What is "Islamaphobia"?

silverharp

I see a major issue for the Islamic religion is that what a catholic for instance will be told is a "sin" makes no demand that they should actually be punished for it in the real world. Contrast with the Muslim treatments of "sin" like adultery or for being homosexual where anything up to death is considered to be the perfect punishment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnMSCPHxLNA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjnrzkzG4JI

130Kph

jank wrote: »

Your wasting your time arguing the case here volchista, as the poster in question is known for spinning like a Russian ballerina, giving glib one line responses and deflecting like a seasoned politician. When it comes to this point, which it has now, I generally regard the debate won.

You articulated it very well. Its also a debating example of the Peter principle (from management theory where employees rise to the level of their incompetence).

I was going to wait 24 hours to post this to give him a chance to give a persuasive response and move the discussion forward but he literally has nothing substantive now that we're past the kindergarten level of "its some muslims not all muslims". Maybe next we'll hear "this has nothing to do with Islam" :pac:

It just shows this poster has only a shallow interest of the problems within Islam and is using the topic as a political football in a wider, rather pathetic game (in his head).

bnt wrote: »

My view is that we don't really "get" the levels of totalitarian indoctrination that Muslims undergo, through their childhood and formative years.
......
Everything other than Islam is explicitly condemned, not just as different, but as wrong and inferior; your family will disown you, you will be shamed in your community, and (in some cases) face threats to life and limb,
........
But, hey, there is no coercion in Islam, remember? Anyone who raises concerns about Islam is dismissed as an irrational "Islamophobe", because their concerns can't be rational, since only Islam is valid - right? :rolleyes:

I agree the indoctrination of Islam in these societies is at insane levels however it varies from family to family. I'd say the amount of people who actually believe the religion (inside their own head) is about 30% - similar to proportions for most religions worldwide.

Anti-muslim bigotry is as horrible as any bigotry and is rightly countered but anyone who earnestly uses the term Islamaphobia is an idiot in my opinion.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

We're at cross purposes I think.

Do you agree that there is an urgent problem when a democratic, secular government daren't condemn people for publishing a death list of writers they disapprove of and then going in to kill these writers one by one?

What actions do you think that government could or should take against them, if any?

There is.

Quite, determined covert surveillance, followed by discrete low key arrests.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

There is.

Quite, determined covert surveillance, followed by discrete low key arrests.

That's policing 101 though : open surveillance is the mark of a police state, designed to intimidate, not to stop crime. So take that as read. My question was what to do in the meantime : should the police service not provide these bloggers with any protection until the killers are caught?

The other question, which you didn't answer, was your views on the fact that the government are afraid even to issue a statement condemning these killings, and indeed appear reluctant to get involved at all. Hence the lack of police protection for example.

Would our government refusing to condemn sectarian killings and to protect high profile targets not give rise to negative comment? Of course it would.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

That's policing 101 though : open surveillance is the mark of a police state, designed to intimidate, not to stop crime. So take that as read. My question was what to do in the meantime : should the police service not provide these bloggers with any protection until the killers are caught?.

Of course they should.

volchitsa wrote: »

The other question, which you didn't answer, was your views on the fact that the government are afraid even to issue a statement condemning these killings, and indeed appear reluctant to get involved at all. Hence the lack of police protection for example..

Given these elements past association with Pakistan, support for one of the less well known genocides of the 20th century and their original opposition to Bangladeshi indepencence, a country short on resources like Bangladesh is caught in an awkward situation.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Of course they should.


Given these elements past association with Pakistan, support for one of the less well known genocides of the 20th century and their original opposition to Bangladeshi indepencence, a country short on resources like Bangladesh is caught in an awkward situation.

That doesn't even make sense, unless you think there's some risk that Pakistan might invade? Bangladesh (East Pakistan) fought a war for independence from West Pakistan, as it then was, which cost many lives. There's still a lot of ill feeling there - as there is between India and Pakistan.

It doesn't make sense to claim the Bangladeshi government is unwilling to criticize Pakistani-affiliated terror groups killing Bangladeshi citizens on Bangladeshi soil, any more then you'd expect India to take a soft line approach to the Mumbai massacres just because there might be links with countries it has previously fought a war with.

So no, that doesn't work. Try again. What can it possibly be, do you think, that is preventing the Bangladeshi government from taking any effective steps to protect its own citizens against extremist terrorists with links to Pakistan? Could it possibly be not their links to Pakistan, but their appeals to Islam that are likely to cause problems for the government if they are seen by the population to be actively supporting writers who have been "condemned" for offending Islam?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

That doesn't even make sense, unless you think there's some risk that Pakistan might invade? Bangladesh (East Pakistan) fought a war for independence from West Pakistan, as it then was, which cost many lives. There's still a lot of ill feeling there - as there is between India and Pakistan.

It doesn't make sense to claim the Bangladeshi government is unwilling to criticize Pakistani-affiliated terror groups killing Bangladeshi citizens on Bangladeshi soil, any more then you'd expect India to take a soft line approach to the Mumbai massacres just because there might be links with countries it has previously fought a war with.

...or unwilling to criticise them lest they take out their wrath on the vulnerable rural hindu population as they did before, using the border to find safe haven.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

...or unwilling to criticise them lest they take out their wrath on the vulnerable rural hindu population as they did before, using the border to find safe haven.

The bottom of that barrel is going to start leaking soon if you don't stop scraping it!

You think the government prefers to sacrifice educated urban intellectuals to protect an impoverished rural minority? That'd probably be a first in the history of mankind!

Anyway, the question wasn't what other groups could Islamic extremists in Bangladesh target instead of writers. It was: how come the rest of the population is felt to condone this sort of violence, which is what puts the government in such a delicate position?

You accept the premise of significant potential support within the population - and the only reason for that is Islam. You've suggested no plausible alternative explanation. That speaks for itself.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

The bottom (..............)speaks for itself.

I never stated any such thing.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

I never stated any such thing.

Sorry. Which thing?

You certainly haven't answered the original question, if that's what you're referring to.

That's fine, your stance has become clear albeit by default.

You've accepted that the Bangladeshi government can't take steps even just to protect its own non violent citizens from murder by Islamic extremists for fear of encouraging yet more support among the rest of the population.

If you had any plausible explanation for why their population is likely to harbour sympathy for brutal murderers I'm sure you'd have given it already. What other gangs can hack innocent civilians to death in the street and still expect to be treated with such kid gloves by the authorities?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry. Which thing?

You certainly haven't answered the original question, if that's what you're referring to.

That's fine, your stance has become clear albeit by default.

You've accepted that the Bangladeshi government can't take steps even just to protect its own non violent citizens from murder by Islamic extremists for fear of encouraging yet more support among the rest of the population.

If you had any plausible explanation for why their population is likely to harbour sympathy for brutal murderers I'm sure you'd have given it already. What other gangs can hack innocent civilians to death in the street and still expect to be treated with such kid gloves by the authorities?

....any gang which has relatively unknown membership and can terrorise the local population - eg Mexico, Columbia, El Salvador, parts of L.A. etc.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

....any gang which has relatively unknown membership and can terrorise the local population - eg Mexico, Columbia, El Salvador, parts of L.A. etc.

You seem to be replying to a completely different post to anything I've posted.

Though FWIW, drugs gangs are indeed often suspected of getting favourable treatment in impoverished Central American states, because of the unbelievable amounts of money the "narcotraficants" have access to, to bribe officials and to buy support in the slums. It doesn't stop their governments expressing strong anti-gang sentiments though, they just don't always act on them. So it's not really relevant here.

And for memory, my actual question was not whether these killers are terrorizing people. That's what they're trying to do, so obviously they are.

But I actually asked you about why the government prefers to remain neutral, not even expressing criticism of them - not something that happens in Mexico for example. That's a very different question from the one you appear to be trying to answer.

Look, I totally get that you can't answer honestly without facing your issues of cognitive dissonance, and that's fine by me. You don't have to answer, you know - you can just drop it any time you want. But do stop trying to rewrite my question for me. Ok?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to be replying to a completely different post to anything I've posted.

Though FWIW, drugs gangs are indeed often suspected of getting favourable treatment in impoverished Central American states, because of the unbelievable amounts of money the "narcotraficants" have access to, to bribe officials and to buy support in the slums.

And shootings, bombings, cutting off heads, cutting up people alive...that kind of thing.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

And shootings, bombings, cutting off heads, cutting up people alive...that kind of thing.

Totally irrelevant to what you were asked. The Mexican government has no problem expressing its abhorrence to these actions, it just can't always ensure individual members aren't corrupted by the sheer amount of money the narcotraficants have available to use as bribes. In a poor country, that's a real problem.

Pakistan has a similar problem with Islamists, but it's because of their connection with Islam, not because the Islamists have more money than the government.

Bangladesh is now facing a similar problem. It's all the starker though because unlike Pakistan, the Bangladeshi constitution is secular, and they have a secular government.

So it's really a question of the government being extremely conscious that it absolutely mustn't be seen to do or say anything that could be presented as any criticism of Islam itself. That gives these extremists a huge PR advantage as far as the population is concerned. Unfortunately. So that's why free-thinking bloggers will probably continue to die in Muslim countries while their governments do little or nothing to protect them. Because the teaching in Islam officially supports killings apostates.

jank

As Sam Harris said, Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas. We should be able to freely judge it, critise it and mock it without the fear of being castigated by middle class western apologists as Islamaphobic.

Michael OBrien

jank wrote: »

As Sam Harris said, Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas. We should be able to freely judge it, critise it and mock it without the fear of being castigated by middle class western apologists as Islamaphobic.

Just a point of clarification, Sam did later admit that was a bit of a strong statement and went for Islam is A motherlode of bad ideas, which is more true than THE motherlode, as there are probably equal or worse ideologies out there. He stated he got caught up in the moment in the 'debate' (shouting match) and made his case too strongly on that point.

Michael OBrien

Nodin wrote: »

And shootings, bombings, cutting off heads, cutting up people alive...that kind of thing.

The theological issue with a religion adds extra complexity than normally available when dealing with extremists or criminals that is not present with secular crime.
It is very risky for a government to criticize actions that have strong religious precedent in a community that is heavily steeped in that religion, at a fundamental level. Cries for their heads can easily occur, and they know it, if they go against the teachings of the mainstream religion, or seem to be siding with the 'western values' over Islam.
There are many levels of adherence in a religion, especially one that is heavily focused on authority and obedience. The extremists do have support among fundamentalists for their actions, and radicals can inflame those fundamentalists to become dangerous with enough rhetoric. Islamic history is filled with such instances, even recently where a politician was killed by his own bodyguard for going against the flow and seeking mercy instead of retribution for a perceived slight against their prophet or religion.

130Kph

Noel Plumb (a youtube blogger some may be familiar with) analyses some contradictory answers in a survey of UK Muslim attitudes from February this year.

Skip to 26:10 for the segment below-
45% disagreed with the following statement:- Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion.

One possibility for the 45% figure (he thinks) is - the respondents answered earlier questions in the survey in a certain way to show Islam in a good light (aka lying).

Another possibility is remarkable: Are some Muslims in the UK bigoted against other Muslims in the UK?

While it’s a funny idea, it is a reasonable possibility and highlights again the muddled way something as half-assed and nebulous as Islam is tortuously attempting to adapt– over decades - to a Western society.

Looking at it another way, some Muslims may personally feel enlightened, but they think many of their co-coreligionists interpret Islam in a ‘conservative’ way or in the bad old way (that Islam-critics have long complained about).

Not a NSA agent

130Kph wrote: »

Noel Plumb (a youtube blogger some may be familiar with) analyses some contradictory answers in a survey of UK Muslim attitudes from February this year.

Skip to 26:10 for the segment below-
45% disagreed with the following statement:- Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion.

One possibility for the 45% figure (he thinks) is - the respondents answered earlier questions in the survey in a certain way to show Islam in a good light (aka lying).

Another possibility is remarkable: Are some Muslims in the UK bigoted against other Muslims in the UK?

While it’s a funny idea, it is a reasonable possibility and highlights again the muddled way something as half-assed and nebulous as Islam is tortuously attempting to adapt– over decades - to a Western society.

Looking at it another way, some Muslims may personally feel enlightened, but they think many of their co-coreligionists interpret Islam in a ‘conservative’ way or in the bad old way (that Islam-critics have long complained about).

We can see it among Christians in the west, these people think that Jesus wore blue in this situation, they think he wore red, this means they arent real Christians. Just because 2 people share a religion the strict follower sees the one as an awful person while the a la carte religious person thinks the other is a nut job.

It make sense that it would change as these people integrate more with westerners.

Smiley92a

I'm a gay man living in a majority Catholic country that just voted for same-sex marriage. I'm extremely grateful for a-la-carte religious people, without their supposed hypocrisy I'd probably be dead, in prison, or just living in secrecy and terror at this point.

There were people arguing during the campaign that voting yes was the Christian thing to do and people arguing that voting no was the Christian thing to do. There are Muslim clerics who condemn violence and ones who condone it. Arguing about which of these represents the 'authentic' version of their faith is absurd: people follow whatever bits of their holy book suits them and ignore whatever bits don't and they always have. I don't think this wishy-washy approach is a bad thing on the whole, since it lets us have things like majority Christian countries voting for same-sex marriage.

Anyway, my point about Islamophbia is: Muslims generally aren't permitted the same degree of nuance. I live in Dundalk, there were people just up the road murdering each other over religion... Except most of us know it was actually more to do with economic and political power, with religion as more of a tribal boundary and political shorthand than a motivation.

For decades, Ireland was a closed-off country that banned books and films it disapproved of and locked up unwed mothers. We know it wasn't just because Ireland was Catholic, it was more complicated than that. The new nation was attempting to create a monolithic, nationalist, 'Irish' identity for decades before the war of independence, hence the Celtic Revival. Catholicism became a large part of that identity when religious and political elites found a commonality of purpose. The people herded into the laundries and the industrial schools were, by and large very poor, evidence of the economic failure of the Irish state. The banned books and films were ones which might have disrupted the perfection of 'Irish' culture, even if their authors were Irish.

My point is that Catholicism was a huge and important factor in all of this, but it wasn't the only factor, and it wasn't even always the most important factor either. Many important people knew of the neglect and abuse in the industrial schools long before States of Fear came out, and some of my father's friends can recall Christian Brothers who were known to touch their students inappropriately, but as long as the Church remained entwined with political power, it was above reproach.

You could say the Troubles or the state of Ireland for most of it's history as an independent state was 'because of religion' and you wouldn't exactly be wrong... but it wouldn't be a very useful explanation. They were about more than that. Understanding this doesn't absolve the role religion and religious elites played in all these horrors, it merely acknowledges the complexity of things like the Troubles.

I don't know if I've made this very clear, it's late and I may be over thinking it.

TL,DR:

I don't think it's Islamophobic to condemn the actions of terrorists.

I do think it's Islamophobic to treat Muslims like they're the Borg Collective. Yeah, it boils down to 'not all Muslims...' but so what? Not all Catholics blow up pubs.