Perceptions of Islam??

Now this is an intelligent response (so was Nolen's by the way). I don't think this is about religion and religion alone, but its (mis)understanding as well as the inability of people to differentiate religion from traditions from politics from whatever else. I've heard half-brained responses from people in the US regarding ME affairs, Islam, etc. as well as dimwitted remarks and reactions from those in the ME towards US interests. Unfortunately until people stop to understand, stop to think, or more importantly, stop to become educated, you are correct - the cycle of ignorance will continue. Nothing will be resolved. This thread is a prime example. It's an "us vs. them" attitude by both sides with each side probably being right and wrong in so many respects but failing to consider where they are wrong.


Good post, Invisible Fan.

 

Question #1 - Are we talking about our perception of Islam NOW or are we talking about what Islam was like 1400 years ago?

What difference does it make what it was like 1400 years ago if women don't have rights in Arab Islam? Stop reverting when it aids your case. Let's see someone defend how women are not oppresses NOW in the Middle East.

Question #2 - Is the virtue (or lack thereof) of Christianity relevant to the question of how we perceive Islam?

I don't think so. Its just a nice rhetorical flip-a-rooskie for someone who feels they need to say SOMETHING to defend Islam without any real substance to back it up.

Correct me if I am misreading this, Jeff. But you seem to be saying people in the Middle East are uneducated, and that is why they turn to religion, or are susceptible to its influence. If that is the case then isn't that an anti-Islam argument?

And if 'the people' in the Middle East are sooo susceptible to Islam because of their hopelessness, then why doesn't Islam STOP so-called 'cultural practices' like FGM, and the violence that is so endemic in the region?

That is a cop out. Either Islam is the dominant influence in the Middle East or it is not. If it is then you cannot avoid its responsibility in the PRACTICES of the people. Besides, I quoted Mohammed on his support for the practice of FGM. So even if you want to make the insane 'true Islam' argument, you would be wrong.

If Islam is not the same everywhere, then why do you ask a question that PRESUPPOSES it is? You can say 'Look Islam in the West is not violent or oppressive.' Most would agree. Saying 'because Islam is not violent and oppressive in the West means it is not violent and oppressive' is ridiculous.

Well, he met his last wife in kindergarten, so I'm not sure you want to go there.

I find this interesting. Islam is not a race, right? So why is racism an issue when someone critiques Islam? In fact, all the defenders of Islam conveniently point to NON-Arab places to show how great Islam is (women leaders in Pakistan, Malaysia; Muslims in the US helping catch terrorists), which IS racist since it assumes all the bad things from Islam are Arabic.

The governments of Pakistan and Turkey are pro-West. That does not mean the people are. There have been VERY large protests in both countries that were literally PRO-bin laden. In addition, it is a FACT that Pakistanis are harboring and aiding Al Queda, with many operatives in Karachi, and many anti-West protests in Karachi.

No doubt Muslims in the States are not radicalized. But it makes even less sense to generalize about Islam based on American Muslims, than it does to generalize about Islam based on the Muslims in the Middle East and Europe and the sub-continent and North Africa.

Milosevic got NO WHERE NEAR the support from Christians outside his own group that bin laden gets from Muslims outside his group. It is just not comparable factually. Nor do you see a large Muslim power like Saudi Arabia cracking down on bin laden like the US did on Milosevic.

No, in fact almost no one but defenders ever talk about what 'true' Islam IS. They talk about what the PREDOMINANT Islamic traits are in today's world. Like flying into the WTC, or trying to blow it up in '93, or funding terrorist (Saudi Arabia, Iran), or protesting in support of bin Laden (Pakistan, Palestinians, Egypt, Turkey), or practicing FGM (North Africa, Middle East), or stoning women to death for adultery, or making them wear particular garb (involuntarily), or denying them education (Afghanistan).

And the defenders of Islam do the opposite. Shrugging off its connection with anything bad by saying 'no the cultural influence is what causes that.' You cannot have it both ways. If culture is causing all the bad things in the Middle Eastern Muslims, then culture can certainly be moderating them in the West/East Asia.

They do. We just don't like them deciding to fly planes into buildings.

This just is not relevant. Its a big red herring. The West is not ruled by Christianity. Most people don't even pretend the Founding Fathers were Christian anymore. The West is ruled by modernity, not religion, and that is a big difference. Where are the Christian groups killing thousands of people in international terrorist acts supported and covered up by Christian governments? Not happening. Bosnia is the only place you keep naming and that was resolved by the West, not Islam.

Then stop saying 'Islam is peaceful' or 'Islam gives more rights to women.' If there IS NO single 'Islam' then you need to stop claiming there is a single GOOD Islam.

Yep, that's why Mohammed said it was cool to chop men's dicks off to keep them chaste.

Yes, it is so CLEAR that large segments of Muslims DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. It is so CLEAR the government that attempted to revert as close as possible to the original intent of Islam denied women education, work out of the home, property, that publicly executed women for adultery. It is so CLEAR that THOUSANDS of Muslims rally in support of bin laden. Nothing seems CLEARER than that.

We are not talking about what the world looked like 1400 years ago, we are talking about what it looks like now.

It should also be mentioned that Muhammad (his name is spelled several different ways so if one is the correct spelling will you guys let us know - I've been spelling it Mohammed) supported female genital mutilation, and took his last wife when she was less than ten years old. Talk about liberated.

Oh geez. Its not Islam that makes Muslims in so much of the world backwards ass, its some 'alien' influence. Even though the 'alien' influence of modernity engenders (pun intended) MORE rights for women than are currently enjoyed by women in Muslim society. That makes a lot of sense. That's not a circle, its a crazy eight.

Good post. However, distinguishing characteristics HAVE been talked about vis-a-vis what Islam is like combined with culture (modernity in the West, particularly in the States; combined with Buddhism in the East). Those that favor the singular vision of Islam are predominantly the defenders of 'Islam.'

 

Oh now you're going to make me cry.

edit: I'll just delete this stuff for the sake of peace in the Middle East. Seems the flag burning comments were taken pretty personally.

 

Originally posted by HayesStreet
...
Milosevic got NO WHERE NEAR the support from Christians outside his own group that bin laden gets from Muslims outside his group. It is just not comparable factually. Nor do you see a large Muslim power like Saudi Arabia cracking down on bin laden like the US did on Milosevic. ...

I was terribly disappointed when about 98% of the Greeks were pissed at us since they share the same Orthodox church as the Serbians.

 

FB,

Thanks for taking my observations constructively. Its nice to have a mature discussion.

I don't know about the profiling and racism. I don't feel I'm racist, but I won't tell my mind not to profile. If I see what look like skinheads, I will show extreme caution. I don't think that they are less of a human than I am, I don't immediately hate them for what they are (actually, I don't hate anyone), but they may be a threat to my or my family's safety. Once they open their mouths, I will further be able to assess the type of people they are and whether their physical appearance belies their threat.

Similarly, if I see some middle easterners boarding my plane, I will be aware. I have no reason to think less of them as people. I don't dislike them for what 'group' they belong to. In fact, I will have a tendency to feel compassion for what they may have to experience through no fault of their own. But I cannot ignore the reality that I cannot recall any non-middle easterners hijacking planes. I will keep the proper perspective though; it is far more likely that they will be treated in a very un-American way by others, than it is that they are actually hijackers.

I saw an interesting report on the head of the FAA (I believe that is his post). He is so ferevntly against racial profiling that the system used does not assess ethnicity at all. He claims that it does not help and potentially hinders. He says that there are much more effective markers for potential terrorists than the name and that focusing on the nationality or name could cause one to overlook a threat (e.g., see 'Richard Reid'). (FWIW, he was a victim of the Japanese-American Internment Camps) Its unfortunate that the rest of us don't have access to the algorithms and data that the profiling system uses. We have to use what nature gave us.

 

Thanks.
Not all neighboring states share the same vision of Islam. In the late 70s, Iran was the self-proclaimed "defender of Islam". Yet the contrasts and mutual distrust between the Arab Sunnis and Shiites made that an inaccurate claim. If you consider the West as a culture, we can also consider the United States as the 'defender of democratic capitalism'. Yet we constantly disagree with Canada and Europe over millitary and economic policies. Would it be unfair for Arabs to assume that Israel is ultimately a political and ideological tool and inevitably all of the West is to blame? Yes, but it's a growing sentiment.

There have been so called defenders of 'Christianity' that blend religion with their hateful ideologies. People like Pete Peters, a "Christian Identity pastor", and David Barton mask their messages of hate and filth with patriotism and religious zeal. Floyd Cochran, a former white supremecist, commented about Peters, "He doesn't espouse Hitler. He doesn't use the Swastika or klan robes. Instead he uses the Bible and the American flag." TV evangelists with access to available followers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are embracing that idea to mask "politically incorrect" actions with widespread mainstream symbolism. It's gaining followers while lying dormant in wait of a disaster or economic downturn. If they had their wish to abolish the seperation of Church and state, heck if they had a solid portion of the South as a seperate nation, they might look as some backwards defender of the true Christianity in front of the world community.

Doesn't matter what religion, fundamentalists always think they're right.

 

I do consider Jesus a powerful advocate of equal rights for EVERYONE - women, minorities, children, etc. However, what Jesus taught and what the Christian Church represent are not always the same thing.

My mother had to leave a church because they refused to let her, a woman with a masters degree in education, teach any classes that had men in. Women still in many churches cannot be members of the clergy. Some still don't have voting rights in their churches.

The descriptions of how women were to behave, what they were to wear and how they should be treated in church in the New Testament aren't exactly high standards. Women are not treated as equals in many Christian denominations. That's just the reality.

This is not to say that Islam, like Christianity, has a tremendous record when it comes to women's rights. Even Buddhism still has some elements of lack of equality when it comes to women and it approaches things very differently than most religions.

To be honest, most religions do this and have really had to be dragged kicking and screaming into changing. But, religion is slow to change its conventions and that's understandable.

IMO, it isn't religion that is the oppressor of women when it comes to the ME or Islam. IMO, it's poverty and lack of education that cause the vast majority of the problems for women. Take out the religion and I'm fairly certain the same rules would apply.

 

This thread is hilarious. BK just totally slammed you guys.


Azadre - Not only are you delusional, but you are a band geek! Good work!


Anybody saying that women have more rights in Muslim societies than in Christian societies needs to put the ****ing pipe down. And the massive amounts of heroin too.

Word.

 

Damn BK just slammed us Muslims. Kinda makes you prould huh douchebag?

 

I think someone has a man-crush on Brian.

 

Hee Hee Jeff.

Can you have a crush on somebody you've never met?

Well... excluding Anna Kournikova.

Anyway: Rockets03- Azadre and Kahn were asking to get slammed. Maybe in Muslim doctrine women are respected very much, but there is a huge diference between what is written and what is practiced. If you can't see that... then you are wrong. Deal with it.

 

I am tired of proclaiming that Mideast is not the sole representation of Islam. Yeah women are treated like **** over there. If douchebags like you cant get through your head then there is no point in arguing.

 

Sorry I will try and be more clear. Yes when trying to ID a killer race can play a part. I'll try and explain later in this post.

Exactly I agree this is a time when you have a pretty good idea the suspect will be white. That does not make all whites suspect. That's my point. If someone of middle-eastern heritage is doing something suspicious, I'm all for calling the authorites and reporting it. I would be 100% in favor of staring suspiciously and keeping a close eye on their actions.

My understanding is that is using race as part of the profile. It's not profiling because of race. It's fine to use race as one factor when it fits the case. It's not OK to use race as the factor on which to base suspicion

I understand those fears, and I think they may be somewhat natural if not rational. I called attention to it, because hopefully if people recognize it, then maybe something can be done about it.(I'll post that one tomorrow.)

Again, I've pointed out numerous examples of people who don't fit the racial profile, and were still planning or allegedly planning(for those who haven't gone to trial yet) terrorist attacks.

I don't think anyone should be ignored, that includes people of all races and religions. Cohen mentioned in his speech that an airport official believes racial profiling is not effective and could even be harmful. That's what I'm worried about.

Prior to 9/11 the biggest terrorism attack on the U.S. was done by a terrorist who was white and born in the U.S. who had served in the U.S. military. Nobody was suggesting that they would stay away from white guys in rental moving vans after that. I don't want any terrorist to be successful. I don't want middle-eastern ones to be successful, I don't one's originated by Hispanics, or Jewish people to work either. That's my problem with focussing in on one race.

I'll just reiterate that the suspect could be white(in the Vidor TX case) but not every white person is suspect.

If it's a case that a white is likely to have committed then some whites will be profiled. But a white who has a long record of working with an organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center probably won't be gazed at suspiciously. So most people not knowing which whites are likely to be killers from the Klan, wouldn't stare suspiciously at all whites. If there are other factors involved like the man is a known Klansman, has talked about killing others, tries to hide or other suspicious behavior, then of course they should be reported. But your average, white, John Doe, walking around most likely won't get all the suspicious stares from law enforcement. And they shouldn't.

 

Ok whatever ****er. Now youre just pissing me off.

Kahn says that Islamic cultures treat women well. This is not true. It is not a valid argument to say that women are supposed to be treated well according to doctrine, or that women are treated well by certain progressive Islamic cultures.

 

So do the Russians, but there is a difference in the level of actual support given to Milosevic vs that given to Osama. Besides we're talking about Greeks, who IMO are worse than Frogs.

First off, 'the Middle East is not the sole representation of Islam. Less then 8% of Muslims live in the MidEast. Indonesia, India, China, Russia and many other European nations are where the majority of Muslims reside.' If your theory was correct then how do you explain terrorism and support for it OUTSIDE of the Middle East? In Pakistan, for instance?

Second, 'they don't have any forms of entertainment?' C'mon, they are becoming terrorists for entertainment?

Third, these explanations just do not hold water. The 9/11 Muslims were NOT poor and NOT uneducated. (And they had plenty of entertainment re: strip clubs )

And if 'the people' in the Middle East are sooo susceptible to Islam because of their hopelessness, then why doesn't Islam STOP so-called 'cultural practices' like FGM, and the violence that is so endemic in the region?

Yes, meaning one authority is as legitimate as the next. Hence, the problem with violent Islam, and oppressive Islam.

Is that an answer of some sort? Mohammed specifically endorses it. So even if you take Azadre's view of Islam at its 'best,' it comes up short.

Try using THAT one these days.

Well, we're talking about several difference issues, not just violent Islam, but when you combine the violence of what is called 'radical Islam' with the oppression of Arabian Islam you get a negative perception of Islam.

I'm not saying every Muslim is either violent nor oppressive, but I believe those that are are at least in the non-vocal majority, and at most complicit through lack of action against the radical interpretations of Islam. When you look at Saudi Arabia and their support for radical Islam, what are you supposed to think? I don't see mass protests against radical Islam from Muslims either.

I live in London, so I watch a lot of European news.

Also for the Mohammed quote on FGM look in the War on Islam thread. I quote the ahadith and source.

Sure, but when you include Indonesia and Malaysia and the West, all of which are moderated by other influences (same argument), you get a large portion of that number. And if 1.4 billion Muslims are NOT these things, then why can't they squash this minority that are radicals? I don't think your assessment of how many Muslims support radical fundamentalism is correct.

I'm not saying all Muslims share the same vision. I am saying the opposite.

Yes, but you can say they share predominant aspects in societies and cultures. Commitment to secular government is one.

Not sure what the point is.

And if the rest of us sat around and LET them take over, then we would be culpable in my mind. Just as the 'non-vocal' majority of Muslims you say are out there are culpable for the GROWING radicalism in Islam. Think of it this way. If non-Muslims say 'X is wrong with Islam' then they are called 'racists,' 'imperialists,' and 'crusaders.' So who really SHOULD BE vocal in the streets protesting against radicalism, infiltrating the radical organizations, delegitimizing radical religious authorities? Muslims. And you just don't see it ENOUGH.

 

I just managed to read through this whole thread. Now I feel dizzy.

Anyway - I have nothing at all against people of Arabic descent or Muslims. Also, I can understand how some people here felt offended by some of the comments made by BK and Timing (although I am sorry to say that they made me laugh). But according to some of the logic displayed in this thread, I am a racist - because I definitely do observe people of Arabic descent more when they get on a plane with me than I do with others (I fly a lot and I always check out the other people boarding the plane).

If that makes me a racist, fine. Out of the last 19 people who flew jets into tall buildings, 19 were of Arabic descent. Sorry to say, but that is the way it is.

 

not North America