Muslim peace conference condems terrorism

[Gardener]

2. Maintain your illusion of a strictly causal link, but then you realise your islamophobia is little different from racism.

The issue of causality aside, what we should be discussing here is the fallacy behind this notion that objecting to a politico-religious ideology constitutes a form of bigotry akin to racism.

Instead of discussing the actions of Muslims, we should be discussing the beliefs, especially within the context of the incompatibility between one belief system incorporating pluralism as one of its basic tenets and one that rejects the notion of pluralism entirely, and in increasingly frequent and violent ways.

 

[German guy]

The issue of causality aside, what we should be discussing here is the fallacy behind this notion that objecting to a politico-religious ideology constitutes a form of bigotry akin to racism.

Instead of discussing the actions of Muslims, we should be discussing the beliefs, especially within the context of the incompatibility between one belief system incorporating pluralism as one of its basic tenets and one that rejects the notion of pluralism entirely, and in increasingly frequent and violent ways.

That's a good point, Gardener, and I agree, it's absolutely necessary to debate with and against Muslims certain particular stances and believes that cause problems. I suspect none of us "PC Eurolefties" here would object to debates and other frames with the purpose to challenge those Muslims on an individual level who, for example, don't believe in the freedom of women to chose their carreer and marriage partner, or who believe an open political system shall be replaced by theocracy.

I don't know about the English speaking world, but I know that in Germany, there are quite a few efforts by feminists with a Muslim background to sensitize fellow immigrants for women rights. Help institutions aiding abused women have started putting specific focus on women in Muslim families. Ethics and religious science classes have been started in high schools to debate moral questions in class, including Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I believe it's not any less important to take these efforts, than it was one or two generations ago to challange the old authoritarians within the native population, as my parents' generation did against their parents.

I just don't believe that a broad-brush attack on Islam, unspecific and generalizing, anyhow contributes to these efforts in a constructive way. Such a debate about values and limits of religious freedom must be held *including* the Muslims living here, not against them.

 

[Ben K.]

The issue of causality aside, what we should be discussing here is the fallacy behind this notion that objecting to a politico-religious ideology constitutes a form of bigotry akin to racism.

Instead of discussing the actions of Muslims, we should be discussing the beliefs, especially within the context of the incompatibility between one belief system incorporating pluralism as one of its basic tenets and one that rejects the notion of pluralism entirely, and in increasingly frequent and violent ways.

Which is all well and good. I draw a line between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobia. The latter certainly exists, I believe mbig has already engaged in irrational minimisation of a demo that puts him in the latter category. I question why you and Grant can't admit, or will avoid admitting its existence, even if you don't agree with my assessment of mbig. It does nothing to harm your argument, though you guys seem to think it will.

 

[Gardener]

That's a good point, Gardener, and I agree, it's absolutely necessary to debate with and against Muslims certain particular stances and believes that cause problems. I suspect none of us "PC Eurolefties" here would object to debates and other frames with the purpose to challenge those Muslims on an individual level who, for example, don't believe in the freedom of women to chose their carreer and marriage partner, or who believe an open political system shall be replaced by theocracy.

I don't know about the English speaking world, but I know that in Germany, there are quite a few efforts by feminists with a Muslim background to sensitize fellow immigrants for women rights. Help institutions aiding abused women have started putting specific focus on women in Muslim families. Ethics and religious science classes have been started in high schools to debate moral questions in class, including Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I believe it's not any less important to take these efforts, than it was one or two generations ago to challange the old authoritarians within the native population, as my parents' generation did against their parents.

I just don't believe that a broad-brush attack on Islam, unspecific and generalizing, anyhow contributes to these efforts in a constructive way. Such a debate about values and limits of religious freedom must be held *including* the Muslims living here, not against them.

I don't see you as a PC euro lefty, GG. Arcana, when she posts, is quite reasonable as well, and I'm very fond of Djoop's lack of dogmatism. I see quite a bit of difference between these views and that of those who ARE pc eurolefties and who live a considerable distance west of you. It's mostly a matter of the ability to reason vs mindless parroting of approved talking points and the ability to acknowledge certain truths vs a hands on the hips denial and creation of an alternate reality.

In any case, people should not confuse the objection to an ideology with racism. When they do so, they show that they are not a thinking person, but merely a practitioner of that aforementioned political correctness. I happen to oppose many, if not most of the tenets of Islam, and the ones I oppose most vehemently are those that insist on conformity and emphasize the inherent superiority of Islam. Does this make me an "Islamophobe" which is a word made up just a few years ago, or does this mean I am rejecting totalitarianism and supremacism? Until more people in the west learn to recognize the difference, I'm afraid we are in for an uphill battle when it comes to dealing with the ingrained chauvinism.

 

[Djoop]

These threads would be less repetetive if we would try to limit ourselves to policy. We're never going to agree on rhetoric but I'm sure I would have GG's support on policies who aim to secure the rights of women, gays, apostates etc. If you believe that Islam is inab..thingy violent, tell us what you want to do about it. If you fear another holocaust (like Alexa), tell us how you want to combat racism against muslims.

 

[Gardener]

Which is all well and good. I draw a line between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobia. The latter certainly exists, I believe mbig has already engaged in irrational minimisation of a demo that puts him in the latter category. I question why you and Grant can't admit, or will avoid admitting its existence, even if you don't agree with my assessment of mbig. It does nothing to harm your argument, though you guys seem to think it will.

I am not mbig, and so see no need to comment on your labeling him. I figure he can do that, himself.

As to answering the question you insist I answer on generalized terms, however, I'd say that yes, there are those with such an irrational fear that they view all Muslims in negative ways. They maximize the extent to which certain beliefs are held. By the same token, there are those who specialize in minimizing the extent to which certain beliefs are held, and who display such a reactionary need to appear unbiased that they end up offering little but sophistry and denial. Islam ends up a sacred cow to these people, and as they post away bashing Christianity or Judaism with complete zeal, they call anybody an "Islamophobe" if they criticize Islam. I see far more people who fit the latter mold than the former, myself.

 

[Ben K.]

These threads would be less repetetive if we would try to limit ourselves to policy. We're never going to agree on rhetoric but I'm sure I would have GG's support on policies who aim to secure the rights of women, gays, apostates etc.

I'm sure that's pretty universal here.

If you believe that Islam is inab..thingy violent, tell us what you want to do about it. If you fear another holocaust (like Alexa), tell us how you want to combat racism against muslims.

On a purely domestic level, I wouldn't endorse a government solution. Cut back on welfare and social housing, get people feeling responsible for themselves and get rid of social housing that ghetto-ise sub-communities. Perhaps a governent move I would endorse is promototion of a national character, if we're not proud of ourselves how would anyone expect immigrants to be?

EDIT: I believe equilibrating immigration so that we aren't over-burdened with one particular group might be effective also. Ireland has a small Muslim community for instance, but it is one of the most diverse in the world in terms of sub-sects and I think it works well.

 

[German guy]

In any case, people should not confuse the objection to an ideology with racism. When they do so, they show that they are not a thinking person, but merely a practitioner of that aforementioned political correctness. I happen to oppose many, if not most of the tenets of Islam, and the ones I oppose most vehemently are those that insist on conformity and emphasize the inherent superiority of Islam. Does this make me an "Islamophobe" which is a word made up just a few years ago, or does this mean I am rejecting totalitarianism and supremacism? Until more people in the west learn to recognize the difference, I'm afraid we are in for an uphill battle when it comes to dealing with the ingrained chauvinism.

Of course Islam, as a politico-religious ideology as you put it, is a different kind of thing as race. You are born with your skin color and can't change it, but you are not born as a Muslim believer, and you don't need to stay one. In these regards, I agree with you.

On the other side, I disagree, because the term "Islam" in general, without a particular qualifyer what this means, is an important source of identity for many people. And, as I said, it is not realistic to get Muslims to lay off this identity in most cases. What we can do, though, is challenging certain particular believes held my people who identify as Muslims, and such attempts have the benefit of not challenging the very identity of the respective people. Or, in other words, you may not get a Muslim to become a secular humanist without force and violence, but you may very well convince a Muslim that it's not against his belief to allow his daughter to marry a man of her choice.

Also, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as "islamophobia". Level-headed criticism of certain believes held by Muslim people is one thing, broad-brushing and overgeneralizing, and attaching all kind of ills to Islam and Muslims (or people perceived as Muslims, although religion is not even important for them) in general, can take chauvinistic forms, which indeed are on a similar level as racism. The fact that African Americans are overrepresented in the crime statistics is true, yet you can draw conclusions based on that which reveal racism. The same happens all the time vs. Muslims.

If anything, I'd like to encourage people, including myself, to debate this topic with the seriousness and level-headedness it deserves. No need to step on the feet of people out of carelessness.

 

[gunner]

These threads would be less repetetive if we would try to limit ourselves to policy. We're never going to agree on rhetoric but I'm sure I would have GG's support on policies who aim to secure the rights of women, gays, apostates etc. If you believe that Islam is inab..thingy violent, tell us what you want to do about it. If you fear another holocaust (like Alexa), tell us how you want to combat racism against muslims.

Funny that. It was my intention from the outset......

Paul

 

[Ben K.]

I am not mbig, and so see no need to comment on your labeling him. I figure he can do that, himself.

As to answering the question you insist I answer on generalized terms, however, I'd say that yes, there are those with such an irrational fear that they view all Muslims in negative ways. They maximize the extent to which certain beliefs are held. By the same token, there are those who specialize in minimizing the extent to which certain beliefs are held, and who display such a reactionary need to appear unbiased that they end up offering little but sophistry and denial. Islam ends up a sacred cow to these people, and as they post away bashing Christianity or Judaism with complete zeal, they call anybody an "Islamophobe" if they criticize Islam. I see far more people who fit the latter mold than the former, myself.

Good stuff. I certainly have seen many labels abused on this forum. I've taken people to task for bashing Christianity and reserve the right to accuse people of anti-semitism, racism, sexism et al when deserved. I will however, also engage whatever arguments they make even if I think they're prejudiced.

 

[Gardener]

Of course Islam, as a politico-religious ideology as you put it, is a different kind of thing as race. You are born with your skin color and can't change it, but you are not born as a Muslim believer, and you don't need to stay one. In these regards, I agree with you.

On the other side, I disagree, because the term "Islam" in general, without a particular qualifyer what this means, is an important source of identity for many people. And, as I said, it is not realistic to get Muslims to lay off this identity in most cases. What we can do, though, is challenging certain particular believes held my people who identify as Muslims, and such attempts have the benefit of not challenging the very identity of the respective people. Or, in other words, you may not get a Muslim to become a secular humanist without force and violence, but you may very well convince a Muslim that it's not against his belief to allow his daughter to marry a man of her choice.

Also, I believe that there indeed is such a thing as "islamophobia". Level-headed criticism of certain believes held by Muslim people is one thing, broad-brushing and overgeneralizing, and attaching all kind of ills to Islam and Muslims (or people perceived as Muslims, although religion is not even important for them) in general, can take chauvinistic forms, which indeed are on a similar level as racism. The fact that African Americans are overrepresented in the crime statistics is true, yet you can draw conclusions based on that which reveal racism. The same happens all the time vs. Muslims.

If anything, I'd like to encourage people, including myself, to debate this topic with the seriousness and level-headedness it deserves. No need to step on the feet of people out of carelessness.

One problem with this, GG, is that ideology is sold as identity quite strongly here in the states by the radio demagogues who represent powerful economic interests and seek compliance among those adversely affected by their economic policy. Heck, the entire explosion of the tea party movement is based on identity politics and is just a further refinement of the way "conservative" has been sold as identity. Why do you think so many here in the states identify themselves as conservative in such strong terms that they wear it like an identity and then go about the process of detailing a sharply manichaean world view? It's little more than ideology as a form of tribalism.

If strong rejection of Islam is a form of racism because Islam represents a form of identity politics, shouldn't we apply the same standards to other such instances where ideology and identity are similarly intertwined?

 

[Djoop]

I'm sure that's pretty universal here.

Maybe, but not everybody shares te same sense of urgency. Are you willing to support shelters for those who fear 'honour' crimes f.e.?

On a purely domestic level, I wouldn't endorse a government solution. Cut back on welfare and social housing, get people feeling responsible for themselves and get rid of social housing that ghetto-ise sub-communities. Perhaps a governent move I would endorse is promototion of a national character, if we're not proud of ourselves how would anyone expect immigrants to be?

Eventhough I agree with your premise, my distaste for nationalism gets the better of me.

 

[German guy]

These threads would be less repetetive if we would try to limit ourselves to policy. We're never going to agree on rhetoric but I'm sure I would have GG's support on policies who aim to secure the rights of women, gays, apostates etc. If you believe that Islam is inab..thingy violent, tell us what you want to do about it. If you fear another holocaust (like Alexa), tell us how you want to combat racism against muslims.

Yep, you definitely have my support on this.

I said this before, so I say again that I believe education is crucial. I can't speak for other countries, but the German education system has many deficits. The teacher/student ratio is too high, and in some quarters, public schools almost exclusively consist of immigrant students. I know, nobody has money for anything these days except bailing out banks, but I believe it's important to invest here. Also, immigrant students with problematic background and/or predispositions need to be distributed better over the public schools, for that the "bad students" and "good students" are not gathered in clusters, but more evenly distributed. That would result in more immigrant students relying on contact with natives with better background, ideally cause them to lay off prejudices and also be ideologically influenced more. Educational success as a basis for carreer would lead to better integration later in the life of these students, including material participation.

If this frame is given, I have much trust in the power of pluralist thought within our society, to convince these problematic immigrants of the benefits of an open society. It already happens with many immigrants who are materially successful and who have native friends. The biggest hurdle for them in the way of integrating, in my opinion, is discrimination from native side that makes it more difficult for them to make a successful carreer. When they are told all day the stink and are ugly extremists anyway, what choice do they have but sticking together and turning to extremist ideas?

Also, I don't have a problem whatsoever with the Verfassungsschutz (German NSA) observing radical Muslim groups which pose a threat to the constitutional order. The Verfassungsschutz already observes the neo-Nazi scene, the radical leftist scene and so on -- radical islamists naturally deserve the same attention.

You might be surprised, I even agree with the eviction of Muslim criminals who actively violated the constitutional order. I don't see why we need to allow extremists who plotted to commit acts of terrorism or treason to stay within our borders, when they are not even citizens.

Just a few ideas, probably I'd find more when thinking more about it.

As for women rights, I even believe Islam might be a help. Forced marriage or even honor killings are phenomena born out of backwards tradition, not Islam. Quite a few hardly religious immigrants, who hold such "values", will be surprised when they learn Quran explicitly states that no marriage is legal, when the woman does not agree. And of course, murder (except in war against infidels) is not allowed either.

 

[Ben K.]

Maybe, but not everybody shares te same sense of urgency. Are you willing to support shelters for those who fear 'honour' crimes f.e.?

Yes, anyone in fear of their life should have the protection of the state.

Eventhough I agree with your premise, my distaste for nationalism gets the better of me.

I call it patriotism. I'm happy to see non-white, non-catholic kids pick up a hurley or speak the Irish language.

 

[Gardener]

Yes, anyone in fear of their life should have the protection of the state.



I call it patriotism. I'm happy to see non-white, non-catholic kids pick up a hurley or speak the Irish language.

I always wear green on march 17th if that helps any.

 

[German guy]

One problem with this, GG, is that ideology is sold as identity quite strongly here in the states by the radio demagogues who represent powerful economic interests and seek compliance among those adversely affected by their economic policy. Heck, the entire explosion of the tea party movement is based on identity politics and is just a further refinement of the way "conservative" has been sold as identity. Why do you think so many here in the states identify themselves as conservative in such strong terms that they wear it like an identity and then go about the process of detailing a sharply manichaean world view? It's little more than ideology as a form of tribalism.

If strong rejection of Islam is a form of racism because Islam represents a form of identity politics, shouldn't we apply the same standards to other such instances where ideology and identity are similarly intertwined?

In my experience, it has never improved the situation when people were running around, posting long lists of links that "prove" conservatives in general are all bigoted, warmongers, egoistic and so on. The same vice versa, when conservatives start rants about how bad "the liberals" are. Happened a few times on this forum too. I've seen mock emails from either side, doing nothing else than attacking a caricature of their political enemy, which they made up.

Usually, the respective people who started those rants, no matter from which side, were accused of being simplistic and broad-brushing their respective "enemy". That's because most people here understand that not all conservatives are the same, or all liberals are the same, but that for most people who chose this label, it means more than strict adherence to the party line.

And only when this point was reached, meaningful debate was even possible, because people could focus on the respective questions at hand. I don't see why this shouldn't be possible vs. Muslims. Just like it would be nice if more conservatives stopped believing in the FOX News caricature of "librulz", more liberals stopped believing all conservatives are the same kind of neocon warmongers, it would be nice if we stopped believing all Muslims are the same, matching the stereotype we often hear from different sources.

I believe this was my concern right from the beginning. It's a matter of respect to see the human behind the ideology, in my opinion.

 

[gunner]

Maybe, but not everybody shares te same sense of urgency. Are you willing to support shelters for those who fear 'honour' crimes f.e.?

Do you actually believe their is a poster within this thread that would not support such an idea?

Reading through this last few pages it's illuminating to witness how much people actually agree on, in a round about way

Paul

 

[Ben K.]

I always wear green on march 17th if that helps any.

I should remember to thank Americans more often for being the biggest advertisers of the Irish merchandising machine.

 

[Gardener]

I should remember to thank Americans more often for being the biggest advertisers of the Irish merchandising machine.

I'm actually just Scots-Irish.

I like to get drunk, but I don't like having to pay for it.

 

[gunner]

It hasn't been easy getting comment on how the conference went, or what- if anything, is planned for the future.

A small article on how it went

"The event proved that peace and interfaith tolerance can be possible, where people of all Faiths and backgrounds can stand united against violence and extremism, as well as integrating with each other and coming to common terms".

Peace for Humanity Conference Is A Success | Blessed Islam - The eCommunity Of Peace

Paul

 

[Ben K.]

Do you actually believe their is a poster within this thread that would not support such an idea?

Reading through this last few pages it's illuminating to witness how much people actually agree on, in a round about way

Paul

Any good chin-wag should involve excessive amounts of abuse. In Ireland we live on "banter".

 

[Djoop]

Do you actually believe their is a poster within this thread that would not support such an idea?

No, I simply don't know. Normally people have to acknowledge the problem first, before they can embrace a solution.

Reading through this last few pages it's illuminating to witness how much people actually agree on, in a round about way

Indeed, eventhough it was expected, the extend surprises me.

 

[gunner]

Any good chin-wag should involve excessive amounts of abuse. In Ireland we live on "banter".

There's 'banter', and there's banter. I think i can take my share of making some issues personal. It took a European (a German one at that) to highlight the error of our ways:lol:

Paul

 

[mbig]

Good stuff. I certainly have seen many labels abused on this forum. I've taken people to task for bashing Christianity and reserve the right to accuse people of anti-semitism, racism, sexism et al when deserved. I will however, also engage whatever arguments they make even if I think they're prejudiced.

This of course, the biggest Lie in the string.
You never engage in argument except in a semantic sense.
One oft sees this kind of cuteness/dependence on ones confidence in semantic ability to Bluff thru many topics on which that poster obviously has No knowledge.
You Didn't answer questions directly or forthrightly.
You ignore posts like my #193, the Meatiest in the string, and Instead make a stupid objection to 'au contrare'. (your #200)
Most indicative, you abuse and wear out the word 'islamophobe', Instead of engaging in debate about Islam. (10 yet?).
And in a similar matter to Gunner, do it mostly third party/Whoring to someone else.

Is pointing out Islam has an Inordinate problem with Violence and intolerance "islamophopbic'.
Djoop and Gardener have said - After I did - 'acknowledging the problem is the first step in a solution', to several 'Likes' from people who Won't acknowledge there IS a problem!... to me.
We/You must keep the fact there IS a problem, or Spelling it out, under wraps, stealthily/disingenuously trying to solve the 'nonexistant'/unspecified problem. ie, cheering the minority who demonstrate against it. "it" however, dare not be specified/elucidated.
Painfully contorted and Dishonest PC.

 

[NoC_T]

About time.

Aside from the token disavowal we're treated to, via whichever 'community spokesperson' after atrocities occur, we never witness any widespread condemnation from muslims. Whilst it would be unfair to equate such silence with complicity, it's refreshing to actually see some organised recognition of wrongdoing.