General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRules I'd suggest for critiquing Islam or "Islamists" without aiding Western militarists and bigots:
Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)
1)Acknowledge the Western colonial and military heritage in the Arab/Muslim world(including the Iraq/Afghanistan war and the continued, and the effect this heritage has had on the consciousness of Islamic peoples and the choices this heritage will naturally have had on the choices some Muslims have made(this doesn't mean condoning those choices...it means recognizing how people got there, even if where they got to was a horrible place);
2)Avoid, at all costs, the "Clash of Civilizations" narrative-there is as much horrible and bloodsoaked in "Western Christian" history(and as much good in Islamic history as there is in the West)and the point isn't to get into a pissing match as to whose "culture" is superior. The critique should NEVER sound like the arguments made by those in the West who want to militarily and economically subjugate the Arab/Muslim world(i/e., return it to a neo-colonial relationship with the West) and should always recognize that the various Islamic faith traditions have as much right to go on existing as any other religious traditions;
3)If you are arguing from a secular position, remember that imposed secularism was part of the Western imperial tradition in the Arab/Muslim world when much of that world was under Western colonial subjugation. If a secular tradition is to re-emerge in the Islamic world, it must arise from within, and no Western efforts to impose it from without(especially through military intervention)can EVER be legitimate;
4)Acknowledge, at all times, that the vast majority of the world's Muslims, like the vast majority of the world's believers in any other religion, are NOT violent extremists, do not condone violence against non-Muslims, and are simply trying to quietly get through their busy day like anybody else.
5)Remember that things like FGM and honor killings were not invented by Muslims, that they existed in countries that are now Muslim before the Islamic faith was adapted, that they existed and still exist in countries that have never been Musllim, and that it is not fair to assume that all or even MOST Muslims actually support those practices. ALL societies have barbaric pasts and all have done things that people in our age find and have found objectionable.
In short, Islam, like many other religions, does need critique, and those who misinterpret its teachings to justify violent acts must be condemned, but the critique of the religion itself needs to be respectful, needs to be culturally sensitive and non-imperialist/non-Western chauvinist. Above all, any critique offered needs to avoid, at all costs, rhetoric that ends up calling for collective demonization of Muslims, group restrictions against Muslims in the West, or, worst of all, the kind of Neo-Crusader militarism that many on the right in this country, as well as the UK and Europe, seem hell-bent on inciting.
Critique, challenge, dispute...but don't start a blaze with words.
That's not asking too much.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Meet those criteria?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Or singling out Allah.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Often I find myself saying to friends, "I don't think your god is real.", and I do single out their god. Coming from a non-religious perspective, I see no hypocrisy in saying that one god or another doesn't exist.
Thanks Dad.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Stop killing people.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Muslims all over the world have condemned the Charlie Hebdo attack, btw.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Stop celebrating when radicals kill people.
Stop killing gays.
Stop oppressing women.
I'm sure I could come up with many more if I was so inclined...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)BTW, what would your solution be? Restoring the colonial order in the Arab/Muslim world?
B2G
(9,766 posts)is that they are geared toward rational, sane people.
These are not rational, sane people we're dealing with. No amount of appeasement is going to deter them from their mission.
The sooner everyone understands that the better.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)
are rational, sane people.
The distinction between "all Muslims" and "a tiny handful of crazyheads" has to be made.
And I'm not talking about "appeasement"-a term that should be retired now that Naziism is extinct-I'm talking about basic human respect.
Lobo27
(753 posts)Crazy people killing people for no reason. Here on DU, I have constantly seen people trying to point out that the west is the reason these and other killings happen. To me that is all BS. The west did not force anyone to pull a trigger. Did the cartoonist hurt them so badly that revenge was mandated? We all have a choices in life, and the killers chose to be evil.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)is one way of seeing it. It's a very simplistic view. The Creek Indians in Alabama and Georgia in the late 1700s, early 1800s clashed with, and were ultimately destroyed by the United States. Many factors led to the Creek's disastrous confrontation with the U.S. military, but what arguably drove the conflict most of all was the Creek cultural practice of blood revenge.
It was revenge, but it was also much more than revenge. The practice of blood revenge was deeply tied up in Creek religious beliefs about balance and reciprocity. Death or injury had to be repaid to restore balance (Balance could also be restored in other ways, but here we'll keep it simple.) It didn't matter if the person who caused the injury was the one who paid, but someone from the clan had to pay. If a white person killed an Indian, then a white person had to be killed. It obviously caused problems.
Islamic fundamentalists aren't Creek Indians, but there are some similarities.
We reject the principle of retaliation based on kinship or "clan". We're okay with killing for other reasons.
"...killing people for no reason" is not exactly true.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)An inconvienient truth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/
By Max Fisher
May 1, 2013
Pew's data shows the share of Muslims who support sharia and the share of these pro-sharia Muslims who back this policy. Some of the Pew data are charted at right. Leaving the faith is a particularly sensitive issue in Islam, which was initially founded in part as a sort of community. Abandoning Islam is traditionally considered not just apostasy, as it is in other religions, but a specific transgression called "ridda." In the first days of Islam, the religion was also a physical community under siege from outside forces and facing the possibility of fracturing within. To leave the faith was also to abandon the larger community, a crime considered akin to treason in the way we understand it in the West. Of course, times have changed significantly over the past 13 or 14 centuries, and a lone Muslim deciding to adopt a different faith or give it up altogether is no longer a practical threat to his or her community in the way that he or she might have been back then. But the religious pronouncements commanding punishment for ridda are still right there in the scripture, which may explain in part why this view persists. It's also important to note that majorities of Muslims in the countries surveyed, sometimes vast majorities, said they support religious freedom. That includes, for example, more than 75 percent of Egyptians and more than 95 percent of Pakistanis. It might seem like a glaring contradiction. And it is a contradiction, but it might make a little more sense that so many people could hold seemingly mutually exclusive views -- religious freedom is good, but anyone who leaves Islam should be executed -- if one understands the particular history of apostasy in Islam.
~ snip ~
The full report:
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
reorg
(3,317 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)That's a mighty massive call. Folk like Pamela Geller are into that line of thought, though...
samsingh
(17,607 posts)of religion. And this is happening frequently. Those attacks must be stopped
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)Don't want to talk about it anymore? I don't blame you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Singling out Islam and Muslims for particular demonization serves no purpose. This is a bloody age, and blood is being spilled plentifully by Christians, Muslims, and Hindus(among others).
The point is to fight the extremists and deal with the causes of extremism...not just to say "You guys are worse than anybody else".
Hezbollah has denounced these people, for God's sakes. That should be more than proof that this is not something Islam, or even all Islamists(not that I have any sympathy for Islamism)are collectively responsible for.
And listen, we were ALL horrified by what happened in France this week-those feelings aren't the exclusive property of the "Je Suis Charlie" crowd.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)such a distinction, and it's apparent here at DU.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)the ones causing all the problems. It's almost like they are two entirely separate groups. The radicalized Islamists are a problem and cannot be reasoned with.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)the condemnation is something like we disagree with killing people but we understand that they were radicalized by something or other.
this is not acceptable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What matters is that the action is condemned. The condemnation doesn't have to take the tone of old-style imperialist jingoism to be valid.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)is justifying the murder.
that should have been the focus of this ridiculous threat that i've gotten myself into
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about learning how to prevent more such acts in the future.
It's pointless to say it doesn't matter why they did it.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)they did it because there are vocal leaders and preachers inciting violence in the name of religion and a small number of people are willing to kill in answer to these calls.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)understanding is important to solve the problem. the issue i have is when i hear someone say 'i don't support the killing of innocents but i appreciate the motivations of the terrorists'.
this is not clear condemnation of a terrorist act and allows complicit support of the terrorist networks.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"Appreciate" doesn't mean "endorse".
It serves no purpose just to condemn for the sake of condemning. Doing that brings us no closer to finding a way to prevent these things.
It also assumes that those you are condemning actually CARE that they are being condemned.
madinmaryland
(64,934 posts)Stop bombing the shit out of innocent Muslims, based on lies.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)We need to stop pretending everyone is the same or shares our values. We need to mind our damn business.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)we should ignore that?
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But shaking our fists with rage for the sheer thrill of it(as a lot of those expressing "outrage" about this have been doing, in France, in the rest of Europe, in the UK and here in North America)is no solution, especially when the fist-shaking is accompanied by the kind of sanctimonious, bellicose rhetoric that always grows into a demand for war(as the justified grief we all felt over 9/11 was manipulated, temporarily, into a consensus for going to war with a country that had had nothing to do with 9/11).
Lobo27
(753 posts)Stop killing people that haven't done shit to you. Like the Yazidi people.
See it works both ways. Murder is murder. Tell me what did the Yazidi do to deserve murder? Did they bomb the shit out of innocent people with war planes?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And nobody here is cool with what happened to the Yazidi.
Lobo27
(753 posts)Perhaps I was being an ass. I'm just saying we can not rationalize murder. Whether its the US or terrorist doing it. At the end of the day we all have a choice. A simple choice really. To be good people or to be bad people.
I can not come to terms with well if we weren't assholes to them they wouldn't be the way they are. I don't know everything about French culture but suspect they enjoy many of the same freedoms we do. So thats why I can't understand how the killers became radicalized.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Definition of good gets twisted due to circumstances.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is the first step towards stopping these killings.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)Are there any other restrictions you want to put on things so you can make it appear that religious violence is solely restricted to Muslim extremists?
WASHINGTON, February 20, 2014 In what Amnesty International is calling ethnic cleansing, Christian terror groups called the anti-balaka are targeting and attacking Muslims in the country of the Central African Republic. The terror groups also attacked a Muslim refugee camp established to house innocents fleeing from the violence.
Last week, The Guardian reported Thousands of Muslims tried to flee the capital of the Central African Republic (CAR) on Friday, only for their mass convoy of cars and trucks to be turned back as crowds of angry Christians taunted: Were going to kill you all.
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/in-tragic-twist-anti-balaka-christian-terror-groups-attack-african-muslims-9691/#4zwyZU1fPCyByZcZ.99
Want me to start on Hindu religious extremism? That stuff will really turn yr toes!
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)The First Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Pastor Scott Livelys petition to have a crimes against humanity lawsuit against him dropped.
The anti-gay pastor will stand trial in a federal court in Massachusetts for his part in crafting Ugandas notorious Anti-Homosexuality Act, popularly known as the Kill the Gays bill. The bill was largely the product of a workshop held in Uganda by Lively and two other american anti-gay activists, focused on how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/232101/american-who-helped-craft-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-to-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(in fact, some of the most outspoken Hutu advocates of genocidal violence against the Tutsis were Catholic priests).
And that's what's going to happen in Uganda now that the "kill the gays" bill has apparently become law WITHOUT the death penalty provisions being removed from it.
And that's essentially what's occurring now in Ukraine...where pro-Russian Orthodox Christians and pro-Ukrainian Orthodox Christians are killing each other as I post this.
And there was the slave trade...and the Native American genocide...and the Inquisition...among just a few.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Do condone violence: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
This should not be downplayed.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that we are supposed to be ignoring.
reorg
(3,317 posts)is the introductory sentence on page 29 of your PEW study.
It continues to say that in 'some' countries, the proportion of those who agreed that suicide bombings are 'sometimes' justified is significant. Which countries are these? Surprise, surprise:
Palestinian Territories
Afghanistan
Egypt
Do you think it is possible that some factors other than the majority religion in these places might play a role here?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)From looking at the survey results, it looks like hundreds of million of Muslims support suicide bombing against civilians in defense of Islam.
With that being the case, it's hard to say "the vast majority of Muslims do not condone violence".
I think there are many factors, and Islam is one of those factors.
reorg
(3,317 posts)It is indeed the vast majority that does NOT condone suicide bombings under any circumstances.
I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that 'hundreds of million' Muslims support violence. That support or acceptance of (counter-)violence is significantly higher among inhabitants of war zones, constantly under attack by overpowering forces, may have very little to do with their religion.
I just read an enlightening article about 'Who Should be Blamed for Muslim Terrorism?' and posted it in Good Reads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016111013
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's in the middle of a paragraph, and does not say that the vast majority dont condone violence, because as its says in the same section, a substantial minority do.
Look at page 70, thats where the millions that condone violence comes from.
reorg
(3,317 posts)a "substantial minority" does (e.g. 7 percent in Indonesia) is very much in line with "the vast majority" (e.g. 90 percent in Indonesia) doesn't.
And how do we determine what these replies saying 'attacks against civilans "can" - not always, but "sometimes" - be justified' are based on? How do we know it has anything to do with religious teachings, rather than with living in war zones as the selection of countries would indicate?
The numbers in the graph on page 70 'Is Suicide Bombing Justified?' are the same as those on page 29 'Majorities Say Suicide Bombing Not Justified', only in opposite order. There are no "hundreds of millions" condoning violence, which is what you were saying, Mr Honesty.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Saying that it was the main point. That's what is dishonest.
7 percent of Indonesia advocating violence against innocents is huge. A vast majority is 99.9 percent IMHO.
Well over 100 million Muslims condone violence in just the 21 countries where the question was asked, according to the populations of those countries. That doesn't include a whole lot of other countries.
Hard to say the vast majority are against it when hundreds of millions are for it.
And just look at all the questions on morality. Muslims are mostly incredibly conservative, bigoted, and misogynistic according to this study.
reorg
(3,317 posts)and "saying that it was the main point" is your invention.
Your "opinion" about what constitutes a "vast majority" seems not to be shared by the vast majority of people wondering what the expression means, as this random discussion indicates:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid
Again, your study does not say that there are "hundreds of millions for" violence. The overwhelming, vast majority of Muslims is strictly against it, whereas significant percentages of those living in war zones and under repressive dictatorships say, according to your study, that violence such as suicide attacks may be justifiable sometimes.
How many hundreds of millions Americans feel that drone strikes (against Muslims) are necessary? Let alone justifiable? Americans are mostly incredibly conservative and bigoted, so let's not even get into percentages and compare them to those in your study.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)This study points to definite problems with the idea of Islam. Some of the countries with the higher percentages aren't in a repressive dictatorship, and some are in war zones.
And the vast majority are extremely bigoted, misogynistic, and homophobic in their views. Looking at Islam, it's understandable why. It's a belief system that very explicitly condones and encourages bigotry and misogyny in its texts.
Compared to Americans, their views are much more conservative overall. Compared to American conservatives, it may be more in line, but that's not saying much. The vast majority of their views are to the right of many conservatives.
This study shows well over one hundred million Muslims condone suicide bombings against civilians in only 21 countiries surveyed. That's an incredibly extreme view. I think it would be conservative to say there would be 200 million if they surveyed all countries. That's not a fringe. That's a significant group. And it's disconcerting when the vast majority of Muslism have extremist views on so many other issues.
And that's not adding in the Muslims who favor stoning adulterers to death, or the death penalty for leaving Islam, then it becomes hundreds of millions easily. I would consider that violence against the innocents.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Post removed
JI7
(89,290 posts)msongs
(67,509 posts)rules 1 thru 4 are irrelevant when criticizing the religion
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The difficulty is that, in too many Western minds, the cultural practices(most of which are pre-Islamic, and which exist in other cultures as well)are intertwined with the religion itself.
There is nothing in the Koran that actually calls for "honor killings" or FGM(which is illegal in many Muslim countries and against which many Muslims campaign), among other things.
JI7
(89,290 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Sad to see...but we had to find out sometime.
Thanks for your support.
(on edit...it was inflammatory of me to use the term "Crusaders", and I apologize for using it).
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I guess DU can be as jingoistic and intolerant as anywhere else. How are things in Juneau?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not bad for early January.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)based on the actions of a tiny few among them.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)JI7
(89,290 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)
And all-out war against the Arab/Muslim world, both of which would be fascist and unforgiveable.
B2G
(9,766 posts)JI7
(89,290 posts)that for muslims in india before
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024965848
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)who staged it. I'd be open to the idea of asylum for French Jews if this continued.
And while the attack on the grocery is evil, the extremists who staged it aren't running the entire French government, so your comparison is invalid.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)That's who needs our protection, IMO.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)
(It would not make sense to have them move to Israel, because, thanks to the actions of Netanyahu, moving there would mean moving to a place where they'd be in even GREATER danger than in France).
I'm sure they could find sponsors in the LGBTQ community here, as well as among many other people of good will.
But, again, a lot of people will use things like that to push for further U.S. military involvement in the Arab/Muslim world. Since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars proved that outsiders cannot win in such conflicts, and since wars in general are no longer winnable, we need to come up with with some alternative to that.
Not saying YOU were calling for war, but that's what a lot of these issues get used to push for.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)One man standing alone. And on self-appointed authority giving people rules how they should speak. Because people always need rules how they should speak, lest they say something that may be unpopular, thus lowering their social rank.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And this has nothing to do with anybody's social rank.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Is there a pension with that?
I have had it up to my tits with people telling me what I can say to whom. I am an adult and I can judge that myself. As it happens I happen to endorse your prohibitions personally, but anyone who tries to control the speech of others can fuck right off.
Islam itself is not the problem. But the people who live in parts of the world where Islam is prevelent have different ideas how to live life than most people in the west. And that is ok. That is why there are different countries and cultures. But as I would not tell the Saudis how to live, they should not tell us how to live.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Equally, those who want dialogue instead of shouting matches, pogroms, and wars also have a right to express the idea that expression of views can happen without demagoguery or incitement to violence.
I didn't impose anything...just made some suggestions.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)of you seem pretty united in your anti-muslim ranting
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)screaming "what about Belgium?" to justify continuing and expanding what was always going to be senseless, unwinnable conflict, even though ALL sides in that war were equally to blame for the war having happened and all were using equally horrific "rules of engagement".
(IIRC, most armies in that conflict were also using rape as a military tactic, too).
Jingoism then...jingoism now.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But the unforgivable acts were committed by a tiny handful of extremists...most of whom, as I understand it, are either dead now or in custody.
That wasn't the entire French Muslim community. That wasn't the global Muslim community. It wasn't Islam as a religion.
What needs to be stopped is the collective baying for Muslim blood. That baying is real, and it has been extended to collectively demonizing an entire immigrant group in a country and essentially all their coreligionists throughout the world.
Talk like that leads to pogroms and to war...which, can only lead to more extremism and...larger numbers of terrorists.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You strung three statements together, two of which were true:
1. That wasn't the entire French Muslim community.
This is true, and I've seen not statements here that it was, and if somebody did say that, they were wrong.
2. That wasn't the global Muslim community.
This is true, and I've seen not statements here that it was, and if somebody did say that, they were wrong.
3. It wasn't Islam as a religion.
Well no, that is not true. Islam is not a monolithic religion with a single authority determining what is Islam and what isn't Islam. There are, and you know very well that this is true, significant Islamic leaders and Islamic sects, and Islamic movements, and Islamic schools, and large numbers of devout muslims who believe that jihad against the west is part of their religion, that acts of violence are appropriate, that this is part of their understanding of Islam. It is not all of Islam, it is not a majority belief, but it is very much a part of the Islam of today and pretending it isn't, or pretending that all of this has nothing to do with this religion is dishonest.
rtw
(42 posts)or had even acknowledged the safety concerns of the Parisian Jewish population. They are the ones reportedly leaving the city in droves in fear, not the Muslim population.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(note: when I started this thread, I hadn't actually heard about the hostage-taking situation at the kosher grocery, an act I've condemned in this thread. It appears that what happened in the grocery was about creating a diversion so that the Charlie Hebdo killers could escape, and I think it may have been happenstance that the grocery was kosher. Nonetheless, it shouldn't have happened, as the Charlie Hebdo killings shouldn't have happened).
What I've said and how I've said it about the kosher grocery attack has been driven by not wanting to look like I'm more concerned with trying to out-condemn the other condemners-that would just be self-serving-not about lack of concern.
Sorry that I haven't communicated that better.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is there a way that they can avoid being targets for Islamic terror attacks?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(I hadn't heard of it until you posted that link-I've had the tv off here today).
That attack was vile and indefensible, and the group of extremists(apparently the same group as the people who staged the Charlie Hebdo killings)who staged it must be apprehended.
My point in starting this thread was to try to argue for a way of discussing these issues that doesn't incite pogroms and war. A lot of people are blaming every Muslim on the planet for these attacks, and baying for Muslim blood. That's just as wrong as baying for Jewish blood ever was, or baying for anyone's blood.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)This? ' A lot of people are blaming every Muslim on the planet for these attacks, and baying for Muslim blood.'
Because if so, he's not just making stuff up.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)you're putting words in my mouth at least
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't have to "make up" anything to try to stop legitimate condemnation of the violent acts of a few from degenerating into the collective demonization of 1.6 billion people.
That is happening. There are people trying to spin this something that ALL Muslims are to blame for...that Islam as a faith called for(if that was the case, wouldn't there be 1.6 billion terrorists?)...that only collective punishment can remedy.
That's what all the opportunistic rhetoric this week(mostly uttered by people who normally never would have given a damn about the lives of cartoonists on a small "satirical" paper or about anyone in that kosher grocery)is about...trying to take these events and build them into a consensus of vindictive rage against every Muslim on the planet.
It's exactly the kind of thing that is used to whip up war fever, over and over again, throughout history.
The killings were despicable...but only the killers themselves are responsible. And, as I understand it, they're now dead.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)A bunch of stupid fuckers murdered people for freely expressing themselves.
Don't need to memorize a page of rules to discuss that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Some of us don't want a war against the entire Muslim world. Nothing can be worse than that. No good can come of that.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)instead of some imagined event in the future
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)piece and shut you up.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the killers are dead.
What more do you need?
It doesn't justify demonizing all Muslims.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I'll criticize Islam, or any other religion, exactly the way I want.
Sid
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)JI7
(89,290 posts)but as far as the Islamic Religion itself, BUsh was always a defender of it.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)how nice for you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Neither of them are on my side politically.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)I think its far more complicated that the West versus Islam.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)and time before that trying to keep them from getting into the office
I don't believe they were ever elected
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But they were seen as the leaders of "the West", and they did use their power to kill, by most estimates, a million Muslims.
Few, if any of whom had done anything to deserve to die.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)your whole argument is made up
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And everyone in this country and the other countries of "the Coalition" were seen as enabling them(fairly or not)in their actions.
Just as a lot of people(fairly or not)hold ALL Muslims responsible for the actions of the tiny minority who identify as "jihadis" or "militants".
On both sides, it was the innocent many being blamed for the acts of the guilty few.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank you!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And it is getting caught in the middle of TWO monsters who each think they are right with different gods.
That is the point of this terrorism. They want to stir up hatred among the uninvolved. It doesn't matter in which direction that hatred is pointed.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)following the Charlie Hebdo/kosher grocery attacks.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The aim of the terrorists here is to stir up anger - in any direction.
The dynamic is like a Three Stooges pie fight or classic movie bar room brawl. Punch thrown by one at another... second guy swings and hits a third guy... and so forth until the whole room is in shambles.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)samsingh
(17,607 posts)I see freedom of expression being attacked.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But you want us to blame ALL Muslims, and most Muslims have now made it clear that they think these extremists(most, if not all of whom have now been killed)were lunatics whose actions have nothing to do with the teachings of any form of Islam.
There is a real possibility that this will lead to a general emergence of more moderate, anti-violence voices throughout the Islamic world, and we should encourage that...not sabotage that by acting like they are ALL in league with the killers in France.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)conversation to. I'm not sure why.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And a war against the entire Muslim world would be unwinnable and immoral.
We could never have a civilized or humane world after such a conflict.
Focus on apprending the extremists. That's enough.
It's wrong to demonize ALL Muslims or the entire Muslim religion, just as it's wrong to collectively demonize any group.
War is always the worst possible option.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Islam is an ideology and a lot of people have a problem with that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Including the rhetoric used in Charlie Hebdo-which usually depicted Muslims the way Julius Streicher depicted Jews in Der Stürmer.
Doesn't justify killing the Hebdo people, but it does represent the kind of hate propaganda we have to stand up against.
A lot of folks would like an all-out war between "The West" and the Muslim world...and won't make the distinction between "Islamists" and the vast majority of Muslims who reject Islamism.
The first Shoah was wrong. A Shoah against Muslims would be equally wrong. And the conditions in which that second Shoah could happen are being created as we speak.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)"In short, ISLAM, like many other religions, does need critique, but the critique needs to be respectful, needs to be culturally sensitive and non-imperialist/non-Western chauvinist."
sorry.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've also rewritten the passage you quoted to make the distinction I forgot to make, and should have made, in the first place.
What I was addressing in that passage was the need to find a way to critique the religion(all religions can be legitimate critiqued, if done respectfully), which is a separate topic from the need to avoid making condemnation of the extremists shade into demonization of ALL Muslims, and I should have been clearer.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but I think more accurately Islam is the religion which is practiced by Muslims. Kind of like Christianity is the religion practiced by Christians and Judaism is the religion practiced by Jews.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)-The term some people use for violent Islamic extremism.
You're right about "Islam" simply meaning the various forms of Muslim religious practice.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)or, muslim/islamic are adjectives describing nouns related to islam:
muslim/islamic countries
muslim/islamic beliefs
and an ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, like democracy, Christianity, liberalism. Do a lot of people have a problem with those too, or is it just the ideology of islam that's the problem?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+ideology
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+muslim
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+islam
samsingh
(17,607 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)citizens as well.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)else, except for being minorities (like blacks in the US, with about the same social status)
do no other French "kill its citizens"? I think there are other murderers in france, high and low.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though only Muslims kill people.
None of our school shooters in the U.S., for example, were Muslims. Neither were the Manson family. Or the Mafia.
Or anyone in any of the world's various drug cartels.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)9 times out of 10, trying to avoid a war is the right call.
One high-profile counter-example is a dumb thing to base a policy on.
That's not necessarily to say that your conclusion is wrong, but your argument for it certainly also leads to a lot that are.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Thats what gets us in trouble. Look, you have to acknowledge everyones beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go: That is fucking stupid. Are you kidding me? I acknowledge that you believe that, thats great, but Im not going to respect it. I have an uncle that believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him!
-Patton Oswalt
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I can respect the religious as long as they leave the rest of us out of us, but as soon as they insist they society adapts to their beliefs I lose all respect for them. Fundamentalists of any stripe are a threat to a democratic society.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)They legislate their beliefs and restrict the civil rights of others. Or they aid and abet these intrusions on our rights with their financial support of the institutions of which they are members.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's important that you clarify that.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Organized religion is as well. Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence. And attempts to inject these horrible beliefs into society, governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does.
We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Popes, the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.
I cannot respect it.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Certainly to people who don't want to incite all-out religious warfare.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)what's wrong with everyone.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)We need a rec button for posts.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Or, it doesn't have to, but it will. Some people may not respect freedom of speech or satire. And, like with everything else, it comes down to who can enforce the rules.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Too thoughtful for the celebration of bigotry that DU has become this week, which is why the revelers are responding the way they are.
brooklynite
(95,070 posts)Please do elaborate.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)your call the other day for more "anti-Muslim" rhetoric. Your term: "anti-Muslim". Not anti-fundamentalist. Not anti-terrorist. No, you specified you just wanted more "anti-Muslim" sentiment in the media. That's bigotry.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)apostasy are not examples of Islamophobia.
Criticizing Islam and speaking critical truths about a set of cruel, misogynistic ideas is not bigotry.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)So try again. My point stands.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"holy book".
Not bigotry.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)There's a variety of beliefs and interpretations in Islam just like any other religion. Broadbrush insults that fail to recognize that are no different from any other sort of unthinking prejudice.
brooklynite
(95,070 posts)Like most religions, the holy books supposedly espouse the absolute rules of the deity, but are always sufficiently obscure that endlessly divergent opinions as to how to interpret the rules pop up.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)who are left handed or who weigh too much. What's your point?
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)Strangely enough, while I've never encountered comments sections or websites full of people hating on left handers, I have encountered that when it comes to groups like Muslims and Jews.
My point is that if someone doesn't believe there's bigotry against Muslims, I really have to question why they don't believe that when it's so easy to see it on the internet.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)see someone say there isn't bigotry against Muslims. And then watch the firestorm that rightly follow.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)I had the misfortune to read an op-ed titled 'Islam! We have a problem!' in one of his Australian publications and made the mistake of scrolling too far down and finding the comments made the nasty crap in the article pale by comparison. According to those creatures, Muslims invent stories about bigotry against them to suck in the latte drinking leftists so they can then behead them when they least expect it, it's not possible to be a Muslim and Australian and it has to be one or the other, they should all go back where they came from, mosques need to be banned, and true Australians need to start fighting back against the Muslim invasion and show them what real democracy and free speech is. Blech. I'm not usually struck speechless, but that stuff was not only amazingly stupid, but vicious and ugly.
For the record, being an atheist I'm critical of all organised religion. It's stupid and causes way too much grief. But I draw the line at discriminating against the adherents of a religion and portraying most or all as being the same as their particular extremists, doubly so when it's being done in a way to try to alienate, ostracise and cause fear and hatred of all members of that religion, especially in countries where they're in the minority and probably feeling pretty beset upon already....
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Speaking of seeing someone here claim there was no anti Muslim bigotry. Is the paper you read that column normally a right wing rag? I'm sure all of those repulsive publications will make a stupid claim like there is no bigotry. But to be honest, when I see the government of Iran and Hezbollah make statements of unqualified condemnation, I find it eye rolling that so many here can't bring themselves to do the same.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)The paper I read was a Murdoch rag, so it has a conservative bent.
Add Hamas to Iran and Hezbollah. And I don't believe for one second that there's many DUers who don't totally and utterly condemn the attacks.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)All DUers? Absolutely not. I was openly accused of bring HAPPY about it. I told the poster to fuck themselves. Guess which of our posts got hidden. I've been calling them the "it's horrible, but" brigade. Acknowledging the terrorists are self described Muslims makes me an Islamophobe to these DUers.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)I didn't see that exchange coz I don't read all that many threads in the big forums, but that's wrong.
fwiw, I not only think it's a fair call to say the terrorists were self-described Muslims, but to say they were Muslims. Saying that doesn't make someone anti-Muslim...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And wars are seldom started against them.
They're never sent to death camps, either.
So that comparison doesn't even work as sophistry.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Denial is usually their giveaway-it's why they always introduce their hatesprache with lines like "I'm not a (racist/sexist/homophobe/antisemite/Islamaphobe/fat-basher/sinstrophobe(person who hates or fears the left-handed)...BUT..."
after which, they're off to the races-or against the races, or genders, or orientations, or religions, or the portly or portsided, etc.
brooklynite
(95,070 posts)And what's an acceptable subdivision of mainstream religion in terms of beliefs on the rights of women and respect for other religions or non-belief?
I DON'T have respect for Islam; I also don't have respect for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism or any other religion.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You want broadbrush "anti-Muslim" media. That's, I guess, your right to say (on DU, for some reason) but don't pretend you're outraged when I call that shit what it is.
brooklynite
(95,070 posts)Unlike a lot of religious people (not exclusively Muslim), I don't take offense at criticism and insults.
And as a 1st Amendment absolutist (including the right to publish offensive cartoons), I'll defend to the end your right to criticize me.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)These movements are funded to the tune of billions by our allies. It's real politic.
You might want to read how the Israelis created Hamas as a counter point to the PLO. Its cynical politics at best.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847
Rule by boogyman as it were
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And removing it as the leading voice of the Palestinian people, with full U.S. backing.
They took the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept to a ludicrous extreme.
And that was shameful and stupid(they should just have accepted reality and started negotiating with Arafat in the mid-Eighties-with his flaws, he was, at the time, the best possible person they could have negotiated with).
And you are right that the U.S. helped enable a lot of "Islamism" by building up the Taliban(because, at the time, they were obsessed with what now seems like the pointless goal of getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan...brilliant choice that was...really created a "happily ever after" with that one, Ronnie).
I don't disagree with your points at all-it's just that I wasn't addressing that history in the OP.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)1. Stop lecturing me. I don't support imperialism, let alone the Statist system
2. Stop lecturing me. I'm not out to start a pogrom against Muslims
3. Stop lecturing me. People have a right to protect themselves from those who intend them actual harm.
4. Stop lecturing me. I'm not the problem.
Lobo27
(753 posts)I counter that with, should we respect the Christian belief that being gay is a sin?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)thank you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)or to act as if all Muslims are part of some sort of spiritual-political hivemind.
Muslims are as varied and as individual as any other group of people.
Sufis, for example, have about as much in common with jihadis as Unitarians have with megachurch preachers.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)false. I also notice that your preaching at those posters served as a way to evade the question posed to you about respecting the anti gay teachings of Christians and of Muslims. It is disrespectful to avoid answering questions put to you by inserting a straw argument, some rambling rhetoric that does not pertain to your correspondent posters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I would say is don't frame it in terms of cultural superiority. Any degree of tolerance towards LGBTQ people in the "civilized" West was won from below, against the massive and at times violent opposition of both Western political leaders and the Western religious traditions.
It's great that we have more tolerance towards LGBTQ people here, but that has nothing to do with the west not being Muslim. It has to do with secular rebellion against "Western culture" from below that has managed to win partial victories, victories that can be reversed at any moment, as I don't need to remind you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is bigoted, it is not the 'West' that most mistreats LGBT people. You seem to be arguing against the very worldwide secular rebellion you acknowledge creates more tolerant societies.
You are talking to a person who has protest the Catholic Church in Catholic Churches. Secular rebellion. We did not follow the Church's rules for how to speak to and about the Church. We were there to upturn the Church's rules, not to follow them.
Your methods involves phoning the Archbishops' press office to ask them how to talk about their deadly anti gay and anti woman policies. It's sweet, but it is no way to run a secular rebellion.
My point here was that you were asked a very pertinent question about dealing with religious intolerance. Instead of answering that question, you launched into unrelated and accusatory materials, lumping the other poster in with 'the bad people' without any visible cue from that poster.
The way you treated that poster was the opposite of what you are asking in your OP.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And that the question needed more than a simple "yes or no" reply.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)Or are you going to try and claim that no-one's been trying to lump most, if not all, Muslims in with the extremists?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I pointed out that Ken was asked a direct question by an actual individual and did not answer the question but instead preached a sermon which implied that poster had said those shitty, horrible things that that poster had not said. The poster asked a question, a valid one, which Ken simply ignored while preaching about how to speak respectfully to minority groups.
If you respond to individuals as if they were part of some negative group, as Ken did, you are doing exactly what Ken is in his OP saying not to do. He has complex rules set forth for others which he is not practicing as well as he might.
Believe you me, I don't 'try' to say what I mean, I say what I mean and I did. Do not assign to me positions I have not and would not take. That's what I was saying to Ken. If someone asks you a good question, do not respond as if they had said something awful while ignoring what they really asked you. That's wrong. I object to that. Treat people with respect, not with diatribes unrelated to what they are asking you. It's fairly simple really.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)Here's what you asked. 'And who here does those things, Ken Burch?' I told you who here does those things. Nothing more and nothing less. How you can manage to twist that into a diatribe and then in the same breath turn around and go on and on and on about what you insist someone else thinks is beyond me.
Okay, here's a very simple question. I'll be interested in how you respond. Have you seen posts here at DU over the past few days where there are attempts made to portray most or all Muslims as extremists?
Renew Deal
(81,901 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)
The rule is that "they deserved it"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I condemned the attacks as soon as everyone else did.
I'm just trying to help prevent a global religious war...others are trying to do the same thing.
In baying for blood, you are giving the extremists what they want.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If we all just accepted the one truth faith and behaved accordingly.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The fantasies a small minority of Muslims nurse of a "caliphate" are just as delusional and unsustainable as the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The need is to get everybody to accept each other as they are...and fist-shaking rhetoric can't ever get us there.
Nor can war, ever again, ever lead to anything positive for anyone.
Lobo27
(753 posts)The Christian right has fucked up Africa so badly by preaching against safe sex and the LBGT community. We can not accept that ever.
We also can't accept the beheading of people in Muslims countries for opposing beliefs.
Anytime a religion does something fucked up. We say its minoruty that is doing it. Ok I give you that. Then what you say when someone is being killed, and people gather and cheer. Are the cheering part of the minority that are the extreme? Its not that simple. Because we know damn well that some of those cheering are regular people that live normal lives. The big difference is that they are controlled by religion.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)Beginning with the so called "freedom of religion". How does something like that come around within the natural rights of man? No one is born religious and the only way someone becomes religious is to have that religion imposed on them.
It's an interesting question.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't even agree with everything you've said, but I just finished reading each reply to your thread. And I want to say that you're clearly standing on principle, and you're catching a lot of flack for it. I'd be a better person if I handled online disagreements in this way. Anyway, more power to you for taking a stand in support of your beliefs.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The tone of most of the posts was largely what I'd expected.
I appreciate your comments here.
Have a good day.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Demonizing all of Islam, rather than making it clear that this was a small, isolated band of crazies(in case you hadn't heard, even Hezbollah has condemned these guys)doesn't help save anyone's life.
Nor does treating every Muslim in Europe, the UK and North America as a potential enemy combatant.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)maintained his cool in the face of hostility and misrepresentation.
some of it pretty blatant.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You have made your agenda clear: You want to fuel collective hatred of ALL Muslims for the actions of a tiny few-and you don't care if doing that leads to war-even though you know such a war would be unwinnable and produce an unendurable world.
Warpy
(111,480 posts)He said this radicalization of Islam has been carefully planned and lavishly funded for decades and it was for implementation in Islamic countries, that stuff going on in the west was just window dressing, the major battle being for the countries where Islam is the majority religion, to turn them into 13th century Wahab paradises.
I think we might be seeing a tipping point there as well as here since both Hezbollah and Iran have come out and condemned this latest round of murderous theater.
So fire away, everybody, insult the religion. Just be kind to your Muslim neighbors, they're going to need it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Though it won't surprise me if we see "internment camps" for U.S. Muslims sometime in the near future.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and they are both fine with theocracy, with misogyny, with brutal homophobia, but they are in a death struggle with sunni jihadists.
I agree however with Rushdie that the focus is on the transformation of the Islamic world, of the undoing of 20th century secularism, of the creation of a sunni dominated new order. That plan seems to be proceeding quite well.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Remove all your teeth as some do not have them.
Remove your tongue as some can not speak.
Sew up your anus so as not to offend with the inevitable.
Bon Appetit!
WestCoastLib
(442 posts)In my last job, the president of the company was an unpredictable dick. Everyone walked on eggshells around him because you never knew if you were going to get reamed for a minor mistake, or if he was going to shrug off a major revenue loss causing mistake as no big deal.
Eventually, i came to conclusion that I didn't give a fuck. I didn't need him or the job and wasn't going to coddle him. Needless to say, the world didn't end. Our relationship soured, to be sure. He quickly realized I was one of the few people that just wasn't intimidated by his outbursts as he liked and he began just basically leaving me alone and avoiding me until I found a better job and quit.
The point is, no. I'm not going to walk on eggshells around one religion that I wouldn't do for others. Just no. They aren't a special snowflake and I won't coddle them or infantilize them.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I have no problem saying that to anyone.
What SHOULD happen (but doesn't) is that so-called moderates in these religions seem to accept the violence and the sexism in these religions. They never seem to do anything to change it, for example, by leaving.
randome
(34,845 posts)After thousands of years of the same crap, I would think it's pretty obvious that religion isn't going to measurably change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)those practices in the present?
Shouldn't the Muslim world, in 2015, move beyond the concept of honor killings, for example? As most of the world already has?
Yes, women are killed at the hands of their spouses in the US, but at least we don't condone it with the concept of an "honor killing." And men who are proven to have murdered their wives are subject to criminal penalties.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The whole point of what l laid out in the OP was to try to help find a way to criticize that doesn't just end up making things worse.
And what I was saying about the barbaric practices is that Islam didn't INVENT them. Yes, they still exist in some Islamic(and other)countries, but they don't exist in Islamic countries BECAUSE those countries happen to be Islamic. There are other reasons in play, the intractability of some cultural structures being the main issue.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)female genital mutilation. But, whatever the roots of those practices, they should be wiped out -- in the Muslim world and everywhere else. We shouldn't give such practices a pass just because they've become entangled with religion.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A lot of Muslims are working to abolish those customs. too.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)But I don't understand why a lot MORE Muslims aren't fighting these practices.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Most Americans in the mid-19th century weren't abolitionists.
It's always a minority within any group that starts the fight against abhorrent practicecs
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Not Americans in the 19th century versus Middle Easterners in the 21st.
Most of the world has recognized that these practices are abhorrent, and it's past time that the Muslim world does, too.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Muslims are working to abolish those practices.
It's not an easy fight for them to do that.
I believe they will abolish them, but we can't help that happen by holding the Muslim world collectively reponsible for their existence and playing the "clash of civilizations" card.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)seems to be the problem. Lets just face it, there are no Gods. They do not appear like ghosts to people, they don't save people from affliction, war, terror, disease and famine.
If we thought in very long terms then we might be able to say that, in human history, these primitive beliefs were necessary to organize civilizations and set down some basic rules and were abandoned with the help of science in a few hundred years from now.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)clashed with, and were ultimately destroyed by the United States. Many factors led to the Creek's disastrous confrontation with the U.S. military, but what arguably drove the conflict most of all was the Creek cultural practice of blood revenge.
It was revenge, but it was also much more than revenge. The practice of blood revenge was deeply tied up in Creek religious beliefs about balance and reciprocity. Death or injury had to be repaid to restore balance (Balance could also be restored in other ways, but here we'll keep it simple.) It didn't matter if the person who caused the injury was the one who paid, but someone from the clan had to pay. If a white person killed an Indian, then a white person had to be killed. It obviously caused problems.
Islamic fundamentalists aren't Creek Indians, but there are some similarities.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)If you kill innocent people, you are a fuckwipe asshole and not worthy of respect, understanding, or basic human dignity.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)or basic human dignity?
BubbaFett
(361 posts)nor do I care. I merely stated my opinion for the sake of simplifying matters.