UKC

So leading Tory Baroness Warsi says her party is institutionally Islamophobic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47454993

Wonder if the Daily Mail et al will now go after Theresa May in the same way they've attacked Corbyn over allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour?

Probably not, is my guess

They seem to be terrified of UKIP stealing their votes. Surely there should be "clear blue water" on *both* sides of the Tory schooner?

Of course not. It'll barely barely warrant a mention for a couple of obvious reasons.

One, the gutter press aren't interested in knocking the Conservative party. Attacking the government might be more tempting but doing so without attacking the party is rather too nuanced and risky.

Two, islamaphobia is the socially acceptable* prejudice de jour. It simply wouldn't do to risk alienating their readership by challenging that, especially given the certain papers' role in cultivating and feeding it.

*not acceptable but very widely accepted or shrugged off

jk

Well they have been institutionally psychopathic for as long as I've been alive .

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/mindmelding/201706/9-clues-you-may-...

Whats a little Islamaphobia thrown into the mix ?

Just heard her interview on the radio, very different from the previous "news" item about anti-Semitism in the Labour party, and Margaret Hodge Where no evidence was asked for or supplied.

Warsi, was questioned and supplied evidence of a tory MP.

Everything Hodge has said has been taken at face value.

A bit like Corbyn "having an egg thrown at him", apparently (and I haven't checked) a bloke punched him, and he also had an egg with him. So Corbyn didn't get egged he got punched, by a bloke with an egg.

But the egg was in the chaps clenched fist, the "punch" was thrown at Corbyn so technically the egg was thrown at him - c'mon lad, learn how to deduce facts

Good grief. We have a prominent senior Tory, sticking it the Tories, and what do you do? Stick it to the Labour Party. Whose side are you on? 

Given that they were mostly pretty happy to use antisemitic tropes against "North London geek" Ed Milliband a few years ago, it's probably safe to assume that they're more motivated by finding shit that'll stick to Labour than by any actual concern about racism.

Remember the London Mayoral elections, Zac Goldsmith went so far that even Tories felt that they had to speak out, although only after it was clear that Goldsmith had lost. Michael Fallon was there to defend the indefensible of course.

Of course whilst the perception of anti-semitism in the Labour Party is greater* the reality is that anti-semitism is more widespread amongst Conservatives, as shown by YouGov polls in 2015 and 2017.

* Labour have a problem with anti-semitism, it’s clear if you follow Labour politics on twitter and I’m not defending it.

Just as a quick anecdote, I remember during the 1997 general election, the Conservative candidate in the Blackburn constituency, a young woman of south Asian heritage, was going around the predominantly south Asian areas with a megaphone shouting “Jack Straw is a Jew”. Which was even less subtle than the tactics used by the darling of the hard left and friend to murderous dictators, George Galloway, when competing against Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow is 2005.

I read it as him defending Corbyn.

who actually gives a f**k about some tweet? the Baroness should get a life. failing that, if, on the basis of this one example, she thinks the whole party is institutional islamophobic why on earth is she still part of it?

ditto for these anti-Semitic squawkers, I am utterly sick of everyone taking advantage of whatever minority/ diversity clickbait happens to be flavour of the month simply to further their own ends.

racism, sexism and indeed any sort of hatred for any (or no) reason are very serious issues - utterly degraded and undermined by moronic offence finding at every opportunity which ultimately does more harm than good, pushes people to extreme positions and alienates most of the public.

Ok - fairly obviously my point was less about the actual tweet and more about about the double standard in reporting that will no doubt be applied by the Tory press (although the BBC News website at least seems to be treating it pretty impartially). However, in answer to yours it's perhaps worth pointing out that while Warsi is using this person and his tweet as an example, she does say similar things are happening on a much wider basis - "daily examples of the most vile racists and Islamophobic comments from both elected representatives and members" was the phrase she used in the link I pasted.

apologies ripper - I do appreciate that I have vented about a point that you were not making!

 No apology required my friend! after all if you can't vent in these forums we'd all be in danger of exploding

Eh! you might want to read my post again.

I wasn't sticking it to anyone, apart from the mainstream media, perhaps.

And if I punch you in the face, with a handful of feathers in my fist, have I thrown some feathers at you?

OR maybe that was the point you were trying to make

The never-elected Warsi would say that.  She's a Muslim who tries to prevent her religion being criticised.   

"Islamophobia" is a word designed to do exactly that, to try to make out that any criticism of the religion is a "phobia", meaning an irrational fear and prejudice. 

The truth is that Islam is an ideology that contains a lot of bad and harmful ideas. Anyone who accepts Western liberal-democratic Enlightenment values *should* be opposed to Islam, or at least many of the mainstream versions of Islam.

Why is it a "prejudice" to be opposed to idea-systems such as Islam? Is that any worse than being opposed to socialism or to capitalism or communism or fascism?  If so, why?

Should they also be opposed to the harmful ideology of Judaism while they're at it? Or would it be wiser to regard Jews not as sharing one ideology, but rather single out the terrible ideas held by some Jews (those ideas that cause real harm to people, and I think we both know the kind of extremist views I'm referring to here) while not tarring all Jews with the brush that their religion is in itself bad? It is rubbish of course, but I don't think it's so awful that we need to collectively "oppose Judaism" - it's none of my business what kind of bizarre, anachronistic rituals people conduct in their homes and holy places.

I know you're committed to the idea that mainstream Islam is terrible, and that it isn't just Islamic extremism that's worth getting upset about. But my experience of knowing Muslims personally demonstrates very clearly to me that while they believe in a load of rubbish that I want nothing to do with, they don't follow a harmful ideology. Nothing they do, or at least that is exposed in any behaviour that I witness directly or indirectly, provides any evidence that this version of mainstream Islam is something I should actively oppose. I don't see what harm it's doing - they seem to be doing a good job of bringing their kids up (both boys and girls) to go to university and train to do good, professional jobs that are useful for the whole of society. What is it that you're asking me to "oppose"?

What are these harmful effects of mainstream Islam in the UK that you see, but which I - as someone who works in a profession where a huge proportion of my colleagues are young Muslims - don't see? What are my colleagues and friends doing that's so awful that they wouldn't do if it weren't for their "harmful ideology"?

Have you read the report?

The arse at the centre of the story was implying that all muslims are terrorists. I'd say that was Islamophobic.

Yes.

Where does he say (or imply) that all Muslims are terrorists?

"Turkey buys oil from ISIS. Muslims sticking together," 

Ok, on reflection maybe just Turkish Muslims.

What's her elected or not status got to do with anything?

Sure, I'm fine with people criticising aspects of Judaism, or the religion as a whole.

Well lots of Jews are secular and don't hold to the religion of Judaism.   ("Jewish" is surely defined by descent, so that "Jew" does not mean "adherent of Judaism", whereas "Muslim" does mean "adherent of Islam").

Well true, Judaism is non-proselytizing and non-expansionist.  As far as I can tell it's an opt-in religion that accepts personal choice in the matter.  It thus seems to me a lot less harmful than ideologies such as Islam or communism which do want to impose themselves on people.

OK, your acquaintances are presumably a small minority of the country they are in?  The evidence worldwide seems to be that having Muslims as a majority of the population is usually harmful for freedom and for the political, social and intellectual life of the country. 

Out of interest, what do you make of the recent events at Parkfield community school, Birmingham?

"A primary school that taught pupils about homosexuality as part of a programme to challenge homophobia has stopped the lessons after hundreds of children were withdrawn by parents in protest."

"On Friday about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-l...

I see the harmful effects in countries where mainstream Islam dominates.  Do you really need a list of the harmful effects?  Some of them are:

Lack of freedom of speech; blasphemy laws
Lack of freedom of religion; apostasy laws
Lack of political freedom.
Stifling effect on enquiry and intellectual progress.
Resulting lack of social and economic development.

That's not really the same as "all Muslims are terrorists" is it?

Since her only notability is as a politician, the fact that she's never been elected to anything is relevant to her standing. 

I'm still not sure it's relevant. A political party is more than the sum of its elected representatives and a democracy functions most effectively when a broad section of the electorate are involved in the political discourse. 

Let's be generous (and this really is generous, because I've pointed out precisely the same fallacy in your argument before) and call this a mistake rather than intellectual dishonesty.

Good comparative "ideas systems" to Islam are other religions, e.g. Buddhism, Christianity. Political and economic ideologies to each other also make good comparisons to each other, but religions to political systems are false comparisons. Yet you choose not to compare Islam to other religions, but to political and economic systems. Perhaps this is for a good reason that you can explain, rather than just weak reasoning by making a false comparison?

I'm afraid the theological argument that "Islam is a political and economic system! - it says so in the koran!" won't wash. Mainstream Islam in the UK is not seeking to overthrow our democracy - sorry to disappoint if you thought it was.

Another example that might resonate with you:

"There's no direct translation for gay, lesbian, bisexual in Punjabi or in Urdu that I know of, so I basically said 'of that with you and mum' - to liken it to a relationship.

"He said: 'You know Islam, you've gone to the mosque, you've read the Koran, you know it's a sin don't you? As far as I'm concerned, I'm right, you're wrong. What you're doing is against Islam'."

"Miriam said her father presented her with a choice; give up her partner and return to the family home, or drop off her keys and never show her face again.

"He basically said he didn't want anything to do with me and disowned me."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46567505

And a similar issue, that resonates more with me, is the similar ostracism and threats of violence that can be the fate of anyone from such communities renouncing Islam and becoming an atheist. 

Ok, the most charitable interpretation I can come up with, having read it three times and thought about it us the Turkish Muslims are ISIS sympathisers. That's still a) Islamophobic and b) total crap in my view. Of course I'm not a libel lawyer so there may be a perfectly innocent meaning in the statement if one spends a few hours thinking about it but I imagine the average Twitter user will go with one of my interpretations.

I do this for two reasons.  First, I'm trying to emphasize that Islam really is a set of ideas.  It is not a "race" or race of people. As a set of ideas it should no more be exempt from criticism than any other idea system such as capitalism or whatever.  

Second, Islam very often is a political system as well as a religion. 

I'm quite happy to compare Islam to Christianity.

First, if we go back to AD 1000 or so, Christianity was as bad as Islam (or maybe even worse), being dogmatic, intolerant, oppressive. 

But, today, mainstream Christianity in most nations accepts freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to criticise Christianity, and separation of powers between church and state (at least to as large extent, even if not perfectly).  That all makes it vastly more benign nowadays. Further, to a large extent many "Christians" are only nominal Christians and have largely ditched most of the silly and harmful ideologies of their religion. 

The end result is that it's fine to be a vocal atheist in a majority-Christian country such as the US, and you can criticise Christianity openly and nothing bad will happen.

Similarly, in Israel one can be a vocal atheist and openly criticise Judaism and nothing bad will happen.

But, a vocal atheist openly criticising Islam in Bangladesh or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or many other Islamic countries would be killed or flogged and imprisoned or lynched.

And it's not safe to be an ex-Muslim even in Britain. E.g.:

"An investigation for the BBC has found evidence of young people suffering threats, intimidation, being ostracised by their communities and, in some cases, encountering serious physical abuse when they told their families they were no longer Muslims."

"Ayisha (not her real name) from Lancashire was just 14 when she began to question Islam after reading the Koran. She started rebelling over wearing the hijab, but eventually decided she wasn't a Muslim and the situation at home rapidly got worse.

"My dad threatened to kill me by getting a knife and holding it against my neck and saying: 'We might as well do it if you're going to bring this much shame to the family.'"

"He used to beat her so badly that eventually she called the police and he was convicted of child cruelty. Ayisha hadn't anticipated the shock of being immediately cut off from her mother and siblings.

"Now just 17 and studying for A-levels, she's been placed by the council under the guardianship of her boyfriend's father. It's hardly ideal, but she understands why. "They thought I wasn't at much risk and that was the end of it."

"Aaliyah, 25, who also did not wish to be named, lives in South Yorkshire. She left Islam while at university and realised she couldn't move back home, where her parents had a marriage arranged for her and the fear of violence was very real.

"I know my family wouldn't hurt me, not my immediate family," she says, looking back. "But I haven't told my relatives. My dad's actually told me that if the wrong people found out then he doesn't know what's going to happen."

"Aaliyah offers advice to other ex-Muslims on online forums and urges them to get financially independent before they tell their parents, so they can cope with being thrown out.

"The fear is constant too. "I used to live in Bradford for a time and I'd be very quiet about it because there are Muslims everywhere. I still have this innate fear, it's hard to explain. You just want to keep quiet about it. It's just safe to stay quiet."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34357047

In this context, I'm talking about Jews who practice Judaism. 

Depends on the specific Jewish sub-community. The hacidic jews are 100% batshit crazy on the issue of apostates or whatever they call them. Horrifically abusive, just like the extremist Muslims. 

I absolutely do not want to run things the way that an Islamic nation would run things. But nor would I want to run thing the way a Christian government in Africa would run things - the problems are extremely similar.

There are two separate flaws in your argument here: 

1. I'm saying I don't see any reason to oppose mainstream Islam in the UK, and you're responding with evidence about different forms of Islam overseas and saying "yeah, it's all just the same". It isn't. Just like the religious right in the US is not the same as the CofE. 

2. The harmful effects of Islam you present as unique to Islam, and yet they're rife outside of western democracies, Islamic or not.

You're not providing a compelling reason for me to think that I should stop thinking specifically about particular ideas that I dislike advanced by some sub-groups within Islam, and instead draw the circle round the whole of Islam. We can go through the concentric circles argument again if you like, and you can fail to come up with any good reasons why Islam (rather than smaller subsets) is the appropriate level at which to agitate for "opposition", again.

I don't like it much. It's a good example of specific idea that I think should be opposed, rather than saying to all Muslims "your religion is bad". Fat chance they'll change their minds, you might say, and you'd be quite right. Still more likely that them denouncing their entire faith though, don't you think? That said, I know plenty of Muslims who at university age decided to drop that particular bit of their religion and hang on to the rest...

The problem isn't unique to Islam - plenty of white working class families where the closest thing to religion is football work the same way. Should I oppose the harmful ideology of football too? Similarly, other (actual) religions are dreadful on the issue of homosexuality, and I oppose all of them. I find it extremely unhelpful to say "Islam is bad" on these grounds and then say nothing about Catholicism. 

I don't think you really know how "such communities" work. Sure, there are conservative Muslim communities that bully and abuse apostates. But none of the non-practising/ non-believing Muslims I know have any problem. Any of your n=1 data points can be countered with who knows how many opposing ones where there's been acceptance. I just don't buy the idea that you've got any handle on what different Muslim communities are like. You've drawn the circle around the whole of Islam, but your criticisms either apply to only subsets within Islam, or they apply across wider groups as well as Islam. 

You can try to draw me into "defending Islam" - which is ridiculous, because I think it's a load of shit. My counter argument to your simplistic "Islam is bad" isn't "no, it's good". It's "you've defined the group you oppose inappropriately, on tribal grounds and have included sets that don't warrant opposition, and not included other sets that warrant precisely the same opposition". OK it's a more nuanced position than the facile strawman "you shouldn't criticise Islam, I think it's nice" but I'm sure (maybe) you're capable of engaging with it.

But unless an ideology has agents enacting those ideas what does it matter? Jon's point is that the actions of the Muslims he knows aren't harmful so, do they not understand the ideology correctly (as you do) if they are not doing harmful actions?

Your concept of ideology is just so vague, it's essentially meaningless, or at least very selective in application. What "ideology" is to blame for America's invasion of Iraq and the destabilisation of the Middle East that followed? What "ideology" was responsible a century ago for Britain continuing to seize land by force around the world and subjugating the people within those lands? Is that white supremacy, or British supremacy, or Liberal Democracy or whatever ideology you want to blame, still with us today? You of course don't have to be subjugating people in other parts of the world, but I presume in the same way that you say Islam works, that British supremacism is still in you and me?

Newsnight have just finished a report on the issue. The tory party refused to appear.

Good to see they're treating it seriously.

I’m a very good humoured, pleasant, liberal, tolerant chap who treats his fellow travellers through life with a deal of good natured respect, regardless of who they are or where they come from. 

In addition to which, I have a sensible and hearty religophobia, ie. toward any deity concept designed to control by emotion.

This includes Islam. It’s a concept, not a community, or a fellow traveller.

Warsi is just ramping up the hate. Making it personal

What she is saying is that the default attitude in the tory party to Islam is one of hostility and suspicion.

Yes. I think treating Islam (together with any other deity concept that controls by emotion) with hostility and suspicion is a very healthy default attitude to have.

The trouble with all these 'phobic' accusations that are bandied about by folk who should know better, is that they make it appear to be directed toward a community of generally perfectly reasonable people rather than a religious idea, and so the hate begins.

Hopefully, I'm not holding my breath here, but maybe, maybe, we'll get beyond all this I'm not racist, I'm not a bigot, I'm an anti-semite etc etc etc etc complete and bullshit fuelled by the regular media and the poison that is social media.

Grow up, see it as what it is ... bullshit.

I'm expecting Simon4 to chime in on this one....oh hang on : (

I miss our Simon4 and others on here.

I vaguely recall a conversation we once had, when I asked you whether you'd classify Mrs Num Num as a MILF.

You told me that she's a MUSLIM (Mother Useless at Soliciting Libibinous Impulses or Masturbation). 

Do you know many Tories? Do you suppose they don't like Muslims because of their homophobia?

I think you'll find the reason for their distaste is much simpler  

I'd say the world needs a wholesale cleansing of religious influence. Get rid of the God botherers in the house of lords, religious schools etc.. why can a Muslim women cover her face in a petrol station but not a male biker etc. 

The Tories might be bias, but a lot of home grown terrorists have been groomed by these supposedly peaceful Islamic communities in the UK. Any government is between a rock and a hard place in how they tackle it. They can't win. 

Is it possible to be a Muslim Jew then? Genuine question.

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and has one of the most overtly expansionist territorial policies in the world through its settlements in the West Bank. It has also been accused many times of ethnic-cleansing in East Jerusalem (including by Richard Falk, UN human rights investigator). However, many Jews, even in Israel, are opposed to these policies, just as the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to groups that seek to spread Islam by violent means.

I have visited many Muslim countries and have found them to be some of the most socially inclusive and intellectually stimulating places in the world. I would certainly not wish that they became more like the UK.

What are you hoping to achieve with your extremely vocal anti-Islamic agenda?

I suspect that their default attitude to communism is also one of hostility and suspicion. So what?

I suspect that many UKCers have a default attitude towards fascism of hostility and suspicion.

But only one idea system gets  protected by people saying that criticism of it is a "phobia". 

I would agree.  We're far too tolerant of, for example, Haredi Jews sending kids to "schools" where the "education" is little more than Bible study. 

These are not fit places for children: https://humanism.org.uk/2018/02/27/a-day-in-my-life-at-an-illegal-ultra-ort...

The problem is that in this country we have a default presumption of: "it's a religion, therefore it is good, and we can't criticise it".

If they're so intellectually stimulating why are there no universities in Islamic countries in the world's top 200 universities? Why is there almost no scientific research (of anything like international standard) in Islamic countries?  Why is the total number of books published in languages like Arabic and Farsi tiny compared to norms elsewhere?

Oh come on, it's not a difficult concept that, for example, communism is a highly harmful idea system when it dominates a country, but that a handful of members of the British Communist Party are actually doing very little harm, owing to tiny numbers.

Or the fact they'd be happiest if only men were educated. 

Yes, there are variants of Islam (just as there are with all major ideologies; there are multiple versions of communism for example).   (And yes, some versions of Islam, such as the Ahmadiyya version, do seem much more tolerant and benign.)

But, despite that, the ideologies do have enough common aspects that we can fairly refer to the ideology as a whole.  The idea that "Islam" has no actual identity, no common characteristics, is not sensible -- it's yet another tactic for disallowing criticism of Islam by denying that there is a target to criticise.

I'm not said anything about the harmful effects being "unique to Islam".   They indeed either are or were prevalent otherwise (communist countries, fascist ones, Christianity in the Medieval era, et cetera).

One common theme of all of those is the denial of freedom of speech and the disallowing of dissent from the ideology. That, in one sentence, is why they are harmful.

I'm talking about popular culture, not universities. So, sitting on a bus in Amman and talking about Shakespeare with a local youth, being educated in the Napoleonic wars by a resident of Ramallah, discussing politics anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa - it's the number 1 topic of conversation! Let's face it, most people in the anglosphere struggle with ordering a meal in a second language never mind holding an intellectual-stimulating conversation. Oh, but we have the top universities!

2nd language, the problem is the uks education system not the individuals and the fact that we already speak the world's default 2nd language.

Perhaps all those people you spoke to had to learn English to gain a worldly education from external sources, because their religious culture wouldn't allow it? 

No need to go back to the medieval era!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence 

It's obviously going to be stimulating for a Westerner to visit very different places.  That's not the same as the society actually being intellectually stimulating as experienced by a local.  

The UK's education system reflects UK values. It seems to me that many people in the UK population aren't intellectually curious enough to want to explore outside of their own language/culture bubble.

FFS, you really are a prime product of the UK education system!

Both my examples were from conversations about European history and culture. That's the point I'm trying to make!

It isn't per se. It becomes prejudice when your opinion about that belief significantly alters your opinion of or your behaviour toward its adherents. You're a bright guy, you know how prejudice works.

jk

Angels on a pinhead.

The USSR under Stalin was an abomination, areas of Syria under ISIS likewise.  But there were lots of communists who were rabidly anti-Stalin, just as the majority of the fighting against ISIS has been done by Muslims.

Why is it that if the "ideology" of Islam leads to ISIS terror, it also "leads to" the SDF/YPG, who are by a large majority Sunni Muslims just like ISIS? Do they not understand Islam as you do? Are they misinterpreting the essential Islamic message in the same way that you seem to think that, say, a mid-20th century anti-Stalinist Social Democrat was misinterpreting Marx?

Or is ideology what people make of it?

Evidence? 

2 degrees plus other bits, 3 languages... Probably not.

The headline should read "Expense fiddling wannabe Minister for Muslims accuses own party of made up phobia".  Warsi is not a serious or credible politician, she's a one-trick pony battling for Islam.  I've spent most of my adult life being anti-Tory, but her claims of unchecked and institutional hatred sound completely false.  It's just the victim card again, pro-Islamic propaganda.

Read what I wrote: "It seems to me that many people in the UK population… ". No evidence required coz I made it quite clear that this was a subjective observation about a sample of the population.

And in any case, are you disputing it? I would be surprised if anyone genuinely thought differently.

Exactly.  Fascist, intolerant ideologies tend to be aggressive and intolerant towards other version of those fascist intolerant ideologies.

Thus, different factions in communist countries fought and purged each other.  Different factions within Islam fight each other (not only ISIS versus others, but Sunni vs Shia, etc).  In the past, different versions of Christianity fought each other.  Is this all news to you?

It's the ideology -- the lack of acceptance of pluralism, the idea that one ideology is right and should be imposed, and that dissent from or speech against that ideology cannot be tolerated.

That applies whether it is fascism or communism or Islamism or past versions of Christianity. 

Because you dont need a university to be intellectually stimulating......its more a way of life in those countries to debate and discuss, not just rely on others to teach you things. By debating and discussing, you can form your own opinions, rather than just accept someone elses.

Kind of proves the point - well educated, well qualified, obviously intelligent, but very narrow minded. 

Your simplification of Middle East conflicts only goes to fuel the very sectarian sentiments that you claim to oppose. Iran is majority Shia, Hezbollah too. Both strongly support the Palestinian cause. Palestinians are majority Sunni. Palestinians fought against ISIS (a Sunni Islamist organisation) in Syria (a religiously diverse nation). As Toby has already explained, the Syrian Kurds - who were the Coalition's main partner against ISIS - are also majority Sunni. The main point of contention in Iraq in the past year has actually been between Kurds and Arabs, not between Sunnis and Shias. Yes, it's more complicated than you'd like to believe!

I'm sure Toby is well aware of the conflict in Northern Ireland; it's not that far in the past! However in Northern Ireland, as in the Middle East, sectarian hatred was mostly just a tool used to build support for territorial claims. The peace that has been the norm since the Good Friday agreement is proof of that.

Coel, you need to calm down and hang out with some Muslims!

How does she know - unless she has spoken to each and every member of the tory party and somehow accurately divined their true feelings about Islam? She has done what she claims to abhor, namely apply the attributes of a small number of people to a whole class of people. if I was a tory party member, I may be very annoyed about being accused of being islamophobic

Well of course it's more complicated!  Real world issues always are!  (Your comment was way over-simplified from a proper and true analysis of Middle East conflicts!)

But different factions within Islam do and have fought each other.  Ditto communism, ditto fascism, ditto etc.  So I don't see why Toby is pointing to factional fighting within ideologies as some sort of refutation of my underlying point; it's entirely in line with my point about such ideologies.

Odd for an Astronomer / Astrophysist to be so dismissive of Islamic scholarship. The Bernard of Chartres / Isaac Newton quote springs to mind.

Not at all.  It's precisely because of that that I'm aware of how much science (of international standard) is being done in Islamic countries.  Very little. 

“Nor did we see any action taken against Michael Fabricant, the Tory MP who tweeted a cartoon image of Sadiq Khan – him again – being mounted by an inflatable pig, an image calculated to hurt Muslims in the most crude and direct way.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/tories-tough-islamoph...

As you said, just that victim card being played again. And snowflakes playing identity politics. Move along, nothing to see here

Really? 

"an image calculated to hurt Muslims in the most crude and direct way.”

Or, an image calculated to hurt religious zealots.  Which, in a free and open society, is absolutely fine.  If you're not OK with religions and they're adherents being insulted, that's fine too - you have the option to go and live in an Islamic nation or any other.  What you don't have the option to do, is turn the UK into an Islamic nation by default, by this creeping 'protection of peoples feelings'.  Which in truth - and in practice - means protecting the feelings of the more zealous Muslims.

Not really. I've enjoyed being allowed to use sports facilities on the white western half day a week they were allowed in ME / gulf states. And still been harassed in there. I've sat in language classes and been the only white European. 

I've never been to the costa where ever in Spain, sat in a brit bar, watched UK tv. 

Narrow minded in that I'm against all religion. Yes I'll accepted that happily. They are all medieval. 

Toby pointed to Syrian Kurds fighting to expel ISIS from their territory. This is not factional fighting within ideologies, it's a territorial (and moral) war - you know, a bit like we've been doing in Europe for centuries! I hope you have a better understanding of astrophysics!

But you could have a c of e bishop in london and they'd happily defend their faith and differing view points. Try that with a Muslim cleric in Riyadh and you'll be heading to chop chop square. Tolerance is very much a one way street. 

I am shocked and dismayed at the attitudes both you and Coel have expressed.

I suppose I made a mistake in my post where I said that the default attitude in the conservative party towards Islam is one of hostility and suspicion. What I should have said is that the default attitude in the conservative party towards * muslins* is one of hostility and suspicion because the attitudes described by baroness Warsi are attitudes towards people who share a set of beliefs.

Effectively what you're saying is that if, for example, a woman of middle eastern origin wearing a headscarf sits down in the bus beside you it would be perfectly acceptable for you to think, "oh furfuxake, not another bloody Muslim, probably an ISIS sympathiser". I assume, taking this attitude a step further you would see nothing wrong in making sure "those sort of people" weren't offered a job in your company or a candidacy for MP by your constituency conservative party?

Have I got that right?

It's not an ideology, though, any more than it's a style of music or dress. It's a large and diverse cultural entity that influences a number of different ideologies in different ways. As Jon has repeatedly pointed out, many Muslims in the UK don't subscribe to what you consider to be "Islamic ideology", but they're the ones who take the brunt of Islamophobic sentiment in Britain.

It undermines your claim that you aren't bigoted and just want to discuss Islam in a sensible and reasonable manner if the first thing that you do is mischaracterize it to make it easier for you to kick it.

There are religious twists too as I suspect you know, kurd tribes going back to the Iranian Kurds, ottoman or Persian empires, Sunni and Shia etc...  So it's not just territory. Many generations of long seated bitterness too. 

So instead we should make it a no-way street? Joy.

Not every Catholic priest is a pedo. But those who aren't don't do enough to hold the rest to account. All religions have their problems, probably comes from being evolved around fiction and fantasy. They are living in a world that doesn't marry up with the real world. 

No. They can have their churches and those wishing to attend can.

But get them out of politics and education. 

If your only experience is Saudi, then fair comment; but its not like that throughout the gulf. 

That can also be "culturally enlightening", but in a completely different way....

Now here is one thing we can completely agree on!!

So, to put it another way . "If you don't like me saying, writing and doing things designed to personally offend you can just go back home to your own country". Has it occurred to you that most Muslims would find this sort of behaviour rather offensive?

I think it’s likely that the image would be universally offensive to Muslims. You may choose to define Muslim as having equivalence to ‘zealot’ but that tells us more about you than it does about Muslims.

and it’s also far from a secret that such an image would be regarded as offensive to most Muslims. Indeed, that was the point of it. Selecting a known characteristic of Muslims and using that as the focus of a joke, or political attack, which has no other point to make beyond attacking that characteristic, looks pretty much like the textbook definition of anti Muslim prejudice to me. 

There were plenty of other examples in the article. From sitting MPs, not fringe activists. It seems pretty clear to me that the Tories have got a problem with this.

you appear to see criticism of this behaviour as some sort of fifth columnist activity hastening the rebirth of the U.K. as an Islamic state; and appear to be suggesting that I leave the U.K. and find an Islamic country to become a citizen of.

im surprised to see views like that openly expressed on a mainstream forum. Another Brexit dividend I suppose, so much to be thankful for 

Yo might like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/m0002zc9

But its very possible in the UAE (for eg). Cant speak for Saudi; never been there. Maybe the UAE's relative openness comes from it being a british protectorate until 1972...

I personally found that places like Kuwait, Bahrain etc.. that were much more tolerant have become more hard line despite western influence. It's as though through the internet they can't stop western influence anymore and it's one last gasp at controlling people. 

In which ME countries have you been discriminated against outside of the Gulf states? I've never been prevented from going to any public place in the ME, but then I've never been to the Gulf states.

The Gulf states appear to generate a lot of anti-Islam sentiment. They also seem to follow Islamic law to a much greater degree than the rest of the Muslim world. They also receive - somewhat ironically - the most investment and support from Europe/USA.

Go to the bouldering wall in Ramallah if you want to experience true hospitality and inclusiveness, then go climbing with the locals. But be warned - your anti-Islam prejudice might not remain intact!

Nope, that is not what I (for one) am saying.

You assume wrongly.

Nope, you have got it very wrong.  (And likely quite deliberately so.)

We are supporting the right to criticise *religions*, that is, to criticise an *idea* *system*.

That is *not* the same as a right to harass people in public nor to discriminate against people in employment. 

It's really not a hard distinction to grasp unless you're trying very hard to conflate the two.

Oh yes it is.  It has variants, yes, but there is enough commonality amongst mainstream variants of Islam to regard it as an ideology.

I have not mischaracterised it.  But I note your attempt to disallow discussion of Islam as an ideology.

Your initial examples of 'religious twists' are actually territorial twists (Kurdistan, Iran, Ottoman and Persian empires), then you just throw Sunni/Shia into the mix for good measure coz everyone's heard of them!!

Has it occurred to you that we all must accept public debate regardless of whether we regard it as "offensive", and that one cannot censor other people just by claiming that what they are saying is "offensive"?

I'd argue that it started long before the internet. My father worked in the middle east in the 70's (Saudi (didnt like), Kuwait (loved), Bahrain (nope), Iran (loved), UAE (just after independence / formation, bit of an odd place). All except the UAE are now much more religiously dominated than then, especially Iran, and this happened a long time before the internet.

Ever wondered if it might be because of western influence. 

But something changed. In the 90s many cities had black flag areas where it wasn't wise to go alone, you might get robbed and a kicking, but you wouldn't have your head cut off on YouTube. Then fuel went on the fire, bush and Blair for certain; but also internally influenced too. 

Actually, Toby pointed to a range of things, and my reply was more general than specifically Kurds vs ISIS. 

Oh look, snide remarks!  Well, you and Toby seem to have a rather limited understanding of ideologies. 

Western meddling. Yes possibly. The West has a chequered past when you look at the roots of many western oil companies that started there; where they charged a huge fee for their expertise. The Uks oil industry in Iran for example. 

Has anybody ever had their head cut off on YouTube in the Gulf states or Iran (apart from maybe state-sanctioned judicial executions).

<Have I got that right?>

No, you've got it totally wrong.

Nope. But there have been a few shootings. 

I have a school friend who lives in Kuwait with his wife and two sons. He loves it. He did move from Wigan, so I guess it wouldn’t take too much to impress. He is a white, CofE type Christian.

I was thinking more of Yunus, al-Shatir etal, but you twist it any way you like.

Summo, you're hilarious, let's go for a beer and leave them all to argue it out on the internet!

The tories believe the UK is a 'Christian country' so  it's no surprise at all and not news....

But if you have to resort to pointing to Islamic scholars 700 years ago isn't that actually an indictment of Islamic scholarship today?

And note that my remarks were in the present tense (e.g. "It's precisely because of that that I'm aware of how much science (of international standard) is being done in Islamic countries.").

THis reminds me of warnings i got from workmates when i said i was going to Morocco on holiday-  a predecessor of mine had been robbed at knifepoint; but then again he had been a bit silly by following some likely local up an alleyway because"my uncle has a shop up here, much cheaper". You wouldnt do that in Leeds or Newcastle, why should it go any better in Tangier?

I’m not resorting to anything. It’s not a competition. It’s just interesting that Islamic Scholars developed the heliocentric view which Copernicus eventually built upon, whilst Europe stood still for a millennia.

Is it now?

Would you like to have a little chat about that and capitalism?

Communism (socialism) has worked wonders in the countries where the workers took control. 

I don't want to derail this thread about Tory bigotry but I won't have nonsense like that bandied about, so if you like start a new thread and we can discuss this matter there. 

For the life of me I am struggling on that one on Communism ( and not its variants where the concept is grabbed by some form of tyrant).

Can you run through the countries you are thinking of.

Your capitalist Liberal democacies tell me did they help Muslim majority countries that were pretty secular and progressive like Nassers Egypt, Gaddafi Libya or Assad Syria?

Did your capitalist Liberal democracies support the progressive Sukarno in Indonesia or Mass murder 1/2 million Muslim leftists using Muslim extremists?

How about when the progressive leader of Muslim Iran won the democratic election in 1953 did your capitalist Liberal democracies support the moderate progressive Muslim or put a tyrant in charge?

Or Afghanistan in 1980 did the great Liberal rule of law peace loving democracies support the progressive secular Muslims trying to free women from Islamic extremists or did they build the largest Muslim extremist terrorist army the modern world has seen to defeat secular moderate Muslims?

You see the systems you extol are the ones who Foster, nurture and spread the very extremist forms of Islam you abhor. 

And defeat and crush the moderate progressive forms of Islam throughout the world by using the extremists. 

Can't believe I need to point this obvious fact out. 

No i don't want to derail this thread.

I'm making my presence felt that is all, but I'm more than happy on a thread about that topic. I've been through it all a million times before. 

I've been doing a thought experiment of trying to imagine two ideologies (fascist and intolerant or otherwise) trying to fight. But its tricky: I keep coming up with two giant snakes with evil looking eyes fighting, but obviously that's only symbolic.

But are you saying that British, French and US special forces have been training the SDF, and they haven't noticed that the SDF is fascist and intolerant? Or we don't care that they are fascist and intolerant? The RAF was providing air support to this fascist and intolerant group until just weeks ago. I think I should be really upset if we are training, arming and giving air support to a fascist group!

And I still want to know what ideology led to British imperialism and are you and me still driven by that ideology? Does it still shape how we view the non-us "other"? And if not, why not? How did we escape those ideological bounds in a way that Muslims have not and seemingly cannot according to your thesis?

First, the al-Shatir model was not heliocentric.  It was an improvement on the ancient Greek models, but still geocentric.     Second, it's unclear whether Copernicus had read al-Shatir.

But, more basically.  Yes, Europe did indeed stand (close to) still for a millennium.   It then was dominated by a repressive and intolerant Christian religion.  Since then, through the Reformation and the Enlightenment, we're no longer in hock to Christianity and science has improved steadily and hugely.

Meanwhile, the Islamic world has stood still in the 700 years since the time of al-Shatir.  That's my point! Thus your examples really make my case for me. 

Yes.

Sure.  Communism is a disastrously bad way to run a country.  The liberal democracies that are basically-capitalist and with a welfare state are not perfect, but are a vastly better way to run a country than other systems that have been tried.

Imperialist ideology!

Not really, no.  Do you want to invade other countries? I don't.

These conversation would go a lot better if you didn't continually put words in my mouth.   Did I say that Muslims cannot escape their ideological bounds?

Nope, I didn't say that.  Indeed, one of the most hopeful things is that there is a groundswell of critical thinking and apostasy spreading across the Islamic world, as people can use the internet to spread ideas.

And such people look to Western liberals and Western intellectuals for support.  

And you know what, often the response from the supposedly "progressives" and the people who think of themselves as "liberal", is "ooh, you Islamophobes!, you can't say that, it's offensive! You brown people should just submit to your religion, it's your culture, stay in your lane".

It’s more that you are missing the point. Hence the Chartres / Newton reference. Enough from me on this, it is all rather off topic.

No, I fully get your point.

700 years ago the Islamic world was a better place for scholarship than Christian-dominated Europe.

Nowadays, the secular West is a vastly better place for scholarship and science than the stood-still-for-700-years Islamic world. 

And do you think that this is what Baroness Warsi is talking about when she talks about Islamophobia in the Conservative Party? Or do you think she's talking about the people saying that "Muslims should be banned from public office" or that they would never vote for Sajid Javid because they "don't want a Muslim running the country"?

Let's not forget that our wealth depends on people in far-away places getting paid extremely low wages. Your 'basically-capitalist' world also includes some of the poorest countries. People tend to forget that when painting a rosy picture of capitalism.

Read up about pan-Arab secularism and Mossadegh in Iran. Apostasy came and went long before the internet. Western meddling played a big part in its demise. Your idea that the Islamic world has been incapable of critical thought for centuries is just plain, bigoted bollox. 

Everything up to the last sentence is probably fair caricature in some instances. The last sentence has been pulled from your rectum.

I actually don't think it does, no.  Yes, we outsource making stuff to places like China since the wages there are low, but we'd still be a rich country if everything was made in Western countries paying Western wages.   For one thing, people here would be being paid those wages. 

Incapable? No, that's not a word I used.  What I have said is that Islam has successfully repressed reform. 

So what is the explanation for -- in the eyes of Western "progressives" -- people from Muslim backgrounds not being allowed to criticise Islam?

A few days ago, Sean O'Grady, associate editor of The Independent, wrote:

"Rushdie’s silly, childish book should be banned under today’s anti-hate legislation. It’s no better than racist graffiti on a bus stop. I wouldn’t have it in my house, out of respect to Muslim people and contempt for Rushdie, ..."

And yet Rushdie comes from an Indian and Muslim background, being born into an Kashmiri Muslim family.  If that sentence of mine has no merit,  what is a White person like O'Grady doing telling an Indian ex-Muslim whether or not he can write critically about Islam? 

No, that wasn’t my point. It was a response to the preposterous idea that Islamic countries cannot be intellectually stimulating, based on the untrue assertion that none of the world’s top 200 universities are in Islamic countries.

Trying to get clicks for his piece-of-shit clickbait web-paper. Sean O'Grady is not "progressives" but rather a faux-liberal foghorn and even he isn't telling Rushdie to "submit to [his] religion".

"We" invade Afghanistan, "we" invaded Iraq. Compare us to Switzerland or Mongolia and the UK doesn't seem to have totally given up the invading stuff bug quite yet!

You said the SDF and ISIS are alternative and conflicting versions of the same fascist ideology because Muslims make up both of them. You know what the ideology of Islam is, you keep telling us. It is one ideology, you keep telling us that also. So I just don't get how the SDF can be such a fundamentally different organisation to ISIS when, you assure me, the people who make up both organisations follow the same fascist ideology?

Who is "Islam"? But anyway, the conservative push back across the Muslim world is very easy to date to 1979, to the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mekah and Islamic revolution succeeding in Tehran. So 40 years is hardly 700 years.

I'll attempt to take all this back to the real world. The ex chair of the tory party had accused her own party of being islamsphobic. What she meant by that was not that the party didn't like the concept of Islam, they might, but that Muslims were being discriminated against in her party. She went on to give examples and folk here have provided some more.

Do you think that Muslims should be discriminated against because they follow a religion that you, and I for that matter, have issues with? If not then I'm sure you'll join me in condemning those members of the conservative party who are guilty of showing predjudice towards Muslims or any other group for that matter.

You're not sticking to the point.

The example given was not any part of a debate but an image specifically designed to offend Muslims. No one is suggesting that reasoned argument should be suppressed, just that one shouldn't try to start a fight with, or behave badly towards people just because they hold roughly the same views as a few billion other people but not you.

Are not, not "cannot". 

Untrue? Then name the top universities in the Islamic world.

And my claim wasn't "based on" that alone, that's merely one symptom.

Almost thirty years to the day, the Catholic Church were trying to ban Madonna's song "Like a Prayer" on the grounds of blasphemy. i.e. they considered it offensive to their religion. 
Not sure where you stand on that, but by your logic, then it indeed should have been banned.
Ten years prior to that and "Monty Python's Life of Brian" was effectively censored and banned in many places in response to the Christian Church in the UK on the grounds of blasphemy, etc.  I assume you agree with that censorship and banning?
 

There's a big difference between making a reasoned argument that is critical of a religion, whether it be in the form of a book, a song or even a painting and simply chucking out an insult designed to hurt and offend.

Surely you understand that. It's fine to say "I disagree with you because of x, y and z" but not fine simply stick two fingers up at someone and tell them that Allah phuqs pigs or the Pope phuqs little boys.

No there isn't, because if you disallow the latter then anyone can disallow the former simply be claiming that it is offensive to them. 

And humans always have used a variety of tactics to persuade other than "reasoned argument".  It's not ok if we can only pursue some arguments in terms that the other side dictate.

But where does it end? If A says to B: "I don't like you, I want to come round to your house and set fire to it when you are your family are in there" is that allowable? Is B not able to find that offensive? What if A even says: "I don't like you, I will come round to your house and set fire to it when you are your family are in there... I didn't mean it. Or did I? I didn't. Probably." Is nothing offensive enough to be banned?

Many years of brutal racist European colonialism might have had something to do with debasing a once flourishing Islamic civilisation. You'll have read all about that Coel but maybe not quite internalised it yet. 

No, because that is a threat of violence. And that has always been regarded as different from free speech and the right to critique ideas. 

I want lots of things, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I will get them or act on those desires. Philosophically it's not a simple question. The "I will" version is more obviously a threat, but even there with the "only joking" conditioner, it's complex.

By who?

This was interesting https://hiphination.org/season-3-episodes/s3-episode-3-no-offense-mar-2nd-2... on rather closely related issues.

According to the Times Higher Education, Coel is correct.  There's a table here:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-univers...

This site is a little kinder to your argument, listing three universities in Islamic nations amongst the top 200:

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankin...

Two in Malaysia, one in Saudi.  Their rankings are fairly low - only one in the top 100, at number 87.  Given the number of Islamic nations, and the size of their populations, one would naturally expect more.  South Korea, a relatively tiny nation,  has seven in the top 200.  The Netherlands has nine.  What could possibly account for this discrepancy?  I think we can easily agree that race is irrelevant.  But religion is not.

I see, so all Muslims are alike?  Interesting is it not, that those on here who are so quick to shout 'bigot' when criticising people with anti-Islam views are so silent when a defender of the faith characterises all Muslims as being the same?

FWIW, I take a genuinely charitable view of that remark - I simply think you expressed yourself carelessly.  But if I or Coel were to make it, we'd be looking at the underside of the bigot stick.

That isn't my view, it's just a snide remark - presumably because you don't have a decent argument to present.  Which is hardly your fault, of course, as they are remarkably few in number and perhaps difficult to see, being so thin in substance.

And the Gregg's Lord Jesus/sausage roll advert was presumably offensive to a great many Christians.  But oh, the laughs it got on here, including from me. Your Saviour is made of pig meat, and comical pig meat at that.  How many on these forums leapt to the defence of the Christians?  No one.  Including you. Some people want special treatment for Islam.  Lot's of us don't.  Hurty feelings don't cut it.  They're the price you pay for a free society.

You're not a million miles away from comprehending my view, but I'd respectfully point out that you're missing some fundamentals. 

Firstly, in a free society, we all have the right to protest.  This right applies to Muslims as much as anyone else, and I would not have it any other way.  Offended by a cartoon?  More fool you, but protest away - your right to do so is important.  Try to change the law to ban offence to your religion? 

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/01/muslims-demand-full-legal-p...).

Not acceptable.  Apply public pressure with flimsily veiled threats of, "You've just offended 1.4 billion Muslims" or "It will inflame tensions" as code for 'watch out, we've got bombs and knives'? Not acceptable. 

Regarding your emigration point, my view needs expanding slightly.  It is this: if you find a free society utterly intolerable, you are welcome to leave it.  No one will impede you.  This is not a prison, it is one of the most prosperous, enlightened and civilized societies ever to exist. Not liking it is fine.  Trying to overturn it is not.  Bon voyage.

Many years of brutal colonialism might have had something to do with it, but blaming Europeans might be a bit of a stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Fair play  

In your listing there is only one Scandinavian university in the top 100. What could possibly account for this discrepancy? I think we can easily agree that neither race nor religion are relevant!

Can we also agree that students and staff from Islamic countries are much more likely to be able to study/teach in an English-speaking environment than native English-speakers are in any foreign language! 

What you and Coel don't seem to realise is that universities don't just become centres of excellence because of their immediate environment, but because of their ability to attract talent from around the world. This is even one of the criteria they use to create those listings. Most of the highly-placed universities are in English-speaking countries. Does it follow that English speakers are more enlightened than other people? Or does it mean that an English-speaking environment facilitates universities in attracting talent from around the world. 

Mohammad supposedly instructed his followers to: 'Seek knowledge even unto China'. I know a Yemeni guy (devout follower of Islam) who did just that. Studied in China and then set up a software company there and married a local woman. Speaks fluent Mandarin, Arabic and English, just switches from one to the other. He told me that it's common for Yemenis to study in China as the two countries were very close back in the communist era of the 70s. 

The fact that Scandinavian countries have a combined population of 26 million might account for the discrepancy.

*population of Indonesia alone- 260 million.

I think it's fairly obvious that both Madonna and the Monty Python team knew full well that their products would be offensive/controversial.  In fact, Madonna stated about the song: "art should be controversial, and that's all there is to it".
On the other hand, Fabricant claims that he didn't know that it was Sadiq Khan being shagged by a pig and once he did know, apologised and deleted the relevant post on Twitter.
So, you could actually argue that Fabricant falls into your category of 'accidentally' offending someone (OK), but Madonna/Python fall into the category of deliberately setting out to offend (Not OK).

I'm fairly that on UKC there have been plenty of jokes made about Priests shagging Choir Boys and subsequently using that as a reference to say how corrupt the Catholic Church is, etc.  I'm also fairly sure that no one bats an eyelid at such comments and just accepts it as being part and parcel of Free Speech within a modern UK.  Twenty/thirty years ago, such comments would probably have attracted criticism in much the same way that 'negative' comments about Islam currently get.
Are we really in a situation whereby we're adopting selective blasphemy laws and pretty much because a single religion demands it?
Islam, especially in non-Muslim countries such as the UK,  needs to adapt to the modern world and accept that criticism of it/having the piss taking out of it/being ridiculed/being lampooned, etc.  is perfectly acceptable.  The traditional Western Religions have had to adapt, why can't they?

United Kingdom has 17 universities in the top 100 for a population of 60 million

Scandinavia actually has 1 university in top 100 for a population of 26 million.

No Italian or Spanish universities in top 100.

Only 1 Russian uni in top 100.

Only 1 in central/south America

So no, the population size doesn't account for the discrepancy. However you'll see a strong link between English-speaking and good ranking!

It seems we’re now in a position where any criticism of anyone/anything can be branded as a phobia or hate crime, and the act of naming it, makes it so; if you are offended by anything I say, then I’m guilty, with no need for you to provide proof of intent. 

Yes there are anti-semites, (and not just in the Labour Party).

Yes there are Islamophobes, (and not just in the Conservative Party).

But to say that ANY criticism of Jews/Judaism is anti-Semitic, and that ANY criticism of Muslims/Islam is Islamophobia is both absurd, and a dangerous attack on freedom of speech.

Any idea what does then?

I'd agree, but I couldn't think of any reason why you'd pick on Scandinavia in the first place when illustrating why the entire Muslim world has failed to produce any educational institutes of note. Care to explain? (the failure or the comparison).

Edit: Seems even tiny Scandinavia has produced 30 uni's ranking above those of the world's combined Muslim nation's. Quite the discrepancy given Mohamed's enthusiasm for learning.

Language goes a long way to explaining. See edited post.

Pointing out a commonality is not the same as providing an explanation.

See my post at 22.25 about attracting talent.

Also don't forget that the vast majority of research papers must be published in English today.

And Muslim students are often encouraged to study in the West, but that deficit will not be made up by Western students choosing to study in Muslim countries. Language issues would be insurmountable for most people.

...and why's that?

...and why's that?

...and why's that?

We're not talking about most people, we're talking about the educational elite.

You aren't providing any explanations for the Muslim world's decline from global leaders in scholarship, architecture, science and literature, to having little global standing in education, science or the arts.

Edit: just to clarify, you're repeatedly pointing to the symptoms while refusing to consider the causes.

Expressing a view that an image of the Muslim mayor of London engaging in bestiality with a pig is a bit below the belt is paving the way to a Muslim state in the UK?

That may make perfect sense in your head, but when set down in print it’s an absurd non sequitur.

the rest of your post is just fallacy bingo, thrudge

False equivalence (depicting an actual living person engaging in bestiality is not the same as a pastry product being substituted for a historical figure)

Red herrings- show me where I said I support banning offending religions. You can’t, so the link is not relevant. 

Straw man- Because I expressed a view that being offensive just for the sake of it isn’t something i approve of, in any context, I am a “defender of the faith”? No, I’m not. I find the whole concept of organised religion offensive on many levels; and thought through criticism of religion is vital, of Islam especially. Posting pictures of famous Muslims with an implication they are engaged in a sex act with a pig isn’t thought through criticism though. 

That’s the difference, in my view- of course for free speech to mean anything it must include the right to give offence, and being allowed to shut down criticism merely by claiming offence is a dangerous situation. I agree with you on this. 

But the instances cited in the link were not examples of valid and necessary criticism of powerful institutions. I don’t think that free speech is a carte Blanche to be offensive as an end in itself; that’s just being a dick. Of course, I don’t think that this is a matter for the criminal law; but we are social animals, and sanctions are not simply legal. I don’t quite get an argument that says we should be allowed to be as offensive as we like, but then gets offended when people take offence. 

And your last point;  more fallacies- ‘if you find a free society offensive etc’- straw man again. And; you don’t get to unilaterally define what a free society is. I think we do live in such a society; and one where most people of all backgrounds are sophisticated enough to take intent into account when looking at offence. Where offence arises as a byproduct of legitimate criticism, i think most people can accept that. Where it’s just being offensive for the sake of it, or to pursue political gain, as Zak Goldsmith did, that will attract opprobrium.

Im comfortable with that, and reckon that a pragmatic balance is there. Perhaps those that don’t like living in a free country like this one, might find a different one somewhere else more to their taste....?

The Times HE listing (and Coel's original point) referred to 200, not 100.  So we'll ignore your attempt to slant the data and look at the Scandanavian countries, as you suggest.  In that top 200, we have 4 in Denmark, 2 in Norway, and - oh dear - 5 in Sweden.  So that's 11, from a relatively tiny population.  What's the population of Islamic nations?  A billion or so?  Something else noticeable about Scandanavian countries is a Christian history and a modern overwhelmingly secular society.

Yes, we can, although your point eludes me.  Can we also agree that part of the reason for this is that the English speaking world has far more universities, and far more world class ones, than the Islamic nations?

What you don't seem to realise (perhaps I'm being overly generous and should say 'are determined not to acknowledge') is that scholarship and science are hamstrung in Islamic nations compared to non-Islamic ones.  And being English-speaking is a red herring - I suspect lectures in Danish universities are given in Danish, lectures in Norway in Norwegian, and lectures in Sweden in Swedish.

A variant on the epically feeble "I know nice Muslims" argument.  As if anyone is going to be astonished that there are nice Muslims, or cultured Muslims, or well educated Muslims.  

And, if I may say so, it would be better for your argument if you didn't go down the road of 'Mohammed said', because some of the worst of Islamic scripture came from that very source.

Why sure.  But there are plenty of non-English-speaking top universities in non-English-speaking countries. 

Why sure.  So if Islam really is so benign and intellectually stimulating and supportive of scholarship, why aren't Islamic universities beacons attracting talent from across the world?

Actually, if we look at the universities that there are in Saudi and the Gulf States, they attain the standing they do have by buying in talent using oil money.  There is very little home-grown scholarship.

But if we require the conditions "valid" and "necessary" then  anyone can shut down criticism by claiming that it is not "valid" or not "necessary". Who gets to decide? 

How about if the end is not being offensive for its own sake, but being offensive in order to maintain the principle that we should not shut down commentary merely because it is offensive?

I, for one, argue that things like Charlie Hebdo cartoons and JandMo cartoons are both a "valid" and indeed a "necessary" way of promoting the principle that Islam should not be regarded as sacred and beyond criticism, but should be open for critique (including by satirical and offensive means), just like anything else. 

It seems to me that we are talking in parallel. I'm explaining why English-speaking universities are way better represented than any other language group in those rankings, and you're asking me why there are so few universities from Muslim countries.

I've never been to a university in a Muslim country so can't answer your question. I imagine that some are stifled by religious dogma from the ruling class while others are much less so (although the fact that Riyad is one of the top ranked universities in the Muslim-world makes me wonder if this is the main issue).

Language is a almost certainly a big factor. Contrary to what you wrote, many universities in non-English speaking countries offer courses (especially post-graduate) in English. Maybe universities in the Muslim world don't offer this option as widely. 

Wealth is going to be a factor, as money attracts talent, although, given the relatively poor rankings of some European nations, obviously not as much as language. Africa has 0 universities in the top 200. Perhaps Riyad's wealth has compensated for other more negative factors.

The fact that Muslim students are encouraged to travel to study (by the Koran and by their parents) means that the top Muslim students will do just that. Ditto for teachers. 

Why aren't students/teachers from the anglosphere as willing to travel to Muslim countries? This isn't just because of language, but for a whole raft of cultural issues too. You know them as well as me. All those Home County freshers are going to be a bit out of their depth in Beirut or Cairo.

I get why you consider my supposed quote from Mohammad and the example of my Yemeni friend cringe-worthy, but it did perfectly illustrate the point I was trying to make ie. that Islamic culture actively encourages its followers to travel to study. This doesn't mean there's not shedloads of bullshit in the koran, but if you want to understand Islamic culture then you have to take a passing interest, just like the bible can tell you a lot about western culture.

Anyway you've had the easy job (asking questions) and I've had the difficult one (trying to answer them!). Enjoy your day!

I pretty much agree Coel- I would consider things like Charlie Hebdo and J&M both necessary and valid. 

As to who gets to decide- it would be good if there was a clean, objective, robust way of determining this- I personally think thats impossible to achieve, and in the end the best we’ve got is the balance of society’s opinion. Most of the time I think it gets it right- it was clearly on the side of Charlie Hebdo,and in a previous generation, Salman Rushdie. 

That being the case, I agree it’s a principle that requires continually fighting for, and I support your efforts even if I would sometimes disagree on the detail.

but that’s why I get troubled when it looks like Free Speech is being used as a cover for people whose motivation is out of inherent prejudice and dislike rather than ideological differences. The examples in the link I gave looked to me like examples of this. 

I think such examples need to be called out, or else they risk damaging support for the underlying principle- there are many people who don’t share our view of the importance of free speech, and if they see it being used as a way to justify bigotry then the risk is that they turn against the principle in general 

I'm amazed intelligent people take any list of top Universities seriously. Such lists are made up of combination of disimilar statistics (so by definition are scientifically invalid). The world wide ones are designed to suit the big western institutions who wield huge endowment income and can always use this to vacuum the best minds in the world. 

Success in institutions of higher learning came much more with state power, wealth and stability than with absolute freedom of speech or religion (some freedoms are of course neccesary... but name a long term stable wealthy state or empire that didn't have this). Although the declining Ottomans did 'occupy' and terrorise arab states it was the post world war one break up of that empire and the fall out from the second world war that led to the richest muslim states deliberately being run by western puppets, and in the case of Saudi a nasty religious dogmatic variety that spurned and funded most of the worlds worst terror groups. The UK and the US most certainly didn't want any successful new muslim states as a competitor, just as they didn't want successful communist states. From the late middle ages to a few hundred years ago the muslim empires would have dominated any world University list, despite Islam. Coel's arguments about this subject are ignorant of the historical realities.

We have a long history of extremely offensive cartoons lampooning politicians going back at least to Hogarth and the particularly scathing Gillray.  Sadiq Khan is, in my view, a politician first and a Muslim second.  Sorry, no free rides for politicians with a Muslim pass.

No, it isn't.  Allow me to explain why.

I'm obliged to concede that the two are not equivalent, and this is easily shown by comparison.  Jesus: the literal son of God, the Light of the world, the Soul and Saviour of mankind, a martyr for our sins, and our road to a redemption.  Khan: a politician.  You may lightly dismiss the offence to Christians (as I do) but we may not say that the offence is not real and profound - only that it's subordinate to a free society.  You appear to take the view that mocking a politician is a far greater moral offence, because that politician is Muslim and if we mock one Muslim we mock all of them.  It's not even an argument, it is simply untrue - although I'm sure Islamists would endorse that idea.

I didn't say you support it, I said some people do.  This is factual, and therefore relevant.

Then I respectfully suggest that you stop going in to bat for Islam, because it makes you falsely appear to be a defender of the faith.  BTW, who gets to decide who is being offensive 'just for the sake of it' and who isn't?  It's a key question.  

I'm sincerely pleased that we have an area of agreement.

I respectfully submit that that is an opinion, rather than a fact.  Fair enough, we're all allowed opinions.  And you may well be correct, perhaps it wasn't thought out.  But I'd not want to ban criticism simply because it hasn't been thought out.  Again, who gets to decide what has and has not been thought out, what criticism is allowed and what is not?

I think it's often overlooked that western societies, for all their niceties and civilities, are highly adversarial when it comes to their political and social institutions.  It really is rough.  And that is deliberate and necessary.  I'm with you in believing the cartoon to be offensive, but my response to that offence is, "Welcome to a free society".

Splendid.  Perhaps we agree on the basics more than we initially thought.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, who gets to decide which criticisms are 'valid and necessary'?  It really is a fundamental question.  Is it noisemakers from CAGE?  The Aryan Brotherhood?  The Pope?  The Prime Minister?  Or is it no one?  I vote for the latter.

Yes, in those circumstances, it is being a dick.  I regard it as a small and necessary price to pay for freedom of speech.

I think you've introduced a very slight convolution here, which is easily simplified: being offended is fine.  Being offended that other people are offended (which I'm not, BTW) is also fine.  Seeking to prohibit offence to religions is not acceptable.

Nor did I attempt to define it - I described it.  A free society has freedom of speech, amongst other things.

Me too.

Here, I'll ask you to imagine me playing my favourite record 

Indeed they might, but I wouldn't be one of them.  Not only do I like living in a free country, I'm happy to support its freedoms and speak in defense of them when religious pressure groups and their misguided hangers-on (not you, relax) seek to remove or restrain them.

This isn't particularly true these days. Plenty of courses will be taught in the local language, yes, but the use of English is very normal now because it allows students from all round the world to do the course. In Finland that I know best, to graduate from uni you have to pass both Swedish and English test - basically you have to be able to explain your thesis in those language.

Lots of non-Finnish speaking staff employed to teach at Finnish unis as well. My impression from going to conferences in the other Nordics was it  was very similar in there too.

Same in Switzerland and also becoming more common in France. If you want to rank high in university listings, adopting the English language looks like the best card to play. Seems to trump any other factor; the list speaks for itself! Academics from around the world coming together and communicating in a common language has got to have significant advantages, but unfortunately there will also be a stifling effect.

"For everything gained something is lost." - Some Greek dude.

Thank you, that's interesting.

Even some french institutions run courses in English to attract overseas income. I visited one of the top  Dutch institutions last year and all the STEM Masters seemed to be in English and there were moves to make quite a few undergrad courses to follow them. The institution was ranked well below many UK institutions in the world Uni rankings who I know would be delighted to have the facilities they had (often EU infrastructure grant based) and where it was immediately obvious that working conditions (offices, labs, workloads, freedom from mangement interferance, tenure etc) for permanent academic staff was way better than in the UK. World rankings are plain broken and the UK red bricks are being flattered in them (mainly as the good staff recruited in better times mostly haven't left yet)

I give occasional lectures at a few French universities & Grande Ecoles, mostly to MSc students. When I first started some 20 years ago it was just assumed I would lecture in French, but in recent years the invitation usually asks me to use English (I don't think my French has deteriorated). But I usually allow questions & discussion in French if that's easier for the students.

And going back to the ranking of universities, don't forget that in many countries most research is done in research institutes rather than universities. The organisation where I'm based is very productive in terms of publications, etc but we are not a university so would not even be considered for these tables

The UK used to have many world class reseach institutes as well. They are a shadow of their former selves due to cost saving and commercialisation. Unless something miraculous happens soon UK Universities are next to be hit this way, as we seem to facing a perfect storm: ... likely reduced fees (not properly compensated by different funding)  brexit (hitting research funds, staffing and students), mad immigration control for overseas students (who make the UK PLC a fortune and subsidise underfunding in teaching and research) ; idiotic focus on institutional competition and the crazy puboic market emphasis on the importance of the possibility of going bust (confusing and spooking all our stakeholders), expensive and disruptive subject based TEF (based on psuedo-intellectual bs); increased volume and quality of competition for english speaking  overseas students (now even France); investment in all in the wrong places (too much risky loan based shiny teaching buildings, too much central admin, inflated VC salaries disconected from real performance and too little on coal-face staff and major infrastructure equipment); worsening staff pay,  pensions, working conditions and academic freedom compared to other countries  (nearly all due to austerity and local management controls)

My old institute in Helsinki ran a course each year at Helsink uni which was always in English, the students were a good mix of Finns, Erasmus exchange students and third country students doing their full degrees in Helsinki. 

Plenty of interest in Holland as a uni destination among my sixth formers and a few have already done it in recent years. We'll see what effects Brexit has on that!

99% of the time people can easily tell the difference between legitimate criticism and offensive behavior. Occasionally there are incidents where the issue is not black and white but focusing on these to justify offensive remarks is clearly wrong.

One should not be offensive just for the sake of it in the same way as one should not beat a child just to make a point that you are free to smack children. Being offensive hurts people, you shouldn't do it unless you see no alternative.

But to descend from the ivory tower for a short while and get back to bigotry in the conservative party I see the Guardian published a shocking report on the subject this morning with a muslim claiming, amongst other things, that he was excluded from standing as a councilor in winnable seats and that he and a number of other dark skinned people had been quarantined at the same table at their constituency dinner. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/06/conservatives-prejudiced-a...

No, actually, that's not so.  If we asked a large number of people to put things in one of those two categories, there would be a lot of disagreement.

Ok, but how about if the end is not being offensive for its own sake, but being offensive in order to maintain the principle that we should not shut down commentary merely because it is offensive?

That's a ridiculous standard. It means that anyone can shut down anyone else's argument, simply by claiming that it is offensive and offering a much milder alternative statement.

Just to illustrate how ludicrous that rule is, let's examine your very next paragraph:

Reference to "ivory tower" is unnecessarily offensive. It implies that people are out of touch.  You could have worded it without that phrase.

"Bigotry" in the conservative party? That's an unnecessarily loaded and offensive word.  You could have called it "marginally sub-optimal attitudes" within the conservative party.

"Shocking"? To suggest that the Tory party's behaviour and attitudes are "shocking" is unnecessarily offensive. You could have suggested that their attitudes are "mildly perturbing".

"Quarantined"? Now that's a loaded word, with strong connotations, and thus is unnecessarily offensive.   You could have said that those people had been "placed together at the same table". 

So, unless you want to be a hypocrite, I suggest you either take your own advice and avoid all unnecessarily offensive language in future, or re-think your prohibition on being  "unnecessarily offensive".

Edit to add:

And up thread you said:

Calling that person an "arse" is rather unnecessarily offensive is it not?  You could have referred to him as a "person".  And you're using "Islamophobic" as a slur, so that term is unnecessarily offensive. 

Then you said:

"Total crap"?  Was that wording necessary? Are you sure you couldn't have worded it in a less offensive way? 

I think we can pretty securely convict you of hypocrisy! 

Whatever Coel.

I see you didn't bother reading the article I posted. I assume real bigotry and discrimination is of less interest to you than philosophical debates on how it's ok to be rude to people and why they shouldn't get upset.

Your assumption is rather offensive is it not?    Hypocrite! 

I think when one spends most of one's life in an ivory tower, real bigotry and discrimination are best left unexplored, for fear of finding unpleasantries. 

He said: > Being offensive hurts people, you shouldn't do it unless you see no alternative.

You said: > Just to illustrate how ludicrous that rule is

Which bit of  "unless you see no alternative" makes you think this a rule rather than the speaker's personal decision?

It's the "you shouldn't do it" bit that sounds like a "rule". 

Naturally if you ignore half a sentence you end up spouting rubbish to refute a straw man of your own creation.

That's amazing from someone who quoted parts of a sentence in saying:

So let's examine the full sentence, which is:

Which means that: In any situation where you see an alternative to being offensive, you should not be offensive.

And that is quite clearly a "rule". 

It is not leaving it up to the speaker's personal decision. That would be: "If you see an alternative to being offensive, you can still decide to be offensive".

So you're the one "ignoring half a sentence" and "spouting rubbish".

It is clearly not a rule. A rule would state 'You must not ....'. 'You should not ... ' is advisory. 

On a different topic, given your stated dislikes of all things Islamic, do you think it would be a good thing if the Conservative Party were institutionally Islamophobic? 

This is getting into a pedantic side-track, but no, "should" also implies a rule. 

"should": "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions". (OED)

I'm not answering the question as posed because I refuse to regard "Islamophobia" as a valid concept. 

So, if the question is:

"do you think it would be a good thing if the Conservative Party were institutionally bigoted against Muslims people".

... then my answer is: no.

But if the question is:

"do you think it would be a good thing if the Conservative Party were institutionally opposed to many of the doctrines of mainstream Islam"

... then my answer is: yes. 

For example, I'd regard it as a good thing if the Tories were opposed to compulsory religion and opposed to blasphemy and apostasy laws, and if they opposed state/religion entanglement. 

And yet the OED has this definition:

"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

So are you happy to insist on an OED definition when it suits your argument, and happy to discard when it goes against your argument? 

Which shows why it's such a bad term.   Dislike of Islam (an idea system) especially as a political force is a very, very, very different thing from dislike of Muslims (people).

Islamists created the term "Islamophobia" to deliberately conflate the two, and so try to disallow opposition to Islam.    We should not play their game. 

And by the way, "phobia" means "irrational fear", which is another reason why the term is invalid.  Dislike of Islam ... as a political force is not irrational!   It's rational and sensible! 

"unless you see no alternative" also means when it is the only way to express your true opinion with as many other imprecise and sometimes contradictory interpretations as there are English speakers. I'm sorry to deviate from the Coel-centric zealot's view that only the blessed Coel has enlightenment on what other people's beliefs or statements mean.

Well it is the internet.

I've already discussed how Anglosphere universities manage to attract international talent through the simple fact that they operate in the English language. 'Internationalism' is one of the Times's 5 criteria in their ranking system, so obviously Indonesian, Arabic and Iranian universities are going to score low on this one. 

Doug put me onto another potential answer for your question this morning when he wrote that in many countries (outside the Anglosphere) research is done in institutes and not universities. Research is another of the 5 criteria used by the Times ranking system.

I typed 'research' and 'Iran' into Google and this is what came up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_research_centers

As you can see Iran has a lot of research centers which are not universities.

Your assertion that scientific research in Islamic countries has "stood still for 700 years" is obviously bollox.

So telling people on Twitter that everyone in Turkey is an ISIS sympathiser is wrong and definitely a belief that an elected politician should not hold.

Ensuring that muslim candidates only get offered unwinnable seats is wrong.

Seating people of different ethnicities apart from the majority white audience is wrong.

I'm glad we got there in the end.

It can be very different as most liberals minded people can support freedom of religion in a proper sense (without insulting nearly every believer) at the same time as standing up and protesting against the worst excesses of that religion. Reading your rants make me think you are plain dishonest in this respect and probably Islamophic.

The OED point is just sad.. Harry is right: you have a UKC history of chosing definitions that suit you and ignoring those that don't.

A conservative muslim on Radio 4 yesterday morning made the important point that institutional racism is an organisation issue. It doesn't mean most in the party are Islamophobic but it does mean formal complaints on this have not been dealt with fairly or consistently.

Why sure, absolutely.  But then there are vast numbers of universities not in English-speaking countries that are in the top 200. So this is not an explanation of the absence of Islamic ones. 

Why sure. But I made an assertion about *quality*, about how much research of international standard was being done.

No it isn't.  It's slightly exaggerated, yes (and the phrasing was a reply to Christendom having stood still for a millenium), but I stand by the claim that very little research (of international quality) is being produced by Islamic countries.

If he had said that then yes he would have been wrong.  (Though it's not actually what he said, is it?)

Up jumps the Islamist's well-trained poodle to claim that criticising Islam amounts to a "rant" and is likely "dishonest".

They are certainly way behind the non-Muslim countries in R&D and mass production of a vast array of means to obliterate each other, everything else and the planet. 

PS. Which are of course to "International quality". 

You're just Tommy Robinson with a telescope!

If you're going to stand by your claim can you at least substantiate it?

Lets turn that question around:
In recent times, what contribution have Islamic countries made in the fields of science, engineering and medicine?

I'm not claiming anything!

Yes, as should be clear from my reply to Coel I entirely get political satire through cartoons. Not sure what the political point in the Khan one was though. Perhaps you can explain it to me. 

Most of the rest of your post is just a slide into ‘I said/you said’ stuff, and of doubtful value to flog the dead horse further. People can read what we posted and make their own mind up, though I doubt many are paying much attention by now

the ‘going into bat for Islam/defender of the faith’ comment is mystifying though. You appear to be saying that i shouldn’t call out bigotry directed towards Muslims, because that would give support to their religion. I’m sure that’s not what you actually mean, because that would be bizarre; maybe you can explain more clearly. 

As to ‘who gets to decide’. Again I covered that in my reply to Coel. There is no easy and clear answer. In the end, it’s the Court of Public opinion, the balance of everyone’s views, and likely to be inconsistent and subject to change over time. And again, as I said to Coel, that’s why I object to your puritanical interpretation of ‘freedom of speech’. If it comes to be seen by enough people as something bigots use to justify their right to circulate their bigotry, then support for it could be undermined. I think we are far from the ‘natural equilibrium point’ for freedom of speech across societies, and its not a given that it will continue at its current extent. I entirely agree that there are forces that push for its restriction; currently I think they are seen as the exremists and they lack wide support. I’m wary about giving support to a narrative such people would wish to push, that unrestricted free speech will just be used as a cover to abuse people. If that gets traction, then the vital function it performs end up at risk. 

For clarity- that’s not at all an argument that we should never give offence to religious people, nor should we automatically accept a declaration of being offended as a cause to shut down debate. I’m entirely supportive of robust political debate. This is different to the incidents referred to in my link, and in other links that have been posted. I resent when this vital function of our society is hijacked by bigots. And I don’t consider calling such people out is ‘being a defender of the faith’, whatever that is. 

You're claiming that Coel's notion of Islamic countries being behind their counterparts in the fields of science, engineering and medicine, etc. are rubbish. 
Therefore, you must believe that those Islamic countries are actually contributing worthwhile research in those fields.
Thus the simple question: In recent times, what contribution have Islamic countries made in the fields of science, engineering and medicine?
Remember, you're the one defending the academic/research capabilities of those countries and the easiest way to defend them would be to provide evidence of their actual contribution.
By the way, did you actually click on any of the Links in the Wikipedia page you provided a link to?  I did and a lot were totally devoid of any information beyond a simple information page.

I think the perception by many, myself included, is that the Islamic religion has somehow manoeuvred itself into a position enjoyed by the Christian Church forty odd years ago. i.e. they could say something was blasphemous and you could be pretty sure that would result in the relevant authorities siding with them - 'Life of Brian' being a good example.
Thankfully, the nonsense of blasphemy was abolished in 2008 and should in theory apply to all religions.  For some reason, I don't think that is quite happening... 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Iran

That took me 5 seconds of my tea break to find so I'm sure with a little more time taken much more could be revealed and that I must add is from a country crippled by US/Israeli sanctions for a long time.

Did you also spend just 5 seconds reading your link?

Global innovation index: 120th out of 143.

Technology achievement index: 45th out of 68.

Patents granted: 56th out of 60.

Iranian engineets and mathematicans are well recognised intheir field. As an example there was that Iranian lady mathematician who passed away recently and it was global headline news. 

The issue is that a lot of the good ones look as though they immigrate to Western countries . She had moved to the USA .

Jim Al-Khalili is another example  His Dad being an Iranian engineer who emigrated .

So you can argue that the good ones get out 

Read through my posts and you'll see that I've never said that at all, just asked Coel to substantiate his own claim. 

The only thing I rubbished was Coel's claim that scientific research in Islamic countries has "stood still for 700 years". Given that Iran has a successful space program and leads important work into stem cell research (amongst other things) and that the Gulf states are also investing massively in science I think my point is valid.

While not wanting to start a debate on wider Middle East issues, why do you think that Netanyahu has pushed Trump to reimpose harsh sanctions on Iran? Because Israeli defence chiefs are extremely worried about Iranian advances in domestic weapon technology and want to inhibit scientific and technological research in the country. If the Israelis consider that Iran could threaten their own military capacity, we can take that as a reliable indicator that Iran has a formidable technological potential.

However, it is also undoubtedly the case that European/USA/eastern Asian science and technology achievements are considerably greater that those of the Middle East. This is largely due to their ability to attract talent from around the world, including those followers of Islam who many people in this conversation are so quick to disparage. 

(ps. Coel has since said he was exaggerating about the 700 year Islamic stand-still)

Well the "700 year Islamic stand-still" since AD1300 was a direct reply to a comment about Islamic scholaship in AD1300 "... whilst Europe stood still for a millennia".  As such, yes it's somewhat exaggerated rather than fully literal.  

The lack of Islamic-world universities in the top 200 *is* a substantiation of the claim.   Yes, such indicators are far from perfect, yes they are biased to English-speaking countries, and yes research is also done in institutes, but despite all that it's still a pretty good indicator! 

And pointing to web pages of research institutes in the Islamic world doesn't prove much on its own -- what matters is how many international-quality papers they are producing in international-repute journals and how much they get cited. 

On such indicators the entire Islamic world (1.2 billion people) is out-done by Israel (8 million people), to pick a provocative example. 

By the way, weapons technology is not the same thing as science, especially if one is largely copying weapons previously developed in the West. 

What are you basing such claims on?   Web pages resulting from puff-pieces produced by the Iranian press?  

Ok, but why does the Islamic world not have that ability? 

Why, for example, is China a powerhouse of first-rank science and technological development, but the Islamic world not? 

Here's an example from the US press:

https://mentalfloss.com/article/76349/what-iran-may-be-able-teach-us-about-...

Provocative, yes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists

Might be stretching it to describe mentalfloss.com as 'US press', but whatever. The article itself consists of an Iranian born scientist saying he's quite impressed with Iranian science. That the best evidence you can find?

Wikipedia: "Mental Floss is an American digital, print, and e-commerce media company focused on millennials. It is owned by Minute Media and based in New York City."

They don't print anything...

https://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/09/mental-floss-ends-print-editio...

Their current digital edition's lead article...

"17 signs that you'd qualify as a witch in the 1600's"

http://mentalfloss.com

You think they qualify as a valid source to support anything?

Here are a couple of articles by a man with a reassuringly Western name! The first you can only read the intro without a subscription, but it still provides some information and opinion. The second will provide an insight into perhaps the principle reason why scientific progress is stifled in Iran. Interestingly the first was written before sanctions were lifted, and the second after they were re-imposed.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/feature-iranian-scientists-rely-ing...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/science-iran-languishes-after-trump...

ps I'm loving the fact that your comment has had 2 likes, but the article link has only been clicked on once, presumably by you!

Rather than looking at abstracts of opinion pieces I'd rather look at the stats.

Global innovation index: 120th out of 143.

Technology achievement index: 45th out of 68.

Patents granted: 56th out of 60.

Yeah, but the link was originally yours, and has been read a total of 4 times now. 

Edit: in response to your edit. Why would you presume I'd click on my own link? By the way, are you going to address any of my points or just carry on ignoring them and just respond with more side stepping posts and unreliable sources?

I assume you are aware of how the selective use of stats can be used to mislead, in this case to suggest that very little worthwhile scientific research goes on in Iran.

The second article I posted is really quite interesting if you are genuinely looking for answers as to why Iran struggles to reach its full potential in scientific research, but I don't think you are. 

Ok, my bad :/

You assume correctly. The 3 statistics I've quoted were sourced from the UN. Personally, I'd regard them as more reliable than your chosen source of supporting evidence...

http://mentalfloss.com

The main thing stifling Iranian potential is government by a batshit crazy theocracy that's brought international pariah status on itself by supporting terrorists, pursuing nuclear weapons and murdering people for homosexuality and apostasy.

No it isn't. Try this thought experiment:

Go into the Northern General Hospital and interview a Muslim consultant about a range of social and political issues. Ask them how society should be run, what constitutes moral actions, what the future should look like, that kind of thing. The head across the road into Burngreave and find the poorest, least educated Muslim family you can, and ask them the same questions.

Coel: will the common character of the "ideology" and "ideas set" of Islam give you a good predictor of their answers, as it must if it really is a consistent "ideology". Or will other social factors, namely money and education have swamped the "Islam effect" making it a very poor predictor of their beliefs?

That from a country decimated by US/Israeli sanctions and a western backed invasion of thier country. 

For the past 2 to 300 years no other people have been able to compete with the western countries in barbaric ruthlessness as we butchered each other and anyone else who stood in our way toward stealing thier land riches and anything we wanted. 

No one comes near to our industrial carnage and theft which in the process has seen us develop the most horrific weapons of mass destruction and seen us use them happily and celebrate doing so. 

For the past 2 to 300 years the Muslim world has been a part of the chess game used by the so called "great powers", in which thier countries are invaded, split up, kept poor or seen western puppet-tyrants installed. This is not by accident as it keeps the western countries on top in every way. 

So to pluck one stat about the top 200 unis and remove it of all context by saying that is caused by a particular religion is not a backward comment but either a wilfully disingenuous one or an ignorant one. I am no fan of many Islamic rules in the more extremist countries but for those who vote for British imperialism to have an issue with them is ridiculous as they are both the same in thier barbarity. Indeed Thatcher loved the Mudjahedeen {Taliban} The British created the KSA and lately Cameron has used support of islamist terrorists to destroy Libya and Syria {with the USA etc} so for a Tory to have a go at thier own Islamic proxy armies of throat cutters is ridiculous as they support them all. 

What of the Christian indoctrination of Africa and Latin America? How many of their unis are in the top 200? Or what was being invented in China when it was being ruled and plundered by the west? Or in India during the Raj? Its difficult to learn and build when you are occupied or in a rubble strewn war zo e created by the countries with the top unis. 

You can't just remove all context and say "There you are that proves everything", as that is suspicious  you need to be balanced. I note Coel just skips by my initial comment as if it wasn't there precisely because I mentioned imperialism. 

It's the elephant in the room that won't go away, oh yes us Brits have become good lately at hiding it or sweeping it under the carpet as that which must never be said but the rest of the world, the victims of it are presented with it all the time even the fact that the west has supported extremist Islam and crushed moderate secular Islam for at least 100 years. 

Perhaps Coel and others that feel the same way about islam and they feel that way out of fear not hate is because subconsciously they know this elephant and think if I was a Muslim I would be pretty angry about all the imperialism and want some revenge,so let's ignore it, but that isn't a solution. 

What Coel says on apostasy, honour killings, treating atheism as a capital offence, killing LGBT and all the other backward crimes of Islam is admirable and courageous and I applaud him loudly for it but let us see the whole picture not just a wee bit and by doing so let us confront all crimes and backwardism in all its forms, our own included. 

PS. Socialism was fantastic and worked well in the USSR with excellent growth rates and cared for people working with each other and not against. Some other time we can discuss this. 

Pps. All majority Islamic countries spend on scientific research, parks, institutes and do invent things but because they are not on the same level as the G20 Western countries that plunder the world is no real surprise. How much has Islam contributed to the current terrible state of the earth and life on earth from "science and technology"? 

An ideology doesn't necessarily cover all possible questions -- for example, it doesn't have to predict the answer to "do you think that Liverpool or Man City will win the league? -- all that is required is that there is *some* set of ideas that have sufficiently similarity that they can be regarded as part of the same umbrella "ideology". 

For example, "communism" is an ideology, despite having many variants. Trying to deny that "Islam" has any identity, any commonality at all is just weird.    It seems to me just another tactic to try to disallow any criticism of "Islam", by denying that there is any such thing as "Islam". 

I've heard this argument made a thousand times, but never really understood what point was being made. I don't think it's anything more than "this is evidence that Islam is bad". The main problem is that it's a bit like "Africa is bad" - the fact that Islam is a religion and Africa is a continent doesn't change the fact that both are a bloody massive proportions of the world's population, and neither one of them is going to cease to exist at any point in the next few hundred years. 

How do the stats on African achievements stack up? Any views on that?

To me, it's indisputable that liberal, secular, social democracy is a far superior way to organise government compared to an Islamic theocracy. Is this the argument behind the "look how badly Islamic nations do" statistics? If so, I completely agree. Are the best models for national governance to be found in Holy Books? No. And more strongly, is religion poisonous in government full stop? Yes. Is Islam particularly set up to support theocratic government? Yes I think so.

But does this mean it's a good idea in the UK, where there is absolutely no danger of turning to Islamic theocracy (or more broadly too much influence of the religion in the running of the state), to espouse the simplistic idea that "Islam is bad"?

You often talk about how you want to support moderate Muslim reformers - but the more you spend your time posting badly justified arguments about how the whole Islam is bad, the more you'll alienate your cause from theirs. I see it as a completely destructive, divisive, alienating view to say that "Islam is bad". That's not because I think religion should be protected from criticism, it's because the consequence of espousing that simplistic view are negative. Whereas you could potentially generate positive consequences from more intelligent nuanced arguments about how society should be run that don't operate along tribal dividing lines.

One more thought for you: what is the most dangerous "ideas set" in human history? What's caused ordinary people in their thousands to slaughter their neighbours? Tribalism. The view that "these people are my in-group and those are my out-group" is at the heart of every genocide in history. Wouldn't that be a better "ideas set" to target?

That's because you haven't engaged with it, you've just given a weak and evasive answer. I said:

Ask them how society should be run, what constitutes moral actions, what the future should look like

If they're not the important questions that you think the "bad" Islamic ideology steers believers on, then tell me, what are?

Well that's a rather eccentric opinion! 

Excellent!

Yes!

Good.   And therefore it is entirely sensible to be "Islamophobic", defined as: "dislike of Islam as a political force". 

Of course you would *not* be "Islamophobic" under the other definition: "prejudice against Muslims".  

Which is exactly why the concept "Islamophobia" is so bad, it is a deliberate attempt to conflate these two very different concepts in an attempt to disallow criticism of Islam.

And yet I am largely taking my cue from Muslim reformers, of which Maajid Nawaz is one of the most notable in the UK today. 

"Maajid Nawaz Wants The Word “Islamophobia” Scrapped, Here’s Why"

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-nawaz-wants-the-...

Well you're making a rather over-simplistic summary of what I'm saying, and then accusing it of being simplistic!

Yes, but in order to have such a debate we need to accept that Islam really is open to examination and criticism, and if we do that then we might indeed conclude that it is more harmful than beneficial.   The whole point of the term "Islamophobia" is to try to disallow that sensible discussion. 

I would think that if you did your test, you would find more commonality in your answers between different Muslims than you could if you compared, say, answers by Muslims with answers by atheists.

Of course there would indeed still be a range amongst Muslims, they of course do not all think alike.

Just thought I'd post the Maajid Nawaz opinion here:

"The LBC presenter ripped into the The Muslim Council of Britain who have called on the Conservatives to launch an independent inquiry into allegations of Islamophobia within the party.

"It aired "serious concerns" that anti-Muslim bigotry had "poisoned elements of the party".

"But Maajid said the group had done its “fair share” to “contribute to the fear of Muslims” in Britain.

"And he wanted the word Islamophobia axed, and instead replaced with Muslimphobia to allow people to scrutinise the religion “like every other religion is scrutinised”.

"He said: “Islamophobia includes within it hatred of Muslims as a people and criticising and scrutinising Islam as a religion which is the right of every free-thinking human being anywhere in the world.

“So if I turned around and said that Islam today has a disproportionate problem with homophobia, with anti-freedom of religion stances and so on and so forth, chopping the hand of the thief - that's not Islamophobic that's talking about the doctrine of a religion that needs reform.”

"Maajid added: “Therefore let's change the word, let's stop using the word Islamophobia which lends itself to accusations of blasphemy when in fact everyone should have the right to blaspheme.

“Let's use instead the word Muslimphobia which is more accurate, because it's wrong to hate Muslims as a people or individual Muslims as persons but it's perfectly legitimate to scrutinise Islam as a doctrine.”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-nawaz-wants-the-...

I think that an analysis of the answers from across society would show very strong effects of education (correlating with socio-economic status) and a much weaker correlation with atheist/christian/muslim. This is illustrated in the thought experiment by picking opposite ends of the socio-economic status measure within the all-muslims set - the attitudes would obviously be completely different and I don't think you're denying that. Incidentally I think that the set defined by uneducated+muslim would be quite a distinct group, with the attitudes I most want to see change.

The point, yet again, is that if it's views about society that you wish to change, you're targeting the wrong group: the group "all muslims" includes all those educated people whose attitudes aren't harmful. And it alienates them. I don't see why you'd want to tell Muslim university students who hold normal views completely compatible with secular values of tolerance and whatnot that their religion is a "harmful ideology". It's both inaccurate and insulting.

Can you acknowledge any problem with doing so, or is that beyond you (because it involves a climb-down)?

They were underperforming before the sanctions and what invasion are you talking about?

You're showing a very poor grasp of history if you actually believe that.

Any evidence as to the West 'happily celebrating' the use of 'weapons of mass destruction'?

In that time period much of the Muslim world was dominated by the Ottoman Empire. Iran specifically was invaded by Russia and the Ottomans. Britain briefly occupied the West of the country in WW1 and withdrew completely post war.

I didn't pluck one statistic about universities, I plucked three... all gleaned from your own link up thread. 

China was ruled by the West??? Loads of stuff was invented in the Raj; off the top of my head... gin and tonic, pale ale kedgeree and dum dum bullets.

You're so confused about basic facts of history that context is the least of your worries.

You'll have to be more specific. You've just made a vast sweeping statement. If you're saying the West has meddled in Islamic countries then that's irrefutable. If you're saying all the ills of the Muslim world can be laid at the feet of the West, then that's just ridiculous.

You not think this is a really prejudiced way to think about Muslims? That they're all really angry at the West for historical injustices as though "Muslim" is one huge aggrieved bloc of people seething at historical injustice? Speaking as an Atheist, an apostate, a fornicator, a carouser and an anti- monarchist, it'd be pretty weird if I were to spend my life in a perpetual huff with all the regimes, religions, governments and countries that have oppressed, tortured and murdered 'my people' over the years.

If you could be a bit specific about 'our own crimes'. Worse thing I've done recently is snaffle the last 3 hobnobs in the pack.

PS. Welcome back. 

PPS. Hope they don't ban you this time Machine Elf.

China isn't really an 'academic powerhouse' as yet, except in volume. For getting close to the GDP of the US it has the one of the weakest academic performances (GDP weighted) in the 'developed' world. They do have a lot of institutions and churn out huge numbers of papers and grads. As for the development part of R&D it's also impressive (state driven) but a lot of the IP it is based on is stolen from other western countries. 

You continue to regard these world University lists as meaningful.. I think they are almost complete bs away from the top tens and even there they really measure institutional wealth... and that is mostly endowment based. China is probably better than it looks on these rankings (it looks terrible). The top ten try to buy the best academics from across the world and surprising numbers come from muslim countries.

One interesting point against some of the past higher Malaysian institutional world rankings is a story I was told that different Malaysian ethnicities were confused with overseas students at one census point and this led to them being placed them higher than they deserved.

But I am not targetting "Muslims" or "all Muslims", I am targeting ideas.  There are a lot of harmful ideas in Islam (if anyone wants an account, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Heretic).  If particular Muslims don't share those ideas then great!  

Indeed, I've regularly pointed to one Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, who does not share them.  There are lots of others. But there are also many who do hold these ideas, and that's why it is important to criticise them.

What a weird couple of sentences!

"... except in volume"?  And China is not (yet) "developed" world (getting there). (For example, GDP/person is 4 times higher in Japan than China.) And ok, in GDP weighted terms it lags the West but that's expected for a developing economy.

And yes, comparing its science to the US it doesn't look so good, but the point is that it looks way, way better than the Islamic world. 

And it really is now a source of leading science and technological innovation in many areas. 

They are far from perfect, and of course have their biases, but they do indeed mean something.

Terrible compared to what?  The US? OK.  But it looks good compared to the Islamic world.

This argument doesn't work. Ideas only exist in the minds of those who hold them. When I crititise the idea of racism I target all racists. They are the people who are the target of my comments, I'm not aiming my comments at the abstract Platonic idea of racism. When I criticise the idea (in a very loose sense of that word) of Christianity, I target all Christians: when I say God doesn't exist, if you believe he does then I am talking to you. And when you criticise Islam, you are targeting all muslims. They are the people to whom your comments apply. There would be no point in criticising an idea if it wasn't held by people - when you make any criticism it's the people and their behaviour that you ultimately seek to change.

Exactly, so if you want to make an accurate criticism of an idea or attitude, you have to draw the circle around those people who hold it as best you can, and aim your comments at the people inside that circle. You fail to draw the correct circle when you target the whole of Islam.

But that's not so! 

Suppose I said that the Christian God, a being who will burn people for eternity, just for behaving in a way that he made them to behave, is about the most vile monster imaginable.

No-one would say I'm "attacking" 2 billion Christians.

No-one would say that it was highly offensive and that I should not say it.

No-one would accuse me of "Christophobia".

No-one would bother pointing out that many Christians don't believe in that sort of god (which is entirely true, but it would be accepted that both the speaker and the listeners know that; it would be taken as obvious that I was attacking the versions of Christianity that do posit that sort of god).

Instead it would be taken as an acceptable and valid criticism of a theology and a religion. 

No I don't!  I can just criticise the idea!  I can just throw the criticism out into the ether, without specifying who does or does not hold the idea.   (Of course if no-one holds that idea, then I'm straw-manning, but so long as some people hold it then fine.)

So if, for example, I criticise Catholic doctrine on birth-control, I don't have to precisely delineate which Catholics do or do not agree with that doctrine -- of course many of them don't -- but I can still criticise Catholic doctrine on birth-control.  And we don't get all these silly attempts to disallow the criticism, that we get if one criticises Islam.  

Because you didn't. You drew the circle around a subset of Christians who believe in God as a being who will burn people for eternity, just for behaving in a way that he made them to behave. You didn't say "Christianity is a harmful ideology" which would be attacking 2 billion Christians.

I'm not saying those things to you. Please try to stick to responding to my position, as summarised above but here for convenience:

 "you've defined the group you oppose inappropriately, on tribal grounds and have included sets that don't warrant opposition, and not included other sets that warrant precisely the same opposition"...it's a more nuanced position than the facile strawman "you shouldn't criticise Islam, I think it's nice" 

If you said "Christianity is a harmful ideology because the Christian God, a being who will burn people for eternity, just for behaving in a way that he made them to behave, is about the most vile monster imaginable" then that's  exactly what they'd point out!

I'm baffled. When you specify the target of your criticism as Islam, you are - by the irrefutable logic that ideas exist only in the minds of people - targeting the people who hold that idea, who are by definition, all Muslims. Your argument here makes absolutely no sense.

Because you've accurately specified the idea you disagree with! I don't understand what's hard to grasp here: when you specify the idea, you target the people who hold that idea - there's no extra specifying.

As it happens, with Catholicism, I would be more comfortable criticising the whole sect rather than specifying particular ideas or sub-sects that I find especially abhorrent. But with Islam, for pragmatic reasons, I think it's very unhelpful to generalise and make criticisms that apply to the whole of Islam because there are so many Muslims I don't want to alienate. Alienate those normal Muslims - which is what you do when you say "Islam is harmful ideology" - and you lose ground in changing society for the better.

I'll just go back to a pertinent question, as I always have to due to your evasive style:

Can you acknowledge any problem with doing so?

No I didn't, I said nothing about any such subset, all I (hypothetically) said was:

"The Christian God, a being who will burn people for eternity, just for behaving in a way that he made them to behave, is about the most vile monster imaginable."

No it would not, it would be attacking an ideology!

But I'm targeting the *idea*, not the people. The whole point of a pluralistic free nation with free speech and open discussion of ideas is that we do not interpret criticism of ideas as an attack on people!   Unless we hold to that principle we cannot really have a pluralistic free nation with free speech and open discussion of ideas.

OK, so you allow me to criticise "Catholic doctrine on birth-control", since that accurately specifies the idea I disagree with, and accepting that many Catholics won't hold that doctrine. 

So am I allowed to criticise "Islamic rejection of church-state separation", because I have accurately specified the idea I disagree with, and accepting that many Muslims won't hold that doctrine?

Views that are "completely compatible" with secular values of tolerance and whatnot are so far from mainstream Islam, that ok, I would not tell those students that *their* religion is a harmful ideology, but I would tell them that Islam is a harmful ideology, because are dominant, mainstream versions are NOT "completely compatible" with secular values of tolerance and whatnot.

Specifying the idea is identical to specifying the set of people who believe it, because ideas only exist in the minds of people. When I criticise racism, I am criticising every person who holds racist beliefs. The abstract idea of an idea floating freely in the Platonic sphere and not attached to people is utterly useless.

Absolutely not. For a society with free speech, as people, we need to accept that our beliefs can be attacked.  I see absolutely no value in the non-distinction between someone criticising me for my beliefs, and someone criticising my beliefs while claiming it's not an attack on me. If someone says "I think secular liberal values are immoral and wrong" then that's calling me "immoral and wrong", because I behave according to secular liberal values. The reason someone would be criticising my beliefs would be to try to get me to change my beliefs and thus my behaviour. To criticise an idea is identical to saying to the people who hold the belief, this belief is wrong and you should change. If you're not saying to Muslims "your beliefs are wrong and you should change" then why are you saying anything about Islam? 

Are you saying you just want to criticise the idea of Islam but don't want anyone who believes the idea to change? What would be the point in that?

You're allowed to say whatever you like, within the bounds of acceptability inherent in the context, so here UKC terms. I'm pointing out why it's divisive and unhelpful in terms of consequences to aim your criticism at the whole of Islam.

Consider that there is a lot of anti-Muslim bigotry out there - the type that associates all Muslims with terrorists for example. And the type that's a form of racism: many people hate Muslims because they have different colour skin, wear different clothes and speak different languages to them. You will surely agree that this bigotry exists and is problematic for Muslims. So, do you want to be clear that you don't sympathise with these views, by being accurate about the ideas you think people should change? Or are these people allies, fighting the same anti-Islam cause?

Here, you're just displaying a lack of insight into the beliefs of many British Muslims. You say that dominant, mainstream versions are not "completely compatible" with secular values, but I'm still no further forward in understanding what it is that my friends and colleagues do that is incompatible. You might be right that they're in a minority, but it's a very significant chunk of British Muslims who work in the professions and study in universities. These are the people I'm advising you to stop alienating, because if you genuinely to want to see modernisation, it is these people who you need to be working with not against.

Do you think it is useful and accurate to describe these professional, educated people as "following a harmful ideology"? Or do you think it would be more helpful to learn more about what people believe, so you can display a commensurate level of insight and accurately specify the beliefs you think are harmful, rather than tarring a diverse population with single brush?

Yes, actually, I do. 

In a similar way I'd happily describe professional, educated Catholics as "following a harmful ideology".

If asked what is harmful about Catholicism I'd then give a list (unhealthy focus on sin and guilt; unhealthy attitudes towards sex; unhelpful focus on the next life, not this one; false understanding of morality; potential and actuality of corrupt conduct, such as covering up child abuse, et cetera). 

I wouldn't see anything wrong with saying that I saw Catholicism as a package as a harmful ideology, even if plenty of Catholics don't hold with some of the beliefs, or have similar criticisms. 

Similarly, I see Islam as a harmful ideology, and can then expound on the various aspects of that,  and I don't see anything wrong in saying that, even if plenty of Muslims don't hold to some parts of the ideology or have similar criticisms.

As for alienating "moderate" Muslims.  Well, if they're the sort of people who could be alienated by such criticism then they're not really moderates.  The genuine moderates see a lot of problems with Islam and want criticism as a means to reform.    Genuine moderates realise that good ideologies can only be improved by criticism.  And swathes from moderates to less-moderates can benefit from realising that there are plenty who reject the religion entirely and from listening to their criticisms.

For example, I see a lot of good in Western culture, and consider that it's by far the best culture the world has known. But that's largely a product of continual and ongoing criticism,leading to its improvement,  including criticism by those who see Western culture as overall harmful, such as our friend Pefa.  Western culture would be the poorer if people like Pefa were not there to savagely criticise it.

Argggghhh.

Once again Coel tells everybody how he understands something, that this is only way to understand something, and anyone who understands it differently is wrong. As far as I can see neither Jon or anyone else is denying that there isn't some commonality of beliefs amongst Muslims, but that when people act, think and talk in such hugely different ways, clearly some very vague shared identity or practice or even belief clearly isn't very important amongst their possible motivations.

Fine. I think your judgement is poor.

As I said before, I'm more comfortable with describing Catholicism that way than Islam, for pragmatic reasons. Like you, I think that both religions are full of crap, some of which is harmful. This is because I don't see any particular harm or problems coming from lumping in those Catholics who actually ignore all the worst bits of their religion with those who actually believe the harmful bits. I do think there's a problem doing this with Muslims though, for the reasons I've already set out

You will surely agree that this bigotry exists and is problematic for Muslims. So, do you want to be clear that you don't sympathise with these views, by being accurate about the ideas you think people should change? Or are these people allies, fighting the same anti-Islam cause?

I think you're saying that you don't care if thousands of ordinary educated Muslims see you as aligned with the bigots - their views aren't important because they are part of the problem by not being sufficiently reformist. The only people you feel it would be helpful to have a good collaborative relationship with are the reformist activists like Nawas.

I think your judgement on this is extremely poor. You basically seem to think that people are going to change their minds by being insulted. If you call someone's sacred beliefs a "harmful ideology" even when they do nothing wrong, you're insulting them. It's a bad call.

This is disingenuous. "Western culture" - which is a slippery and ill-defined concept anyway - has not improved because people from outside it criticised it. Wilful misrepresentation of history to support a weak argument. Poor.

And yet if someone draws a Mohammed cartoon, they get told "you've just offended 1.2 billion Muslims", as though they all think in lockstep, chanting in unison -- a la Life of Brian -- "Yes, we're all individuals".

And again, I'm criticising the ideas, if many people don't hold them, then all the better!

Still here Coel?

So do you think this guy would make a good councillor?

https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/02/tory-candidate-suspended-photo-bacon-door-ha...

I've never said that their views aren't important or that I don't care about them.   I have said that if they are moderates then they will accept the validity of people criticising their religion. 

As insults go in today's world, that's pretty mild.  And I don't accept that it's a bad call.  The drawbacks of not calling it a harmful ideology, in order to avoid "alienating" people, are worse for society.

Sure about that? So Western culture has not at all being improved by criticism from such as Ghandi, to give one example?   

And yes, criticism from insiders is probably more valuable.  But if we ask reformers in the Islamic world what they want, what would help them, they do not say "please avoid upsetting and alienating people", they say please openly criticise Islam, because they want to normalize doing so. 

What would help them would be if criticising Islam were as normal as criticising Trump.  If drawing a satirical cartoon depicting Mohammed were as normal as a satirical cartoon depicting Trump. And no-one says, ooh, bad call to satirize Trump, you'll only alienate people. 

And they would be much more likely to accept the validity of criticism if it was nuanced and didn't describe the whole of Islam as a "harmful ideology".

Rubbish - false dichotomy. The alternative to describing Islam a "harmful ideology" is to be specific about the attitudes that are harmful. Obviously, this does not have drawbacks that are worse for society than those associated with being sloppy, inaccurate and insulting. 

Yes I'm sure. I don't think there is a good definition of "western culture" and, not to do down Ghandi's influence, I don't think that, say US society (as an exemplar of "western culture") would be particularly different without him.

So you say. I'm not convinced you really understand the reformist movement, rather, you listen to people you agree with like Hirsi-Ali and Nawaz. I suspect that there are many influential practising Muslims with much greater reach than those who appeal so much to right wing atheists.

Back to making false comparisons (Trump represents an extremely narrow political viewpoint whereas Islam is extremely diverse), and back to the strawman that I'm supporting censorship. Poor.

It must be nice being Coel!

Maybe.  The optimal tactic in any given situation will depend on the situation and the personalities. I'm just saying that regarding Islam as a "harmful ideology" is a reasonable think to think and say.

[And, to reiterate, I think the same about many other ideologies, including Catholicsm, Scientology, Communism, fascism, etc.]

Which is a bit like saying that you should not regard Tommy Robinson and the BNP as having a "harmful ideology", but should only criticise specific attitudes they have, while trying to avoid saying anything that might offend them.

And yet Trump got votes from roughly half the voters, so a diverse range of people decided to vote for him.  Many voted for him based on liking some aspects of him while disliking others.  So maybe it is fair to compare Trump to Islam and (the more diverse) Trump voters to (the more diverse) Muslims? 

It certainly is!  I get to have a pretty cushy life overall, compared to what is/was typical in most times and places.

Which culture would you see as generally better than life in today's West?

I wouldn't  bother staying up in anticipation of a reply.

It's nothing like that. I'm making a pragmatic argument that it's poor judgement to espouse the generic "Islam is harmful" view on the basis that it aligns you with bigots and alienates those who've done nothing wrong. You keep responding as though I'm making a moral argument that offending people is wrong and/or shouldn't be allowed. I'm criticising your judgement on the consequences of using sloppy, generic arguments that lack nuance and insight. I've already given the reasons why this pragmatic argument applies to Islam but not elsewhere.

No it isn't. The distinct arguments that apply to Islam include the fact that insulting people's sacred beliefs tends not to persuade them and to generate resentment; and that it is always wise to clear oneself from any conflation with bigotry. It's just a bad comparison.

There must be thousands of cultures I will never know of. 

But when I see a devout Muslim in an Islamic country (and believe you me there aren't that many!) I think it must be nice to be them as well. Waking up every morning and just knowing that you've been born into the best culture the world has ever seen. Must be a nice feeling.

Actually they do. All the time. Whether the partisan divide has become unbridgeable yet, and whether progressives or centerists need to try and reach out to Trump voters to bridge it, seems a pretty interminable debate on the US radio and podcast shows I listen to.

Eccentric?  I've never seen 'batshit mental' spelt like that before.  What a polite fellow you are 

Congratulations on parroting the dishonest Islamist line. Your brainwashing is complete. 

BTW, Maajid Nawaz disagrees with you. He offers this analogy: you can say smoking is bad, but it doesn't mean you're saying smokers are all bad people. 

And he's a Muslim, so you are required to immediately agree with him. If you don't, you're a racist and a bigot.

Tricky, eh?

Coel, Coel, Coel - it's really not that difficult. You can criticise Christianity as much as you like, because that's a religion of white people (yes, yes, Jesus was an Arab, millions of Catholics in South America, but we all think of it as a white religion, so it is).

But what you're completely failing to get is that Islam is a religion of brown people, so you can't criticise it. Because that's racist. See?

Most people in the USSR voted in 1991 to keep it going and majority wish it was back but I don't suppose facts will get in the way of what you want to think. 

And why are you so terrified of Muslims ? Chill out, visit a mosque have a chat and a little prayer and try to find common ground between what you and they think. 

In other words "no Coel, I can't think of a culture I'd rather live in and on reflection my comment was a typical  knee jerk reaction due to liberal conditioning."

Really? When I come across devout practitioners of just about any faith (bit of a fondness for Quakers) I always feel a little sorry for them, having to go through life with such a warped view of morality and science.

Have you been to Russia?

There is a problem with analogies. No two situations are ever identical; and the difference between them is usually important in relation to the point they are being chosen to illustrate. In this case, smoking is just an activity  people engage in, many reluctantly. Religion is often at the core of people’s identity, in a way that smoking status is unlikely to be for all but a small handful of people. People are mostly not just inert vessels for their beliefs, able to pour old ones out and new ones in at will; when it comes to matters of identity, people *are* their beliefs. If you say their beliefs are bad, that will be perceived as saying they as a person are bad.

of course, people hold beliefs that form their identity that are harmful and just plain wrong all the time, and calling them out on that is at times necessary, when those beliefs lead them to behave in ways that are harmful to others. It’s manifestly obvious that aspects of Islam fall into this category at times. I have no problem with this being pointed out , and accept that some hurt feelings are a necessary price to pay for opposing harm. But statements to the effect that Islam per se is a harmful ideology, without qualification as to what about it is harmful, and in what situations, are unhelpful in ways that Jon has already explained in detail and that I won’t waste time repeating here. 

Tl:dr- analogies are usually bollocks, and this one certainly is.

...said exactly no one, ever. 

Is it possible for you to make a single post without having to resort to absurd straw men? You’re coming across as a pound shop, UKIP-flavoured Bruce Hooker. 

Unfortunately, you don't understand the argument and are talking utter bollocks.

When you criticise Islam, you are talking about the beliefs of all Muslims. This is a simple statement of fact. This is what I mean by "targeting" not any negative sense of being unnecessarily nasty. This is abundantly clear from the context of the remark. 

I do not think that criticism of Islam is bigoted. I fully support intelligent, insightful criticism of Islam, and there is much of this to make. I have not accused Coel nor anyone of being bigoted. I have set out my position - the pragmatic argument about why it's preferable and more effective to be specific rather than general when criticising Islam, but this all went over your head, it seems. 

In future, if you want to respond, can you put in a bit more effort to understand at least the gist of what I'm saying, even if you fail to follow all the details? 

Personally I'd give the praying a miss, but otherwise yes, precisely. 

I'd add some people regularly exaggerate Maajid's views for their own anti Islamic agenda. He is clearly fine with his own type of Islam as a muslim.

I suspect Coel actually is a bigot (or a high functioning autistic) as he is bright enough to see the limits of his own arguments and yet still pushes the boundaries. It's easy enough in religion, atheism or any moral philosophy to falsely claim a moral high-ground when people are unfairly getting hurt as a result: something that I see as clear dishonesty and dangerous hypocrisy (the reason I fell out with religion in the first place). Coel annoys me partly as he brings back bad memories of the moral hypocrits from three branches of Christianity that I faced in my youth.

Indeed. From what I've seen, nawaz argues strenuously against islamist extremism, with great insight of course, but does not agree with Coel that we should "oppose the harmful ideology of Islam". 

Hirsi-ali is much closer to Coel. I think she's compelling, but I can't say I think much of the company she keeps!