|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Search for Moderate Islam | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Huh?
The video, the portion linked to, specifically addresses the issue of poverty and destitution as it relates to Islamic extremism. From what you posted:A wealthy Muslim in a western society is less likely to actually believe radical Islamic dogma than a disaffected teenager made homeless by Israeli military retaliation. From the exchange in the video:TC:... the poorest places in the world are actually not spawning terrorism; it's western Europe. I'm not sure how anyone could fail to see the relationship between these two claims or notice that they contradict one another.SH: And there are a variety of studies that back that up, that show that support for suicide bombing, for instance, actually goes up as you correct for literacy and education and economic opportunity. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The video, the portion linked to, specifically addresses the issue of poverty and destitution as it relates to terrorism. I was talking about being a follower of a radical Islamic dogma, not terrorism. I talked about homeless teenagers, which the video didn't mention. This isn't absurd pedantry, it's an important point. But still, this is a difficult thing to get accurate statistics on, so assuming the video is relevant to what I said which seems easier to get reliable statistics on
Muslim Americans Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - pew shows:
quote: 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often. 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often. 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often. 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often. 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often. 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often. 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often. 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often. What is true is that someone who engages in or purposefully funds terrorism on Western soil is more likely to be well educated and reasonably affluent. Also I believe they are likely to be a second generation (possibly third) immigrant. There's them social factors again complicating the issue, neh?
A Comparative Study of Lebanese and Palestinian Perceptions of Suicide Bombings: The Role of Militant Islam and Socio-Economic Status :
quote: Evidence suggests too, that suicide bombers in the Middle East are generally in a better economic position than average, however - this is suicide bombers specifically, not terrorists or other extremists. When compared with other non-suicidal extremists, suicide bombers tend to be of lower status. Indeed then, it is obviously more complicated than a single sentence can portray. Then again, my post was long enough as it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often. 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often. 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often. 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often. 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often. 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often. 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often. 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often. 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often. At issue is which socioeconomic group (if any) is more likely to hold extremist beliefs. I don't think statistics that fail to make these required distinctions are able to address that issue.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
At issue is which socioeconomic group (if any) is more likely to hold extremist beliefs. I don't think statistics that fail to make these required distinctions are able to address that issue. I know what I was arguing about because I'm the one that fashioned the argument, so excuse me one moment while I explain it. Here is the quote you pulled from my longer post:
quote: First of all, the only socioeconomic class mentioned here is that the Muslim living in the west is wealthy. Not affluent. Wealthy. Yet you retorted a point which is only supported if we look at a different group (terrorists rather than extremists) and at affluent rather than wealthy. Nevertheless there are three other factors mentioned merely in this sentence, but which my original post expanded on more considerably. 1) Geographic location.2) Specific personal grievance. 3) Youth The teenager may or may not be (relatively affluent), it wasn't massively important. The important point is one of a feeling of powerlessness and of being oppressed. Western second gen immigrants might not directly experience this of course, but many feel like they belong nowhere and have no true loyalties. Some of them stay that way forever. Some of them make a choice. Unfortunately the choice they make is sometimes 'balls in' (either way). Not only may they come to sympathize with their homeland, and develop a greater loyalty to them, but to their home culture, and by extension their membership in the Muslim community. This might lead to guilt and anger at their comfortable life while their brothers are oppressed by the nations they are paying taxes too....and thus the slide into radicalization can begin even in the affluent, and especially in the educated. But in the affected countries? Well that's why I posted the stats that you now criticize. They are specifically about terrorism and the attitudes of the inhabitants of various countries (from about 7 years ago IIRC) towards it. If we take Jordan as a reasonable stand-in for Palestine in their attitudes we can see that a quarter of them think it can sometimes be justified (as opposed to rarely or often or never) to target civilians. As opposed to 12% of British Muslims. So merely by living in the Middle East we have doubled one's chances of having pretty extreme views as a Muslim. (For the record, my answer to the question would be 'rarely', assuming the 'in defense of Islam' was removed and the question was thus generalized. I'm an atheist liberal British person). I also posted evidence that suggests of Palestinians, you can see that residing in a camp increases your chances of supporting terrorism 'support for suicide attacks is also a function of low income and among Palestinians, a function of residence in camps'. I also state, quite clearly I thought,
quote: Especially when we're looking at such a specific thing as a general Muslim in the West who happens to be wealthy vs a young aggrieved Muslim of non-specific economic background (but probably poorer than the average working class American) living in or around Palestine/Lebanon. Finally, it is my understanding that most suicide attacks are carried out by young people. So if we're talking about terrorism itself, adding that the person affected by Israeli military interventions was a young person piles yet more risk factors towards developing extremist/terrorist views/actions. So your criticism has fallen flat I'm afraid, what weak legs it managed to develop in the womb, wasn't enough to help it stand to scrutiny. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Here is the quote you pulled from my longer post:
quote:First of all, the only socioeconomic class mentioned here is that the Muslim living in the west is wealthy. Not affluent. Wealthy. Yet you retorted a point which is only supported if we look at a different group (terrorists rather than extremists) and at affluent rather than wealthy. Nevertheless there are three other factors mentioned merely in this sentence, but which my original post expanded on more considerably. Your quote mentioned both economic and geographic situation. But the only thing you've given evidence to is the difference between western and non-western Muslims.
So your criticism has fallen flat I'm afraid, what weak legs it managed to develop in the womb, wasn't enough to help it stand to scrutiny. You might think that, but it's only because you have completely missed the point of the criticism.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Watched this this morning; they finally have the video uploaded on the website:A nice report, were it not for two blatant lies:
First, despite the obvious dissimilarity between the European imposed borders shown on the map (~1:55) and today's countries' borders, the reporter still reports that "these arbitrary borders became the blueprint for today's map". Really? Just what do they have in common? The map that the political map has the most in common with is not some colonial map, but the map of Sunni/Shiite concentration and distribution.
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace (despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) and compares the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. But none of this matters to the reporters, because when you're lying for Muhammad no truths are too sacred.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your quote mentioned both economic and geographic situation. And yet the point in my paragraph was about social situations, which includes economic and geographic situations.
quote: Much like Germans aren't intrinsically evil, but in the right social and political context enough of them can participate in, support or turn a blind eye to genocide of their own citizens and those around them. This is in contrast to the notion that Islam is in itself to blame. Rather than the rise of Nationalism or the regular military interventions, the creation of Israel....etc. The bit you quoted was as an introduction to the point I was making, but I could have made it better, let's try this. In a world where Muslims did not perceive themselves as a persecuted people, where economic and political power was equal to or greater than anyone else, there will be less terrorism from Muslims than in a world contrary to this. Additionally, there will be less extremism where there are less power disparities. This can play out on a smaller scale such that there are probably more terrorist Muslims in Nigeria than there are in Turkey. The same likely plays out if we were to compare Palestinian Muslims with German ones. Yes, Islam is a common thread. I think a more constructive perspective however is to look to see why the Islamic world is so extreme right now. What is driving them towards extreme conservatism and traditionalism? Is it the dying grasps of an old way? Is it a reaction to perceived and real offences? Or shall we just blame a diverse collection of religious views because some collections of those views cohere with violence and other extreme behaviours?More important are various complicated situational and cultural factors. Our choice remains, reduce Islam or change the situation. The former seems less likely to happen and more likely to exacerbate in the attempt than the latter, as fraught with risk as that is. IF we change the situation for the better hopefully this will foster an environment that allows moderate Islam to gain greater traction. And the point of this whole thing, the one you haven't really addressed so far, is: When liberals try to engage in some nuance, their opponents only hear opponents who have a contrary opinion and conclude they are denying Islam has any liability. It seems to me that you are either denying social/political factors are significant factors in the current situation or you are simply arguing the toss over one dimension. If the latter, I don't think it's important enough to continue, if the latter - I believe there is onus on you to provide support of your own. Also do you agree or disagree that scope might be a factor in the disagreements between liberals and their opponents? That is, liberals are looking at a social political context and trying to understand the appeal of violent interpretations of Islamic beliefs, whereas their opponents are looking at individuals who are quite clearly religious and cite their religious understandings heavily in their justifications and assuming its the specific religion of these people that motivates their specific behaviours. Pray 5 times a day? No need to look at social factors, it's their religion. Same with terrorism. Yet the liberals aren't wondering why that guy there did it, but why are so many guys doing it all over the place? And 'Islam' is simply not a satisfying answer, neither is simply saying 'they all have religious beliefs which mandate this behaviour'.
But the only thing you've given evidence to is the difference between western and non-western Muslims. Again, you missed the point. I mentioned several factors, and listed them in my previous post in case you hadn't noticed. 1) Economic situation2) Geographic location 3) Age I'm confident that the soldiers of Boko Haram are in a worse economic situation than I am, or any of the Muslim friends I have who haven't shown an inclination towards pillaging. Also, I am under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) but Boko Haram is primarily made up of Nigerians and perhaps some nearby regions. The same is likely true of Hamas terrorists, Hizbollah terrorists, IS soldiers (though they are doing quite well at drawing in more educated and wealthy westerners) etc. Given the number of confirmed terrorists that have operated or are operating in, for example the UK, I'm confident geographic location is well established as influential in such things. Finally, age. As far as extremism goes this is not entirely supported as we might see for instance in Iran. However, as far as participating in acts of terrorism - that's well established as a young man's game. Now that you have dissected a single sentence, hopefully to your satisfaction, feel free to graduate to the post itself. They are just people, not some abstract beings. Normal people in Europe and America once thought nothing of what would be today called child abuse (heavily beating children for discipline) and would not only justify this with reference to scriptures, but would say they do them because it is mandated in scripture. The same goes for torture, dismemberment for minor crimes, absolutist autocratic dictatorships and numerous other moral outrages. The social and political environment drove the need to punish children, be hard on crime and have a firm singular voice directing government. Religion was more or less invented to regulate all that and make it 'official ' and to highlight that the rules transcended the ruler and the ruled: it was subsequently used and refined by others. Some studies show that we often make moral decisions before coming up with reasons for them. This being true, would strengthen my argument on this matter would you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
First, despite the obvious dissimilarity between the European imposed borders shown on the map (~1:55) and today's countries' borders, the reporter still reports that "these arbitrary borders became the blueprint for today's map". Really? Just what do they have in common? The French bit has the borders of Syria and Lebanon. The British has regions that would become Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Palestine was marked 'Reserved'. Seems pretty clear to me, how is it a lie? Because of the renegotiation of the Syrian/Iraq borders, pushing into French territory after oil reserves were discovered? Seems a little picky.
The map that the political map has the most in common with is not some colonial map, but the map of Sunni/Shiite concentration and distribution. I guess we see different things. It gives us an idea about Iran and Azerbaijan, though identifying the border between them.... It misleads us around the Turkey/Syria border, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen to name some of the easy to spot problem areas. And it doesn't give a single clue about the borders between Sunni countries (which is most of them, obviously).
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace This is not a lie. Most humans want to live in peace, this is universal.
(despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) Supporting extreme means to fight perceived oppressors is not contrary to desiring peace. I'm pretty sure most Britons were to some degree in support of the strategic bombing of German civillians. Doesn't mean that most Britons didn't want to live in peace, it just meant they were willing to fuck the shit up of any motherfucker that disturbed their peace. Swearing intended to convey that the sentiment was highly emotionally charged, but note how British people today would balk at such behaviour.
Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. They are similar enough for a report that is openly a short 4.5 minute intro aimed at ignorant Americans, to give people who probably went to school and learned about the Catholic/Protestant strife, the terrorism, the torture, the executions, the persecutions, the denial of access to certain roles: how sectarian violence between the two carried on until very recently in Ireland. This helps people who were naive coming in of the Sunni/Shia thing to quickly find a way in to understanding how something so seemingly benign as a dispute over leadership of the church can lead to civil wars etc spanning centuries. The only significant different you raise: that a lot of people still care about the Sunni/Shia thing. That doesn't make them dissimilar enough to use as a handy widely understand comparison.
But none of this matters to the reporters, because when you're lying for Muhammad no truths are too sacred. Lying for Muhammed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The problem with all this nonsense is that there are many impoverished parts of the world not engaged in perpetual warfare. That don't spew out terrorists like ants from a hole in the ground.
Socioeconomics undoubtedly plays a roleit does in everything, doesn't it?, but whether it plays a role even slightly worth consideration in light of the role played by Islam has yet to be proven. On the flipside, we can find only one point of commonality amongst the middle class Westerners who run off to join IS, the doctorate-holding Saudis who fly planes into buildings, and the lowly villagers who take up arms to terrorize their neighboring tribe. And that commonality is Islam.
Some studies show that we often make moral decisions before coming up with reasons for them. This being true, would strengthen my argument on this matter would you agree? I have addressed this in various places; right now I can only find this slightly-related post, though I know there are probably others I can't find right now. ABE: I found one of my more detailed post on this: Message 7./ABE I'd be interested in seeing those studies. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In other words, you don't find the falsehoods worth any mention because they are somehow close enough to truth (in your mind) and aimed at learnin' dem "ignorant Americans".
I suppose this is similar to how the reporter plainly describes the rise of groups such as IS as being specifically motivated by religious disagreements and then brushes it all off at the end with her dishonest dismissals.
Lying for Muhammed? Did I not type it clearly enough?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This was posted on Sam Harris' blog here:
I've started it at an important portion toward the end, but watching the video in its entirety is worth the 15 minutes. Qureshi maintains that he is not an extremist, but when asked simple questions about his beliefs, he refuses to answer them. It's easy to call oneself a moderate; it's not so easy to prove it when you can't even bring yourself to condemn something as extreme as stoning for adultery. Luckily the other folks recognize what's going on and call him out for what he is: a weasel.Love your enemies! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace (despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) and compares the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. Catholicism and Protestantism are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. Sunni and Shiite are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. The article's claim that they are similar concepts is not a lie, on account of being true. A lie looks more like this:
despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. on account of being clearly false. The difference isn't that hard to grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace (despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) and compares the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. Catholicism and Protestantism are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. Sunni and Shiite are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. The article's claim that they are similar concepts is not a lie, on account of being true. Of course, because the Shiite-Sunni split is purely academic.
A lie looks more like this:
despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet. on account of being clearly false. The difference isn't that hard to grasp. Get a history book. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Catholicism and Protestantism are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. Sunni and Shiite are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. The article's claim that they are similar concepts is not a lie, on account of being true. Indeed. I found this book review on a facebook link and thought it applies to this discussion:
Our Founding Fathers included Islam quote: Sounds like an interesting book. Again this reinforces the concept of separation of church and state, that state\country secular laws govern in the public context, with all beliefs treated equal, while religious rules govern in the private context for each individual, regardless of what those beliefs entail. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Of course, because the Shiite-Sunni split is purely academic. Of course it's not to those who care about these details, which is why I said the opposite, that "has led to much tribalist conflict between the two." Nor is the Catholic-Protestant split academic to those who care about such things - just ask Faith and the hateful Protestant preachers she's so fond of in Northern Ireland.
Get a history book. I have many - it's a bit of a hobby. That's why I know that there's been plenty of peace as well as conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis - including the millions who live peacably side by side today. In the late fifties the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, one of the most senior clerics in Sunni Islam, went so far as to issue a fatwa accepting Shi'a (along with the Druze) as schools of Islamic jurisprudence alongside the four Sunni schools. The modern Al-Azhar university has sadly turned its back on these ideas, but the current climate of extremism is not some endless and unchanging fact of life. The Sunni/Shi'a divide has meant very different things in different times and places, just as the Catholic/Protestant one has.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024