This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.newsweek.com/finsbury-park-mosque-attack-islamophobia-tommy-robi...
I found this quite interesting, about how certain perceptions can develop.
6
21
In reply to Timmd:
I don't agree with this because......., I'll press dislike and leave people without a clue.
Could be an interesting discussion if people spoke?
I don't agree with this because......., I'll press dislike and leave people without a clue.
Could be an interesting discussion if people spoke?
Post edited at 15:21
6
16
In reply to Timmd:
Maybe nobody give a shit?
It's much more interesting comparing Boris Johnson's and Dianne Abbott's uselessness.
Maybe nobody give a shit?
It's much more interesting comparing Boris Johnson's and Dianne Abbott's uselessness.
6
4
In reply to Timmd:
I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
There is no equivalent term for criticism of communism or fascism or capitalism. If you criticise fascism, no one says "oh you fascist-phobe".
I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
There is no equivalent term for criticism of communism or fascism or capitalism. If you criticise fascism, no one says "oh you fascist-phobe".
44
14
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You still haven't been able to prove that and from what I remember from last time we discussed this, you seemed convinced by what I would consider dubious sources. But, heh, we get to pick the hill we're willing to die on. :-/
> I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
You still haven't been able to prove that and from what I remember from last time we discussed this, you seemed convinced by what I would consider dubious sources. But, heh, we get to pick the hill we're willing to die on. :-/
9
19
In reply to TobyA:
Toby, here is Piers Morgan shutting down a criticism of Islam by conflating ideology (Islam) with the people who follow that ideology (Muslims), under the blunt term 'Islamophobia':
From 1.14: youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Toby, here is Piers Morgan shutting down a criticism of Islam by conflating ideology (Islam) with the people who follow that ideology (Muslims), under the blunt term 'Islamophobia':
From 1.14: youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Post edited at 16:07
3
In reply to TobyA:
Certainly the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and similar use the term "Islamophobia" to try to prevent criticism of Islam. In submissions to the UN they say that blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent "Islamophobia".
Second, the Runnymede Trust's report "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All" (1997), that did much to promote the use of the term in he UK, explicitly defines "Islamophobia" as including any viewing of the religion in negative ways. As though there were something wrong with seeing an idea-system as harmful and criticising it.
Third, moderate and reformist Muslims, such as Maajid Nawaz, have rejected the term for the reasons I'm giving. He get dismissed as an "Islamophobe" and then labelled an "extremist" for making criticisms of Islam and for asking for a reformed version. That's just ridiculous.
De facto, the usage of the term is very often one of trying to prevent and dismiss any criticism of Islam as illegitimate. It is a very unhelpful term, intended to suppress discussion.
Certainly the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and similar use the term "Islamophobia" to try to prevent criticism of Islam. In submissions to the UN they say that blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent "Islamophobia".
Second, the Runnymede Trust's report "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All" (1997), that did much to promote the use of the term in he UK, explicitly defines "Islamophobia" as including any viewing of the religion in negative ways. As though there were something wrong with seeing an idea-system as harmful and criticising it.
Third, moderate and reformist Muslims, such as Maajid Nawaz, have rejected the term for the reasons I'm giving. He get dismissed as an "Islamophobe" and then labelled an "extremist" for making criticisms of Islam and for asking for a reformed version. That's just ridiculous.
De facto, the usage of the term is very often one of trying to prevent and dismiss any criticism of Islam as illegitimate. It is a very unhelpful term, intended to suppress discussion.
32
4
3
29
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Isn't that a bit different to this?
> the usage of the term is very often one of trying to prevent and dismiss any criticism of Islam as illegitimate.
Isn't that a bit different to this?
> It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam
1
4
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Not very different, no. The whole problem with the term is that it conflates legitimate criticism of a religious idea system with unacceptable bigotry against people. That just buys into the Islamist agenda.
And the mainstream media, and others who use the term, have fallen for it.
> Isn't that a bit different to this?
Not very different, no. The whole problem with the term is that it conflates legitimate criticism of a religious idea system with unacceptable bigotry against people. That just buys into the Islamist agenda.
And the mainstream media, and others who use the term, have fallen for it.
19
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not very different = different, no.
Not saying the term doesn't have problems, but abandoning rational thought and stating unproven facts when it suits has problems also.
> Not very different, no.
Not very different = different, no.
Not saying the term doesn't have problems, but abandoning rational thought and stating unproven facts when it suits has problems also.
2
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think last time you told me they had created the term and popularised it.
Does it? Funny it's not how I would understand the following:
"It is not intrinsically phobic or prejudiced, of course, to disagree with or to disapprove of Muslim beliefs, laws or practices. Adherents of other world faiths disagree with Muslims on points of theology and religious practice. By the same token agnostics and secular humanists disagree with Muslims, as with all religious believers, on basic issues. In a liberal democracy it is inevitable and healthy that people will criticise and oppose, sometimes robustly, opinions and practices with which they disagree." (Runnymeade Trust 1997, p.4)
The authors of the report go on to say it is particularly legitimate to criticise the govt.s of Islamic countries that don't respect human rights and to criticise terrorist groups that claim to act in the name of Islam, or the oppression of women in the name of Islam. They ask how does one distinguish between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobia, and go on to suggest a model based on distinguishing between what they define as closed and open views of the faith.
You can agree or disagree with their typology, but very clearly the report does not say what you claim it "explicitly" does. I don't know if you've read and are deliberately misleading people, read it and don't understand the content, or haven't read it but are pretending to have done so - but please don't go down the fake news route to make some political point.
> Certainly the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and similar use the term "Islamophobia" to try to prevent criticism of Islam.
I think last time you told me they had created the term and popularised it.
> Second, the Runnymede Trust's report "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All" (1997), that did much to promote the use of the term in he UK, explicitly defines "Islamophobia" as including any viewing of the religion in negative ways.
Does it? Funny it's not how I would understand the following:
"It is not intrinsically phobic or prejudiced, of course, to disagree with or to disapprove of Muslim beliefs, laws or practices. Adherents of other world faiths disagree with Muslims on points of theology and religious practice. By the same token agnostics and secular humanists disagree with Muslims, as with all religious believers, on basic issues. In a liberal democracy it is inevitable and healthy that people will criticise and oppose, sometimes robustly, opinions and practices with which they disagree." (Runnymeade Trust 1997, p.4)
The authors of the report go on to say it is particularly legitimate to criticise the govt.s of Islamic countries that don't respect human rights and to criticise terrorist groups that claim to act in the name of Islam, or the oppression of women in the name of Islam. They ask how does one distinguish between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobia, and go on to suggest a model based on distinguishing between what they define as closed and open views of the faith.
You can agree or disagree with their typology, but very clearly the report does not say what you claim it "explicitly" does. I don't know if you've read and are deliberately misleading people, read it and don't understand the content, or haven't read it but are pretending to have done so - but please don't go down the fake news route to make some political point.
15
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There is "Antisematism" though
> There is no equivalent term for criticism of communism or fascism or capitalism. If you criticise fascism, no one says "oh you fascist-phobe".
There is "Antisematism" though
5
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Way to derail the discussion with one sentence. Coel if you want to discuss the semantics of a term, start a thread for that. I think you may have a point, but that's by the by.
Whatever you want to call anti-Muslim sentiment, the fact is it exists. And this anti-Muslim sentiment is increasingly feeding into mainstream media, as the article linked in the OP makes clear. It may or may not be 'Islamophobia' but the hate is real.
ETA: two sentences.
> I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
Way to derail the discussion with one sentence. Coel if you want to discuss the semantics of a term, start a thread for that. I think you may have a point, but that's by the by.
Whatever you want to call anti-Muslim sentiment, the fact is it exists. And this anti-Muslim sentiment is increasingly feeding into mainstream media, as the article linked in the OP makes clear. It may or may not be 'Islamophobia' but the hate is real.
> 'Far-right individuals and groups are now reaching numbers of people that would once have been inconceivable. This is especially worrying considering they now have the ability to affect and even manipulate the narrative following tragic events such as the Westminster terror attack... The worrying reality is that in Britain there has been a creeping process of normalisation of anti-Muslim rhetoric, with some mainstream media outlets such as The Daily Mail , The Sun and The Daily Express and some politicians adopting positions not dissimilar to those promoted by anti-Muslim “counter-jihadists.”'
ETA: two sentences.
Post edited at 18:01
8
8
In reply to GrahamD:
I think you've just proven his point there haven't you? Anti-semitism is prejudice towards Jews not Judaism.
> There is "Antisematism" though
I think you've just proven his point there haven't you? Anti-semitism is prejudice towards Jews not Judaism.
3
1
In reply to dunc56:
And this sort of crap is why people press dislike on the OP instead of making their reasoned and/or evidenced arguments.
Good on Coel for making his despite the rapid emergence of the "you're a racist" brigade. Like salivatings dogs to Pavlov's bell.
Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.
This sort of offensive crap is also perhaps turning some previously more moderate people towards right wing extremism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
> Let's face it. You're a racist.
And this sort of crap is why people press dislike on the OP instead of making their reasoned and/or evidenced arguments.
Good on Coel for making his despite the rapid emergence of the "you're a racist" brigade. Like salivatings dogs to Pavlov's bell.
Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.
This sort of offensive crap is also perhaps turning some previously more moderate people towards right wing extremism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Post edited at 18:19
27
4
In reply to wintertree:
Is being Jewish? What is a race exactly?
> Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.
Is being Jewish? What is a race exactly?
8
3
In reply to wintertree:
I suspect it might be a false flag to draw exactly that accusation.
Or possibly not.
See above.
See above.
> And this sort of crap is why people press dislike on the OP instead of making their reasoned and/or evidenced arguments.
I suspect it might be a false flag to draw exactly that accusation.
> Good on Coel for making his despite the rapid emergence of the "you're a racist" brigade. Like salivatings dogs to Pavlov's bell.
Or possibly not.
> Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.
See above.
> This sort of offensive crap is also perhaps turning some previously more moderate people towards right wing extremism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
See above.
5
8
In reply to wintertree:
It was never about race. It's always been about easily identifiable groups of people that could be banged together.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591...
> Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.
It was never about race. It's always been about easily identifiable groups of people that could be banged together.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591...
4
2
In reply to wintertree:
I did wonder if Dunc was possibly being a little ironic in support of Coel. I don't hang around enough on UKC to know his or Coel's history (if any).
Umm the OP is a perfectly reasonable observation made by someone who felt discussion on the topic was worthwhile.
If you dislike sweeping, generalised, ad-hom insults as Dunc appears to have made, you press dislike on Dunc's post. Not the OP.
Come on. You really think that people who click dislike and contribute nothing, actually have reasoned, evidence-based arguments in their minds ready to deploy at a moment's notice, if only it weren't for those awful people who make negative comments on the internet? Please.
If people are now so easily swayed, it's worth having a conversation on that. I believe the OP was trying.
I did wonder if Dunc was possibly being a little ironic in support of Coel. I don't hang around enough on UKC to know his or Coel's history (if any).
> And this sort of crap is why people press dislike on the OP
Umm the OP is a perfectly reasonable observation made by someone who felt discussion on the topic was worthwhile.
If you dislike sweeping, generalised, ad-hom insults as Dunc appears to have made, you press dislike on Dunc's post. Not the OP.
> instead of making their reasoned and/or evidenced arguments.
Come on. You really think that people who click dislike and contribute nothing, actually have reasoned, evidence-based arguments in their minds ready to deploy at a moment's notice, if only it weren't for those awful people who make negative comments on the internet? Please.
> This sort of offensive crap is also perhaps turning some previously more moderate people towards right wing extremism. I hope you're proud of yourself.
If people are now so easily swayed, it's worth having a conversation on that. I believe the OP was trying.
Post edited at 19:33
2
4
In reply to Mr Lopez:
There are established majority Muslim countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. As a group Muslims are about as easy to identify and lump together as Catholics are, as in, not very.
> It was never about race. It's always been about easily identifiable groups of people that could be banged together.
There are established majority Muslim countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. As a group Muslims are about as easy to identify and lump together as Catholics are, as in, not very.
4
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I never said otherwise.
However if you dislike your perceived abuse of the term Islamaphobia...
I'm sick of being libellously and factually incorrectly called a racist by people on here so I tend to keep my arguments to myself on this subject. This subject comes up often enough that many lines of reasoning are basically preprepared.
Yes and Coel was chiming in with what I believe is their genuine views in response to a request by the OP for people to explain their dislikes, and is promptly accused of racism and playing "false flag" games.
It's sad really.
> Umm the OP is a perfectly reasonable observation made by someone who felt discussion on the topic was worthwhile.
I never said otherwise.
> If you dislike sweeping, generalised, ad-hom insults as Dunc appears to have made, you press dislike on Dunc's post. Not the OP.
However if you dislike your perceived abuse of the term Islamaphobia...
> Come on. You really think that people who click dislike and contribute nothing, actually have reasoned, evidence-based arguments in their minds ready to deploy at a moment's notice, if only it weren't for those awful people who make negative comments on the internet? Please.
I'm sick of being libellously and factually incorrectly called a racist by people on here so I tend to keep my arguments to myself on this subject. This subject comes up often enough that many lines of reasoning are basically preprepared.
> If people are now so easily swayed, it's worth having a conversation on that. I believe the OP was trying
Yes and Coel was chiming in with what I believe is their genuine views in response to a request by the OP for people to explain their dislikes, and is promptly accused of racism and playing "false flag" games.
It's sad really.
Post edited at 19:47
7
3
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, in *some* parts they claim they are ok with criticism of Islam, but in other bits they are clearly not. Viz:
OK, so let's go with this. What they call "closed" views of Islam are not "legitimate" criticism, agreed? Well, amongst things they list as "closed" views are:
"Islam seen as ... unresponsive to new realities".
Well, many Muslims *do* have a literal take on the Koran and see it as the final and unchangeable word of God. They see that as a plus point.
"Islam seen as inferior to the West ... barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist".
Well I *do* see Islam as inferior to the Western model of a multi-party democratic, pluralistic and secular nation with free speech, freedom of religion and recognition of individual human rights. I *do* see Islam as sexist and more primitive. And I see nothing "illegitimate" about holding these views.
"Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism"
Well some variants of it are! Islam, by its nature, is monopolistic and totalitarian. Just for example, many Islamic nations actively impose severe laws against blasphemy and apostasy.
"Islam seen as apolitical ideology ..."
Well Islam *is* a political ideology! It generally does not recognise separation of church and state, there are many nations where Islam *is* the dominant political force!
Note, by the way, that all of the above are about criticism of **Islam**, the idea system (they are not about views of Muslims). Thus, Runnymede is indeed *explicitly* trying to rule out certain criticisms of Islam, including all of the above!
In order to not be "Islamophobic", to see Islam with "open" views, you need to see it as "progressive", "equally worthy of respect" to other cultures, and as a "partner" in "cooperative enterprises". And again, you're required to see **Islam** (the ideology) in that way, not just Muslim people or Muslim-majority nations that way!
So, I stand by my previous comment. The Runnymede report does *explicitly* try to rule out as illegitimate a wide swathe of reasonable criticisms of Islam.
> Does it? Funny it's not how I would understand the following:
Yes, in *some* parts they claim they are ok with criticism of Islam, but in other bits they are clearly not. Viz:
> They ask how does one distinguish between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobia, and go on to suggest a model based on distinguishing between what they define as closed and open views of the faith.
OK, so let's go with this. What they call "closed" views of Islam are not "legitimate" criticism, agreed? Well, amongst things they list as "closed" views are:
"Islam seen as ... unresponsive to new realities".
Well, many Muslims *do* have a literal take on the Koran and see it as the final and unchangeable word of God. They see that as a plus point.
"Islam seen as inferior to the West ... barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist".
Well I *do* see Islam as inferior to the Western model of a multi-party democratic, pluralistic and secular nation with free speech, freedom of religion and recognition of individual human rights. I *do* see Islam as sexist and more primitive. And I see nothing "illegitimate" about holding these views.
"Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism"
Well some variants of it are! Islam, by its nature, is monopolistic and totalitarian. Just for example, many Islamic nations actively impose severe laws against blasphemy and apostasy.
"Islam seen as apolitical ideology ..."
Well Islam *is* a political ideology! It generally does not recognise separation of church and state, there are many nations where Islam *is* the dominant political force!
Note, by the way, that all of the above are about criticism of **Islam**, the idea system (they are not about views of Muslims). Thus, Runnymede is indeed *explicitly* trying to rule out certain criticisms of Islam, including all of the above!
In order to not be "Islamophobic", to see Islam with "open" views, you need to see it as "progressive", "equally worthy of respect" to other cultures, and as a "partner" in "cooperative enterprises". And again, you're required to see **Islam** (the ideology) in that way, not just Muslim people or Muslim-majority nations that way!
So, I stand by my previous comment. The Runnymede report does *explicitly* try to rule out as illegitimate a wide swathe of reasonable criticisms of Islam.
16
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'...?
> The worrying reality is that in Britain there has been a creeping process of normalisation of anti-Muslim rhetoric, with some mainstream media outlets such as The Daily Mail , The Sun and The Daily Express and some politicians adopting positions not dissimilar to those promoted by anti-Muslim “counter-jihadists.
'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'...?
Post edited at 19:54
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
This is the point that those using the term "Islamophobia" don't get:
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/876817219589722112
This is the point that those using the term "Islamophobia" don't get:
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/876817219589722112
3
In reply to TobyA:
And this is a good one also:
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/877466670855585792
And this is a good one also:
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/877466670855585792
1
In reply to wintertree:
Ok I see your point. It wouldn't be acceptable for someone in a face to face group discussion to yell 'racist' when someone makes a point they dislike. IMO it's not acceptable here either; then again neither are the anonymous dislikes (the equivalent of jeering, in my mind).
Each side uses insults and slander in an attempt to delegitimise the other's (perceived) position, which stifles debate.
In reply to no one in particular: I think if you're going to chuck out an insult, it's worth making sure you know why you're saying it, and be prepared to reference and reason your position. If I tell someone I think they're being racist, make no mistake I'll tell them why and would (happily) say the same to their face.
Equally, if you feel like chucking in a 'dislike' from the sidelines, it's worth taking the time to either f*ck off, or attempt to elaborate your position with a little more care. What exactly are you disliking?
When's the last time you were jeered in a face to face / group discussion? Unless you're an MP or councillor I'll venture - never.
Otherwise, you're just being a dick on the internet, because you can.
Cue dislikes...
> I'm sick of being libellously and factually incorrectly called a racist but people on here so I tend to keep my arguments to myself on this subject.
Ok I see your point. It wouldn't be acceptable for someone in a face to face group discussion to yell 'racist' when someone makes a point they dislike. IMO it's not acceptable here either; then again neither are the anonymous dislikes (the equivalent of jeering, in my mind).
Each side uses insults and slander in an attempt to delegitimise the other's (perceived) position, which stifles debate.
In reply to no one in particular: I think if you're going to chuck out an insult, it's worth making sure you know why you're saying it, and be prepared to reference and reason your position. If I tell someone I think they're being racist, make no mistake I'll tell them why and would (happily) say the same to their face.
Equally, if you feel like chucking in a 'dislike' from the sidelines, it's worth taking the time to either f*ck off, or attempt to elaborate your position with a little more care. What exactly are you disliking?
When's the last time you were jeered in a face to face / group discussion? Unless you're an MP or councillor I'll venture - never.
Otherwise, you're just being a dick on the internet, because you can.
Cue dislikes...
5
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Now that we've cleared that up, what do you think about how Islam and Muslims are talked about in the media, which is what the article I linked to is generally about?
Now that we've cleared that up, what do you think about how Islam and Muslims are talked about in the media, which is what the article I linked to is generally about?
Post edited at 20:10
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
Of the parts of the media that I read or listen to (The Times, Guardian, BBC News, Channel 4 News, and similar) the discussion of Muslims is fairly positive, and overall they seem to try hard to say positive things about Muslims. They also try to whitewash Islam (the ideology) to a large extent, downplaying the harmful aspects of it and avoiding criticism of it.
I don't read the tabloids, so no comment on them.
> ... what do you think about how Muslims are talked about in the media, ...
Of the parts of the media that I read or listen to (The Times, Guardian, BBC News, Channel 4 News, and similar) the discussion of Muslims is fairly positive, and overall they seem to try hard to say positive things about Muslims. They also try to whitewash Islam (the ideology) to a large extent, downplaying the harmful aspects of it and avoiding criticism of it.
I don't read the tabloids, so no comment on them.
9
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You've no comment on what I linked to, other than your dislike of the world Islamophobia?
You've no comment on what I linked to, other than your dislike of the world Islamophobia?
Post edited at 20:16
4
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes, and others disagree with those 'literal' interpretations.
Some. Others not.
Actually mainstream Sunni and Shia theology explicitly separates obligation to God and obligation to your ruler - see the comments from various imams after the Manchester attacks basically excommunicating the bomber for his disloyalty to Britain, and only via that disloyalty to God. But anyway, I suspect you know, there is considerable theological resistance to Islamism both by quietist strains like many Sufi brotherhoods and ultraconservatives such as Wahabbis.
But that's not what you originally said, and you above have shown you have open understanding of the religious tradition as an artefact of human culture and therefore as variable as the thoughts of those believers.
Anyway, what would you call the kind of hatred aimed at Muslims in general, as demonstrated most vividly by Darren Osborne if you feel that calling it Islamophobia is getting at you?
> Well, many Muslims *do* have a literal take on the Koran
Yes, and others disagree with those 'literal' interpretations.
> Well some variants of it are!
Some. Others not.
> "Islam seen as a political ideology ..." It generally does not recognise separation of church and state,
Actually mainstream Sunni and Shia theology explicitly separates obligation to God and obligation to your ruler - see the comments from various imams after the Manchester attacks basically excommunicating the bomber for his disloyalty to Britain, and only via that disloyalty to God. But anyway, I suspect you know, there is considerable theological resistance to Islamism both by quietist strains like many Sufi brotherhoods and ultraconservatives such as Wahabbis.
> Thus, Runnymede is indeed *explicitly* trying to rule out certain criticisms of Islam,
> The Runnymede report does *explicitly* try to rule out as illegitimate a wide swathe of reasonable criticisms of Islam.
But that's not what you originally said, and you above have shown you have open understanding of the religious tradition as an artefact of human culture and therefore as variable as the thoughts of those believers.
Anyway, what would you call the kind of hatred aimed at Muslims in general, as demonstrated most vividly by Darren Osborne if you feel that calling it Islamophobia is getting at you?
4
3
In reply to TobyA:
I'd call it "anti-Muslim prejudice" or "anti-Muslim hatred".
We **have** to maintain the distinction between disliking ideas and disliking people!
> Anyway, what would you call the kind of hatred aimed at Muslims in general, as demonstrated most vividly by Darren Osborne if you feel that calling it Islamophobia is getting at you?
I'd call it "anti-Muslim prejudice" or "anti-Muslim hatred".
We **have** to maintain the distinction between disliking ideas and disliking people!
7
In reply to Coel Hellier:
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/876817219589722112
If that's truly your position (and I don't doubt it) it's an admirable and common-sense approach, with which I agree completely:
(To the first I'd add criticism of all dogma, especially Judaeo-Christian dogma which does seem to be both remarkably persistent and pernicious; intrinsically bigoted.)
The second part of the quote brings us back directly to the OP. It's necessary and important to frame the terms of the debate, so yes the semantics of 'Islamophobia' do matter. But the fact is that anti-Western and anti-Muslim sentiments are being stirred by radicals on both sides. At the end of the day, it's about people, not words.
> This is the point that those using the term "Islamophobia" don't get:
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/876817219589722112
If that's truly your position (and I don't doubt it) it's an admirable and common-sense approach, with which I agree completely:
> It is more important now than ever, to challenge and criticise the doctrine of Islam.
> It is more important now than ever, to protect and defend the rights of Muslims.
(To the first I'd add criticism of all dogma, especially Judaeo-Christian dogma which does seem to be both remarkably persistent and pernicious; intrinsically bigoted.)
The second part of the quote brings us back directly to the OP. It's necessary and important to frame the terms of the debate, so yes the semantics of 'Islamophobia' do matter. But the fact is that anti-Western and anti-Muslim sentiments are being stirred by radicals on both sides. At the end of the day, it's about people, not words.
Post edited at 20:33
2
1
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
Really? If I were to criticise communism or capitalism or socialism or free markets or fascism or any non-religious ideology, no-one would have any problem with it. But criticise Islam and you get howled down and labelled an "extremist" and a "bigot" and all sorts of worse things -- as happens to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Asra Nomani, Ali Rizvi, Maryam Namazie and just about any ex-Muslim or Islamic reformer who is critical of Islam. And the noticeable thing is that it is often the "left" in the West, those who regard themselves as "progressives", who should be the most vocal supporters, who are actually the most vocal in attacking such people. Why won't Western "progressives" and "liberals" stick up for ex-Muslims?
> Is it? I'm not sure who is saying what Gervais says people are saying.
Really? If I were to criticise communism or capitalism or socialism or free markets or fascism or any non-religious ideology, no-one would have any problem with it. But criticise Islam and you get howled down and labelled an "extremist" and a "bigot" and all sorts of worse things -- as happens to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Asra Nomani, Ali Rizvi, Maryam Namazie and just about any ex-Muslim or Islamic reformer who is critical of Islam. And the noticeable thing is that it is often the "left" in the West, those who regard themselves as "progressives", who should be the most vocal supporters, who are actually the most vocal in attacking such people. Why won't Western "progressives" and "liberals" stick up for ex-Muslims?
11
1
In reply to Timmd:
My comment is that the whole article needs to be re-written from a more neutral perspective, not be written by an activist like Joe Mulhall of "Hope not Hate", who is one of those who strews the term "Islamophobia" around to try to whitewash Islam, and who cannot tell the difference between an anti-Muslim bigot (i.e. somebody who hates *people*) and a critic of Islam who is against Islam (the ideology) because they are *pro* people, that is *pro* the Muslims (the people) who are actually the ones who suffer most because of Islam (the ideology).
In short I'm highly dubious about such as Joe Mulhall and much prefer voices such as Maajid Nawaz.
E.g:
"Maajid Nawaz of the Quillian Foundation, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir member who now campaigns against extremism and stood for the Liberal Democrats in May’s general election, said the document was part of a “witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots”. In a tweet to Hope Not Hate, Mr Nawaz said the report was “totally discredited and not worth the ink it's printed on because you've listed Muslim reformers as anti-Muslims”."
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/concerns-over-report-into-anti-muslim-ha...
> You've no comment on what I linked to, other than your dislike of the world Islamophobia?
My comment is that the whole article needs to be re-written from a more neutral perspective, not be written by an activist like Joe Mulhall of "Hope not Hate", who is one of those who strews the term "Islamophobia" around to try to whitewash Islam, and who cannot tell the difference between an anti-Muslim bigot (i.e. somebody who hates *people*) and a critic of Islam who is against Islam (the ideology) because they are *pro* people, that is *pro* the Muslims (the people) who are actually the ones who suffer most because of Islam (the ideology).
In short I'm highly dubious about such as Joe Mulhall and much prefer voices such as Maajid Nawaz.
E.g:
"Maajid Nawaz of the Quillian Foundation, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir member who now campaigns against extremism and stood for the Liberal Democrats in May’s general election, said the document was part of a “witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots”. In a tweet to Hope Not Hate, Mr Nawaz said the report was “totally discredited and not worth the ink it's printed on because you've listed Muslim reformers as anti-Muslims”."
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/concerns-over-report-into-anti-muslim-ha...
7
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Who exactly won't stick up for them? I'm sure some people are quite willing to argue with them, and politics gets heated, over their ideas but Hirsi Ali got asylum and citizenship in liberal Holland and then bodyguards once she was an MP and threatened by extremists. And Quilliam was funded mainly by the Blair government for a good number of years, progressives n'est ce pas? Nawaz always talks about the AI supporters who campaigned for his release from Egyptian prison, although I guess you would say that doesn't count as he was an Islamist back then!
> Why won't Western "progressives" and "liberals" stick up for ex-Muslims?
Who exactly won't stick up for them? I'm sure some people are quite willing to argue with them, and politics gets heated, over their ideas but Hirsi Ali got asylum and citizenship in liberal Holland and then bodyguards once she was an MP and threatened by extremists. And Quilliam was funded mainly by the Blair government for a good number of years, progressives n'est ce pas? Nawaz always talks about the AI supporters who campaigned for his release from Egyptian prison, although I guess you would say that doesn't count as he was an Islamist back then!
2
3
In reply to TobyA:
The Blair governments credentials as 'progressive and liberal' with regard to Muslims, went up in flames at about the same time as large parts of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Blair governments credentials as 'progressive and liberal' with regard to Muslims, went up in flames at about the same time as large parts of Iraq and Afghanistan.
1
In reply to TobyA:
Plenty of left-leaning people who should do:
The Great Betrayal: How Liberals Appease Islam, NICK COHEN
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5886/full
The liberal racism faced by ex-Muslims
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-liberal-racism-faced-by-ex...
How liberal Britain is betraying ex-Muslims
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-liberal-britain-is-betraying-ex-mus...
Liberal Muslims face an uphill battle
https://nowtoronto.com/news/think-free-blog/liberal-muslims-face-an-uphill-...
Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to...
On Betrayal by the Left – Talking with Ex-Muslim Sarah Haider
http://quillette.com/2017/03/16/on-betrayal-by-the-left-talking-with-ex-mus...
> Who exactly won't stick up for them?
Plenty of left-leaning people who should do:
The Great Betrayal: How Liberals Appease Islam, NICK COHEN
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5886/full
The liberal racism faced by ex-Muslims
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-liberal-racism-faced-by-ex...
How liberal Britain is betraying ex-Muslims
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-liberal-britain-is-betraying-ex-mus...
Liberal Muslims face an uphill battle
https://nowtoronto.com/news/think-free-blog/liberal-muslims-face-an-uphill-...
Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to...
On Betrayal by the Left – Talking with Ex-Muslim Sarah Haider
http://quillette.com/2017/03/16/on-betrayal-by-the-left-talking-with-ex-mus...
10
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I did... simply because it's been a while, you didn't have any, and I didn't want you to feel disappointed in your judgement of us all.
> Cue dislikes...
I did... simply because it's been a while, you didn't have any, and I didn't want you to feel disappointed in your judgement of us all.
5
In reply to Deadeye:
You get a dislike for disliking his point about disliking dislikes.
> I did... simply because it's been a while, you didn't have any, and I didn't want you to feel disappointed in your judgement of us all.
You get a dislike for disliking his point about disliking dislikes.
6
In reply to Stichtplate:
Ha. Raising you.
> You get a dislike for disliking his point about disliking dislikes.
Ha. Raising you.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Were you a Euston Manifesto signatory? I suspect not. Certain parts of the far left have long embraced anyone who was sufficiently anti-American or anti-Israeli enough to tickle their fancy, including Hamas and Hezbollah shills, but they have tended to be extremists in their own right. But others who could only be described as left or progressive have stood against them.
I find Cohen's position pretty honourable - I bought "What's Left?" when it came out maybe in 03 0r 04 and cited him a number of times in my own research - but his focus is often small, really it's different factions of the far-ish to very-far left in competition with each other. Amusingly you also cite Spiked which was started by a bunch of genocide-denying Trots and Tankies who reinvented themselves after LM was bankrupted after libeling honourable reporters who wouldn't deny or try to cover up mass killings and rape.
Were you a Euston Manifesto signatory? I suspect not. Certain parts of the far left have long embraced anyone who was sufficiently anti-American or anti-Israeli enough to tickle their fancy, including Hamas and Hezbollah shills, but they have tended to be extremists in their own right. But others who could only be described as left or progressive have stood against them.
I find Cohen's position pretty honourable - I bought "What's Left?" when it came out maybe in 03 0r 04 and cited him a number of times in my own research - but his focus is often small, really it's different factions of the far-ish to very-far left in competition with each other. Amusingly you also cite Spiked which was started by a bunch of genocide-denying Trots and Tankies who reinvented themselves after LM was bankrupted after libeling honourable reporters who wouldn't deny or try to cover up mass killings and rape.
4
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
The British state's relationship with different Muslim communities both in the UK and transnationally is considerably more complex than that! Hence things like getting close to and then backing away from the MCB and chucking money at Quilliam for some time. Labour Party politics in certain areas also came into it, although I bet things haven't change so much post 2010 either when I stopped working on these issues that closely.
> The Blair governments credentials as 'progressive and liberal' with regard to Muslims, went up in flames at about the same time as large parts of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The British state's relationship with different Muslim communities both in the UK and transnationally is considerably more complex than that! Hence things like getting close to and then backing away from the MCB and chucking money at Quilliam for some time. Labour Party politics in certain areas also came into it, although I bet things haven't change so much post 2010 either when I stopped working on these issues that closely.
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There's a bit more to it than this.
Firstly, I dispute the idea that Islam is an ideology. It isn't, it's a religion, and as such has a very diverse range of interpretations. Islamism, on the other hand, is a political ideology that you could compare to socialism or free market capitalism. Islam, you would be rather better comparing to Christianity or Judaism, don't you think?
Next, there's the question of why people like Hirsi-Ali get a load of abuse from a very small group that it's become trendy to call "the left" - when actually, they're a very narrow group of shouty students in US universities. It isn't the left, it isn't people who actually listen to what these people say who oppose them. This shouty bunch are then referred to as "the left" by disingenuous right-wingers in an attempt to discredit left-wing political ideas. The equivalent would be the EDL referred to simply as "the right". So why does Hirsi-Ali get the abuse? I don't think it's because of the actual content of what she says, I think it's because she chooses to ally herself with some of the biggest right-wing bell-ends on the planet. Mainly because these people dislike Muslims (as a tribe, rather than as individuals) so they can't get enough of someone like Hirsi-Ali who gives very reasoned criticism of Islam. I doubt they would take quite so kindly to someone giving reasoned criticism of the completely bonkers and abusive customs of Hicidic Jews (to pick an example, you know, off the top of my head).
Now, then there's the question of whether it's actually a good argument to level criticism at the religion of Islam, when one could choose instead to be more pointed and criticise the political ideology of Islamism. Trouble is, there's a double standard when slagging off Islam, which is it's selective: it's taking the versions you don't like and painting a huge religion with enormous diversity with that brush. Not generally recognised as a good way to behave. This is where we roll out the survey data and show that it's a big chunk of Muslims who believe stuff we don't like. Well yeah, but that doesn't mean that you have a single ideology that teaches these ideas. We haven't got equivalent data for how many of the world's Christians also hold obnoxious beliefs (e.g. on homosexuality), but I reckon it's pretty high too...but that's not convenient information. The reason I think it's popular to talk about the whole of Islam in a one-er, and present it as a single, evil ideology is because Muslims are, psychologically to other groups - let's say, picking an example completely at random, Jews - a tribe. A different tribe, a classic out-group with different holy books, clothes, food, language, etc.
The effort that's been put in to give what's pretty naked tribalism a veneer of intellectual integrity by saying "no, it's a legitimate (selective, motivated reasoning) criticism of ideas", is perhaps, commendable. But for me I'm afraid it simply doesn't wash.
> Really? If I were to criticise communism or capitalism or socialism or free markets or fascism or any non-religious ideology, no-one would have any problem with it. But criticise Islam and you get howled down and labelled an "extremist" and a "bigot" and all sorts of worse things -- as happens to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Asra Nomani, Ali Rizvi, Maryam Namazie and just about any ex-Muslim or Islamic reformer who is critical of Islam. And the noticeable thing is that it is often the "left" in the West, those who regard themselves as "progressives", who should be the most vocal supporters, who are actually the most vocal in attacking such people. Why won't Western "progressives" and "liberals" stick up for ex-Muslims?
There's a bit more to it than this.
Firstly, I dispute the idea that Islam is an ideology. It isn't, it's a religion, and as such has a very diverse range of interpretations. Islamism, on the other hand, is a political ideology that you could compare to socialism or free market capitalism. Islam, you would be rather better comparing to Christianity or Judaism, don't you think?
Next, there's the question of why people like Hirsi-Ali get a load of abuse from a very small group that it's become trendy to call "the left" - when actually, they're a very narrow group of shouty students in US universities. It isn't the left, it isn't people who actually listen to what these people say who oppose them. This shouty bunch are then referred to as "the left" by disingenuous right-wingers in an attempt to discredit left-wing political ideas. The equivalent would be the EDL referred to simply as "the right". So why does Hirsi-Ali get the abuse? I don't think it's because of the actual content of what she says, I think it's because she chooses to ally herself with some of the biggest right-wing bell-ends on the planet. Mainly because these people dislike Muslims (as a tribe, rather than as individuals) so they can't get enough of someone like Hirsi-Ali who gives very reasoned criticism of Islam. I doubt they would take quite so kindly to someone giving reasoned criticism of the completely bonkers and abusive customs of Hicidic Jews (to pick an example, you know, off the top of my head).
Now, then there's the question of whether it's actually a good argument to level criticism at the religion of Islam, when one could choose instead to be more pointed and criticise the political ideology of Islamism. Trouble is, there's a double standard when slagging off Islam, which is it's selective: it's taking the versions you don't like and painting a huge religion with enormous diversity with that brush. Not generally recognised as a good way to behave. This is where we roll out the survey data and show that it's a big chunk of Muslims who believe stuff we don't like. Well yeah, but that doesn't mean that you have a single ideology that teaches these ideas. We haven't got equivalent data for how many of the world's Christians also hold obnoxious beliefs (e.g. on homosexuality), but I reckon it's pretty high too...but that's not convenient information. The reason I think it's popular to talk about the whole of Islam in a one-er, and present it as a single, evil ideology is because Muslims are, psychologically to other groups - let's say, picking an example completely at random, Jews - a tribe. A different tribe, a classic out-group with different holy books, clothes, food, language, etc.
The effort that's been put in to give what's pretty naked tribalism a veneer of intellectual integrity by saying "no, it's a legitimate (selective, motivated reasoning) criticism of ideas", is perhaps, commendable. But for me I'm afraid it simply doesn't wash.
Post edited at 23:49
11
4
In reply to Shani:
Toby, here is Piers Morgan shutting down a criticism of Islam by conflating ideology (Islam) with the people who follow that ideology (Muslims), under the blunt term 'Islamophobia':
From 1.14: ? youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Somewhat bizarrely, the EDL bloke comes across as more rational than Piers Morgan!
(He's still a knob though).
Toby, here is Piers Morgan shutting down a criticism of Islam by conflating ideology (Islam) with the people who follow that ideology (Muslims), under the blunt term 'Islamophobia':
From 1.14: ? youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Somewhat bizarrely, the EDL bloke comes across as more rational than Piers Morgan!
(He's still a knob though).
2
In reply to TobyA:
Exactly which sections of the Muslim Ummah were applauding the invasion and long term occupation of Muslim countries? And did anyone regard Blairs subsequent lap of honour as Middle East peace envoy as anything other than a sick joke?
Exactly which sections of the Muslim Ummah were applauding the invasion and long term occupation of Muslim countries? And did anyone regard Blairs subsequent lap of honour as Middle East peace envoy as anything other than a sick joke?
3
In reply to Stichtplate:
Not many, but when you are self appointed community leader in Bradford vying for grants or other largese against a different self appointed community leader in, say, Luton - that anger can dissipate as you try to cosy up to your local MP or the home office. Others just saw 'playing the game' as fine if it got them funding to do something good they wanted to do - hence stories of kindergartens funded by PREVENT money or the like!
Not many, but when you are self appointed community leader in Bradford vying for grants or other largese against a different self appointed community leader in, say, Luton - that anger can dissipate as you try to cosy up to your local MP or the home office. Others just saw 'playing the game' as fine if it got them funding to do something good they wanted to do - hence stories of kindergartens funded by PREVENT money or the like!
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Top stuff Jon - your view of why shouty lefties on campuses shout at people like Hirsi Ali feels spot on having watched this stuff for year. She did marry Niall Ferguson! Shouty lefties do see him as the most prominent academic apologist for empire for example.
Top stuff Jon - your view of why shouty lefties on campuses shout at people like Hirsi Ali feels spot on having watched this stuff for year. She did marry Niall Ferguson! Shouty lefties do see him as the most prominent academic apologist for empire for example.
5
3
In reply to FactorXXX:
I know! I was really worried about posting something in favour of Robinson, but unbelievably, he hits the nail on the head, and Morgan plays out the point beautifully. It's shocking.
As i understand Robinson he has moderated his position somewhat and joined a cross party, anti extremism group, which might explain the nuance and robustness of his argument.
> Somewhat bizarrely, the EDL bloke comes across as more rational than Piers Morgan!
I know! I was really worried about posting something in favour of Robinson, but unbelievably, he hits the nail on the head, and Morgan plays out the point beautifully. It's shocking.
As i understand Robinson he has moderated his position somewhat and joined a cross party, anti extremism group, which might explain the nuance and robustness of his argument.
1
1
In reply to Shani:
He hasn't. He left the EDL, that was negotiated by the Quilliam Foundation, but he soon turned on them. Money or lack thereof seemed to be an issue (he went to prison for mortgage fraud I think). If you follow him on Twitter, where he is prolific, you'll get the gist of his ideas very quickly.
> As i understand Robinson he has moderated his position somewhat and joined a cross party, anti extremism group, which might explain the nuance and robustness of his argument.
He hasn't. He left the EDL, that was negotiated by the Quilliam Foundation, but he soon turned on them. Money or lack thereof seemed to be an issue (he went to prison for mortgage fraud I think). If you follow him on Twitter, where he is prolific, you'll get the gist of his ideas very quickly.
Post edited at 08:20
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
Thanks for that. I don't follow him on Twitter and only know of him from appearences on TV and radio. His arguments as outlined above are robust and I was curious as to why the quality of his reasoning seemed to have improved somewhat - I guess that is from involvement with the Quilliam Foundation. However, it does make me feel uncomfortable siding with him - even in this capacity.
> He hasn't. He left the EDL, that was negotiated by the Quilliam Foundation, but he soon turned on them. Money or lack thereof seemed to be an issue (he went to prison for mortgage fraud I think). If you follow him on Twitter, where he is prolific, you'll get the gist of his ideas very quickly.
Thanks for that. I don't follow him on Twitter and only know of him from appearences on TV and radio. His arguments as outlined above are robust and I was curious as to why the quality of his reasoning seemed to have improved somewhat - I guess that is from involvement with the Quilliam Foundation. However, it does make me feel uncomfortable siding with him - even in this capacity.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
This is one of the usual tactics used to disallow criticism of Islam: "It's so diverse that it is impossible to say anything about it". Well, yes, if it fairly diverse, but there are also lots of similarities across mainstream Islam. That's why it is sensible to use a term like "Islam" at all.
It's the same with Christianity or socialism or free-market capitalism, yes there is a lot of diversity within such idea-systems but there is also enough commonality. If I'm criticising "Christianity", everyone accepts that I'm criticising the basic ideas that are common to mainstream variants of Christianity.
Similarly, there really is a lot of commonality in mainstream "Islamic" ideas as manifest in many of the Muslim-majority nations across the world. We really can compare and contrast Islamic-majority countries with what we call "Western" countries.
> Trouble is, there's a double standard when slagging off Islam, which is it's selective: it's taking the versions you don't like and painting a huge religion with enormous diversity with that brush.
This is one of the usual tactics used to disallow criticism of Islam: "It's so diverse that it is impossible to say anything about it". Well, yes, if it fairly diverse, but there are also lots of similarities across mainstream Islam. That's why it is sensible to use a term like "Islam" at all.
It's the same with Christianity or socialism or free-market capitalism, yes there is a lot of diversity within such idea-systems but there is also enough commonality. If I'm criticising "Christianity", everyone accepts that I'm criticising the basic ideas that are common to mainstream variants of Christianity.
Similarly, there really is a lot of commonality in mainstream "Islamic" ideas as manifest in many of the Muslim-majority nations across the world. We really can compare and contrast Islamic-majority countries with what we call "Western" countries.
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Good spot - that was exactly my point. Apologies to Coel if he thought I was being serious.
> I did wonder if Dunc was possibly being a little ironic in support of Coel. I don't hang around enough on UKC to know his or Coel's history (if any).
Good spot - that was exactly my point. Apologies to Coel if he thought I was being serious.
1
In reply to TobyA:
You can't have watched Hirsi Ali very closely.
She was almost stereotypical in her grounding, political scientist, working with immigrants and refugees, women's groups, into the (Dutch) Labour Party and on a fast track to becoming a tick box MP.
The Dutch left didn't want someone criticising muslims, Pim Fortuyn was assassinated in May 2002, Hirsi Ali leaving the Labour Party 6 months later.
If the Dutch left were willing to kill people who were antagonistic towards Islam you can see it was a frustrating time for Ali who felt she wasn't supported.
She was pushed out more than she was drawn the Right, the Labour Party being the obvious choice for someone like her.
It's victim blaming to claim she's hated because she associates with the Right, the problem, (here and in the Netherlands, before and after Ali's experience) is the Left embracing conservative Islam.
> Top stuff Jon - your view of why shouty lefties on campuses shout at people like Hirsi Ali feels spot on having watched this stuff for year.
You can't have watched Hirsi Ali very closely.
She was almost stereotypical in her grounding, political scientist, working with immigrants and refugees, women's groups, into the (Dutch) Labour Party and on a fast track to becoming a tick box MP.
The Dutch left didn't want someone criticising muslims, Pim Fortuyn was assassinated in May 2002, Hirsi Ali leaving the Labour Party 6 months later.
If the Dutch left were willing to kill people who were antagonistic towards Islam you can see it was a frustrating time for Ali who felt she wasn't supported.
She was pushed out more than she was drawn the Right, the Labour Party being the obvious choice for someone like her.
It's victim blaming to claim she's hated because she associates with the Right, the problem, (here and in the Netherlands, before and after Ali's experience) is the Left embracing conservative Islam.
4
In reply to Timmd:
I don't think it's a phobia. A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder and therefore more likely a pathology. Phobias can't really be described as wanton hatred, which is exactly what Tommy Robinson is expressing.
Robinson brought on such hatred himself. It is self-generated. He is acting on, and is driven by, allegiances to narrow political dogma rather than against religion. Jihadist militants are exactly the same; embodying some of the worst things human beings have done to one another in the name of, or justified by religion - actually political - and just as narrow and dogmatic as those held by The EDL.
Politics is actually the toxic thing going on here. It is capable of distortion and destruction, such that otherwise peaceful practices and beliefs turn from protagonist for many, to antagonist for others. Politics can transform tolerance into hatred in a heartbeat.
I don't think it's a phobia. A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder and therefore more likely a pathology. Phobias can't really be described as wanton hatred, which is exactly what Tommy Robinson is expressing.
Robinson brought on such hatred himself. It is self-generated. He is acting on, and is driven by, allegiances to narrow political dogma rather than against religion. Jihadist militants are exactly the same; embodying some of the worst things human beings have done to one another in the name of, or justified by religion - actually political - and just as narrow and dogmatic as those held by The EDL.
Politics is actually the toxic thing going on here. It is capable of distortion and destruction, such that otherwise peaceful practices and beliefs turn from protagonist for many, to antagonist for others. Politics can transform tolerance into hatred in a heartbeat.
1
In reply to winhill:
Exactly. She's one of the most moderate and humane people around.
If she said everything she says, but aimed at the status of women in traditional, patriarchal, *Catholic* societies, the left would drool all over her.
But since her critiques are aimed at traditional, patriarchal, *Islamic* societies, the left recoils with horror: "You can't criticise those people, they're *brown*!".
If you then point out that Ayaan is darker skinned than most people, they just resort to ad-hom: "anti-Muslim extremist", as an excuse to ignore her.
> It's victim blaming to claim she's hated because she associates with the Right, the problem, (here and in the Netherlands, before and after Ali's experience) is the Left embracing conservative Islam.
Exactly. She's one of the most moderate and humane people around.
If she said everything she says, but aimed at the status of women in traditional, patriarchal, *Catholic* societies, the left would drool all over her.
But since her critiques are aimed at traditional, patriarchal, *Islamic* societies, the left recoils with horror: "You can't criticise those people, they're *brown*!".
If you then point out that Ayaan is darker skinned than most people, they just resort to ad-hom: "anti-Muslim extremist", as an excuse to ignore her.
5
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This is a good bit from Chris Allen who fancies himself as an expert on Islamophobia (it was the title of his book).
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-chris-allen/islamophobia_b_17214242.html
I don't think there is much enthusiasm for a change in title, although I would say that by trying to limit how we consider Islam it shows it's racist roots and always will do.
It;s interesting to look at 2016, the worst 2 Islamophobic crimes, 2 murders of muslims, were committed by other muslims, so the definition has to allow for someone who is not just 'a muslim' but is specifically targeted for their religious beliefs.
This also means that when we talk about Islamophobic incidents we have to allow that some relate to muslim sectarianism.
It's also noteworthy that in 2016 the Places of Worship security fund (that Amber Rudd is extolling right now) only 2 mosques actually signed up to receive free money. The second tranche closed 28th May 2017, so no figures for that yet. Rudd says it is still available to it will be interesting if there is a better up take.
As it was, more churches got free money than mosques, even though their threat level is pretty low but the fund was actually set up because muslims complained that the Jews were getting free money and they coveted what the Jews had.
> I'd call it "anti-Muslim prejudice" or "anti-Muslim hatred".
This is a good bit from Chris Allen who fancies himself as an expert on Islamophobia (it was the title of his book).
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-chris-allen/islamophobia_b_17214242.html
I don't think there is much enthusiasm for a change in title, although I would say that by trying to limit how we consider Islam it shows it's racist roots and always will do.
It;s interesting to look at 2016, the worst 2 Islamophobic crimes, 2 murders of muslims, were committed by other muslims, so the definition has to allow for someone who is not just 'a muslim' but is specifically targeted for their religious beliefs.
This also means that when we talk about Islamophobic incidents we have to allow that some relate to muslim sectarianism.
It's also noteworthy that in 2016 the Places of Worship security fund (that Amber Rudd is extolling right now) only 2 mosques actually signed up to receive free money. The second tranche closed 28th May 2017, so no figures for that yet. Rudd says it is still available to it will be interesting if there is a better up take.
As it was, more churches got free money than mosques, even though their threat level is pretty low but the fund was actually set up because muslims complained that the Jews were getting free money and they coveted what the Jews had.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well rather than accuse you of making a low quality straw man argument, which is obviously way beneath you, I shall clarify my position.
It's fine to criticise Islam. After all, it's a load of crap, much like Judaism and Christianity. It's generally illiberal, repressive nonsense. These broad criticisms are fair, but of course they also apply to the other religions, to different degrees depending on which sect of which religion you choose. One might argue that averaged across the whole, Islam is worse than either Judaism or Christianity on measures of repression and general retardedness, and this could be quite compelling. But it's a rather silly point, why 'average across the whole', when the 'whole' in question is so huge and diverse? And what purpose does a competition of retardedness between major religions achieve?
Presumably the problems we as western liberal people have with Islam are the areas where Islam cuts across human rights, and most specifically, our security, i.e. Islamist terrorism and extremism. Muslims in general do not believe in Islamist extremism (attempts, e.g. by Ben Shapiro to show that most Muslims are extremists unravel very quickly). So the ideology behind the terrorism is not Islam, the religion (which is diverse and not political), it is Islamism (which is much less diverse, and is political).
So which is the ideology we should attack? Is it Islam, the enormous religion of a billion-odd people (good luck with attacking that, a futile task if ever there was one)? Or is it Islamist extremism? If you think there is any practical purpose in attacking the whole religion of Islam, you're deluded. All this tactic will achieve is alienating the very people who are most able to make a difference: Muslims. Attacking Islam, rather than Islamism, panders to the ludicrous "war between Islam and the West" narrative of Osama Bin Laden - then played upon for the purposes of US foreign policy (give or take sucking the balls of the terrorist-funding epicentre of Islamist extremism, the Saudis whom the anti-Islamic, pro-US, pro-Israel right wingers remain markedly quiet about considering how they fund the whole kit and kaboodle of Islamist extremism in the West, but hey-ho you get used to the suffocating stench of hypocrisy after a while).
The question is this: why attack Islam rather than Islamism, if the problem is human rights and security? I've offered my explanation of why it's a popular approach (tribalism), what's your justification?
Yes, you can. But it's an intellectually vapid exercise in motivated reasoning at best, and more realistically and worryingly it's a contribution to division and hatred in society.
If you start with the premise "Islam is bad" and then set out to find empirical justification by, say, comparing human rights records, measures of economic success etc, between majority Muslim and western nations, then hooray, you can show how true your wonderful, insightful proposition is! Well done! Islam is bad and here's the proof, just look at the numbers!
That's not a useful piece of analysis, it's fruitless nonsense born of deeply unattractive motivation. Firstly, it doesn't have any purpose - you can't persuade Muslims to give up their religion by showing them data on how badly Muslim nations do on international comparisons. And anyway, if you wanted to go down this path of seeing why bad outcomes happen to people globally, then you have to analyse on every measure you can think of and try to work out the causality. Is it the "deep religiosity effect" or the "corruption effect" or the "unhelpful military intervention effect" or the "high birth rate effect", etc, etc, etc that's the cause of the bad outcomes? I'm sure you understand the difference between analysis that attempts to draw out probable causation, and coming up with a postulate "Islam is bad" and then setting out to find data to prove it? Your comment however, does not portray such understanding.
So my question is, given that there is no practical purpose in blathering on about how dreadful Islam is, and that many of the same criticisms of being plainly wrong and unhelpful in improving outcomes for people apply also to other religions, why, when you know that you're backing-up division and hatred within society, do you think it's such a great idea?
> This is one of the usual tactics used to disallow criticism of Islam: "It's so diverse that it is impossible to say anything about it". Well, yes, if it fairly diverse, but there are also lots of similarities across mainstream Islam. That's why it is sensible to use a term like "Islam" at all.
Well rather than accuse you of making a low quality straw man argument, which is obviously way beneath you, I shall clarify my position.
It's fine to criticise Islam. After all, it's a load of crap, much like Judaism and Christianity. It's generally illiberal, repressive nonsense. These broad criticisms are fair, but of course they also apply to the other religions, to different degrees depending on which sect of which religion you choose. One might argue that averaged across the whole, Islam is worse than either Judaism or Christianity on measures of repression and general retardedness, and this could be quite compelling. But it's a rather silly point, why 'average across the whole', when the 'whole' in question is so huge and diverse? And what purpose does a competition of retardedness between major religions achieve?
Presumably the problems we as western liberal people have with Islam are the areas where Islam cuts across human rights, and most specifically, our security, i.e. Islamist terrorism and extremism. Muslims in general do not believe in Islamist extremism (attempts, e.g. by Ben Shapiro to show that most Muslims are extremists unravel very quickly). So the ideology behind the terrorism is not Islam, the religion (which is diverse and not political), it is Islamism (which is much less diverse, and is political).
So which is the ideology we should attack? Is it Islam, the enormous religion of a billion-odd people (good luck with attacking that, a futile task if ever there was one)? Or is it Islamist extremism? If you think there is any practical purpose in attacking the whole religion of Islam, you're deluded. All this tactic will achieve is alienating the very people who are most able to make a difference: Muslims. Attacking Islam, rather than Islamism, panders to the ludicrous "war between Islam and the West" narrative of Osama Bin Laden - then played upon for the purposes of US foreign policy (give or take sucking the balls of the terrorist-funding epicentre of Islamist extremism, the Saudis whom the anti-Islamic, pro-US, pro-Israel right wingers remain markedly quiet about considering how they fund the whole kit and kaboodle of Islamist extremism in the West, but hey-ho you get used to the suffocating stench of hypocrisy after a while).
The question is this: why attack Islam rather than Islamism, if the problem is human rights and security? I've offered my explanation of why it's a popular approach (tribalism), what's your justification?
> Similarly, there really is a lot of commonality in mainstream "Islamic" ideas as manifest in many of the Muslim-majority nations across the world. We really can compare and contrast Islamic-majority countries with what we call "Western" countries.
Yes, you can. But it's an intellectually vapid exercise in motivated reasoning at best, and more realistically and worryingly it's a contribution to division and hatred in society.
If you start with the premise "Islam is bad" and then set out to find empirical justification by, say, comparing human rights records, measures of economic success etc, between majority Muslim and western nations, then hooray, you can show how true your wonderful, insightful proposition is! Well done! Islam is bad and here's the proof, just look at the numbers!
That's not a useful piece of analysis, it's fruitless nonsense born of deeply unattractive motivation. Firstly, it doesn't have any purpose - you can't persuade Muslims to give up their religion by showing them data on how badly Muslim nations do on international comparisons. And anyway, if you wanted to go down this path of seeing why bad outcomes happen to people globally, then you have to analyse on every measure you can think of and try to work out the causality. Is it the "deep religiosity effect" or the "corruption effect" or the "unhelpful military intervention effect" or the "high birth rate effect", etc, etc, etc that's the cause of the bad outcomes? I'm sure you understand the difference between analysis that attempts to draw out probable causation, and coming up with a postulate "Islam is bad" and then setting out to find data to prove it? Your comment however, does not portray such understanding.
So my question is, given that there is no practical purpose in blathering on about how dreadful Islam is, and that many of the same criticisms of being plainly wrong and unhelpful in improving outcomes for people apply also to other religions, why, when you know that you're backing-up division and hatred within society, do you think it's such a great idea?
Post edited at 21:46
9
1
1
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Because many of the bad aspects of Islamism are present in Islam itself.
According to Pew research, in many Islamic countries 70% or 80% of the population want Sharia (Islamic law) to be the law of the land. Thus, for the majority in many Islamic countries, their Islamic faith is Islamist.
As examples, take laws against blasphemy and laws against apostasy. In other words, there is no right to criticise Islam and there is no right of a Muslim to renounce the faith. These are not just past of Islamism, they are part of Islam. According to Pew research, in Egypt in 2014, 63% of Muslims advocated the death penalty for any Muslim renouncing the faith.
Where does Islamism get much of its totalitarian nature from? It gets it from Islam, fairly obviously. We shouldn't be at all reluctant to criticise Islam itself.
But hold on, I can't imagine that any significant numbers of Christians anywhere would favour a law against people renouncing the faith, let alone the death penalty. Islam really is vastly worse. Yes, Christianity might have been as bad 800 years ago, but today it is vastly more tolerant and benign than Islam.
Well Christianity has got vastly more moderate and benign over time . . . admittedly it took hundreds of years.
But extremism is not just about violence! Yes, only small fractions of Muslims support terrorism and similar violence, but large fractions of them advocate extremist ideas such as laws against apostasy!
If a Christian advocated the death penalty for apostasy we'd have no difficulty branding them an extremist loon. So shouldn't we judge Muslims by the same standards? (Or do we expect less of them because they are brown?)
Well, I'm judging them by the same standards. That means that 63% of Egyptian Muslims are extremists! In Pakistan vast fractions of the population support blasphemy laws that are highly extreme; that makes vast fractions of the Pakistani population extremists.
That's why we need to recognise the problem; that's why we need to criticise Islam and not just Islamism.
If Islam gets reformed, so that mainstream majorities start advocating moderation, tolerance and the right of anyone to criticise Islam, renounce the faith, and draw whatever cartoons about whoever they like, then at that point we can recognise the improvement and stop criticising Islam.
> The question is this: why attack Islam rather than Islamism, if the problem is human rights and security?
Because many of the bad aspects of Islamism are present in Islam itself.
According to Pew research, in many Islamic countries 70% or 80% of the population want Sharia (Islamic law) to be the law of the land. Thus, for the majority in many Islamic countries, their Islamic faith is Islamist.
As examples, take laws against blasphemy and laws against apostasy. In other words, there is no right to criticise Islam and there is no right of a Muslim to renounce the faith. These are not just past of Islamism, they are part of Islam. According to Pew research, in Egypt in 2014, 63% of Muslims advocated the death penalty for any Muslim renouncing the faith.
Where does Islamism get much of its totalitarian nature from? It gets it from Islam, fairly obviously. We shouldn't be at all reluctant to criticise Islam itself.
> It's fine to criticise Islam. After all, it's a load of crap, much like Judaism and Christianity.
But hold on, I can't imagine that any significant numbers of Christians anywhere would favour a law against people renouncing the faith, let alone the death penalty. Islam really is vastly worse. Yes, Christianity might have been as bad 800 years ago, but today it is vastly more tolerant and benign than Islam.
> Is it Islam, the enormous religion of a billion-odd people (good luck with attacking that, a futile task if ever there was one)?
Well Christianity has got vastly more moderate and benign over time . . . admittedly it took hundreds of years.
> Or is it Islamist extremism?
But extremism is not just about violence! Yes, only small fractions of Muslims support terrorism and similar violence, but large fractions of them advocate extremist ideas such as laws against apostasy!
If a Christian advocated the death penalty for apostasy we'd have no difficulty branding them an extremist loon. So shouldn't we judge Muslims by the same standards? (Or do we expect less of them because they are brown?)
Well, I'm judging them by the same standards. That means that 63% of Egyptian Muslims are extremists! In Pakistan vast fractions of the population support blasphemy laws that are highly extreme; that makes vast fractions of the Pakistani population extremists.
That's why we need to recognise the problem; that's why we need to criticise Islam and not just Islamism.
If Islam gets reformed, so that mainstream majorities start advocating moderation, tolerance and the right of anyone to criticise Islam, renounce the faith, and draw whatever cartoons about whoever they like, then at that point we can recognise the improvement and stop criticising Islam.
11
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Another article on the problems with the term "Islamophobia".
"Anti-Muslim hate must be challenged. Silencing criticism of Islam won’t help"
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/06/anti-muslim-hate-must-be-challeng...
Another article on the problems with the term "Islamophobia".
"Anti-Muslim hate must be challenged. Silencing criticism of Islam won’t help"
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/06/anti-muslim-hate-must-be-challeng...
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If you believe in executing apostates and you live in rural Pakistan, your views aren't extreme, they're mainstream. This only becomes a real problem in the West when you get mass immigration without cultural assimilation.
Attacking people's deeply held beliefs is both counter productive and uncivilised , but that doesn't mean we have to keep pandering to them. In this country I'd like to see an end to any public money allocated to schools or organisations that are predicated on religion or ethnicity. Let's just stop funding social divisions.
Globally, why do we continue to sell arms and give aid money to countries with fascistic attitudes to women, the LGBT community and minority communities? If a country enshrines in law values that are deeply at odds with our own ,we don't have to bomb them , we could just stop enabling them.
If you believe in executing apostates and you live in rural Pakistan, your views aren't extreme, they're mainstream. This only becomes a real problem in the West when you get mass immigration without cultural assimilation.
Attacking people's deeply held beliefs is both counter productive and uncivilised , but that doesn't mean we have to keep pandering to them. In this country I'd like to see an end to any public money allocated to schools or organisations that are predicated on religion or ethnicity. Let's just stop funding social divisions.
Globally, why do we continue to sell arms and give aid money to countries with fascistic attitudes to women, the LGBT community and minority communities? If a country enshrines in law values that are deeply at odds with our own ,we don't have to bomb them , we could just stop enabling them.
Post edited at 22:45
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You live in the UK, right? Our situation is that we have a minority Muslim population of 2nd, 3rd, etc generation immigrants who work alongside us in our professions, whose children go to school with ours, who are a part of our society. So why would it be helpful to say: "look, in Jordan, 80% of Muslims want Sharia Law, so your religion is AWFUL!". People all around the world believe all kinds of crap. I'm not such a moral relativist that I don't think it's fair to say it's crap, when it is, I just think it's a dreadful idea to mount this argument against British Muslims (you're here, remember, not in Jordan) that their religion is awful because of what people in Kyrgyzstan think about Sharia Law.
Who do you think hears the criticism from Western right-wingers like Douglas Murray et al? Is it the Sharia-mad population of Tunisia? Or is it British Muslims, who will only feel that people like him just hate Muslims? Is that honestly useful?
That's simplistic and silly. Some Muslims go for totalitarian Islamist views - others integrate into modern democracies. Islam is the shared factor, what causes the difference? Do you think that increasing the volume of anti-Islamic criticism will draw Muslims in the UK towards the integration and success, or towards the alienated, extremist model?
You've just reverted to the "which religion is most retarded" competition. I asked you why you think such a competition is a useful exercise. It's really not useful to re-iterate the point that Islam is bad - I don't dispute it.
And you think that's because secularists banged on about how retarded Christianity is? I think it's because Christianity retained enormous power in society - it didn't reform under any kind of attack.
It's not to do with them being brown, it's to do with whether they live in a western democracy or in a developing country that has no regard for liberal secular values. Why judge the Muslims we talk to in the UK by the standards of those in third world countries who have backward views? Unless of course, you're just trying to alienate and antagonise?
No. That's why we need to be specific about what the problems are - point out specifically where Islamic views and traditions conflict with modern secular values (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality for women, blah blah) and deal with the issues that arise. Our policies need to say, "look, we like Muslims, you're lovely and very welcome in this society, but you have to do things like this or we'll throw you in jail". Not "we hate your religion, it's shit, even compared to Christianity, which in direct comparison is superior". Can you understand why my approach might get better results?
Well yes. So maybe you might consider what tactics might lead best towards that kind of reformation. Is it yelling about how awful Islam is, how dreadful all the views of Muslims around the world are, how Islamism that threatens our security is a faithful representation of Islam, how the invasion of Muslims is destroying Europe? Or is that a completely destructive approach that will lead to greater division and hatred in society?
> Because many of the bad aspects of Islamism are present in Islam itself.
> According to Pew research, in many Islamic countries 70% or 80% of the population want Sharia (Islamic law) to be the law of the land. Thus, for the majority in many Islamic countries, their Islamic faith is Islamist.
You live in the UK, right? Our situation is that we have a minority Muslim population of 2nd, 3rd, etc generation immigrants who work alongside us in our professions, whose children go to school with ours, who are a part of our society. So why would it be helpful to say: "look, in Jordan, 80% of Muslims want Sharia Law, so your religion is AWFUL!". People all around the world believe all kinds of crap. I'm not such a moral relativist that I don't think it's fair to say it's crap, when it is, I just think it's a dreadful idea to mount this argument against British Muslims (you're here, remember, not in Jordan) that their religion is awful because of what people in Kyrgyzstan think about Sharia Law.
Who do you think hears the criticism from Western right-wingers like Douglas Murray et al? Is it the Sharia-mad population of Tunisia? Or is it British Muslims, who will only feel that people like him just hate Muslims? Is that honestly useful?
> Where does Islamism get much of its totalitarian nature from? It gets it from Islam, fairly obviously. We shouldn't be at all reluctant to criticise Islam itself.
That's simplistic and silly. Some Muslims go for totalitarian Islamist views - others integrate into modern democracies. Islam is the shared factor, what causes the difference? Do you think that increasing the volume of anti-Islamic criticism will draw Muslims in the UK towards the integration and success, or towards the alienated, extremist model?
> But hold on, I can't imagine that any significant numbers of Christians anywhere would favour a law against people renouncing the faith...
You've just reverted to the "which religion is most retarded" competition. I asked you why you think such a competition is a useful exercise. It's really not useful to re-iterate the point that Islam is bad - I don't dispute it.
> Well Christianity has got vastly more moderate and benign over time . . . admittedly it took hundreds of years.
And you think that's because secularists banged on about how retarded Christianity is? I think it's because Christianity retained enormous power in society - it didn't reform under any kind of attack.
> If a Christian advocated the death penalty for apostasy we'd have no difficulty branding them an extremist loon. So shouldn't we judge Muslims by the same standards? (Or do we expect less of them because they are brown?)
It's not to do with them being brown, it's to do with whether they live in a western democracy or in a developing country that has no regard for liberal secular values. Why judge the Muslims we talk to in the UK by the standards of those in third world countries who have backward views? Unless of course, you're just trying to alienate and antagonise?
> That's why we need to recognise the problem; that's why we need to criticise Islam and not just Islamism.
No. That's why we need to be specific about what the problems are - point out specifically where Islamic views and traditions conflict with modern secular values (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality for women, blah blah) and deal with the issues that arise. Our policies need to say, "look, we like Muslims, you're lovely and very welcome in this society, but you have to do things like this or we'll throw you in jail". Not "we hate your religion, it's shit, even compared to Christianity, which in direct comparison is superior". Can you understand why my approach might get better results?
> If Islam gets reformed, so that mainstream majorities start advocating moderation, tolerance and the right of anyone to criticise Islam, renounce the faith, and draw whatever cartoons about whoever they like, then at that point we can recognise the improvement and stop criticising Islam.
Well yes. So maybe you might consider what tactics might lead best towards that kind of reformation. Is it yelling about how awful Islam is, how dreadful all the views of Muslims around the world are, how Islamism that threatens our security is a faithful representation of Islam, how the invasion of Muslims is destroying Europe? Or is that a completely destructive approach that will lead to greater division and hatred in society?
6
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well thanks, but I haven't accused anyone of Islamophobia. There is rather more to my argument than "you shouldn't criticise Islam", but if that's all you're managing to pick up from what I write then either I'm terrible at expressing myself, or you're just not listening.
> Another article on the problems with the term "Islamophobia".
Well thanks, but I haven't accused anyone of Islamophobia. There is rather more to my argument than "you shouldn't criticise Islam", but if that's all you're managing to pick up from what I write then either I'm terrible at expressing myself, or you're just not listening.
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I can't disagree with anything you've written , but your position is pretty much the course we've followed in the UK for the past 50 years... and yet, we are where we are and we seem to be drifting still further from the unified, cohesive society that most of us would dearly love to live in.
Where do you think we should go from here?
I can't disagree with anything you've written , but your position is pretty much the course we've followed in the UK for the past 50 years... and yet, we are where we are and we seem to be drifting still further from the unified, cohesive society that most of us would dearly love to live in.
Where do you think we should go from here?
3
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
I think policies that encourage integration of kids are the key. If you grow up sitting next to people who are different in maths class, playing sports with them, etc then you're not going to have a tribal attitude as an adult. Rolling back the influence of all religions in society - particularly ending faith schools - and improving access to opportunities for people born into what are currently crappy ghettos through high quality, comprehensive, mixed education would help.
There is nothing you can do about adults who see the world in "us and them" terms. These people screw up our society. Policies that keep people separate entrench the divisions and carry them down from one generation to the next.
> Where do you think we should go from here?
I think policies that encourage integration of kids are the key. If you grow up sitting next to people who are different in maths class, playing sports with them, etc then you're not going to have a tribal attitude as an adult. Rolling back the influence of all religions in society - particularly ending faith schools - and improving access to opportunities for people born into what are currently crappy ghettos through high quality, comprehensive, mixed education would help.
There is nothing you can do about adults who see the world in "us and them" terms. These people screw up our society. Policies that keep people separate entrench the divisions and carry them down from one generation to the next.
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
C4 conducted a survey of British Muslim attitudes last year:
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-survey-and-documentary-reveals-w...
C4 conducted a survey of British Muslim attitudes last year:
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-survey-and-documentary-reveals-w...
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Again, I would agree , but think further measures are necessary. Hard to see what those might be without causing further alienation and antagonism. As things stand ethnic ghettos are becoming more entrenched and racially segregated schools multiply year on year.
By global standards and even by European standards, the Uk has always been admirably open and tolerant of diversity. I fear we are in danger of losing this trait.
Again, I would agree , but think further measures are necessary. Hard to see what those might be without causing further alienation and antagonism. As things stand ethnic ghettos are becoming more entrenched and racially segregated schools multiply year on year.
By global standards and even by European standards, the Uk has always been admirably open and tolerant of diversity. I fear we are in danger of losing this trait.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
I think this relates to a combination of our housing and infrastructure issues, and the unintended consequences of multiculturalism. People of similar backgrounds tend to cluster - it's human nature. If we want successful integration, it's about everyone involved reaching out, and that's not a natural thing to do if you live in isolation from other groups. As Jon points out, integration of the kids is probably key.
I feel we're far too hands-off in the way we're 'respectful' of differing backgrounds, in allowing entrenched culture to go unchallenged and unintegrated. Perhaps not a trendy opinion, but in my mind Western secular values must take precedence, and successful integration can only happen when people have the opportunity (through enforced circumstance) to socialise.
> I can't disagree with anything you've written , but your position is pretty much the course we've followed in the UK for the past 50 years... and yet, we are where we are and we seem to be drifting still further from the unified, cohesive society that most of us would dearly love to live in.
I think this relates to a combination of our housing and infrastructure issues, and the unintended consequences of multiculturalism. People of similar backgrounds tend to cluster - it's human nature. If we want successful integration, it's about everyone involved reaching out, and that's not a natural thing to do if you live in isolation from other groups. As Jon points out, integration of the kids is probably key.
I feel we're far too hands-off in the way we're 'respectful' of differing backgrounds, in allowing entrenched culture to go unchallenged and unintegrated. Perhaps not a trendy opinion, but in my mind Western secular values must take precedence, and successful integration can only happen when people have the opportunity (through enforced circumstance) to socialise.
Post edited at 08:07
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Is that really true though? I remember reading "Better Angels of our Nature" (similar task but trying to measure violence), and the main thing that struck me was how difficult it is to track something like this over time. And a TED talk I watched about the media, made the case that it doesn't give a balanced view of the world (or in this case our society). Will a lot of people just see recent extreme events in the news and form an opinion based on that? Athiests and your average moderate Christian type might well be suffering a touch of cognitive dissonance and only paying attention to things that reinforce their views.
> we are where we are and we seem to be drifting still further from the unified, cohesive society that most of us would dearly love to live in.
Is that really true though? I remember reading "Better Angels of our Nature" (similar task but trying to measure violence), and the main thing that struck me was how difficult it is to track something like this over time. And a TED talk I watched about the media, made the case that it doesn't give a balanced view of the world (or in this case our society). Will a lot of people just see recent extreme events in the news and form an opinion based on that? Athiests and your average moderate Christian type might well be suffering a touch of cognitive dissonance and only paying attention to things that reinforce their views.
2
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Good points , but I'm mainly judging by the ghettoisation of our communities and the proliferation of segregated schooling. These factors were a rarity 30 years ago here in the North West, not so much now.
Good points , but I'm mainly judging by the ghettoisation of our communities and the proliferation of segregated schooling. These factors were a rarity 30 years ago here in the North West, not so much now.
Post edited at 09:27
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Why sure, I can readily see why that approach might be better! (Did I ever say otherwise?) We've not really got into a discussion of the best *tactics* of how to criticise the harmful aspects of Islam, so far I'm trying to establish the more basic point that there is plenty in mainstream Islam that we should criticise. Indeed, the approach you suggest is what moderates from the Islamic community such as Maajid Nawaz and Kenan Malik are doing.
But if you actually try your approach, what happens? What happens is that large numbers shout you down: "But it's a *religion*, so there cant be *anything* wrong with it! *Anything* wrong with it is thus *not* Islam! Those people are *brown*, so you can't criticise their religion, there can't by anything wrong with at all, you must accept it as fully equal to Western mores and as equally worthy of esteem. Ooh you Islamophobe, ooh you racist! If you criticise them you'll only turn them against you and make it worse". Et cetera et cetera, usually followed by a diatribe against the West for being less than perfect (which of course is true).
Just as an example, when Maajid Nawaz tweeted an utterly innocuous Jesus-and-Mo cartoon, trying to establish a debate about acceptable commentary about and criticism of Islam, the mainstream media did not support him. They painted *him* as the "extremist" for doing so, and gave the impression of siding with the Islamists who threatened him. Further, by refusing to show the cartoon, they gave the impression that Maajjd was being unreasonable and should not be doing what he;s doing.
Lastly, why do we hear the claim: "if you criticise them you'll only turn them against you" about Muslims, but not about Tories or Trump supporters or Corbynistas or Catholics or anyone else? Yet again, people come up with all sorts of reasons to suggest you should not criticise Muslims or Islam -- at all.
> That's why we need to be specific about what the problems are - point out specifically where Islamic views and traditions conflict with modern secular values (e.g. freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality for women, blah blah) and deal with the issues that arise. Our policies need to say, "look, we like Muslims, you're lovely and very welcome in this society, but you have to do things like this or we'll throw you in jail". Not "we hate your religion, it's shit, even compared to Christianity, which in direct comparison is superior". Can you understand why my approach might get better results?
Why sure, I can readily see why that approach might be better! (Did I ever say otherwise?) We've not really got into a discussion of the best *tactics* of how to criticise the harmful aspects of Islam, so far I'm trying to establish the more basic point that there is plenty in mainstream Islam that we should criticise. Indeed, the approach you suggest is what moderates from the Islamic community such as Maajid Nawaz and Kenan Malik are doing.
But if you actually try your approach, what happens? What happens is that large numbers shout you down: "But it's a *religion*, so there cant be *anything* wrong with it! *Anything* wrong with it is thus *not* Islam! Those people are *brown*, so you can't criticise their religion, there can't by anything wrong with at all, you must accept it as fully equal to Western mores and as equally worthy of esteem. Ooh you Islamophobe, ooh you racist! If you criticise them you'll only turn them against you and make it worse". Et cetera et cetera, usually followed by a diatribe against the West for being less than perfect (which of course is true).
Just as an example, when Maajid Nawaz tweeted an utterly innocuous Jesus-and-Mo cartoon, trying to establish a debate about acceptable commentary about and criticism of Islam, the mainstream media did not support him. They painted *him* as the "extremist" for doing so, and gave the impression of siding with the Islamists who threatened him. Further, by refusing to show the cartoon, they gave the impression that Maajjd was being unreasonable and should not be doing what he;s doing.
Lastly, why do we hear the claim: "if you criticise them you'll only turn them against you" about Muslims, but not about Tories or Trump supporters or Corbynistas or Catholics or anyone else? Yet again, people come up with all sorts of reasons to suggest you should not criticise Muslims or Islam -- at all.
11
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Which sections of the mainstream media? Or was it all the mainstream media?
> the mainstream media did not support him. They painted *him* as the "extremist" for doing so, and gave the impression of siding with the Islamists who threatened him.
Which sections of the mainstream media? Or was it all the mainstream media?
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Well not one of the mainstream media outlets (major newspapers, TV news) showed the cartoon that the controversy was about. By not showing it they de facto sided with the "this should not be shown" Islamists and not with the moderate, reformist, "there is nothing wrong with this" Nawaz.
If you want to check out the cartoon, here it is: https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
Channel 4 News decided that it was way too "offensive" to show, so they showed a censored version of it.
This is country where every day the newspapers carry highly critical and satirical cartoons of public figures such as politicians.
> Which sections of the mainstream media? Or was it all the mainstream media?
Well not one of the mainstream media outlets (major newspapers, TV news) showed the cartoon that the controversy was about. By not showing it they de facto sided with the "this should not be shown" Islamists and not with the moderate, reformist, "there is nothing wrong with this" Nawaz.
If you want to check out the cartoon, here it is: https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
Channel 4 News decided that it was way too "offensive" to show, so they showed a censored version of it.
This is country where every day the newspapers carry highly critical and satirical cartoons of public figures such as politicians.
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Thanks. Although I think that's only one interpretation. Maybe it would be braver to publish the cartoon, but I don't blame them for not doing it.
I've already seen it. Yes, to me it seems like nothing. Like burning a national flag, or teaching children to not use certain "bad" words. There's a certain dynamic of control and obedience used by groups, and it's not limited to Muslims and the prophet . But it is very specific, so a straight up comparison with other cartoons doesn't shed a lot of light on the problem.
> Well not one of the mainstream media outlets (major newspapers, TV news) showed the cartoon that the controversy was about. By not showing it they de facto sided with the "this should not be shown" Islamists and not with the moderate, reformist, "there is nothing wrong with this" Nawaz.
Thanks. Although I think that's only one interpretation. Maybe it would be braver to publish the cartoon, but I don't blame them for not doing it.
> If you want to check out the cartoon, here it is:
I've already seen it. Yes, to me it seems like nothing. Like burning a national flag, or teaching children to not use certain "bad" words. There's a certain dynamic of control and obedience used by groups, and it's not limited to Muslims and the prophet . But it is very specific, so a straight up comparison with other cartoons doesn't shed a lot of light on the problem.
1
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
If they decided not to publish because they were afraid, then they should say so and not come up with some excuse about not doing so because it is it "offensive". The former reveals there there is a real problem; the latter pretends that there isn't.
But if the mainstream media start self-adopting Islamist blasphemy codes then isn't that a real problem?
If some protestors burned the British or US flags, then I'd expect TV News to have no problem with showing a video of it, and I'd expect viewers to be big enough to cope.
> Maybe it would be braver to publish the cartoon, but I don't blame them for not doing it.
If they decided not to publish because they were afraid, then they should say so and not come up with some excuse about not doing so because it is it "offensive". The former reveals there there is a real problem; the latter pretends that there isn't.
> There's a certain dynamic of control and obedience used by groups, and it's not limited to Muslims and the prophet .
But if the mainstream media start self-adopting Islamist blasphemy codes then isn't that a real problem?
If some protestors burned the British or US flags, then I'd expect TV News to have no problem with showing a video of it, and I'd expect viewers to be big enough to cope.
5
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Maybe they were afraid, maybe they didn't want to offend people. Doing something that people don't want you to do, doesn't necessarily mean your siding with them. I'm not defending the media BTW, just challenging your view that they're calling him an extremist, and siding with the Islamists.
You seem to be using the same reductionist thinking and losing the meaning again. You're a smart bloke Coel, I'm sure you could see the difference if you chose to?
> If they decided not to publish because they were afraid, then they should say so and not come up with some excuse about not doing so because it is it "offensive". The former reveals there there is a real problem; the latter pretends that there isn't.
Maybe they were afraid, maybe they didn't want to offend people. Doing something that people don't want you to do, doesn't necessarily mean your siding with them. I'm not defending the media BTW, just challenging your view that they're calling him an extremist, and siding with the Islamists.
> If some protestors burned the British or US flags, then I'd expect TV News to have no problem with showing a video of it, and I'd expect viewers to be big enough to cope.
You seem to be using the same reductionist thinking and losing the meaning again. You're a smart bloke Coel, I'm sure you could see the difference if you chose to?
1
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Has Kenan Malik ever said he is part of the "Muslim Community" (and which Muslim community exactly?)? I don't think I've ever read him say that. He at least used to be a Marxist, and nothing I've read of his recently suggests he has become religious. You might read more of his work than me though, so I'd be interested to know otherwise.
Has Kenan Malik ever said he is part of the "Muslim Community" (and which Muslim community exactly?)? I don't think I've ever read him say that. He at least used to be a Marxist, and nothing I've read of his recently suggests he has become religious. You might read more of his work than me though, so I'd be interested to know otherwise.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes, that's where it gets really quite unpleasant. Ironically, it betrays rather a low view of Muslims - don't goad them or they'll kick off. It's also a transparent muddling of Islam and Islamism. It's quite hard to spot the racists these days. Surely the only way forward is to assume that Muslims can handle criticism as well as any other adult human being.
> Lastly, why do we hear the claim: "if you criticise them you'll only turn them against you" about Muslims, but not about Tories or Trump supporters or Corbynistas or Catholics or anyone else? Yet again, people come up with all sorts of reasons to suggest you should not criticise Muslims or Islam -- at all.
Yes, that's where it gets really quite unpleasant. Ironically, it betrays rather a low view of Muslims - don't goad them or they'll kick off. It's also a transparent muddling of Islam and Islamism. It's quite hard to spot the racists these days. Surely the only way forward is to assume that Muslims can handle criticism as well as any other adult human being.
5
In reply to TobyA:
I meant culturally. He's not religious (I think his father was a Muslim, but he had only a weakly religious upbringing and is non-religious today), but as a second-generation immigrant from the sub-Continent he has some cultural ties.
> Has Kenan Malik ever said he is part of the "Muslim Community" ...
I meant culturally. He's not religious (I think his father was a Muslim, but he had only a weakly religious upbringing and is non-religious today), but as a second-generation immigrant from the sub-Continent he has some cultural ties.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's my impression too, but that's why your idea of Muslim moderates seems a bit bizarre!
That's my impression too, but that's why your idea of Muslim moderates seems a bit bizarre!
In reply to TobyA:
Perhaps that was a bad phrasing, by naming Maajid Namaz and Kenan Malik I meant people from that cultural and ethnic background, who thus cannot (sensibly) just be accused of xenophobia and racism.
> That's my impression too, but that's why your idea of Muslim moderates seems a bit bizarre!
Perhaps that was a bad phrasing, by naming Maajid Namaz and Kenan Malik I meant people from that cultural and ethnic background, who thus cannot (sensibly) just be accused of xenophobia and racism.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, you didn't, because you evaded my question about why you think it's preferable to attack Islam rather than Islamism. Your response was "What's bad about Islamism comes from Islam", which doesn't answer the question. I've tried to illustrate that it's a choice - you can try to minimise the harm that the extremist Muslims inflict, or you can just attack the religion of every Muslim, and in doing so, alienate the only people who might be able to help.
Exactly. I've tried to steer the discussion towards "what is the best tactic" by asking why you think we *should* criticise Islam rather than Islamism but all you want to talk about is how "the left" won't criticise Islam. I'm not saying you can't criticise Islam, so how is your ire with "the left" relevant to this discussion? Criticism of Islam is all very well (i.e. you can point to stuff that's common across the whole religion and show that it's bad), but it's pointless, it attacks the beliefs of those who've done no harm, and it does look a bit like bigotry because the other religions also promote hateful attitudes and this seems to be excused "oh Christians are all liberal these days (except on the entire continent of Africa, and actually anywhere outside the economically developed West)...oh Jews don't really believe any of their toxic, violent teachings, unlike the Muslims who take it all literally"- the criticism degenerates into a competition of which religion is the most retarded, as you've demostrated on this thread. Criticising the whole religion isn't just tactically moronic (defeat the whole of Islam, then you won't have to worry about Islamism - great plan!), intellectually it leads you down the blind alley of theology (please - life's too short) or the "look at all the horrible Muslims - they all want to stone women to death" path taken by Sam Harris et al. These arguments don't lead anywhere.
It isn't bigoted to criticise Islam. I don't like religious values, they're fundamentally false, and they're illiberal. But the so-called "legitimate criticism of Islam" you espouse does brush up rather close to bigotry. A good example is the hateful drivel that Simon4 posts on here. What he says about Islam being a "death cult" is bigoted - he is deliberately stirring up hatred against Muslims and in doing so he has chosen sides and gone with the guy who drove the van into the crowd outside the mosque. If you choose to pick the whole of Islam as your target, rather than Islamism, then you give yourself the task of separating your "legitimate criticism of Islam" from the bigoted drivel of Simon4, and to go a step further, the bloke in the van.
Isn't it a better idea to stay well clear of the bigotry and say "Islam, like all religions isn't something I have any respect for, but it's one of the world's major religions so we're stuck with it for now and we accept and welcome Muslims in our society. However, when hard-line interpretations of Islam conflict with liberal values such as freedom of speech and gender equality, then tough shit Muslims, you'll do it our way or face the consequences". This line is totally honest, but is clearly distinct from the the anti-Muslim bigotry spouted by e.g. Simon4, and it avoids the whole us (pure, white Europeans) versus them (the scary Muslims with all their terrorism coming to harm our society) narrative of e.g. Douglas Murray.
You create a problem for yourself by only talking about how much you hate "the left" for the way they "shout down" criticism of Islam. What you're saying isn't bigoted, but you're not making any effort to distance yourself from bigotry. That's your choice, but I wouldn't be so terribly surprised when you side with bigots, that people might make assumptions...
You're reverting to "what the left do". It would be a much more satisfying discussion for me if you engaged with what *I'm* saying, rather than just arguing against nebulous ideas that haven't been put forward. I've said you'll alienate people with your approach, and this is true and obvious. I don't even know what "turn against" means in this context. This just isn't something I can engage with meaningfully - it's not my view so I'm not doing to defend it.
Edit: has anyone heard from Simon4 since the van incident...? Perhaps we won't have to put up with any more!
> Why sure, I can readily see why that approach might be better! (Did I ever say otherwise?)
No, you didn't, because you evaded my question about why you think it's preferable to attack Islam rather than Islamism. Your response was "What's bad about Islamism comes from Islam", which doesn't answer the question. I've tried to illustrate that it's a choice - you can try to minimise the harm that the extremist Muslims inflict, or you can just attack the religion of every Muslim, and in doing so, alienate the only people who might be able to help.
> We've not really got into a discussion of the best *tactics* of how to criticise the harmful aspects of Islam, so far I'm trying to establish the more basic point that there is plenty in mainstream Islam that we should criticise.
Exactly. I've tried to steer the discussion towards "what is the best tactic" by asking why you think we *should* criticise Islam rather than Islamism but all you want to talk about is how "the left" won't criticise Islam. I'm not saying you can't criticise Islam, so how is your ire with "the left" relevant to this discussion? Criticism of Islam is all very well (i.e. you can point to stuff that's common across the whole religion and show that it's bad), but it's pointless, it attacks the beliefs of those who've done no harm, and it does look a bit like bigotry because the other religions also promote hateful attitudes and this seems to be excused "oh Christians are all liberal these days (except on the entire continent of Africa, and actually anywhere outside the economically developed West)...oh Jews don't really believe any of their toxic, violent teachings, unlike the Muslims who take it all literally"- the criticism degenerates into a competition of which religion is the most retarded, as you've demostrated on this thread. Criticising the whole religion isn't just tactically moronic (defeat the whole of Islam, then you won't have to worry about Islamism - great plan!), intellectually it leads you down the blind alley of theology (please - life's too short) or the "look at all the horrible Muslims - they all want to stone women to death" path taken by Sam Harris et al. These arguments don't lead anywhere.
It isn't bigoted to criticise Islam. I don't like religious values, they're fundamentally false, and they're illiberal. But the so-called "legitimate criticism of Islam" you espouse does brush up rather close to bigotry. A good example is the hateful drivel that Simon4 posts on here. What he says about Islam being a "death cult" is bigoted - he is deliberately stirring up hatred against Muslims and in doing so he has chosen sides and gone with the guy who drove the van into the crowd outside the mosque. If you choose to pick the whole of Islam as your target, rather than Islamism, then you give yourself the task of separating your "legitimate criticism of Islam" from the bigoted drivel of Simon4, and to go a step further, the bloke in the van.
Isn't it a better idea to stay well clear of the bigotry and say "Islam, like all religions isn't something I have any respect for, but it's one of the world's major religions so we're stuck with it for now and we accept and welcome Muslims in our society. However, when hard-line interpretations of Islam conflict with liberal values such as freedom of speech and gender equality, then tough shit Muslims, you'll do it our way or face the consequences". This line is totally honest, but is clearly distinct from the the anti-Muslim bigotry spouted by e.g. Simon4, and it avoids the whole us (pure, white Europeans) versus them (the scary Muslims with all their terrorism coming to harm our society) narrative of e.g. Douglas Murray.
You create a problem for yourself by only talking about how much you hate "the left" for the way they "shout down" criticism of Islam. What you're saying isn't bigoted, but you're not making any effort to distance yourself from bigotry. That's your choice, but I wouldn't be so terribly surprised when you side with bigots, that people might make assumptions...
> Lastly, why do we hear the claim: "if you criticise them you'll only turn them against you" about Muslims, but not about Tories or Trump supporters or Corbynistas or Catholics or anyone else? Yet again, people come up with all sorts of reasons to suggest you should not criticise Muslims or Islam -- at all.
You're reverting to "what the left do". It would be a much more satisfying discussion for me if you engaged with what *I'm* saying, rather than just arguing against nebulous ideas that haven't been put forward. I've said you'll alienate people with your approach, and this is true and obvious. I don't even know what "turn against" means in this context. This just isn't something I can engage with meaningfully - it's not my view so I'm not doing to defend it.
Edit: has anyone heard from Simon4 since the van incident...? Perhaps we won't have to put up with any more!
Post edited at 00:04
6
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Attacking Islamism but not Islam is attacking the symptom but not the cause. So long as there is a mainstream Islam with intolerant, authoritarian attitudes and which does not accept church/state separation then there will be a fraction of Muslims who take a hard-line interpretation of it (as well as plenty of Muslims who take a moderate line).
If you were to try to change attitudes such that no-one then took a hard-line Islamist line, then that would effectively be the same as reforming mainstream Islam itself.
Moderates from the Islamic community such as Maajid Nawaz, who understand Islam and such ways of thinking much better than I do, say that a reformed and more moderate mainstream Islam is an essential part of the process.
The tactic of pretending that Islam itself is fine and laudable, and it's only the "nothing to do with Islam" Islamism that is at fault, doesn't work.
Can you clarify this. When you say that we should say "we accept and welcome Muslims in our society ..." do you mean we should say: "we accept and welcome people who do not accept free speech and religious freedom and the right to apostasy, who do not accept democracy, do not accept church/state separation and the principle of a secular state, who do not accept the equal status of women, who think that being gay should be criminalised, etc".
Or are you saying we should say: "We accept and welcome Muslims if that amounts to having feast-days on different days than is traditional here, and wearing somewhat different dress and going to houses of worship with minarets rather than spires, but we do not welcome the above list of attitudes"?
Those who excuse religion tend to make out it that it is only a matter of the superficial things in the last paragraph, ignoring all the ones in the preceding paragraph.
OK, good, let's do that. Let's absolutely insist on such enlightenment values. But that's more or less exactly what I'm saying when I say we should criticise mainstream Islam!
I'm not objecting to the architecture of the Mosques, nor to them celebrating Eid rather than Christmas (really, I couldn't care!), I'm objecting to their rejection of free speech and freedom of religion et cetera.
If mainstream Islam rejects free speech and freedom of religion should we criticise mainstream Islam? Or should we pretend that it's only Islamism that we're against?
The point is that de facto we *don't* insist on enlightenment values, de facto we surrender them in a "compromise" with Islam. When was the last time you saw a mainstream media carry a Mohammed cartoon or any cartoon critical of or satirising Islam? If that question were about Corbyn or May or Christianity or Israel, the answer would be "all the time".
> No, you didn't, because you evaded my question about why you think it's preferable to attack Islam rather than Islamism. Your response was "What's bad about Islamism comes from Islam", which doesn't answer the question.
Attacking Islamism but not Islam is attacking the symptom but not the cause. So long as there is a mainstream Islam with intolerant, authoritarian attitudes and which does not accept church/state separation then there will be a fraction of Muslims who take a hard-line interpretation of it (as well as plenty of Muslims who take a moderate line).
If you were to try to change attitudes such that no-one then took a hard-line Islamist line, then that would effectively be the same as reforming mainstream Islam itself.
> I've tried to illustrate that it's a choice - you can try to minimise the harm that the extremist Muslims inflict, or you can just attack the religion of every Muslim, and in doing so, alienate the only people who might be able to help.
Moderates from the Islamic community such as Maajid Nawaz, who understand Islam and such ways of thinking much better than I do, say that a reformed and more moderate mainstream Islam is an essential part of the process.
The tactic of pretending that Islam itself is fine and laudable, and it's only the "nothing to do with Islam" Islamism that is at fault, doesn't work.
> Isn't it a better idea to stay well clear of the bigotry and say "Islam, like all religions isn't something I have any respect for, but it's one of the world's major religions so we're stuck with it for now and we accept and welcome Muslims in our society. ..."
Can you clarify this. When you say that we should say "we accept and welcome Muslims in our society ..." do you mean we should say: "we accept and welcome people who do not accept free speech and religious freedom and the right to apostasy, who do not accept democracy, do not accept church/state separation and the principle of a secular state, who do not accept the equal status of women, who think that being gay should be criminalised, etc".
Or are you saying we should say: "We accept and welcome Muslims if that amounts to having feast-days on different days than is traditional here, and wearing somewhat different dress and going to houses of worship with minarets rather than spires, but we do not welcome the above list of attitudes"?
Those who excuse religion tend to make out it that it is only a matter of the superficial things in the last paragraph, ignoring all the ones in the preceding paragraph.
> " ... However, when hard-line interpretations of Islam conflict with liberal values such as freedom of speech and gender equality, then tough shit Muslims, you'll do it our way or face the consequences".
OK, good, let's do that. Let's absolutely insist on such enlightenment values. But that's more or less exactly what I'm saying when I say we should criticise mainstream Islam!
I'm not objecting to the architecture of the Mosques, nor to them celebrating Eid rather than Christmas (really, I couldn't care!), I'm objecting to their rejection of free speech and freedom of religion et cetera.
If mainstream Islam rejects free speech and freedom of religion should we criticise mainstream Islam? Or should we pretend that it's only Islamism that we're against?
The point is that de facto we *don't* insist on enlightenment values, de facto we surrender them in a "compromise" with Islam. When was the last time you saw a mainstream media carry a Mohammed cartoon or any cartoon critical of or satirising Islam? If that question were about Corbyn or May or Christianity or Israel, the answer would be "all the time".
5
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I've not seen him on here since the Westminster attack. He did put some very helpful and informative stuff up on alpine and expedition, in reply to a question a few weeks ago.
While I did find many of his comments regarding Islam as vitriolic and bigoted, I also welcome the opportunity to see other points of view. This forum would become incredibly tedious if we only posted stuff that we knew the general reader would find palatable.
On another point , heated debate on here is great, a bit of teasing is amusing and par for the course, but some of the stuff Simon got was just bullying. Not sure comments like that are justified on public forum, especially if they are made anonymously.
> Edit: has anyone heard from Simon4 since the van incident...? Perhaps we won't have to put up with any more!
I've not seen him on here since the Westminster attack. He did put some very helpful and informative stuff up on alpine and expedition, in reply to a question a few weeks ago.
While I did find many of his comments regarding Islam as vitriolic and bigoted, I also welcome the opportunity to see other points of view. This forum would become incredibly tedious if we only posted stuff that we knew the general reader would find palatable.
On another point , heated debate on here is great, a bit of teasing is amusing and par for the course, but some of the stuff Simon got was just bullying. Not sure comments like that are justified on public forum, especially if they are made anonymously.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
you haven't heard from Simon4 because he's not allowed to post at the minute. He's probably trolling the Guardian or similar instead.
you haven't heard from Simon4 because he's not allowed to post at the minute. He's probably trolling the Guardian or similar instead.
In reply to lummox:
That's a pity; his posts did have a certain entertainment value. What did he do to get banned?
> ... you haven't heard from Simon4 because he's not allowed to post at the minute.
That's a pity; his posts did have a certain entertainment value. What did he do to get banned?
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
I found his trolling utterly tedious. Other points of view are great, but vacuous bigotry doesn't add anything to the debate, it demeans it and wastes everyone's time.
Yeah, let's get the violins out. Have you read any of the personal abuse that Simon posted on here? Any negative comments Simon receives are 100% asked for.
> I've not seen him on here since the Westminster attack. He did put some very helpful and informative stuff up on alpine and expedition, in reply to a question a few weeks ago.
> While I did find many of his comments regarding Islam as vitriolic and bigoted, I also welcome the opportunity to see other points of view. This forum would become incredibly tedious if we only posted stuff that we knew the general reader would find palatable.
I found his trolling utterly tedious. Other points of view are great, but vacuous bigotry doesn't add anything to the debate, it demeans it and wastes everyone's time.
> On another point , heated debate on here is great, a bit of teasing is amusing and par for the course, but some of the stuff Simon got was just bullying.
Yeah, let's get the violins out. Have you read any of the personal abuse that Simon posted on here? Any negative comments Simon receives are 100% asked for.
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I must say that I, for one, haven't. His style seemed to be more drive-by trolling, mostly aimed at "Guardianistas" rather than individuals. But I may not have been paying sufficient attention.
> Have you read any of the personal abuse that Simon posted on here?
I must say that I, for one, haven't. His style seemed to be more drive-by trolling, mostly aimed at "Guardianistas" rather than individuals. But I may not have been paying sufficient attention.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I will respond btw, but I've got a bit of a to-do list and I need to stop procrastinating, so it won't be for a while!
I will respond btw, but I've got a bit of a to-do list and I need to stop procrastinating, so it won't be for a while!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
He once pm'd me to threaten me. It was hilarious. I expect his laptop looks like a plasterer's radio after the recent terror attacks.
He once pm'd me to threaten me. It was hilarious. I expect his laptop looks like a plasterer's radio after the recent terror attacks.
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I've been on here since April so I can't claim any in depth knowledge of what he's posted previously. If you post abuse you have to expect people to respond in kind, but if I remember correctly the stuff he got after Westminster stank of the lynch mob.
I wish I had posted something along those lines at the time but I was still getting a handle on this forum and didn't feel confident enough to do so.
You've always seemed reasoned in your posts so I imagine I don't have the full picture.
I've been on here since April so I can't claim any in depth knowledge of what he's posted previously. If you post abuse you have to expect people to respond in kind, but if I remember correctly the stuff he got after Westminster stank of the lynch mob.
I wish I had posted something along those lines at the time but I was still getting a handle on this forum and didn't feel confident enough to do so.
You've always seemed reasoned in your posts so I imagine I don't have the full picture.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There is one for criticism of Israel though. Which is widely purported whenever the Israeli Government is spoken about, in a bid to silence and criticism. Indeed any Jewish person speaking out against Israeli actions is often condemned as a "bad" Jew.
Edit: Haven't read the whole thread, not had time sorry.
> I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
> There is no equivalent term for criticism of communism or fascism or capitalism. If you criticise fascism, no one says "oh you fascist-phobe".
There is one for criticism of Israel though. Which is widely purported whenever the Israeli Government is spoken about, in a bid to silence and criticism. Indeed any Jewish person speaking out against Israeli actions is often condemned as a "bad" Jew.
Edit: Haven't read the whole thread, not had time sorry.
Post edited at 11:47
In reply to Timmd:
Where this discussion has gone is pretty much the conversation Sam Harris has in his latest podcast with the illustrious Fareed Zakaria. Those who've not already heard it may find it interesting to do so.
Where this discussion has gone is pretty much the conversation Sam Harris has in his latest podcast with the illustrious Fareed Zakaria. Those who've not already heard it may find it interesting to do so.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This popular argument against the term "Islamophobia" is not good. "Homophobia" is used to describe bigotry against homosexuals and it is linguistically every bit as naff and inaccurate as "Islamophobia" - but no one seems to care, because we don't really want to hear anti-gay bigotry these days, it has gone out of fashion.
However, there are a lot of people out there whose intention is to minimise, ignore and excuse anti-Muslim bigotry, because quite simply, they don't like Muslims (tribalism). This argument about the term "Islamophobia" tries to blur the line between "legitimate criticism of Islam" and bigotry - while you might be right that some people try to push the line to label the "legitimate criticism" as bigotry, there is an opposing movement to excuse the bigotry as "legitimate criticism" - and one tactic is to say "there is no such thing as Islamophobia".
If someone spits at a Muslim woman in the street and shouts "terrorist", then this anti-Muslim bigotry, and it is *very* real, as has been highlighted by recent events. The issue of whether this should be called "Islamophobia" or something else is, for me, deeply uninteresting. What we need is clarity about where the line is between critique and bigotry, and the argument about the word "Islamophobia" doesn't help this one bit - people on both sides are trying to push that line to their advantage.
> I'll press "dislike" for anyone using the term "Islamophobia". It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia".
> There is no equivalent term for criticism of communism or fascism or capitalism. If you criticise fascism, no one says "oh you fascist-phobe".
This popular argument against the term "Islamophobia" is not good. "Homophobia" is used to describe bigotry against homosexuals and it is linguistically every bit as naff and inaccurate as "Islamophobia" - but no one seems to care, because we don't really want to hear anti-gay bigotry these days, it has gone out of fashion.
However, there are a lot of people out there whose intention is to minimise, ignore and excuse anti-Muslim bigotry, because quite simply, they don't like Muslims (tribalism). This argument about the term "Islamophobia" tries to blur the line between "legitimate criticism of Islam" and bigotry - while you might be right that some people try to push the line to label the "legitimate criticism" as bigotry, there is an opposing movement to excuse the bigotry as "legitimate criticism" - and one tactic is to say "there is no such thing as Islamophobia".
If someone spits at a Muslim woman in the street and shouts "terrorist", then this anti-Muslim bigotry, and it is *very* real, as has been highlighted by recent events. The issue of whether this should be called "Islamophobia" or something else is, for me, deeply uninteresting. What we need is clarity about where the line is between critique and bigotry, and the argument about the word "Islamophobia" doesn't help this one bit - people on both sides are trying to push that line to their advantage.
5
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
True, but the problem is broader than that. It's hard to insist on enlightenment values when we are so unsure of them ourselves. Democracy and free speech are under fire from within more than without. We are poised for state regulation of the press, we focus on differences rather than commonalities, we put self-esteem and identity on pedestals, we prosecute people for being rude on twitter and the air is thick with cries of 'democracy isn't working'. It's hardly setting an example. In that context, objections to cartoons of the prophet seem less like an attack on prevailing western secular values and more a reflection of them.
> The point is that de facto we *don't* insist on enlightenment values, de facto we surrender them in a "compromise" with Islam.
True, but the problem is broader than that. It's hard to insist on enlightenment values when we are so unsure of them ourselves. Democracy and free speech are under fire from within more than without. We are poised for state regulation of the press, we focus on differences rather than commonalities, we put self-esteem and identity on pedestals, we prosecute people for being rude on twitter and the air is thick with cries of 'democracy isn't working'. It's hardly setting an example. In that context, objections to cartoons of the prophet seem less like an attack on prevailing western secular values and more a reflection of them.
Post edited at 12:23
2
2
In reply to stu7jokes:
The Islamist responses to Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoons were lights years away from 'objections'.
> In that context, objections to cartoons of the prophet seem less like an attack on prevailing western secular values and more a reflection of them.
The Islamist responses to Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoons were lights years away from 'objections'.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
But there is a huge difference between an innate characteristic (race, sex, skin color, sexual orientation, etc) and an idea system (capitalism, Islam, socialism, etc).
Agreed.
I'd say that it is the word "Islamophobia" that doesn't help one bit, since its use wilfully conflates the "bigotry against people" and "legitimate criticism of an idea system".
Plenty of people use the term precisely because of this ambiguity, so that they can pretend that "legitimate criticism of an idea system" is the same thing as "bigotry against people" and thus disallow it.
> This popular argument against the term "Islamophobia" is not good. "Homophobia" is used to describe bigotry against homosexuals and it is linguistically every bit as naff and inaccurate as "Islamophobia" -
But there is a huge difference between an innate characteristic (race, sex, skin color, sexual orientation, etc) and an idea system (capitalism, Islam, socialism, etc).
> What we need is clarity about where the line is between critique and bigotry, ...
Agreed.
> ... and the argument about the word "Islamophobia" doesn't help this one bit ...
I'd say that it is the word "Islamophobia" that doesn't help one bit, since its use wilfully conflates the "bigotry against people" and "legitimate criticism of an idea system".
Plenty of people use the term precisely because of this ambiguity, so that they can pretend that "legitimate criticism of an idea system" is the same thing as "bigotry against people" and thus disallow it.
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's true. And while religion shouldn't be a "protected characteristic" for that reason, abuse against someone because they're wearing a headscarf is bigotry every bit has pure as abuse against someone coming out of a gay club. You can't dilute the bigotry by saying "you can choose not to be a Muslim" - that doesn't make it any better.
That's precisely what I said. That people are trying to obfuscate on *both* sides. Introducing the term "Islamophobia" doesn't help, and nor does removing the term. In fact, in many cases the argument "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" is a tactic used by bigots to dress up their bigotry as "legitimate criticism". I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm saying that you're on a bandwagon along with those who do.
> But there is a huge difference between an innate characteristic (race, sex, skin color, sexual orientation, etc) and an idea system (capitalism, Islam, socialism, etc).
That's true. And while religion shouldn't be a "protected characteristic" for that reason, abuse against someone because they're wearing a headscarf is bigotry every bit has pure as abuse against someone coming out of a gay club. You can't dilute the bigotry by saying "you can choose not to be a Muslim" - that doesn't make it any better.
> I'd say that it is the word "Islamophobia" that doesn't help one bit, since its use wilfully conflates the "bigotry against people" and "legitimate criticism of an idea system".
> Plenty of people use the term precisely because of this ambiguity, so that they can pretend that "legitimate criticism of an idea system" is the same thing as "bigotry against people" and thus disallow it.
That's precisely what I said. That people are trying to obfuscate on *both* sides. Introducing the term "Islamophobia" doesn't help, and nor does removing the term. In fact, in many cases the argument "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" is a tactic used by bigots to dress up their bigotry as "legitimate criticism". I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm saying that you're on a bandwagon along with those who do.
Post edited at 12:54
3
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Can you give examples of this?
> In fact, in many cases the argument "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" is a tactic used by bigots to dress up their bigotry as "legitimate criticism".
Can you give examples of this?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Simon4 used precisely this argument to defend his bigotry. I'm sure you can trawl for the evidence if you have time.
Simon4 used precisely this argument to defend his bigotry. I'm sure you can trawl for the evidence if you have time.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Or, to a wider audience, the famous Simon4, Milo.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/27/10-things-milo-hates-islam/
"Is there anything more richly amusing than the crybully faux-victimhood of those who worry about “islamophobia” and hijab-pulling in the wake of terror attacks that leave dozens dead?
I haven't got time to find you a hundred more examples, but perhaps one of the brietbart fans of UKC could give me a hand - it's not a difficult task!
Or, to a wider audience, the famous Simon4, Milo.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/27/10-things-milo-hates-islam/
"Is there anything more richly amusing than the crybully faux-victimhood of those who worry about “islamophobia” and hijab-pulling in the wake of terror attacks that leave dozens dead?
I haven't got time to find you a hundred more examples, but perhaps one of the brietbart fans of UKC could give me a hand - it's not a difficult task!
Post edited at 15:50
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Interesting case, Milo. I'd argue he isn't necessarily Islamophobic, though he'd surely tick the criteria box for many people. His argument is usually a bit more nuanced in that he is strongly opposed to the same aspects of Islamic extremism and everyday Islam that most, non-phobic, people would be. But when presenting to his public meetings, he does so to shock - whether that is to turn up in drag, talk about the amount of cock he's had recently or abuse physical characteristics of hecklers. Its part of the show, little different from the sorts of vehicles a lot of comedians use. At what point does one form of speech become "hate"? In one-on-one discussions, he comes across somewhat differently and makes the point himself that one medium is theatre and one is more cerebral.
Anyway, it does seem a little unfair that we can barely mention the word "Catholic" without references being made to kiddie-fiddlers, Nazis, conquistadores, and mass death, with no need to tiptoe around any of those issues, but with Islam we have to be so much more circumspect.
Interesting case, Milo. I'd argue he isn't necessarily Islamophobic, though he'd surely tick the criteria box for many people. His argument is usually a bit more nuanced in that he is strongly opposed to the same aspects of Islamic extremism and everyday Islam that most, non-phobic, people would be. But when presenting to his public meetings, he does so to shock - whether that is to turn up in drag, talk about the amount of cock he's had recently or abuse physical characteristics of hecklers. Its part of the show, little different from the sorts of vehicles a lot of comedians use. At what point does one form of speech become "hate"? In one-on-one discussions, he comes across somewhat differently and makes the point himself that one medium is theatre and one is more cerebral.
Anyway, it does seem a little unfair that we can barely mention the word "Catholic" without references being made to kiddie-fiddlers, Nazis, conquistadores, and mass death, with no need to tiptoe around any of those issues, but with Islam we have to be so much more circumspect.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
In that quote Milo is not objecting to the term "Islamophobia" for the reasons I am, indeed he is using it in exactly the way I disagree with, equating "Islamophobia" with "hijab-pulling" (attacks on Muslim people). What he is saying is that attacks on Muslims such as "hijab-pulling" are minor compared to terrorist attacks.
> Or, to a wider audience, the famous Simon4, Milo.
In that quote Milo is not objecting to the term "Islamophobia" for the reasons I am, indeed he is using it in exactly the way I disagree with, equating "Islamophobia" with "hijab-pulling" (attacks on Muslim people). What he is saying is that attacks on Muslims such as "hijab-pulling" are minor compared to terrorist attacks.
1
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Milo comes across as a narcissistic idiot and a borderline bigot at worst. Personally, I've got more time for Douglas Murray after seeing him interviewed a couple of times. Do you also classify him as a bigot?
Milo comes across as a narcissistic idiot and a borderline bigot at worst. Personally, I've got more time for Douglas Murray after seeing him interviewed a couple of times. Do you also classify him as a bigot?
In reply to Stichtplate:
He's very bigoted against quite a few different groups.
Douglas Murray is a difficult one. I think he is essentially satanic. He's very eloquent, and he makes arguments that do sound quite reasonable, and at times it's almost easy to get carried along with what he says, such is his skill at presenting his views. He argues from the point of view of deep and sincere social conservatism when it comes to ethnic and religious mixing. Whereas I see the world constantly changing and becoming more mixed, more global, more modern, more varied and stimulating with better opportunities as we grow out of our primitive tribal instincts, he seems to view these changes with fear and dread. Is this bigoted or racist? Well I think that would be a discussion of semantics - let's just say that his brand of social conservatism is a political ideology that I despise.
Murray (and many right-wing, Jewish public intellectuals) see the world through the "al qaeda prism" - that there is a war between Islam (evil for Murray, good for Bin Laden) and the West (good for Murray, evil for Bin Laden). It was bollocks when Bin Laden said it, and it's still bollocks when Murray et al say it. There is no war between Islam and the West. The West has many millions of Muslim citizens living perfectly normal western lives, they're our doctors, teachers, politicians, scientists, etc, etc. We're not at war with them. They *are* us, they are a part of modern western society and culture. If you don't like that, then frankly, tough shit, it's already happened. What we need to do in the face of Islamist extremism is find ways to bring people together, not as Murray does, find reasons for us to hate and fear our colleagues, friends and neighbours.
> Milo comes across as a narcissistic idiot and a borderline bigot at worst.
He's very bigoted against quite a few different groups.
> Personally, I've got more time for Douglas Murray after seeing him interviewed a couple of times. Do you also classify him as a bigot?
Douglas Murray is a difficult one. I think he is essentially satanic. He's very eloquent, and he makes arguments that do sound quite reasonable, and at times it's almost easy to get carried along with what he says, such is his skill at presenting his views. He argues from the point of view of deep and sincere social conservatism when it comes to ethnic and religious mixing. Whereas I see the world constantly changing and becoming more mixed, more global, more modern, more varied and stimulating with better opportunities as we grow out of our primitive tribal instincts, he seems to view these changes with fear and dread. Is this bigoted or racist? Well I think that would be a discussion of semantics - let's just say that his brand of social conservatism is a political ideology that I despise.
Murray (and many right-wing, Jewish public intellectuals) see the world through the "al qaeda prism" - that there is a war between Islam (evil for Murray, good for Bin Laden) and the West (good for Murray, evil for Bin Laden). It was bollocks when Bin Laden said it, and it's still bollocks when Murray et al say it. There is no war between Islam and the West. The West has many millions of Muslim citizens living perfectly normal western lives, they're our doctors, teachers, politicians, scientists, etc, etc. We're not at war with them. They *are* us, they are a part of modern western society and culture. If you don't like that, then frankly, tough shit, it's already happened. What we need to do in the face of Islamist extremism is find ways to bring people together, not as Murray does, find reasons for us to hate and fear our colleagues, friends and neighbours.
Post edited at 23:34
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
He's mocking the idea of Islamophobia - did you notice the quote marks?
He's trying to dismiss attacks on Muslims by comparing "hijab-pulling" with terrorism. You're honestly defending this as a reasonable argument? Can't you see his motivation - he doesn't think there's a problem with attacks on Muslims, indeed he thinks Muslims don't deserve to be protected from attacks. This is what you're defending. You haven't chosen the right side here, you're siding with god-awful bigots, it isn't good.
> In that quote Milo is not objecting to the term "Islamophobia" for the reasons I am, indeed he is using it in exactly the way I disagree with, equating "Islamophobia" with "hijab-pulling" (attacks on Muslim people).
He's mocking the idea of Islamophobia - did you notice the quote marks?
> What he is saying is that attacks on Muslims such as "hijab-pulling" are minor compared to terrorist attacks.
He's trying to dismiss attacks on Muslims by comparing "hijab-pulling" with terrorism. You're honestly defending this as a reasonable argument? Can't you see his motivation - he doesn't think there's a problem with attacks on Muslims, indeed he thinks Muslims don't deserve to be protected from attacks. This is what you're defending. You haven't chosen the right side here, you're siding with god-awful bigots, it isn't good.
6
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Are you saying Murray is Jewish? Or just many right wing Jewish intellectuals agree with him? I guess you mean neoconservatives (some of whom are [were?] Jewish, but not all). There's a strange story to be told about rise and fall of neoconservatism, Murray seems a bit like yesterday's man in that respect.
Milo is fun in that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect. He wants to say whatever he wants - good. So we can just say he's a tw*t and ignore him.
> Murray (and many right-wing, Jewish public intellectuals)
Are you saying Murray is Jewish? Or just many right wing Jewish intellectuals agree with him? I guess you mean neoconservatives (some of whom are [were?] Jewish, but not all). There's a strange story to be told about rise and fall of neoconservatism, Murray seems a bit like yesterday's man in that respect.
Milo is fun in that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect. He wants to say whatever he wants - good. So we can just say he's a tw*t and ignore him.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Damn... so now I have to pick a point of view from either the seemingly reasonable and eloquent Douglas Murray or the seemingly reasonable and eloquent Jon Stewart?
Seriously though, only have passing knowledge of Murray via a couple of recent interviews plugging his new book. He didn't come across as the Devil incarnate , and his argument seemed to be against the supplanting of European culture (Yes I know, vague concept) via unprecedented mass immigration without any meaningful assimilation into the host community. This is a view I have a small amount of sympathy* for ,though on the whole I'm still on the fence.
Anyway, unless he reveals himself as a full on frother, I'll reserve judgment until his book gets reduced on kindle, at which point I'll probably give it a whirl.
Edit: * I should say supplanted in small geographically isolated pockets, not as Murray seems to believe, across whole countries.
Damn... so now I have to pick a point of view from either the seemingly reasonable and eloquent Douglas Murray or the seemingly reasonable and eloquent Jon Stewart?
Seriously though, only have passing knowledge of Murray via a couple of recent interviews plugging his new book. He didn't come across as the Devil incarnate , and his argument seemed to be against the supplanting of European culture (Yes I know, vague concept) via unprecedented mass immigration without any meaningful assimilation into the host community. This is a view I have a small amount of sympathy* for ,though on the whole I'm still on the fence.
Anyway, unless he reveals himself as a full on frother, I'll reserve judgment until his book gets reduced on kindle, at which point I'll probably give it a whirl.
Edit: * I should say supplanted in small geographically isolated pockets, not as Murray seems to believe, across whole countries.
Post edited at 00:08
1
In reply to TobyA:
I dunno, is he?
Yes, this. I don't think I phrased it quite right.
I'm talking about Gad Saad, Dave Rubin (who I really hesitate to describe as an "intellectual" - he's not at all bright), Ben Shapiro - and I guess Mr Brietbart himself, Dennis Prager...I think much of the "us and them" "war against Islam" narrative seems to be generated by these guys.
> Are you saying Murray is Jewish?
I dunno, is he?
> Or just many right wing Jewish intellectuals agree with him?
Yes, this. I don't think I phrased it quite right.
> I guess you mean neoconservatives
I'm talking about Gad Saad, Dave Rubin (who I really hesitate to describe as an "intellectual" - he's not at all bright), Ben Shapiro - and I guess Mr Brietbart himself, Dennis Prager...I think much of the "us and them" "war against Islam" narrative seems to be generated by these guys.
Post edited at 00:12
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
All of them seem to be writers, sort of journalists? I was thinking of neoconservative philosophers and academic lawyers starting with Strauss, and then those who were in policy positions in the Bush administration: Wolfowitz, Pearle etc. but that is probably just showing my age!
> I'm talking about Gad Saad,
Never heard of this chap although I just googled him.> Dave Rubin (who I really hesitate to describe as an "intellectual" - he's not at all bright),
Looked him up after you mentioned him recently.> Ben Shapiro
Had to look him up too!> Dennis Prager
He's older isn't he, I think I've heard him interviewed in the past.All of them seem to be writers, sort of journalists? I was thinking of neoconservative philosophers and academic lawyers starting with Strauss, and then those who were in policy positions in the Bush administration: Wolfowitz, Pearle etc. but that is probably just showing my age!
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
No, not at all! (Did I say that?) Milo's is a completely different argument than the one I'm making.
You were suggesting that my critique of the concept of "Islamophobia" is the same one Milo is making. It isn't, it is completely different.
I reject the concept "Islamophobia" because it tries to imply that criticising Islam (the idea system), as is necessary and proper, is the same thing as making physical attacks on Muslims.
Milo is dismissing "Islamophobia" because (to quote you) "he thinks Muslims don't deserve to be protected from attacks" such as being assaulted in the street.
In other words I'm saying something roughly the 100% opposite of Milo.
And this is *again* a symptom of the problems caused by the deliberately misleading term "Islamophobia", a term designed and intended to confuse the issue in exactly this sort of way, and which way too many people (including the mainstream media) have bought into uncritically.
> He's trying to dismiss attacks on Muslims by comparing "hijab-pulling" with terrorism. You're honestly defending this as a reasonable argument?
No, not at all! (Did I say that?) Milo's is a completely different argument than the one I'm making.
You were suggesting that my critique of the concept of "Islamophobia" is the same one Milo is making. It isn't, it is completely different.
I reject the concept "Islamophobia" because it tries to imply that criticising Islam (the idea system), as is necessary and proper, is the same thing as making physical attacks on Muslims.
Milo is dismissing "Islamophobia" because (to quote you) "he thinks Muslims don't deserve to be protected from attacks" such as being assaulted in the street.
In other words I'm saying something roughly the 100% opposite of Milo.
And this is *again* a symptom of the problems caused by the deliberately misleading term "Islamophobia", a term designed and intended to confuse the issue in exactly this sort of way, and which way too many people (including the mainstream media) have bought into uncritically.
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You are rejecting a concept on the basis that some people use the word in away you don't like.
It makes more sense to accept the normal meaning as a useful word for referring to something like the Finsbury Park mosque attack.
You are rejecting a concept on the basis that some people use the word in away you don't like.
It makes more sense to accept the normal meaning as a useful word for referring to something like the Finsbury Park mosque attack.
1
2
In reply to elsewhere:
The problem is that moderate reformers, people who want to criticise and reform Islam, but who are non-violent people who have never physically attacked anyone in their lives and are horrified by that idea, get dismissed as "Islamophobes" and lumped in with the Finsbury Park mosque attacker.
That is what is wrong with the concept.
> It makes more sense to accept the normal meaning as a useful word for referring to something like the Finsbury Park mosque attack.
The problem is that moderate reformers, people who want to criticise and reform Islam, but who are non-violent people who have never physically attacked anyone in their lives and are horrified by that idea, get dismissed as "Islamophobes" and lumped in with the Finsbury Park mosque attacker.
That is what is wrong with the concept.
5
In reply to elsewhere:
Yes. This is the problem - when the media, politicians and individuals conflate use of the term for hate crimes against individuals (as you reference above) with criticism of religious texts, organisations and political systems.
It is not good for the beneficial conduct of a liberal democracy to allow the term for the former to be applied to the later.
> It makes more sense to accept the normal meaning as a useful word for referring to something like the Finsbury Park mosque attack.
Yes. This is the problem - when the media, politicians and individuals conflate use of the term for hate crimes against individuals (as you reference above) with criticism of religious texts, organisations and political systems.
It is not good for the beneficial conduct of a liberal democracy to allow the term for the former to be applied to the later.
Post edited at 11:36
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Let's get out of the passive voice - who designed the word with this intention?
> "Islamophobia", a term designed and intended to confuse the issue in exactly this sort of way
Let's get out of the passive voice - who designed the word with this intention?
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not normally in the habit of massaging egos, but can I say that this has been one of the best political discussions I've seen on UKC. Every time I've had a 'Yes but...' moment, or otherwise thought I might have something to contribute, someone has got there first. Rational argument, good use of evidence, avoidance of abuse... it's been great, and I've genuinely learnt from it.
I'm not normally in the habit of massaging egos, but can I say that this has been one of the best political discussions I've seen on UKC. Every time I've had a 'Yes but...' moment, or otherwise thought I might have something to contribute, someone has got there first. Rational argument, good use of evidence, avoidance of abuse... it's been great, and I've genuinely learnt from it.
3
In reply to TobyA:
We've discussed the origins of the word before, and I'll accept that the cites aren't as robust as one might like, but that does seem to be the suggested origin of the word, and plenty of people do *promote* the word with the intention to trying to disallow criticism of mainstream Islam.
Such people include the Runnymede Trust (who popularised the use of the term in the UK), and at the international level the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (who regularly ask the UN for blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of Islam, which they call "defamation of religion").
> Let's get out of the passive voice - who designed the word with this intention?
We've discussed the origins of the word before, and I'll accept that the cites aren't as robust as one might like, but that does seem to be the suggested origin of the word, and plenty of people do *promote* the word with the intention to trying to disallow criticism of mainstream Islam.
Such people include the Runnymede Trust (who popularised the use of the term in the UK), and at the international level the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (who regularly ask the UN for blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of Islam, which they call "defamation of religion").
2
1
In reply to Shani:
Piers Morgan????? Piers Morgan?????? hahahahahaha
To try and add something construstive to the discussion, Has the term been mis-(or simply)appropriated in the same way 'anti-semitism' has been. Its use then stiffles bonefide criticism of the subject.
Piers Morgan????? Piers Morgan?????? hahahahahaha
To try and add something construstive to the discussion, Has the term been mis-(or simply)appropriated in the same way 'anti-semitism' has been. Its use then stiffles bonefide criticism of the subject.
Post edited at 12:04
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You dislike the concept because your agree with the definition used by those who dismiss criticism as Islamophobia.
You dislike the concept because your agree with the definition used by those who dismiss criticism as Islamophobia.
2
3
In reply to wintertree:
They do? Are you saying none of them can distinguish between Islamophobia and criticism or just some don't?
I really think most media, politicians and individuals are capable of distinguishing between Islamophobia and criticism.
True.
> Yes. This is the problem - when the media, politicians and individuals conflate use of the term ...
They do? Are you saying none of them can distinguish between Islamophobia and criticism or just some don't?
I really think most media, politicians and individuals are capable of distinguishing between Islamophobia and criticism.
> It is not good for the beneficial conduct of a liberal democracy to allow the term for the former to be applied to the later.
True.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And as we saw last time you were rather disingenuous over what the Runnymede report said. I do wonder if you are so wedded to a paradigm in your science. Or whether you are happy to take a more Popperian view?
And as we saw last time you were rather disingenuous over what the Runnymede report said. I do wonder if you are so wedded to a paradigm in your science. Or whether you are happy to take a more Popperian view?
2
1
In reply to TobyA:
That's an argumentative phrasing. I don't accept your assessment and I stand by my analysis of the Runnymede report, as outlined up-thread.
The whole problem with the Runnymede report is that it sees *both* bigotry towards people, *and* fair criticism of Islam as "Islamophobic".
It was written by people who take the line "Islam is a religion, therefore it must be benign and peaceful and there can't be anything much wrong with it, therefore any critic of Islam must be an unreasonable bigot".
Thus, an ex-Muslim from an Islamic cultural background, who is vocally opposed to Islam precisely because they see it as harmful to their own families and their own communities, gets lumped in with people who want to "kill all Muslims".
> And as we saw last time you were rather disingenuous over what the Runnymede report said.
That's an argumentative phrasing. I don't accept your assessment and I stand by my analysis of the Runnymede report, as outlined up-thread.
The whole problem with the Runnymede report is that it sees *both* bigotry towards people, *and* fair criticism of Islam as "Islamophobic".
It was written by people who take the line "Islam is a religion, therefore it must be benign and peaceful and there can't be anything much wrong with it, therefore any critic of Islam must be an unreasonable bigot".
Thus, an ex-Muslim from an Islamic cultural background, who is vocally opposed to Islam precisely because they see it as harmful to their own families and their own communities, gets lumped in with people who want to "kill all Muslims".
3
In reply to TobyA:
Just to amplify this:
"[The Runnymede report] was written by people who take the line "Islam is a religion, therefore it must be benign and peaceful and there can't be anything much wrong with it, therefore any critic of Islam must be an unreasonable bigot".
The panel who wrote that report is listed at http://www.insted.co.uk/commission.html
I make it about 9 Muslims, 5 Christians and 2 Jews and about 2 I'm not sure about.
But there are *no* notable critics of Islam, no ex-Muslims, no secular campaigners, no real free-speech advocates. [The closest to this would be Trevor Phillips, but he has publically changed his views to be more pro-free-speech and critical of religion since that time.]
It is not in any way an attempt at a balanced view. It is very much a pro-religion panel. That means they wrote a pro-religion report. A panel packed with Muslims is going to try to whitewash Islam and try to paint any major criticism of it as unreasonable and bigoted. And that's exactly what that report did.
This Runnymede report is exactly the problem. And the mainstream media swallowed it uncritically.
Just to amplify this:
"[The Runnymede report] was written by people who take the line "Islam is a religion, therefore it must be benign and peaceful and there can't be anything much wrong with it, therefore any critic of Islam must be an unreasonable bigot".
The panel who wrote that report is listed at http://www.insted.co.uk/commission.html
I make it about 9 Muslims, 5 Christians and 2 Jews and about 2 I'm not sure about.
But there are *no* notable critics of Islam, no ex-Muslims, no secular campaigners, no real free-speech advocates. [The closest to this would be Trevor Phillips, but he has publically changed his views to be more pro-free-speech and critical of religion since that time.]
It is not in any way an attempt at a balanced view. It is very much a pro-religion panel. That means they wrote a pro-religion report. A panel packed with Muslims is going to try to whitewash Islam and try to paint any major criticism of it as unreasonable and bigoted. And that's exactly what that report did.
This Runnymede report is exactly the problem. And the mainstream media swallowed it uncritically.
Post edited at 13:08
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It was a report (20 years ago) about the experience of prejudice that British Muslims faced (20+ years ago). It made a bit more famous a pre existing term for racism and other abuse Muslims faced. Only you seem to see it as an cunning ecumenical plot by 'the religious' to 20 years on be able to attack you and others who want to criticise the various interpretations of Islam you see around you. It really was cunning too as the original report states directly that such criticism is perfectly valid. Those tricky religious types and their taqqiya eh?
It was a report (20 years ago) about the experience of prejudice that British Muslims faced (20+ years ago). It made a bit more famous a pre existing term for racism and other abuse Muslims faced. Only you seem to see it as an cunning ecumenical plot by 'the religious' to 20 years on be able to attack you and others who want to criticise the various interpretations of Islam you see around you. It really was cunning too as the original report states directly that such criticism is perfectly valid. Those tricky religious types and their taqqiya eh?
4
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And by the way, what with you being a defender of robust free speech and all, that bit above makes you at least SOUND like a bigot and a bit of a wing nut silver foil hat type.
> . A panel packed with Muslims is going to try to whitewash Islam and try to paint any major criticism of it as unreasonable and bigoted.
And by the way, what with you being a defender of robust free speech and all, that bit above makes you at least SOUND like a bigot and a bit of a wing nut silver foil hat type.
3
3
In reply to TobyA:
That's the very essence of "anyone who makes any major criticism of Islam is a unreasonable and bigoted". Which proves my point.
The same is never said of people who strongly criticise socialism or capitalism.
> And by the way, what with you being a defender of robust free speech and all, that bit above makes you at least SOUND like a bigot and a bit of a wing nut silver foil hat type.
That's the very essence of "anyone who makes any major criticism of Islam is a unreasonable and bigoted". Which proves my point.
The same is never said of people who strongly criticise socialism or capitalism.
2
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, it's a common tactic. Pay *lip-service* to the idea of free speech and being able to criticise religion, but then in practice shout down anyone who does so as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe".
Then ask for blasphemy laws to stop them speaking at all. Or, if you live in many Muslim-majority countries, where you already have such laws, simply put them in jail.
> It really was cunning too as the original report states directly that such criticism is perfectly valid. Those tricky religious types and their taqqiya eh?
Yes, it's a common tactic. Pay *lip-service* to the idea of free speech and being able to criticise religion, but then in practice shout down anyone who does so as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe".
Then ask for blasphemy laws to stop them speaking at all. Or, if you live in many Muslim-majority countries, where you already have such laws, simply put them in jail.
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, you are criticising named individuals and presuming because of their names or job titles how they see the world.
And BTW a huge strand of anti-capitalist thought has been anti-Semitic, so they are bigots. Interestingly radical anti capitalist criticism also becomes far too often anti-Semitic, so again bigoted.
No, you are criticising named individuals and presuming because of their names or job titles how they see the world.
And BTW a huge strand of anti-capitalist thought has been anti-Semitic, so they are bigots. Interestingly radical anti capitalist criticism also becomes far too often anti-Semitic, so again bigoted.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
So this is a 20 year cunning plan? Has Trevor Phillips confirmed that this is what the committee he chaired secretly planned all along?
So this is a 20 year cunning plan? Has Trevor Phillips confirmed that this is what the committee he chaired secretly planned all along?
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
It's just how religious people tend to see religion, as ipso facto a good thing. Why else, for example, would advancing religion be one of the qualifications for charitable status? Why else would taxpayer-funded schools be handed over to religions to run?
He didn't chair it. But, yes, he has stated that nowadays he's far more critical of the multi-culturism attitudes that panels such as that usually had back then. Nowadays he's far less likely to assume by default that different cultural attitudes are "equally worthy of respect".
> So this is a 20 year cunning plan?
It's just how religious people tend to see religion, as ipso facto a good thing. Why else, for example, would advancing religion be one of the qualifications for charitable status? Why else would taxpayer-funded schools be handed over to religions to run?
> Has Trevor Phillips confirmed that this is what the committee he chaired secretly planned all along?
He didn't chair it. But, yes, he has stated that nowadays he's far more critical of the multi-culturism attitudes that panels such as that usually had back then. Nowadays he's far less likely to assume by default that different cultural attitudes are "equally worthy of respect".
2
In reply to TobyA:
Well I do also have the report they wrote as evidence of how they see the world.
> No, you are criticising named individuals and presuming because of their names or job titles how they see the world.
Well I do also have the report they wrote as evidence of how they see the world.
5
1
In reply to andrew Breckhill
I guess it had to be said! I should probably apologise for pointing out that people have been raising the tone of the conversation on UKC!
I guess it had to be said! I should probably apologise for pointing out that people have been raising the tone of the conversation on UKC!
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
But you said it was panel "packed with Muslims", and obviously you knew what they would say because they are Muslims.
But you said it was panel "packed with Muslims", and obviously you knew what they would say because they are Muslims.
3
1
In reply to TobyA:
Muslims in general do indeed have a marked tendency not to support free speech, and to see major criticism of Islam as illegitimate [1]. If you have 9 Muslims out of 17 on a panel, and no ex-Muslims or critics of Islam at all, you are not going to get a balanced or neutral view of Islam -- and, no surprise, the panel did indeed try to paint any major criticism of Islam as illegitimate.
[1] For example, from NOP polling of British Muslims:
"Asked about attitudes towards free speech, there was little support for freedom of speech if it would offend religious sensibilities. 78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted ..."
The percentages would likely be higher in most Muslim-majority nations.
> But you said it was panel "packed with Muslims", and obviously you knew what they would say because they are Muslims.
Muslims in general do indeed have a marked tendency not to support free speech, and to see major criticism of Islam as illegitimate [1]. If you have 9 Muslims out of 17 on a panel, and no ex-Muslims or critics of Islam at all, you are not going to get a balanced or neutral view of Islam -- and, no surprise, the panel did indeed try to paint any major criticism of Islam as illegitimate.
[1] For example, from NOP polling of British Muslims:
"Asked about attitudes towards free speech, there was little support for freedom of speech if it would offend religious sensibilities. 78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted ..."
The percentages would likely be higher in most Muslim-majority nations.
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
a) you're talking about something 20 years ago and I suspect you don't really know what any of the committee members individually thought. You have just presumed what they think because of their faith (or even presumed faith) because B), as noted in detail earlier, the report accepts in its opening chapter that there was nothing "intrinsically phobic or prejudiced" in disagreeing with Islamic or any other religious beliefs and that such disagreement is an important part of liberal society. Of course you say that's "lip service", because you know what they really thought.
But this seems to be becoming rather stale: your mind is clearly made up on what Islamophobia means to you.
a) you're talking about something 20 years ago and I suspect you don't really know what any of the committee members individually thought. You have just presumed what they think because of their faith (or even presumed faith) because B), as noted in detail earlier, the report accepts in its opening chapter that there was nothing "intrinsically phobic or prejudiced" in disagreeing with Islamic or any other religious beliefs and that such disagreement is an important part of liberal society. Of course you say that's "lip service", because you know what they really thought.
But this seems to be becoming rather stale: your mind is clearly made up on what Islamophobia means to you.
Post edited at 21:21
3
2
In reply to TobyA:
Well no, but I know what they *collectively* thought since they wrote a whole report saying it!
And is it just coincidence that a report that says we need to view Islam (the idea system) as "progressive" and as "equally worthy of respect", and that we're not allowed to see Islam (the idea system) as "sexist" or "inferior" or as a "political ideology" or "threatening" just happens to have been written by a panel of which 9 out of 17 members as Muslim?
> a) you're talking about something 20 years ago and I suspect you don't really know what any of the committee members individually thought.
Well no, but I know what they *collectively* thought since they wrote a whole report saying it!
And is it just coincidence that a report that says we need to view Islam (the idea system) as "progressive" and as "equally worthy of respect", and that we're not allowed to see Islam (the idea system) as "sexist" or "inferior" or as a "political ideology" or "threatening" just happens to have been written by a panel of which 9 out of 17 members as Muslim?
2
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, it means what the dictionary says it does! Namely:
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
So if you dislike Islam as a political force then you are "Islamophobic".
Which is nothing to do with assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques!
Anyone in their right mind (who values pluralistic multi-party democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, individual human rights, equality for women and gays, et cetera) would "dislike Islam as a political force"! Wouldn't they??
> ... your mind is clearly made up on what Islamophobia means to you.
Yes, it means what the dictionary says it does! Namely:
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
So if you dislike Islam as a political force then you are "Islamophobic".
Which is nothing to do with assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques!
Anyone in their right mind (who values pluralistic multi-party democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, individual human rights, equality for women and gays, et cetera) would "dislike Islam as a political force"! Wouldn't they??
6
In reply to TobyA:
Just out of interest, Toby, do you dislike Islam as a political force?
Or would you happily go and live with your partner and children in an Islamist-dominated country?
Just for the record, I also dislike UK Republicanism as a political force.
And I dislike evangelical Christianity as a political force.
And I dislike communism as a political force (at least I would if there were any significant amounts of it left).
In fact there's a heck of a lot of things that I'd dislike as political forces.
But there's only one of them I'm told that I'm not allowed to dislike as a political force. (No prizes for guessing!)
Just out of interest, Toby, do you dislike Islam as a political force?
Or would you happily go and live with your partner and children in an Islamist-dominated country?
Just for the record, I also dislike UK Republicanism as a political force.
And I dislike evangelical Christianity as a political force.
And I dislike communism as a political force (at least I would if there were any significant amounts of it left).
In fact there's a heck of a lot of things that I'd dislike as political forces.
But there's only one of them I'm told that I'm not allowed to dislike as a political force. (No prizes for guessing!)
9
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Fair enough, but we live in a multicultural society where the Muslim minority feels increasingly under siege. Bearing that in mind, anyone seeking to restrain the political influence of Islamists would do well to frame their objections within a general push back against all religious influence.
Personally, I'm more than a little embarrassed that in 21st century Britain, Christian bishops are still afforded seats in the House of Lords as a matter of course.
Edit: sent on my phone before reading your last post.
> Anyone in their right mind (who values pluralistic multi-party democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, individual human rights, equality for women and gays, et cetera) would "dislike Islam as a political force"! Wouldn't they??
Fair enough, but we live in a multicultural society where the Muslim minority feels increasingly under siege. Bearing that in mind, anyone seeking to restrain the political influence of Islamists would do well to frame their objections within a general push back against all religious influence.
Personally, I'm more than a little embarrassed that in 21st century Britain, Christian bishops are still afforded seats in the House of Lords as a matter of course.
Edit: sent on my phone before reading your last post.
Post edited at 22:13
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Again you are quoting sections out of context and adding suggestions that aren't in the report to suit your view. In distinguishing between open and closed views there is no use of the word "allow" that you are using above. They are saying that closed views lead to a "phobic dread" while open views allow for a society that doesn't create prejudice against certain social groups (Box 2, p.5). "Progressive" is used as an antonym to "static", if you read on p.5 it follows diverse and progressive by saying "with internal differences, debates and development". I would argue that plenty of those developments are negative, but some are not, but Muslims are not monolithic or static.
I spoke to Y5 parent earlier tonight who told me he wasn't letting his child go on school trip where they would be visiting a mosque "because I don't want him to meet Muslims, that's dangerous". Perhaps I looked at bit surprised at him saying that so openly to someone he had met just seconds before because he added "that's just my belief". Is that not Islamophobia? And how might that affect the kid when they end up sitting next to a kid from a Muslim family at some future point?
> And is it just coincidence that a report that says we need to view Islam (the idea system) as "progressive" and as "equally worthy of respect", and that we're not allowed to see Islam (the idea system) as "sexist" or "inferior" or as a "political ideology" or "threatening" just happens to have been written by a panel of which 9 out of 17 members as Muslim?
Again you are quoting sections out of context and adding suggestions that aren't in the report to suit your view. In distinguishing between open and closed views there is no use of the word "allow" that you are using above. They are saying that closed views lead to a "phobic dread" while open views allow for a society that doesn't create prejudice against certain social groups (Box 2, p.5). "Progressive" is used as an antonym to "static", if you read on p.5 it follows diverse and progressive by saying "with internal differences, debates and development". I would argue that plenty of those developments are negative, but some are not, but Muslims are not monolithic or static.
I spoke to Y5 parent earlier tonight who told me he wasn't letting his child go on school trip where they would be visiting a mosque "because I don't want him to meet Muslims, that's dangerous". Perhaps I looked at bit surprised at him saying that so openly to someone he had met just seconds before because he added "that's just my belief". Is that not Islamophobia? And how might that affect the kid when they end up sitting next to a kid from a Muslim family at some future point?
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You're not following the argument correctly, let's rewind and see exactly what I was I suggesting and how the Milo example is pertinent:
You launched into the classic "I reject Islamophobia as a concept designed to disallow criticism of Islam". In response I said:
Note: I'm not saying your argument is identical to Milo's. I'm saying that you're aboard the "Islamophobia doesn't exist" bandwagon along with a bunch of god-awful bigots.
You asked me to give an example (of a god-awful bigot using the argument "Islamopohobia does not exist [so please ignore/excuse my disgusting bigotry]) and I gave you the Milo quote. Perhaps it's not absolutely precise, since he doesn't say "Islamophobia doesn't exist" - but he puts the term in quote marks and goes on to say how "richly amusing" it is that people are concerned about attacks against Muslims...so frankly, it is a pretty precise example of exactly what was talking about.
I hope you can now see that I wasn't accusing you of sharing the same bigoted viewpoint, I was providing the example you asked for of how bigots use the "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" line to excuse their bigotry. I'm trying to get you to see that there are two equally wrong sides to this Islamophobia debate. I said:
You haven't provided any arguments as how this objection to the term Islamophobia helps achieve that clarity.
I also find it very weird that while you're very keen to say that your argument isn't identical to Milos, you then characterise his very bigoted words as meaning:
I don't know how to interpret this. You're saying he's just making a bland statement of the obvious? I assure you, that's not what he's doing! If you want to distance yourself from the rock-bottom intellectual standards and poisonous bigotry of the Breitbart Wankers, this isn't how you should go about it. Or do you want to defend Milo (while being clear that your argument is not identical)? It's simply not clear.
I've got to tell you that having to back-track over arguments and make the same point several times isn't a whole lot of fun, so I might have to devote a bit less time...
That's fine, but you're not being very clear about whether you think anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem. If we call it "anti-Muslim bigotry", it won't make any difference, Ayaan Hirsi Ali will still get called "an anti-Muslim bigot" instead of an "Islamophobe" and the campaign for the banning the word "Islamophobia" will have achieved precisely nothing. Along with "these statistics prove that Islam is bad", it's a crap argument that leads nowhere.
> You were suggesting that my critique of the concept of "Islamophobia" is the same one Milo is making. It isn't, it is completely different.
You're not following the argument correctly, let's rewind and see exactly what I was I suggesting and how the Milo example is pertinent:
You launched into the classic "I reject Islamophobia as a concept designed to disallow criticism of Islam". In response I said:
> in many cases the argument "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" is a tactic used by bigots to dress up their bigotry as "legitimate criticism". I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm saying that you're on a bandwagon along with those who do.
Note: I'm not saying your argument is identical to Milo's. I'm saying that you're aboard the "Islamophobia doesn't exist" bandwagon along with a bunch of god-awful bigots.
You asked me to give an example (of a god-awful bigot using the argument "Islamopohobia does not exist [so please ignore/excuse my disgusting bigotry]) and I gave you the Milo quote. Perhaps it's not absolutely precise, since he doesn't say "Islamophobia doesn't exist" - but he puts the term in quote marks and goes on to say how "richly amusing" it is that people are concerned about attacks against Muslims...so frankly, it is a pretty precise example of exactly what was talking about.
I hope you can now see that I wasn't accusing you of sharing the same bigoted viewpoint, I was providing the example you asked for of how bigots use the "there is no such thing as Islamophobia" line to excuse their bigotry. I'm trying to get you to see that there are two equally wrong sides to this Islamophobia debate. I said:
> What we need is clarity about where the line is between critique and bigotry, and the argument about the word "Islamophobia" doesn't help this one bit - people on both sides are trying to push that line to their advantage.
You haven't provided any arguments as how this objection to the term Islamophobia helps achieve that clarity.
I also find it very weird that while you're very keen to say that your argument isn't identical to Milos, you then characterise his very bigoted words as meaning:
> What he is saying is that attacks on Muslims such as "hijab-pulling" are minor compared to terrorist attacks.
I don't know how to interpret this. You're saying he's just making a bland statement of the obvious? I assure you, that's not what he's doing! If you want to distance yourself from the rock-bottom intellectual standards and poisonous bigotry of the Breitbart Wankers, this isn't how you should go about it. Or do you want to defend Milo (while being clear that your argument is not identical)? It's simply not clear.
I've got to tell you that having to back-track over arguments and make the same point several times isn't a whole lot of fun, so I might have to devote a bit less time...
> I reject the concept "Islamophobia" because it tries to imply that criticising Islam (the idea system), as is necessary and proper, is the same thing as making physical attacks on Muslims.
That's fine, but you're not being very clear about whether you think anti-Muslim bigotry is a problem. If we call it "anti-Muslim bigotry", it won't make any difference, Ayaan Hirsi Ali will still get called "an anti-Muslim bigot" instead of an "Islamophobe" and the campaign for the banning the word "Islamophobia" will have achieved precisely nothing. Along with "these statistics prove that Islam is bad", it's a crap argument that leads nowhere.
Post edited at 22:26
4
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't think that definition is a particularly good one because I think "Islam as a political force" is so vague as to be analytically meaningless.
Do I dislike Islamist parties in the Qubt tradition? Almost universally yes, they tend to be authoritarian minded, socially conservative and when they get round to it right wing economically as well (who needs welfare when you've got zakat?). But then you look at Ennahda and think, well that started off as an Ikhwan party like all the others across the middle east but look at where Ghannouchi and co have ended up. Historically you can't separate the origins of modern Islamism from anti-colonialism.
But Sadiq Khan is a Muslim and his world view and politics will have been shaped in part by his experience of growing up in the faith - if Khan is "Islam as a political force" I've got no problem with that.
But, back to Islamophobia: "assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques" is exactly what the vast majority of British Muslims think Islamophobia is, albeit the most extreme forms of it.
I don't think that definition is a particularly good one because I think "Islam as a political force" is so vague as to be analytically meaningless.
Do I dislike Islamist parties in the Qubt tradition? Almost universally yes, they tend to be authoritarian minded, socially conservative and when they get round to it right wing economically as well (who needs welfare when you've got zakat?). But then you look at Ennahda and think, well that started off as an Ikhwan party like all the others across the middle east but look at where Ghannouchi and co have ended up. Historically you can't separate the origins of modern Islamism from anti-colonialism.
But Sadiq Khan is a Muslim and his world view and politics will have been shaped in part by his experience of growing up in the faith - if Khan is "Islam as a political force" I've got no problem with that.
But, back to Islamophobia: "assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques" is exactly what the vast majority of British Muslims think Islamophobia is, albeit the most extreme forms of it.
In reply to Stichtplate:
I'd agree (and are you slipping subliminal messages about the school run into your quote of my post!? ).
I'd agree (and are you slipping subliminal messages about the school run into your quote of my post!? ).
In reply to Stichtplate:
Which minority population within the UK do you think suffers the most as a result of political Islamist influence?
We would do well to frame our objections in terms of the the protection of individuals, the universal rule of law, and the specific issues at hand.
If a minority within the UK feels increasingly "under siege", then there are no shortage of laws and powers to address that within the UK. It should not mandate window dressing of other criticisms of organisations. That sets a bad precedent indeed.
> Fair enough, but we live in a multicultural society where the Muslim minority feels increasingly under siege. Bearing that in mind, anyone seeking to restrain the political influence of Islamists would do well to frame their objections within a general push back against all religious influence
Which minority population within the UK do you think suffers the most as a result of political Islamist influence?
We would do well to frame our objections in terms of the the protection of individuals, the universal rule of law, and the specific issues at hand.
If a minority within the UK feels increasingly "under siege", then there are no shortage of laws and powers to address that within the UK. It should not mandate window dressing of other criticisms of organisations. That sets a bad precedent indeed.
1
In reply to TobyA:
Shit! Had to delete that . WTF . Sabotaged by my own iPhone. I'll take that as meaning the god I don't believe in wants me to go to bed.
> I'd agree (and are you slipping subliminal messages about the school run into your quote of my post!? ).
Shit! Had to delete that . WTF . Sabotaged by my own iPhone. I'll take that as meaning the god I don't believe in wants me to go to bed.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The problem with the Runnymede trust report on Islamophobia wasn't so much that it was muslims but rather that it was the Wrong Muslims. Being dominated by sub-continent muslims it reflected their views.
Especially after the Rushdie Affair, which muslims still regarded themselves as the victims off rather than the prepetrators. So the definition was a reflection of sub-continental muslim identity politics. Coupled with the easily manipulated Xians who coveted the murderous passion of the muslim crowds.
It's nonsense to say that Islam isn't an ideology or doesn't have a political element, this is a common opinion amongst muslims and in particular the more ideological Arab muslims. Tariq Ramadan for example has had to admit it.
Reformist Arab heritage moderate muslims, who have looked for a path to an Islamic Reformation will tell you 2 things. Firstly that the Islamic Reformation is likely to take a different path to the Christian one (and why not, they have different starting points). Secondly it is Islam's relation to The Law that means it takes on that Political role. Xianity has Sin and Salvation as it's bedrock, whereas Islam has no Sin, no Salvation just obedience/submission to The Law.
So in order to reform Islam you need to reform The Law, which makes any reform necessarily Political.
> "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"
> So if you dislike Islam as a political force then you are "Islamophobic".
The problem with the Runnymede trust report on Islamophobia wasn't so much that it was muslims but rather that it was the Wrong Muslims. Being dominated by sub-continent muslims it reflected their views.
Especially after the Rushdie Affair, which muslims still regarded themselves as the victims off rather than the prepetrators. So the definition was a reflection of sub-continental muslim identity politics. Coupled with the easily manipulated Xians who coveted the murderous passion of the muslim crowds.
It's nonsense to say that Islam isn't an ideology or doesn't have a political element, this is a common opinion amongst muslims and in particular the more ideological Arab muslims. Tariq Ramadan for example has had to admit it.
Reformist Arab heritage moderate muslims, who have looked for a path to an Islamic Reformation will tell you 2 things. Firstly that the Islamic Reformation is likely to take a different path to the Christian one (and why not, they have different starting points). Secondly it is Islam's relation to The Law that means it takes on that Political role. Xianity has Sin and Salvation as it's bedrock, whereas Islam has no Sin, no Salvation just obedience/submission to The Law.
So in order to reform Islam you need to reform The Law, which makes any reform necessarily Political.
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Low on it's web page but the BBC did offer an apology after he was named by Versi of the MCB and Masoud Shadjareh of the 'Islamic Human Rights Commission' for being named as a hate preacher in the aftermath of the Finsbury Park attack.
https://order-order.com/2017/06/22/bbc-issues-two-apologies-in-two-days-ove...
Masoud Shadjareh is interesting as he hot-footed it to Finsbury after being at the annual anti-semitic fest that is Al Quds Day, which oranises as a hezbollah supporters. This year it's been reported to the Police after a speaker (Nazim Ali) claimed that the Grenfell Tower disaster was caused by Zionists.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/al-quds-speaker-reported-police-cst/
Strangely, Darren Osborne, the Finsbury Park driver was reported to have targeted the Al Quds Day rally originally but got drunk and over slept, so he missed it. He then had to ask people for directions to FB mosque and the group he hit was only a group becuase they hafd gathered around the guy who had a heart attack.
> Milo comes across as a narcissistic idiot and a borderline bigot at worst. Personally, I've got more time for Douglas Murray after seeing him interviewed a couple of times. Do you also classify him as a bigot?
Low on it's web page but the BBC did offer an apology after he was named by Versi of the MCB and Masoud Shadjareh of the 'Islamic Human Rights Commission' for being named as a hate preacher in the aftermath of the Finsbury Park attack.
https://order-order.com/2017/06/22/bbc-issues-two-apologies-in-two-days-ove...
Masoud Shadjareh is interesting as he hot-footed it to Finsbury after being at the annual anti-semitic fest that is Al Quds Day, which oranises as a hezbollah supporters. This year it's been reported to the Police after a speaker (Nazim Ali) claimed that the Grenfell Tower disaster was caused by Zionists.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/al-quds-speaker-reported-police-cst/
Strangely, Darren Osborne, the Finsbury Park driver was reported to have targeted the Al Quds Day rally originally but got drunk and over slept, so he missed it. He then had to ask people for directions to FB mosque and the group he hit was only a group becuase they hafd gathered around the guy who had a heart attack.
In reply to TobyA:
Which is exactly the problem with the term "Islamophobia" itself, it means too many different things.
Which would be fine if everyone stuck to that definition and used it *only* in that sense.
But, even by your account, the Runnymede report said there was another big strand to "Islamophobia", all about how you see "Islam" the idea system, such that ex-Muslims and moderate reformers from Muslim communities who dislike Islam because they see it as harmful to their own communtiies, are also "Islamophobes".
Yet they are the complete opposite of the truck-driving attacker!
> I don't think that definition is a particularly good one because I think "Islam as a political force" is so vague as to be analytically meaningless.
Which is exactly the problem with the term "Islamophobia" itself, it means too many different things.
> But, back to Islamophobia: "assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques" is exactly what the vast majority of British Muslims think Islamophobia is, albeit the most extreme forms of it.
Which would be fine if everyone stuck to that definition and used it *only* in that sense.
But, even by your account, the Runnymede report said there was another big strand to "Islamophobia", all about how you see "Islam" the idea system, such that ex-Muslims and moderate reformers from Muslim communities who dislike Islam because they see it as harmful to their own communtiies, are also "Islamophobes".
Yet they are the complete opposite of the truck-driving attacker!
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yes. Meaning that I reject the idea that criticism of Islam (criticism of an idea system) should be labelled "Islamophobia".
That is for two reasons. First, I don't think it is "phobic" (connotations of irrationality and unreasonableness) to dislike and criticise Islam. Second, because of how the term is used, criticism of the idea system gets conflated with bigotry and violence towards people.
No, I'm not saying that! The two different things that get called "Islamophobia" both do indeed exist!
Criticism of Islam does exist! Lots of people rightly criticise Islam. But I don't think it should be labelled "Islamophobia".
Bigotry and hateful attitudes towards Muslim people also does exist! But I think it should be labelled "anti-Muslim bigotry" or "anti-Muslim hatred". I do not think it should be labelled "Islamophobia" because that term deliberately conflates two different things.
> You launched into the classic "I reject Islamophobia as a concept designed to disallow criticism of Islam"
Yes. Meaning that I reject the idea that criticism of Islam (criticism of an idea system) should be labelled "Islamophobia".
That is for two reasons. First, I don't think it is "phobic" (connotations of irrationality and unreasonableness) to dislike and criticise Islam. Second, because of how the term is used, criticism of the idea system gets conflated with bigotry and violence towards people.
> I'm saying that you're aboard the "Islamophobia doesn't exist" bandwagon along with a bunch of god-awful bigots.
No, I'm not saying that! The two different things that get called "Islamophobia" both do indeed exist!
Criticism of Islam does exist! Lots of people rightly criticise Islam. But I don't think it should be labelled "Islamophobia".
Bigotry and hateful attitudes towards Muslim people also does exist! But I think it should be labelled "anti-Muslim bigotry" or "anti-Muslim hatred". I do not think it should be labelled "Islamophobia" because that term deliberately conflates two different things.
4
In reply to TobyA:
Oh my god[*], this is so good, by Ali Rizvli. For all those who still don't see any problem with the term "Islamophobia".
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/880472831221432320
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFx0wTsZZI&feature=youtu.be
[*Well, obviously I don't actually have one, but still ...]
Oh my god[*], this is so good, by Ali Rizvli. For all those who still don't see any problem with the term "Islamophobia".
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/880472831221432320
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFx0wTsZZI&feature=youtu.be
[*Well, obviously I don't actually have one, but still ...]
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think anybody who values those would dislike any religion as a political force, it seems to me.
It's possibly not a helpful definition for guys like these two Muslims who had acid thrown at them in London. On an interview I came across on facebook, he described it as Islamophobia, presumably meaning that he felt they were targeted for being Muslims.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1445143/muslim-woman-severely-injured-london-a...
> Yes, it means what the dictionary says it does! Namely:
> "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
> So if you dislike Islam as a political force then you are "Islamophobic".
> Which is nothing to do with assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques!
> Anyone in their right mind (who values pluralistic multi-party democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, individual human rights, equality for women and gays, et cetera) would "dislike Islam as a political force"! Wouldn't they??
> "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia
> So if you dislike Islam as a political force then you are "Islamophobic".
> Which is nothing to do with assaulting hijab-wearing women in the street or driving trucks at worshippers at mosques!
> Anyone in their right mind (who values pluralistic multi-party democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, individual human rights, equality for women and gays, et cetera) would "dislike Islam as a political force"! Wouldn't they??
I think anybody who values those would dislike any religion as a political force, it seems to me.
It's possibly not a helpful definition for guys like these two Muslims who had acid thrown at them in London. On an interview I came across on facebook, he described it as Islamophobia, presumably meaning that he felt they were targeted for being Muslims.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1445143/muslim-woman-severely-injured-london-a...
Post edited at 21:50
In reply to Timmd:
It's possibly not a helpful definition for guys like these two Muslims who had acid thrown at them in London. On an interview I came across on facebook, he described it as Islamophobia, meaning that he felt they were targeted for being Muslims.
Maybe it was an attack fuelled by hatred against Muslims, but aren't such attacks a known phenomenon in the Islamic world and are a means of disfiguring a woman that is unfaithful or using her looks inappropriately, etc.? Either way, it wasn't down to Islamophobia.
No doubt, I could be labelled Islamophobic by some for even suggesting the above...
It's possibly not a helpful definition for guys like these two Muslims who had acid thrown at them in London. On an interview I came across on facebook, he described it as Islamophobia, meaning that he felt they were targeted for being Muslims.
Maybe it was an attack fuelled by hatred against Muslims, but aren't such attacks a known phenomenon in the Islamic world and are a means of disfiguring a woman that is unfaithful or using her looks inappropriately, etc.? Either way, it wasn't down to Islamophobia.
No doubt, I could be labelled Islamophobic by some for even suggesting the above...
In reply to FactorXXX:
What is the Islamic world; something which is justified in the Koran, what can happen in Muslim countries, or what can sometimes happen in the UK among Muslims? I'm thinking that what other people do should never something which might negate doing something bad to another person. I don't know how one might accurately say whether it was Islamophobia?
I think only you know whether you might think negatively of people for being Muslim, & if you don't like it as a political force.
> Maybe it was an attack fuelled by hatred against Muslims, but aren't such attacks a known phenomenon in the Islamic world and are a means of disfiguring a woman that is unfaithful or using her looks inappropriately, etc.? Either way, it wasn't down to Islamophobia.
What is the Islamic world; something which is justified in the Koran, what can happen in Muslim countries, or what can sometimes happen in the UK among Muslims? I'm thinking that what other people do should never something which might negate doing something bad to another person. I don't know how one might accurately say whether it was Islamophobia?
> No doubt, I could be labelled Islamophobic by some for even suggesting the above...
I think only you know whether you might think negatively of people for being Muslim, & if you don't like it as a political force.
Post edited at 22:23
In reply to FactorXXX:
What's with the self obsession and the search for victimhood that goes with objecting to this term? You point out that acid attacks are a known phenomena in the Islamic world, why would that be Islamophobic?
> No doubt, I could be labelled Islamophobic by some for even suggesting the above...
What's with the self obsession and the search for victimhood that goes with objecting to this term? You point out that acid attacks are a known phenomena in the Islamic world, why would that be Islamophobic?
In reply to TobyA:
What's with the self obsession and the search for victimhood that goes with objecting to this term? You point out that acid attacks are a known phenomena in the Islamic world, why would that be Islamophobic?
Have you read the post I was replying to?
What's with the self obsession and the search for victimhood that goes with objecting to this term? You point out that acid attacks are a known phenomena in the Islamic world, why would that be Islamophobic?
Have you read the post I was replying to?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Why's it so good? I take his point from a linguistic perspective but most people understand Islamophobia as what he (and you) call anti-Muslim bigotry. Bringing antisemitism into it doesn't help at all, it just shows some terms have specific meanings because if you want to get silly about it, semite refers to both Arabs and Jews - but antisemitism is just fear or hatred of Jews. And then secondly judophobia or judeophobia is quite a common term and is pretty much a synonym for antisemitism. Here's Peter Htichens using the first spelling http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/05/everyone-howls-at-batty-ken-... and here's the second spelling as used by a British Jewish group http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/judeophobia-not-your-parents-...
Why's it so good? I take his point from a linguistic perspective but most people understand Islamophobia as what he (and you) call anti-Muslim bigotry. Bringing antisemitism into it doesn't help at all, it just shows some terms have specific meanings because if you want to get silly about it, semite refers to both Arabs and Jews - but antisemitism is just fear or hatred of Jews. And then secondly judophobia or judeophobia is quite a common term and is pretty much a synonym for antisemitism. Here's Peter Htichens using the first spelling http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/05/everyone-howls-at-batty-ken-... and here's the second spelling as used by a British Jewish group http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/judeophobia-not-your-parents-...
2
In reply to TobyA:
Fine, so just persuade everybody (including the mainstream media and Islamic pressure groups) to *confine* the term to that meaning -- and tell the Runnymede Trust that they were wrong not to do so -- and I'll be happy.
> I take his point from a linguistic perspective but most people understand Islamophobia as what he (and you) call anti-Muslim bigotry.
Fine, so just persuade everybody (including the mainstream media and Islamic pressure groups) to *confine* the term to that meaning -- and tell the Runnymede Trust that they were wrong not to do so -- and I'll be happy.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
More sensibly you accept it has meaning even if you don't always agree with how the word is used.
You know, a bit like every other word.
> Fine, so just persuade everybody (including the mainstream media and Islamic pressure groups) to *confine* the term to that meaning -- and tell the Runnymede Trust that they were wrong not to do so -- and I'll be happy.
More sensibly you accept it has meaning even if you don't always agree with how the word is used.
You know, a bit like every other word.
3
1
In reply to elsewhere:
The point is that it has two distinctly different meanings, which are rough opposites of each other, and many people are conflating the two deliberately in order to disallow criticism of Islam.
> More sensibly you accept it has meaning even if you don't always agree with how the word is used.
The point is that it has two distinctly different meanings, which are rough opposites of each other, and many people are conflating the two deliberately in order to disallow criticism of Islam.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There are a few hundred million native English speakers and many more non-native English speakers.
I'm sure they can come up with many more than your two ways to understand or misunderstand a word.
It's more like a spectrum of meanings which might be simplified as hate crime, hate speech, intemperate criticism and polite criticism with different people drawing a fuzzy line at different places depending on personal belief, nuances of context and subjectivities like tone of voice.
You know, a bit like every other word.
PS do you reject science because some people claim intelligent design is science or do you just reject their particular concept of science?
There are a few hundred million native English speakers and many more non-native English speakers.
I'm sure they can come up with many more than your two ways to understand or misunderstand a word.
It's more like a spectrum of meanings which might be simplified as hate crime, hate speech, intemperate criticism and polite criticism with different people drawing a fuzzy line at different places depending on personal belief, nuances of context and subjectivities like tone of voice.
You know, a bit like every other word.
PS do you reject science because some people claim intelligent design is science or do you just reject their particular concept of science?
Post edited at 13:54
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Absolutely not, since some of those ("hate crime") are directed against *people* whereas others (criticism of ideology) are directed against *ideas*. Those are not on a spectrum, they are two different things.
> It's more like a spectrum of meanings which might be simplified as hate crime, hate speech, intemperate criticism and polite criticism ...
Absolutely not, since some of those ("hate crime") are directed against *people* whereas others (criticism of ideology) are directed against *ideas*. Those are not on a spectrum, they are two different things.
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not two different things, four different things or in reality a multitude of different things. Much closer to a continuous spectrum of opinions held by hundreds of millions of people as to what does and does not constitute Islamophobia.
You seem to hold a fundametalist view that the word encompasses any criticism as well as hate crime.
I expect an Islamist would hold that view too but many people don't.
Not two different things, four different things or in reality a multitude of different things. Much closer to a continuous spectrum of opinions held by hundreds of millions of people as to what does and does not constitute Islamophobia.
You seem to hold a fundametalist view that the word encompasses any criticism as well as hate crime.
I expect an Islamist would hold that view too but many people don't.
Post edited at 14:13
1
In reply to elsewhere:
So the Runnymede Report is Islamist?
> I expect an Islamist would hold that view too but many people don't.
So the Runnymede Report is Islamist?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I doubt it but like you they may share the same definition of what constitutes Islamophobia.
Just because people agree on the same definition of a word doesn't mean they agree on anything else though.
> So the Runnymede Report is Islamist?
I doubt it but like you they may share the same definition of what constitutes Islamophobia.
Just because people agree on the same definition of a word doesn't mean they agree on anything else though.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
But they don't, that's the problem, they regard major criticism of Islam (the idea system) as "Islamophobic" and thus as the same sort of thing as assaulting a hijab-wearer in the street,
> ... but like you they may share the same definition of what constitutes Islamophobia.
But they don't, that's the problem, they regard major criticism of Islam (the idea system) as "Islamophobic" and thus as the same sort of thing as assaulting a hijab-wearer in the street,
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You defined Islamophobia as 'It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia". '
You are the one claiming the meaning intentionally and specifically includes criticism.
That's a fundamentalist meaning some will share with you. Not everybody though.
> But they don't, that's the problem, they regard major criticism of Islam (the idea system) as "Islamophobic" and thus as the same sort of thing as assaulting a hijab-wearer in the street,
You defined Islamophobia as 'It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia". '
You are the one claiming the meaning intentionally and specifically includes criticism.
That's a fundamentalist meaning some will share with you. Not everybody though.
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Just as an illustration:
Ali A. Rizvi? tweet:
"Watch @TorontoAntifa fascists shutting down persecuted LGBTQ activists from Islamic countries, accusing them of "Islamophobia":"
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/880813075309395969
Just as an illustration:
Ali A. Rizvi? tweet:
"Watch @TorontoAntifa fascists shutting down persecuted LGBTQ activists from Islamic countries, accusing them of "Islamophobia":"
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/880813075309395969
1
In reply to elsewhere:
No, that's a *commentary* about the term, not a *definition* of it.
For a *definition* of it I quoted the Oxford Dictionary one:
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."
Yes, and that's what the dictionaries say, that's what the Runnymede Trust report says, that's how plenty of people use the term.
> You defined Islamophobia as 'It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia". '
No, that's a *commentary* about the term, not a *definition* of it.
For a *definition* of it I quoted the Oxford Dictionary one:
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."
> You are the one claiming the meaning intentionally and specifically includes criticism.
Yes, and that's what the dictionaries say, that's what the Runnymede Trust report says, that's how plenty of people use the term.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's not exactly news when somebody uses a word in a way that I don't think is right even if that usage is within your definition (edit: your commentary or your understanding of the term if you prefer that) 'It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia". '
> Just as an illustration:
> Ali A. Rizvi? tweet:
> "Watch @TorontoAntifa fascists shutting down persecuted LGBTQ activists from Islamic countries, accusing them of "Islamophobia":"
It's not exactly news when somebody uses a word in a way that I don't think is right even if that usage is within your definition (edit: your commentary or your understanding of the term if you prefer that) 'It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam, to try to make out that any criticism of the Islamic religion is bigoted and unreasonable, a "phobia". '
Post edited at 17:02
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It is all about you isn't it! It's like arguing with a 14 year old, which I try to stop doing when I leave work.
Again: the plot. The conspiracy. The shadowy forces. Who are these many people?
It's lucky that this is Muslims we're talking about here and, frankly, as a religion they seem a bit shit at getting it together to run the media, the banking industry, international finance etc. You know there's another religion that we're often told (by the shaven-headed knuckle-draggers) that is much better at shadowy conspiracies!
> -- and I'll be happy.
It is all about you isn't it! It's like arguing with a 14 year old, which I try to stop doing when I leave work.
> and many people are conflating the two deliberately in order to disallow criticism of Islam.
Again: the plot. The conspiracy. The shadowy forces. Who are these many people?
It's lucky that this is Muslims we're talking about here and, frankly, as a religion they seem a bit shit at getting it together to run the media, the banking industry, international finance etc. You know there's another religion that we're often told (by the shaven-headed knuckle-draggers) that is much better at shadowy conspiracies!
1
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Where are those ideas if they are not in people's heads or coming out of their mouths?
<I now have a nice image of Coel yelling very loudly and angrily at a Qur'an, then stopping to smile sweetly and ask Mrs. Khan from no. 22 how her day has been and if he can help her carry her shopping bags in from the car.>
> Absolutely not, since some of those ("hate crime") are directed against *people* whereas others (criticism of ideology) are directed against *ideas*. Those are not on a spectrum, they are two different things.
Where are those ideas if they are not in people's heads or coming out of their mouths?
<I now have a nice image of Coel yelling very loudly and angrily at a Qur'an, then stopping to smile sweetly and ask Mrs. Khan from no. 22 how her day has been and if he can help her carry her shopping bags in from the car.>
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No it bloomin' well doesn't! If you keep intentionally misquoting and misconstruing what the report says, your motives should be questioned.
NB: for anyone else following Coel's hobby horse riding here, they can download a PDF of the original 1997 Islamophobia report from the Runny Meade Trust and see what they think here http://www.runnymedetrust.org/companies/17/74/Islamophobia-A-Challenge-for-...
> Yes, and that's what the dictionaries say, that's what the Runnymede Trust report says,
No it bloomin' well doesn't! If you keep intentionally misquoting and misconstruing what the report says, your motives should be questioned.
NB: for anyone else following Coel's hobby horse riding here, they can download a PDF of the original 1997 Islamophobia report from the Runny Meade Trust and see what they think here http://www.runnymedetrust.org/companies/17/74/Islamophobia-A-Challenge-for-...
1
2
In reply to TobyA:
Do you get the distinction between vocally criticising Labour/Tory [delete to taste] policy in a newspaper article, and physically assaulting a Labour/Tory [delete to taste] MP in the street?
Do you think it would be helpful if there were a widely used term that applied to both of these?
> Where are those ideas if they are not in people's heads or coming out of their mouths?
Do you get the distinction between vocally criticising Labour/Tory [delete to taste] policy in a newspaper article, and physically assaulting a Labour/Tory [delete to taste] MP in the street?
Do you think it would be helpful if there were a widely used term that applied to both of these?
1
In reply to TobyA:
No, I have never once suggested that this is a "conspiracy".
The problem is that too many people think this way of their own accord, seeing something improper about criticising Islam, and thus seeing it as "Islamophobic" to do so.
The two main "rationales" seem to be:
(1) "It is a religion, therefore there cannot be anything bad about it, therefore anything bad is "nothing to do with Islam" and therefore it is wrong to criticise Islam".
(2) "It's an idea-system held by *brown* people, therefore it is wrong to criticise it because it's in the heads of *brown* people. Whereas criticising the idea of, say, US Republicans or, say, UKIP supporters is fine because those people tend to be white".
Notice how, when people from the Muslim community criticise Islam, they get accused of acting as "white".
> Again: the plot. The conspiracy. The shadowy forces. Who are these many people?
No, I have never once suggested that this is a "conspiracy".
The problem is that too many people think this way of their own accord, seeing something improper about criticising Islam, and thus seeing it as "Islamophobic" to do so.
The two main "rationales" seem to be:
(1) "It is a religion, therefore there cannot be anything bad about it, therefore anything bad is "nothing to do with Islam" and therefore it is wrong to criticise Islam".
(2) "It's an idea-system held by *brown* people, therefore it is wrong to criticise it because it's in the heads of *brown* people. Whereas criticising the idea of, say, US Republicans or, say, UKIP supporters is fine because those people tend to be white".
Notice how, when people from the Muslim community criticise Islam, they get accused of acting as "white".
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You, somewhere up top: "It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam" but you couldn't actually show who invented it or what the intention was.
> No, I have never once suggested that this is a "conspiracy".
You, somewhere up top: "It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam" but you couldn't actually show who invented it or what the intention was.
1
4
In reply to TobyA:
You, somewhere up top: "It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam" but you couldn't actually show who invented it or what the intention was.
Would it make more sense if you replaced 'invented' with 're-invented'?
You, somewhere up top: "It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam" but you couldn't actually show who invented it or what the intention was.
Would it make more sense if you replaced 'invented' with 're-invented'?
1
In reply to TobyA:
Which is not at all the same thing as saying that the whole thing is a conspiracy, it's only saying that *some* people have used and popularised it with the intent of disallowing criticism of Islam.
Yes, the cites are not as robust as one might like, but they do support me. E.g from wikipedia:
"Dahou Ezzerhouni has cited several other uses in French as early as 1910, and from 1912 to 1918.[59] These early uses of the term did not, according to Christopher Allen, have the same meaning as in contemporary usage, as they described A FEAR OF ISLAM BY LIBERAL MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM FEMINISTS, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims." (Added emphasis.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
From there the concept seems to have been revived by the Islamists of the Iranian Revolution as a put-down to anyone who was opposed to the Islamisation of Iran.
As regard's Britain, its commonly accepted that the term was popularised by the Runnymede report. And that does NOT just use it about attacks on Muslims. It ALSO has a second strand, about major criticism of the Islamic religion, as about any seeing the Islamic religion as overall harmful -- though yes it does pay lip-service to the idea that criticism is ok, giving the impression that they're ok with minor criticism of Islam, criticism that is aimed at improving it, but they dismiss as "Islamophobic" any criticism that sees Islam as a bad thing overall.
And, as pointed out, that report was written by a panel packed with Muslims. And mainstream Islam across the world does *not* accept overt criticism of Islam, with most Muslim-majority nations having laws against it, laws that they enforce.
As for who is keenest on the term "Islamophobia" today, that would be the Islamists of the Muslim-majority nations who regularly ask the UN for blasphemy laws against what they call "defamation of religion" Any "defamation" of Islam they regard as Islamophobic "hate speech".
So overall I'm sticking to my stance about the intention of *many* of those who use the term.
> You, somewhere up top: "It is a term invented and intended to try to disallow criticism of Islam" but you couldn't actually show who invented it or what the intention was.
Which is not at all the same thing as saying that the whole thing is a conspiracy, it's only saying that *some* people have used and popularised it with the intent of disallowing criticism of Islam.
Yes, the cites are not as robust as one might like, but they do support me. E.g from wikipedia:
"Dahou Ezzerhouni has cited several other uses in French as early as 1910, and from 1912 to 1918.[59] These early uses of the term did not, according to Christopher Allen, have the same meaning as in contemporary usage, as they described A FEAR OF ISLAM BY LIBERAL MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM FEMINISTS, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims." (Added emphasis.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
From there the concept seems to have been revived by the Islamists of the Iranian Revolution as a put-down to anyone who was opposed to the Islamisation of Iran.
As regard's Britain, its commonly accepted that the term was popularised by the Runnymede report. And that does NOT just use it about attacks on Muslims. It ALSO has a second strand, about major criticism of the Islamic religion, as about any seeing the Islamic religion as overall harmful -- though yes it does pay lip-service to the idea that criticism is ok, giving the impression that they're ok with minor criticism of Islam, criticism that is aimed at improving it, but they dismiss as "Islamophobic" any criticism that sees Islam as a bad thing overall.
And, as pointed out, that report was written by a panel packed with Muslims. And mainstream Islam across the world does *not* accept overt criticism of Islam, with most Muslim-majority nations having laws against it, laws that they enforce.
As for who is keenest on the term "Islamophobia" today, that would be the Islamists of the Muslim-majority nations who regularly ask the UN for blasphemy laws against what they call "defamation of religion" Any "defamation" of Islam they regard as Islamophobic "hate speech".
So overall I'm sticking to my stance about the intention of *many* of those who use the term.
2
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...