Okay, fine, Islam is this violent, evil religion. What do you want us to DO about it?

Great Debates
21

Structured?

How is the Islam “structured”? We have no general religious hierarchy, it is impossible to achieve agreement between groups even about the single path for who can call themselves imam. It is a self-organised religion on the popular level, no matter the scary slogans some use.

There are the claims of the islamists, but there is no real difference in daily life than that of the christians.

so you are ready with your economic and political lessons as to why the Indonesia is a failure…

This kind of control is not infrequent in many other countries. It does not impress that you cite this as some special thing of the Turkish state, it tells us you do not actually have a sense of what the educational systems in the various muslim countries, which is not a surprise.

and the problem of course is since there is no tradition in most of the islamic history of any formal hieararchy, just as with the usa fundamentalist protestants sects, the extreme believers set up their own informal schools.

the idea that the Turkish state has come up with The Solution is silly and shows a superifical knowledge.

(I do not say this because I dislike the Turkish system, in fact the contrary, but it is a silly idea to think this is The solution)

No, obviously you are not since you refer to* “that part of the world” *and mistake the history of the Arab Middle east (not even all the arab region, but essentially the middle east) for that of the Islamic world - representing a minority of the Muslims in the world - and its political history in the period of the decolonisation (as if 1950-1990 is some kind of permanent statement)…

It highlights how narrow, how superficial your knowledge is.

Of course, the period was also the period in which the third world was trapped between the exiting Colonial powers and its American leaders who in fear of the Communism and with a superficial analysis flipped from being anti-colonial to a more muddy position, and the Communists who sold themselves as anti-colonial despite the Russian’s own communist imperialism…

So, no, by this citation we know you are thinking of a specific limited period and a limited region, and are not well aware of the political systems and the options.

Of course this period is important as both the Soviets and the Americans supported and propped up “secular” regimes as part of their great games, and the experience of a whole couple of the generations with the secularism was extremely negative, with the initial enthusiasm in the 1950s and the 1960s for the secular type regimes fading…

It is not surprising that the previously marginal Saudi promoted ideas - drawing on the extremist fringe of the brotherhood - became attractive with the failures of the secular states backed by either of those powers.

but no what we hear is people making up stories based on the idee that the political history of the muslims looks like the Saudis confused with the Iranians.

No this could not have any impact on your image…

22

ISTR Islamic culture going through an enlightenment when western (i.e., Christian) culture was going the other way.

MacArthur did not ban Shinto. What he did was separate religion and government.

Or those cultures remain isolated and their visions/delusions of grandeur remain such.

23

This statement is in direct conflict with the first. Left to it’s own devices Islam is a non-hierarchy,self organized religion. As it’s practiced in it’s majority It is a religion linked constitutionally to a state.

24

Orthodox Judaism isn’t the only type of Judaism. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t the only type of Christianity. Whenever you have a major change in a society, there will likely be a number of people who cling to “the old ways”. And the newer versions of Judaism and Christianity is that they justify their interpretations as permitting not doing what the older versions did. It’s a concept called abrogation.

Well, be happy. The Islamic extremists you complain about are not a majority. Now, a good number of Fundamentalist Christians do seem to have too much political sway in the US. But, of course, that’s not the grind that certain posters have.

25

The majority of Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries.

26

no it is not.

There is no formal hierarchy or agreed on concept of hieararchy in Islam

First, false although with the typical ‘critic’ error of mistaking the Saudi and the Arab experience for all muslims or even most - the majority of muslims do not live in countries with a formal establishment of islam as the single state religion. The majority of muslims do not live in such states.

of course you are making a typically american mistake of confusing your approach to democratic government and your formal separation of the state and church with a universal idea. Not even in Western european cases is this true.

So beginning in superficial understanding, false understanding, you have arrived at an empty false “gotcha”

of course when the “lessons” for the muslims begin with superifical stereotypes and hugely incorrect understandings even of the recent history of the political systems, we will not get anything worth listening to.

27

His citations - for your failed gotcha - were to the specific movements in the arab region.

And were not well based for the wider islamic world.

28

I think you completely missed her point. Note that she said “in certain places”. I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but there is no comparison between the power wielded by Islamic whackos in, say Iran, and Christian whackos in the US.

29

I don’t really think anything can or really should be done about Muslim ultras in power in other countries. Ultimately it’s their business in their own sovereign nations - right of the people to dispose of themselves and all that. I don’t think we’d look kindly on their telling us how to lead our own affairs, and I *really *don’t think the “civilized west” is in any position to give morality lessons to anybody.

As for “backwards” Muslims living among us, the first step towards the solution is the same as that for fundies of every stripe : education, education, education. Mandatory, free and thoroughly secular. On the teacher side, I hasten to add. I.e. my country’s decision to force Muslim girls to disveil in class for example is ridiculous, stupid, hateful and ultimately goes wholly against the original point of secular education, that is to say the point was not for nobody to be allowed to be religious, but for religious teachers not to harm or disfavour students of other or no religion.

The problem is made more complex by the fact that, in my country at least, Islam is very much tied with old racial and socio-economic issues that we simply refuse to address because that might cost votes, and no politician will ever want to shake up the system or society that put them in power in the first place. So pretty much racists shitbags are gonna shitbag race (either openly or under the cover of not so opaque dog whistles), which means racistees are gonna get marginalized and angry, which means they’ll become clannish, congregate around shared in-group identity markers and resent any perceived attempt at tearing those down or attacking their community.
A situation the purveyors of radical Islam are all too keen on exploiting for their own ends. Which in turn is used as* a posteriori* justification/vindication by the 'phobes. The nature of the religion is, I think, a massive red herring that is nevertheless exploited by both sides. Because Us vs. Them sells like hot cakes and never caused any problem whatsoever !

30

Yes the banning of the hidjab is a stupid action that only gives reason to the Salafistes and mistakes a simple veil of the heir for something inherent, and many think it = the salafiste style. Of course when one is familiar with the wide range hidjab styles one understands this is simplistic.

yes like the very clear discrimination in hiring - we both know the multiple studies of what happens under when the same CV goes with a “franco-French” name on it and when it goes with a “colonial” immigrant name… but behind fancy langauge dressing up non-action against discrimination as non-discrimination, a very French-French strenght I am sorry, the complicated discourse like this.

100 percent agreement.

31

The majority of Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries. That’s a fact. of the 1.6 billion Muslims 1.1 billion of them live in countries where they are 76% of the population. 70% of Muslims live in countries that are 75% or greater Muslim. Blasphemy laws are very much the norm and vary greatly from death to prison terms.

information calculated from this website.

Again I ask you a simple question asked in the other thread. How are YOU going to change the way Muslims think and feel about trivial blasphemy issues of cartoons and tearing a page out of a book? It’s a simple question that would go far in explaining how to deal with problem.

32

Debunk them through sustained conversation. Either convince them that God doesn’t exist, or, failing that, that their interpretation of Islamic Scripture isn’t the only valid one. What else could we possibly do?

33

Fight wars. That’s at least partly how the Christian World reformed.

That’s a prediction, not a prescription.

34

If you really want to know you should ask them directly.

From what I’ve seen, a lot want to severely curtail Muslim immigration, especially right leaning Europeans. They may want to halt construction of mosques and religious schools. They may favor a more aggressive foreign policy (bomb ISIS, bomb Iran, bomb Saudi Arabia while we’re in the neighborhood). They also tend to support Israel and defend everything they do, though not always.

Liberal types will denounce other liberal types as going to bat for misogynists, authoritarians, and a double standard when it comes to religious critiques (e.g. Christianity is terrible, Islam is worse but held to lower standards). That’s how the whole “regressive leftist” thing came about. Their policy goals are less clear - sometimes they’re hawks, sometimes it’s more about the narrative and they just don’t like seeing Muslims being defended just because they’re victims of Western imperialism.

Or maybe they just own a lot of Raytheon stock.

35

The OP’s question is really interesting, and nobody seems to be engaging with it.

For my answer, I don’t think it’s about Muslims at all. I don’t think anti-Muslims folks know or care what Muslims actually do. It’s about themselves. Their ignorant statements about Muslims are negative statements designed to talk about themselves: Muslims are violent and evil, therefore we are peaceful and good. These statements are necessary to rhetorically combat the facts that we are not peaceful and good. It says “we want to be peaceful and good, and if we’re not, it’s because those bad people forced us to.”

If Islam were to vanish overnight, we’d just find another group to demonize. Have a look at history. Anyone remember Communists and why, if Islam is such a threat, it was completely quiescent during the Communist era? Muslims are convenient because they are a minority in the US, so people know they are real, but a tiny one, so nobody has to worry about the Muslim vote.

It’s also great for reinforcing Christian identity. Christianity is under demographic threat, and demonizing another major religion is an effective way to make Christianity seem relevant. If you are an atheist, the terrorists win! Go to Church, even if you don’t believe—you don’t want them building a mosque, do you?

Horrible and hateful but sadly not new.

36

Religion is pretty terrible in general. Some times at best it’s just “moderately unharmful and brings some degree of personal fulfillment to is practitioners”, that’s the best case. On those grounds religion in generally should regularly be challenged and treated as a false belief in magic by secular people who believe in rational thought and the triumph of science over superstition. Within a free society, or really any society, however, you should be respectful in interpersonal relations and afford people equal rights regardless of their religious beliefs. But broadly speaking religion is bad and the position of “quietly asserting its falsity” I think is doing a good job of making many societies less religious and more secular.

In terms of international relations, the West is heavily involved in countries in North Africa and the Middle East which are Islamic and highly unstable. I think multiple generations of involvement there and the results suggest disengagement is the best strategy. It’s not an easy thing though, for America at least we still have lingering obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and getting out of them is not easy without harming our international standing. The problem is more regional than anything though, there are other majority Muslim countries outside of the Middle East that we are engaged with to no ill effect (Indonesia) and even at least one in the Middle East (Turkey.) The United States had a predecessor in its efforts in the old great powers of Europe, and we should’ve learned from them that trying to mold foreign societies is a dangerous and foolish game.

37

It’s not that interesting. I’ve been to Egypt, from Sinai though Cairo, down the Nile to Aswan and into the western desert. People are people,they want to feed their family and watch satellite tv at night. No one thinks someone should die for pretty well anything that is excluded b the civil code - based on the French/Latin system.

You can put a question any way you want, you can even mess with the results to achieve what you want - who going to come look for you.

It’s just more dumbass to heap on the dumass. Best answer is to go back pack a while.

38

And this has something to say about what?

Ah, the moving of the goal posts, soon I suppose we will have air dropped motos to resolve…

Of course this is not the same as State Religion or the religion being the state, and in fact there is great variation (and that a large percentage of the christian majority states and 100% (! oh my god scary!) of the hindu majority countries have the blasphemy laws etc. and the majority of the sub saharan muslims do not have any blasphemy law at all

What next moving of the goal posts can we expect?

why I am going to take out my magic wand and wave it around and build mountainous straw palaces.

but in my ordinary muslim life I have not encountered the hive mind so…

39

Sometimes people say things they don’t mean, if it costs nothing to say it. I reckon if you put them to the test and gave them a sword and an apostate to chop you would find a lot of mind changes. Still, even if half of them didn’t mean it, it’s a lot of violence.
But what to do about it ? Bombing campaigns don’t seem to do the trick. Nobody has a taste for Stalinist forced atheism anymore, so that’s out.
How about flooding the Islamic world with science documentaries and free porn in the hope it breaks down their mental repressions and loosens their social structures ?

40

Those things don’t always work, many people look back fondly on dictators if they were perceived to be on their side and gave their nation strength. Stalin is still lionised for saving Russia from Hitler.