looks to me like you completely missed my point, and you're imagining things about what I think, that aren't true.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#50

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:53 am

Kirbmarc, let me know if you have any interest in trying to understand the point I was trying to make. It's about something in your attitude towards the Muslims that you want to support, that might get in the way of promoting the changes you want to see. You seem to be imagining things about what I think, that aren't true, and that might need to cleared up, before you can see my point.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#51

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 am

Kirbmarc wrote:You keep arguing about those things as if the Qu'ran and the ahadith didn't exist, or weren't followed literally by a lot of people.
I can't think of anything I could have said, that presumes that the Quran and the ahadith don't exist, or that they aren't followed literally by a lot of people. Can you think of anything that I might have said like that? That certainly is not what I think. I'm well aware of their existence, and that a lot of people follow them literally.
I don't care about "authenticity". However a lot of people do, and they're the ones pushing for religiously-based laws, whose negative consequences we all know. Should I just pretend they don't exist and islam is just peachy?
No. How would you derive that, from anything I've said?
By the way, what the hell even *is* islam?
It's different things to different people. I thought you understood that.
For a lot of people, probably the majority, islam is the Qu'ran and the ahadith
Agreed.
... and there's plenty of bad stuff in the Qu'ran and the ahadith. If you can interpret that bad stuff in a better way it's good for you, but the fact that you have to *interpret* it clearly implies that the original texts had *issues*.
Agreed.
... the risk here is to shield the ones who want religious laws from criticism, with the pathetic excuse that "they're not real muslims" while they base their demands on the Qu'ran and the ahadith.
This is where you seem to be imagining things in my mind that aren't there. You might be confusing me with some other people. I've never said, or thought, that they aren't real Muslims, or tried to shield them from criticism.
... but the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Qu'ran and the ahadith is full of terrible stuff that needs to be discarded.
Agreed.
Find any justification you want to discard it, but stop shielding the people who DO use the Qu'ran and the ahadith to justify terrible stuff from criticism, and STOP pretending islam is a-OK and criticism of islam-inspired attitudes is "anti-muslim propaganda" just because some people find ways to improve islam.
That's totally false. I'm not doing any of that. Again, maybe you're confusing me with some other people.
Hell, most of those who improve islam are THE FIRST TARGETS of the traditional/literalist crew. The gay imams you talked about receive death threats and are harassed by LOTS of other MUSLIMS, not by Dawkins or Sam Harris.
Agreed.
Stop trying to give islam a pass because reformers exist.
Again, not doing that. Again, maybe you're confusing me with some other people.
... those are the literal interpretations, and a lot of people follow them. Reform is good but it needs *non-literal interpretations*, and the literalist crowd is very, very quick to call for the heads of all reformers by calling them blasphemers.

Is this so hard to understand?
Not at all.

Do you have any other reasons, apart from my criticism of criticism of Islam, for accusing me of trying to shield Islam, and cruelty and violence in the name of Islam, from criticism? Are you trying to shield criticism of Islam, from criticism?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#52

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:26 am

Kirbmarc, do you think that anyone who objects in any way, to any kind of criticism of Islam, is wrong, and has wrongful motives and intentions?

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#53

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:50 am

This is where you seem to be imagining things in my mind that aren't there. You might be confusing me with some other people. I've never said, or thought, that they aren't real Muslims, or tried to shield them from criticism.
That's the problem. This isn't all about you, or about me, it's about what's going on in society at large. You and I are two internet nobodies arguing on a small forum.
This is where you seem to be imagining things in my mind that aren't there. You might be confusing me with some other people. I've never said, or thought, that they aren't real Muslims, or tried to shield them from criticism.
I'm not arguing that's what you're doing, not intentionally at least. I'm saying that there is a risk of shielding those people from criticism in attacking criticism of islam. If you want to fight racism/violation of human rights, fight racism/violation of human rights, and say that criticism of islam shouldn't be used as a shield for those things. Don't insinuate that criticism of islam is used as camouflage for racism without providing specific evidence as to what people want and how they're using legitimate arguments for illegitimate ends.

If you want to argue that Steersman is using criticism of islam to justify illiberal ideas, for example, like the infamous "Ban on Islam" and "expulsion of muslims unless they piss on the Qu'ran", then I'd agree with you (and I've tried arguing with Steersman about his illiberal ideas plenty of times). But this is a specific case, with specific ideas being supported by a specific person. It's not "criticism of islam" as a concept.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#54

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:01 am

jimhabegger wrote:Kirbmarc, do you think that anyone who objects in any way, to any kind of criticism of Islam, is wrong, and has wrongful motives and intentions?
It depends on what they're talking about, what they define as "criticism of islam". If the "criticism of islam" they're talking about is a justification of illiberal acts (forcible expulsion, deprivation of human rights, torture of suspects, etc.) or of wars in the name of "building democracy" (which never work) then no, they don't have wrongful motives and intentions, but the focus is the protection of civil and human rights of muslims as people, just like you protect the civil and human rights of all people, and on the prevention of unnecessary and even counterproductive wars.

If the "criticism of islam" they're talking about is exposing messages of hate and intolerance in Salafi propaganda, or recognizing the "problematic" part of the Qu'ran and the ahadith, or opposing the implementation of religious laws/illiberal laws, or smearing critics of islam as bigots, they yes, I tend to assume that their motives aren't very good, or at least that they're seriously deluded about the goodness of their motives.

In the end, though, I think that there's no need to conflate things that don't belong together. If you want to fight illiberal laws, or racial prejudice, or unnecessary wars, fight those things, but don't lend your criticism of illiberal, prejudicial or unnecessary acts to be used by others who wish to shield islam as a religion from criticism and smear critics of islam as illiberal or prejudicial.

Attack racism or illiberal laws or unnecessary wars in precise and clear terms, without trying to speculate about connections and camouflages. Criticize people for what they propose if it's illiberal or unnecessary, not for the "camouflage" you think they adopt.

Ask people "what do you want?" and then evaluate that rather than assuming that there's a secret code behind their words.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#55

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:23 am

That all looks reasonable to me.

The reason it matters to me if you're projecting things into my mind and motives that aren't there, is that it might create more misunderstandings about what I'm saying, and make them harder to resolve.

I did say that everything that I've seen people calling "criticism of Islam," in media stories and Internet discussions, looks more to me like defamation campaigns against Muslims, than like someone really trying to help solve the problems associated with Islam; and that the popularity of it in some circles is more because of the excuses and camouflage that it provides for prejudices and animosities against Muslims, than for what it does to help solve the problems. I can see how that could possibly look like trying to shield Islam and Muslims from criticism. :lol: Also, as you've pointed out, how it might be misused by others.

Now I've seen one exception to that observation, in your posts.

If you want to know why most of it looks that way to me, it's because it's persistently, insistently, and tightly intertwined with incriminating, unqualified allegations and insinuations about Muslims in general. That doesn't necessarily mean that all the people doing it are prejudiced against Muslims, themselves, or that they are intentionally appealing to anti-Muslim interests, but I think the popularity of it in some circles is more because of that, than because of anything it does to help resolve the problems associated with Islam. In fact, I think it actually helps perpetuate them.

Going back to what I was telling you about something in your attitude towards the Muslims you want to support, that might get in the way of promoting the changes you want to see: Instead of trying to explain that, I'll tell you an example of what you might do about it, if it's true, and maybe you're already doing it. It would be to spend time with some of the Muslims you want to support, immersed in their Islamic culture. Another way would be to read stories about the lives of the kinds of Muslims you want to support.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#56

Post by jimhabegger » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:31 am

Kirbmarc, part of what was concerning me in your attitude towards the Muslims you want to support, was the depreciating way you seem to think of them, for example as wishy-washy, cafeteria Muslims. Now I see that your depreciating view of them might be part of a depreciating view of followers of religions in general, and not specifically about Muslims.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#57

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:35 am

jimhabegger wrote:Kirbmarc, part of what was concerning me in your attitude towards the Muslims you want to support, was the depreciating way you seem to think of them, for example as wishy-washy, cafeteria Muslims. Now I see that your depreciating view of them might be part of a depreciating view of followers of religions in general, and not specifically about Muslims.
Wishy-washy and cafeteria aren't necessarily depreciating views. To make a non-religious example I think that a wishy-washy, casual, cafeteria fan of Star Trek is much more socially tolerable than a hardcore Trekkie who won't shut up about which specific color of the shirt of which extra was changed in the special edition of a Trek movie, and how much the special edition sucks for that reason.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#58

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:37 am

jimhabegger wrote:Going back to what I was telling you about something in your attitude towards the Muslims you want to support, that might get in the way of promoting the changes you want to see: Instead of trying to explain that, I'll tell you an example of what you might do about it, if it's true, and maybe you're already doing it. It would be to spend time with some of the Muslims you want to support, immersed in their Islamic culture. Another way would be to read stories about the lives of the kinds of Muslims you want to support.
I was raised in a muslim family, Jim. I know A LOT of muslims, and I have a pretty good knowledge of muslim culture. :bjarte:

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 9691
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#59

Post by free thoughtpolice » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:11 am

He's a muslim Jim, but not as you know it.

Kirbmarc
Trolling FTW
Trolling FTW
Posts: 10084
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Reducing and counteracting anti-Muslim prejudices

#60

Post by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:37 am

free thoughtpolice wrote:He's a muslim Jim, but not as you know it.
No, I'm not a muslim, I'm an atheist (which isn't actually an identity, it's just the rejection of religious ideas). Religion isn't something you carry in your DNA, it's a personal and individual conviction, that you might have or not (or at least it should be like that, but far too many people wish to impose their religion onto others). I have muslim parents and quite a few muslim relatives, though. Some of them (like A LOT of people raised in muslim families) aren't very religious (hell I'd call them wishy-washy or cafeteria), others are more pious.

What I am from a sociological and legal point of view is a Swiss citizen of Turkish ancestry. But again, that's not my personal identity. My personal identity is what I have achieved and created for myself and by myself: my studies, my job, my friends, my passions, my hobbies, maybe in the future my wife (if I'll marry) and my family.

In the end that's what matters to build a sense of personal identity: the things you do and the people you care about. Identity politics are for people who prefer shared identity to a sense of personal realization.

Post Reply