General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe West's phobia of Islamophobia
On HBOs Real Time, Bill Maher and author Sam Harris were making the case that liberals need to stand up for liberal principles.
Maher pointed to such principles as freedom of religion and speech as well as equality for women, minorities and homosexuals. These are liberal principles that liberals applaud for but then when you say in the Muslim world, this is whats lacking, then they get upset.
Harris added that, I would argue the liberals have failed us. The crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of Islamophobia where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people. That is intellectually ridiculous.
Guest panelist Ben Affleck interjected, So youre saying that Islamophobia is not a real thing.
Im not denying that some people are bigoted against Muslims as a people and thats a problem, Harris replied.
Thats big of you, Affleck shot back.
When Maher asked Affleck why he was getting so hostile about the issue the actor replied, Its gross, its racist, Its like saying youre a shifty Jew.
Harris presented to Affleck an analogy of concentric circles. At the centre, jihadists who believe in martyrdom, wanting to kill apostates. Outside of them, Islamists, just as convinced of martyrdom, and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity, but choosing to work within the system, working to change governments, in large part by using democracy against itself. Those two circles, according to Harris, constituted about 20% of the Muslim world. Outside of them he placed conservative Muslims, who deplore ISIS, but have reactionary views about human rights, about women and homosexuals, that are deeply troubling.
Affleck continued to bow his head in a kind of disdainful forbearance as this was explained by Harris, as if it were an expression of bigotry, rather than a perfectly reasonable sociological and demographic analysis. Why?
To quote Christopher Hitchens, responding in Vanity Fair to the Danish cartoon incident, which saw protests throughout the Muslim world in early 2006, (and its times like these you really miss Hitchens)
the shady term Islamaphobia is going to be smuggled through our customs. Anyone accused of it will be politely but firmly instructed to shut up, and to forfeit the constitutional right to criticize religion. By definition, anyone accused in this way will also be implicitly guilty. Thus the soft censorship will triumph, not from any merit in its argument, but from its associations with the hard censorship that we have seen being imposed over the past weeks.
Much of the West now has an irrational phobia of Islamaphobia.
An argument frequently made recently is that mainstream Islam is loudly condemning ISIS, but the media isnt covering it. Indeed, there has been a fair amount of public condemnation from Muslim religious authorities, organisations and councils:
The head Shia and Sunni religious leaders in Iraq have all condemned and called for war against ISIS.
Saudi Arabias highest religious authority has condemned the armed groups Islamic State and al-Qaeda as apostates.
Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 countries, distanced Islam from the actions of ISIS, saying they have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.
Representatives from both the Sunni and Shia groups in the UK met at the Palace of Westminster and relayed their message that the militant group does not represent the majority of Muslims.
The 100 Sunni and Shiite religious leaders produced a video denouncing the Islamic State, saying they wanted to come together to emphasise the importance of unity in the UK and to decree ISIS as an illegitimate, vicious group who do not represent Islam in any way.
Slamet Effendy Yusuf, executive council chair of The Nahdlatul Ulama, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the world, said, The public have to be critical. This is not about [establishing] a Caliphate [Islamic State]; but [a group] working for its own cause and gains from a sectarian issue.
Secretary Abdul Muti of Muhammadiyah, an organization with 29 million members, said ISIS does not represent Islam.
The International Union of Muslim Scholars spoke out against ISISs expulsion of Christians in Mosul. The group claimed the rejection served to violate Islamic laws, Islamic conscience and leave but a negative image of Islam and Muslims.
The Arab League Chief denounced acts committed by the Islamic State in Iraq as crimes against humanity, demanding that they be brought to justice.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Muslim group in the U.S, called ISIS un-Islamic and morally repugnant.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) released a statement condemning the barbaric execution of American Journalist James Foley by ISIS.
This is all commendable; but its far too top down. Senior clerics, organisation spokespeople, executive council chairs
there is an eerie disconnect between their rhetoric has not translated to mainstream populist expression.
The media lauded the representatives of both the Sunni and Shia groups in the UK meeting at the Palace of Westminster and relaying their message that the militant group does not represent the majority of Muslims; but isnt it just as fair to criticise the minuscule turnout, relative to the size of the community and the magnitude of the current events that prompted the gathering in the first place? 2,660,116 Muslims live in England, 5% of the population, according to results from the United Kingdom Census of 2011. Europes population was 6% Muslim in 2010 according to the Pew research center.
Surely it is reasonable to expect some marches mainstream Muslim community demonstrations, congested streets, banners with boldly humanist slogans proclaiming tolerance and rejecting extremism, Muslims of all ages, from the professional and working classes, mothers pushing babies in strollers, members of religious youth groups, the nominally as well as the devoutly religious, expressing a collective rejection of the perversion of the Muslim faith by ISIS, and solidarity with the bereaved, and the forces of moderation and tolerance.
The Danish cartoon controversy produced mass demonstrations in Iraq. In Egypt, thousands of protesters demonstrated in cities across the country. Some 3,000 protesters marched through Malaysias largest city, Kuala Lumpur. In Pakistan, there were labor strikes, and 5,000 people protested in Islamabad. In Bangladesh, more than 5,000 Muslims demonstrated in Dhaka. There were a multitude of similar protests elsewhere, including London, where hundreds of British Muslims gathered outside the Danish embassy, holding placards bearing slogans including behead the one who insults the prophet and free speech go to hell.
Yes, there are tens of thousands of decent and courageous Muslims taking on ISIS in military engagements everyday, risking their lives to express such values; but what about the multitudes away from the front lines?
Why is it unreasonable, or culturally insensitive, or an act of false equivalence to point out the general absence of marches and peaceful demonstrations of solidarity, of moderate Muslim rejection of extremism and the perversion of real Islam, on at least one tenth the scale, world-wide, of the demonstrations in reaction to the publication of offensive cartoons in a Danish newspaper?
FROM: http://sheppardpost.com/
cali
(114,904 posts)Let's face it: The U.S. and its western allies have killed so many Muslims- and a fuck of a lot of them are civilians. This in turn has spurred militant opposition.
It's tricky: The U.S. is closely allied with countries like Qatar and SA, the worst states for liberal values. That close alliance exists under democrats and republicans.
It's tricky. People like the author of this piece, make false claims and distort reality. What is this person's real agenda?
There damn well have been mass marches far larger than the ones about the Danish cartoon, against extremism. And the marches he mentions are hardly large. It's hardly the fault of those protesting radical Islam that they don't get much attention.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/November/French-Media-Blacks-Out-Protest-against-Radical-Islam/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-25/french-muslim-leaders-call-for-protest-marches-after-beheading.html
It's not just tricky, it's complicated. Muslims aren't monolithic. They're diverse. And yes, sorry, but this op verges on bigotry.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)as defenders of militant radicals, as a means to shut down meaningful discussion.
This line here is right out of the Karl Rove rightwing playbook :
"Much of the West now has an irrational phobia of Islamaphobia."
Silent3
(15,212 posts)...as calling all Muslims terrorists.
I don't have to think all US fundamentalists are abortion clinic bombers, for example, in order to have plenty of criticism for fundamentalist Christianity, and some criticism for all Christianity.
There's an awful lot quite worthy of criticism in Islam and Islamic cultures which doesn't have a thing to do (although it seems to be a lot of people's automatic assumption the moment a single critical word about Islam escapes) with identifying all Muslims as violent radicals, nor with supporting bombing of Islamic countries, nor with supporting ethnic profiling, etc.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)striking panic in the hearts of the other passengers, or hear that federal law enforcement is using Tim McVeigh as an example of why they need to have moles inside churches or synagogues I will find that equally disgusting.
Constructive criticism is perfectly normal. But that is not what is happening here.
Silent3
(15,212 posts)No. But Affleck, as do many people here on DU, reacted as if he'd just done that.
You just reacted as if I'd just done that.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)rapture or a racial purity crusade through a violent act on a plane, because some notable Christians have been known to commit violent acts. That would be paranoia focused on a group, who are 100% peaceful, except for a few stray whack-a-doodles. I say that is wrong. This articles says that it is not so bad.
Silent3
(15,212 posts)"that it is not so bad" for us to, as you put it, focus paranoia on a group.
The fact that you're still talking about "commit violent acts" tells me that the only thing you can imagine people having a problem with when they criticize Islam is fear of being a victim of a violent act.
Plenty of personally non-violent Muslims who would never be a risk to anyone on an airplane are still, nevertheless, extremely homophobic. Many non-violent Muslims expect women to wear veils and won't let them drive a car. Plenty of non-violent Muslims don't support secular government, but would rather impose religious law via government power. Many (sizable majorities in Epypt and Afghanistan, for example) support the death penalty for any Muslim trying to leave the Islamic faith.
Are there a few liberal Muslims out there who are great supporters of equality and democracy? Sure, of course there are. And I'll never support discriminatory policies that don't allow for evaluation of all people as individuals, based on their personal merits, rather than blanket treatment based on some group label like race or religion.
The overall influence of Islam and current Islamic culture, however, is antithetical to liberal democratic values, and should be called out as such, without every such criticism being responded to by a knee-jerk reaction that someone is instead telling you to be afraid of every Muslim on an airplane.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)PHOBIA. : an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.
Make sure you ignore that I already stated that constructive criticism is normal. As a liberal I have serious problems with homophobia and misogyny. But neither of those things are scary enough to mobilize public support for invading oil laden countries, or justify violating the Fourth Amendment. So the dehumanizing and fear mongering is employed.
Maybe you don't see it, nor understand the connection to our foreign policies. If this article is simply about defending constructive criticism then it should not have emphasized Islamaphobia in the title. If they are not defending Islamaphobia then why bring it up at all?
And there also is a tricky premise here that bears scrutiny: Why should Muslims who do not sympathize with terrorists have to prove anything to anybody? Are those who are demanding that they march in the streets in large numbers using a double standard here?
cali
(114,904 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and to object to discrimination is to discriminate. Those homosexuals are oppressing the religious right. It's a line of bull I'd expect from Mike Huckabee.
You seem to be saying that anyone who objects to shitty treatment at the hands of religious people must accept that treatment or they will be attacked all over again with a whole new lexicon.
It is disgusting to claim that it is permissible to wrap governments up in religion and demand that to criticize their actions is to be a racist. That's disgusting. Disgusting.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)unless they reject them?
Or you feel that Islam is a Homophobic religion and all Muslims should be assumed to be Homophobes?
Bryant
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Can you respond to what I said? I'd say your lack of respect is very clear.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I think that's what the authors of the OP are trying to do and you are defending them. That's disgusting.
Bryant
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You are saying that it is wrong to be critical of governments that murder minorities if they claim they do so because of religion. Is that correct? That is what you seem to be saying. Any criticism of anti gay, anti woman policies and actions on the part of States must be silenced because that State = Religion and to be critical of their hate for gays is to be a bigot.
This is what Republicans have always said. If you prevent them from discriminating against gays, you are oppressing Republicans.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)In so far as any state is guilty of homophobic or bigoted practices, criticizing them is fine. It's expected and even necessary. And many Islamic people in those countries do criticize those practices (insofar as they are allowed to). What I am taking issue with is the suggestion that all Islamic folk are guilty of the actions of those governments or of terrorist organizations, which is what the OP suggests and what you seem to support.
Bryant
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I never said the things you keep accusing me of. You are being dishonest. That is not acceptable. I will always advocate for fair and equal treatment of my community by all governments and cultures. I don't care if that bothers you. I don't give a shit if you think I should do it differently.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You agree with Islamophobes and then refuse to admit it, deflecting it to safe ground, as you always do.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your inferences and assumptions are your property, own them and do not ascribe them falsely to others. It is simply wrong what you are saying and doing. It's not ethical, not honest and utterly disrespectful. I speak for me. You speak for you. I will always be critical of all governments and religious groups that subject LGBT people to bigotry and hate speech. I'm sorry if that bothers you but I do not have to stop criticizing bigotry because you don't like hearing bigotry criticized.
If you want to claim that being critical of homophobic hate and misogynistic treatment of women is an attack on an entire group, that's your deal. I do not see all Muslims as bigoted sexists. But I will criticize all of those anti gay governments and groups, Christian, Muslim, any faith at all. Any political group as well. No bigots get quarter from me. They do not get to hide behind good people and claim that if one criticizes bigotry they are also criticizing the good people. Wrong is wrong. Calling it 'faith' does not make bigotry into a holy rite.
I'm never going to speak well of nations that oppress my people. Why is that so hard to fathom?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Endured for as long as it did because the authorities didn't want to be seen as bigoted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/
While this OP may be dubious, its indisputable that there truly is a muzzling of liberals who reject some of Islam's worst tenets, by calling them bigots.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm more scared of our own crop of religious fanatics as I am the ones over in the middle east. These ones we have are right here amongst us so the potential is greater.
I don't believe in a higher power, a God or Allah or whatever one wants to call it
For a little bit of back story I will add. As a kid way back long before I was indoctrinated into the Christian world I felt that I had lived before and that I'd live again so I guess that makes me a little bit crazy. Anyways I'm talking about long before I started to school. I am one of the people who can remember within a few days, weeks maybe of when I was born. Not everything mind you but things like looking out the window and not being able to focus my eyes and the day when I finally could and see my brothers and sisters getting off that big yellow thing that I was seeing go past right before they came home from school etc. I remember this stuff well. trying to figure out how it was that our car would sometimes go forward and sometimes go backwards and finally figuring out that lever in the floor my dad was always moving around was what was causing that, not the pedals cause he was always doing the same thing with them, mash them to the floor then move the lever then we'd go one direction or the other. The steering wheel I figured out pretty quick that was what was making the car turn. Not knowing what was going on but starting to figure the world out and all.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Since when?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It's certainly depressing how many liberals are unwilling to criticise Islam as practised by the vast majority (not all) of its believers, and how many useful idiots like Ben Affleck condemn them when they do.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Hmm...
It was interesting... a very good episode of bill maher's real time. Quite a spirited debate
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Not fond of Harris, either, especially because he's usually trotted out as an "atheist leader."
He sure as hell doesn't speak for me.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Your notes have been noted. Although I'm not sure what a "stopped asshole" is...
Orrex
(63,212 posts)It wasn't an argument; it was an observation.
If you need me to convince you that Maher is an asshole (after he's spent decades demonstrating it), then nothing will convince you that Maher is an asshole.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Their hatred of Muslims is well known. The have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject.
Sam Harris (along with Christopher Hitchens) openly supported our unprovoked war against Iraq, and before the war, Bill Maher said he didn't care if we started the war. Though he appeared to really want the war at the time.
None of these war mongers have any standing to condemn Muslims.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and it ain't pretty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
EX500rider
(10,848 posts)Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, cover apostasy in Islam through their criminal laws.
(up to and including the death penalty)
Does anybody now if that is true for any other major religion?
Response to echochamberlain (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm sure you're enlisting at this very moment, and thus cannot reply