Do you think it is fair that vociferous criticism of Islam and Islamism coming from people from a Muslim background is repeatedly trashed, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been trashed by (especially Dutch) Leftists and liberals? — jamalrob

Ayaan. Sigh. Ayaan has repeatedly misrepresented a lot of facts and from what I last heard continues to do so, to meet her agenda, which I suspect is just making money repeating the same shit all the time. She's rabidly anti-Muslim and will lie to make a point and as such needs to be double checked or, preferably, ignored.

And if a discussion where people say and show she's wrong is "thrashing" then everything in this site is a thrashing as happened in the Netherlands. It appears to me that merely because people who agree with what she says think that those disagreeing with her are being unfair and therefore the value-laden term "thrashing" is bandied about. Nicely ties in with her image as a victim I suppose and of course victims cannot be nasty.

It wasn't the left, by the way, that dropped her like a brick when her lies about her immigration story came to light but her own vvd-party minister Rita Verdonk, who was minister for foreign aliens and integration at the time and threatened to take her Dutch nationality.

But don't take my word for it, you can find all this on the Internet! :-*

I think we are missing the mark on the issue. We can argue all day about the merits and interpretations of Islamic texts and traditions. However, I think this is like arguing about Christian or Jewish texts. Yes, they endorsed behavior and morals we find wrong, but the Christian and Jew have an interpretation that allows them to, at least, embrace an interpretation of the texts that is compatible with modern liberal states (or, those who are incompatible with the state, are fringe minorities). The main questions, in regards to Islam, are:

What are the radical doctrines? What are these demographics, particularly among Muslims in Western countries or our direct allies? What are the moderate doctrines? What are their demographics? How good of a shot do they have in expanding? How long will it take the moderates to expand substaintially enough to gain power and be able to maintain it? Most importantly, what are the rest of us going to do in the meantime?

Yes, they endorsed behavior and morals we find wrong, but the Christian and Jew have an interpretation that allows them to, at least, embrace an interpretation of the texts that is compatible with modern liberal states (or, those who are incompatible with the state, are fringe minorities). — Chany

I understand this viewpoint, and it is certainly the most pragmatic -- it is what politicians should be focusing on. But from a long-range historical viewpoint, I don't think the "modern liberal states" should be given a free pass. And from a short-range historical viewpoint, it must be noted that one of the main gripes of radical Muslims (one that has been presented by Bin Laden & Co., as well as by a host of imams) is the sheer existence of the "modern liberal states" and their trappings. (The other main gripe is Western meddling within their region -- which is, whether they realize or not, one of the trappings of the "modern liberal state").

No. It's not fine. I was merely reinforcing Mariner's point, which you ignored. — Pierre-Normand

You clearly are unmoved by the plight of the slaughtered, beaten, acid-burned, humiliated, genitally mutilated Muslim women. Yes bad stuff has happened in the past, but right now millions of women and girls are oppressed in the name of Islam. But for you, that's OK because bad things happened in the past that were not Islamic.

Good for you!

I know all about it, Benkei. And the word I used is not "thrashing", but "trashing", and it's all you are doing, once again.

Remember that a Roman persecution against Christians (for example) was a "killing of apostates and blasphemers — Mariner

The greatly exaggerated persecution of Christians by the Romans was characterized in various respects, depending on the need and circumstances. Sometimes, Christians were described as atheists. Primarily, I think, they were persecuted because of their contempt for and objections to pagan expressions of religious belief, such as public festivals held honoring the gods, violence towards temples, their refusal to participate in the imperial cult, their public criticism of ancient customs and traditions, their refusal (at first) to hold public office or serve in the legions.

But generally the Roman imperial state cared very little about religions of any kind, unless they became threats to public order or were seen as threats to the state itself. Trajan's famous letter to Pliny about pursuing Christians advised they not be actively persecuted. The Jews were, for the most part, tolerated because of their ancient and seemingly tribal god, and were exempted from compliance with the imperial cult. Of course, when they tried to throw off Roman rule, they were ruthlessly suppressed.

Regarding the "Great Persecution" under Diocletian, unfortunately the imperial edicts describing the reasons for the persecution didn't survive, and we must rely on the descriptions from Christian sources. But I don't think they were ever persecuted because of their belief in Christ; it was their attitude towards other gods and their conduct towards other religious practices (including perhaps most importantly the cult of the emperors and practices supportive of the imperial state) that would occasionally result in persecution.

The Roman state didn't become involved in active persecution solely because of belief in particular gods until it became Christian.

Primarily, I think, they were persecuted because of their contempt for and objections to pagan expressions of religious belief, such as public festivals held honoring the gods, violence towards temples, their refusal to participate in the imperial cult, their public criticism of ancient customs and traditions, their refusal (at first) to hold public office or serve in the legions. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. In other words, apostates and blasphemers. (Remember that the Emperor was also Pontifex Maximus and, in at least some cases after Commodus, divine). As you say, they were not persecuted because they believed in X; they were persecuted because the rejected some core (sacred, crucial, essential) tenets Y.

The Roman state didn't become involved in active persecution solely because of belief in particular gods until it became Christian. — Ciceronianus the White

When did the Roman State stop beheading women for sorcery?

The real problem with violence is at the level of the state, not of religions. — Mariner

I'm not sure what you mean by "at the level of" the state. It is true that the basic Christian message gets away with pacifism because it has renounced earthly kingdoms. It's apocalyptic. In that sense Islam is a more practical religion by virtue of its acceptance of warfare.

Not all Muslim violence is state sponsored, though. The first Muslims were tribal. They waited in the mountains to pounce on caravans. States came later.

I know all about it, Benkei. And the word I used is not "thrashing", but "trashing", and it's all you are doing, once again. — jamalrob

That almost amounts to an argument. Thank you for pointing out a typo. How's your Dutch by the way? You've seen her on television all those years and heard what she said? Do you check what she says? You know all about it, yet seem to disagree with my post that sets Ayaan up as a habitual liar?

Presumably you're trying to cast aspersions on me because you actually don't know what you're talking about and this works as a diversion.

Whatever valid criticism we can have about Islamism and how we should cope with that in our countries is not helped by having charlatans paint caricatures of all Muslims which alienates the very people we need to engage for change. Whether that's Tom here or Ayaan in the US, they're not helping. The idea that the "mushy-mushy" leftism is to blame in light of a relatively successful multicultural society in the Netherlands (and mostly centre-right governments at that) is just too simplistic.

Nice to see though that holding her accountable is taboo here too...

It's not taboo, and being a twat is tolerated as well, so carry on.

The greatly exaggerated persecution of Christians by the Romans was characterized in various respects, depending on the need and circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

...and also happened during the Roman Empire - not last week.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to talk honestly about Islam. For [the left] in particular, it’s a kind of heresy to suggest that Islam, at this particular moment in history, has a problem. This is unfortunate, and it has to end.

All religions are not the same. All faith traditions are not equally wise or equally tolerant or equally peaceful. A fundamentalist Jain is not the same as a fundamentalist Christian. A devout Quaker and a committed Wahhabist have very different ideas about justice and equality and morality. And to the extent that Quakers and Wahhabists live by the light of these ideas, the differences between them are vast and consequential.

...

The problem isn’t Islam so much as Jihadism. Islam is a rich and complicated religion, with countless sects and denominations and readings. Almost all of these manifestations of Islam are peaceful and perfectly compatible with a free and pluralistic society. But Jihadists and certain Islamists want to impose their interpretation of Islam on the rest of society, including the West. This is a real problem, and it’s not reducible entirely to Eurocentrism or Western imperialism or neoconservative aggression or illegal and murderous drone strikes – although these things are real and matter a great deal. And it’s not “Islamophobic” to admit this.

The Left has an Islam Problem

When did the Roman State stop beheading women for sorcery? — tom

Perhaps when it stopped beating its wife. But alas, that's not an aspect of Roman history I've researched.

and also happened during the Roman Empire - not last week. — Wayfarer

Well, I wrote in response to a statement by Mariner about Roman persecution of Christians. I couldn't think of a way of responding to that statement by reference to what took place last week.

The point is, the way the Roman Empire behaved is only marginally relevant to current affairs, because it's hardly current.

The problem I see is this: as I said earlier in this thread, there is an obnoxious White Nationalist politician here in Australia, who, much to everyone's surprise, actually got elected to the national Parliament in the last election. A big part of her party's appeal is anti-Islam - she is blatantly and unashamedly islamophobe, and campaigned on banning Muslim immigration to Australia. (She's very much like Gert Wilders, although I think dumber.)

But every other party in the parliament won't say any such thing. According to the political mainstream, there is no problem with Islam - only with terrorism, which, they constantly assure the electorate, in soothing tones, is only 'a radical minority' of Muslims.

The problem is that a significant percentage of the electorate can't or won't make that distinction. As far as they're concerned, based on what they see in the media, at least some Muslims are terrorists, and it's hard to distinguish the potential threats from the benign hard-working citizens. And I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to believe.

But so long as there is a refusal to acknowledge that there might be an inherent problem with integrating Islam into Western democracies, then the polarisation and divisiveness will continue.

The deposed conservative Prime Minister of Australia said, in a Dec 2015 interview:

"We've got to work closely with live-and-let-live Muslims because there needs to be, as president [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi of Egypt has said, a religious revolution inside Islam."

"All of those things that Islam has never had — a Reformation, an Enlightenment, a well-developed concept of the separation of church and state — that needs to happen.

"But we can't do it; Muslims have got to do this for themselves. But we should work with those who are pushing in that direction.

"All cultures are not equal and, frankly, a culture that believes in decency and tolerance is much to be preferred to one which thinks that you can kill in the name of God, and we've got to be prepared to say that."

For that, he was pilloried as 'islamophobic' and 'reactionary' by the Guardian and SMH and many other media commentators - because they're not prepared to say it. The dogma is - and it is a dogma - that any suggestion of a problem of integration, is itself a form of racism or 'hate speech', and can't even be discussed.

What do you mean by this? I take it to be an insinuation that ex-Muslims or moderate Muslims who criticize Islam or Islamism are merely Uncle Toms, bolstering basically racist prejudices. Is that right? — jamalrob

No.

What I was saying that nowdays too much simply is spoken to enforce peoples existing views.

Seldom people are given a view that can be thought of having negative, not-so-negative and even positive aspects. And I'm not referring here to jihadism or radical extremism. For terrorism or any ideology that thinks the world would be a better place by killing people, I have no tolerance. I'm talking outright basic lying about historical facts to portray the whole Islam as evil and then going to defend some Crusade as some benevolent defence, not being an ugly chapter at least in ideological terms for Christianity. No, I assume Ayaan Hirsi Ali surely hasn't talked like that, but there are those. And such hatemongering is quite usual, especially when people aren't politically correct and tell it like it is.

Something that would be objective view, which would be a mixed bad is too confusing for many as they cannot know if the speaker is with them or against them. Because that is the thing, right? Being with you or against you.

Do you think it is fair that vociferous criticism of Islam and Islamism coming from people from a Muslim background is repeatedly trashed, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been trashed by (especially Dutch) Leftists and liberals? — jamalrob

Even if I don't know specifically the case, it's not at all hard to think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be trashed by the leftists. But here's my point: the opposite side of the political spectrum does the same. Perhaps even with more vengeance. In our present climate an answer starting like "You have a point there, however..." would seem weak. Either you support 100% or oppose totally. And then we have a "lively" discussion.

Do you think moderate Muslims who would like to see an end to Islamic extremism or conservatism (like, for example, most French Muslims, according to surveys) are helped in any way when those who speak against Islamic extremism or against Islamic conservatism are vilified by the liberal cultural mainstream and the Left (as they are by the Islamists and Islamic conservatives themselves)? — jamalrob

What is a moderate Muslim? I'm talking about the people who argue that moderate Muslims do not simply exist. Scratch the surface of a "moderate" and you will find a jihadist. For them the perfect spokesperson is somebody who says they are correct and is an muslim or an ex-muslim.

The fact that the Right has done quite well in monopolizing the criticism of Islam is not an argument for a liberal or Left defence of Islam. On the contrary. — jamalrob

Even if I'm not a leftist, wasn't the mainstream left wing ideology basically against religions? When have socialist become defenders of religions? And what is the "defence of Islam"?

As usual, it's far better to look at what people say themselves about the issues. Do those that "defend Islam" really be OK with Al Qaeda... or do they really think it's a conspiracy (or whatever)? What opponents say is a different thing. The whole discourse for example about "Cultural Marxism" or "Marxism" is a good example of this, although from a totally different topic.





.

So if you want to know what public policy I see coming out of this, I think it's called 'vast confusion', — Wayfarer

That's not what I want to know.

I thought I had been perfectly clear, but apparently not.

What I want to know is what public policy you, and others that advance the argument that 'Islam is fundamentally more violent' would like to see coming out of this. What are your public policy recommendations?

In the absence of such recommendations, all the discussion about whether any religion is 'fundamentally more violent' than another is just hot air.

Hmm. You can always tell the ones who harbor hidden racism. They're the ones who get the most sanctimonious.

What I want to know is what public policy you, and others that advance the argument that 'Islam is fundamentally more violent' would like to see coming out of this. What are your public policy recommendations? — andrewk

Once accepted that Islam itself is broadly the problem, the political ramifications are somewhat chilling. in the words of Hirsi Ali :

I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy... In all forms [militarily], and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed

It's interesting that someone so steeped in the harm that religion can cause so carelessly advocates revoking religious freedom to convert to Islam, which might as well be an apostasy law, and goes on to suggest that there should or could be military force used against Islam itself (how I know not). For Ayaan there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only lazy ones who don't obey the religion and the radicals which represent true Islam. I'm totally with her that religion in schools is a dumb thing, but it's not as if over-sensitive pro-Islamic curriculum elements have much to do with any violence.

all the discussion about whether any religion is 'fundamentally more violent' than another is just hot air. — andrewk

I have made my beliefs clear in the post directly above. In terms of public policy, I would say that what democratic governments ought to do, is acknowledge and address public unease, instead of throwing a blanket of political correctness over it. That is all.

I would say that what democratic governments ought to do, is acknowledge and address public unease — Wayfarer

That's a very vague request.

How would you like them to address it? Governments in all countries historically have been very poor at easing people's unfounded fears. That's why we have law-and-order auctions so frequently in election campaigns, despite falling rates of crime.

Do you have any suggestions as to how a Government might be able to assuage these fears?.

By acknowledging that there are real concerns with Islam in terms of political and social integration, instead of clinging to the politically-correct bromide that it's just a few bad eggs who are spoiling it for the rest. But I'm not running for office - just expressing an opinion.

They cannot truthfully say that unless they agree with it. It seems they don't agree with it. So is your complaint simply that the current government does not share your opinion on Islam?

If so then we're in the same boat. There are many topics on which the current government does not share my opinion - much more important topics than terrorism or the possibility of a worldwide Caliphate. Climate change, road carnage and poverty pop to mind.

and more of the same. What is wrong with you? You used to be a nice person not someone who apparently takes pleasure in mocking others and calling them names.

For Ayaan there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only lazy ones who don't obey the religion and the radicals which represent true Islam. — VagabondSpectre

Oh, she says this line? Ok.

Basically this is a line that can be used to attack any religion: true believers are the real people advocating the religion. Those people who don't follow the to the word, aren't actually believers. Hence the whole idea of there being 'moderates' is simply wrong. And hence there is a multitude of things that the proponents of the religion are in conflict in the modern world. Starting from things as science etc. I assume even Buddhism isn't exempt.

Perfect way to portray any religion in an ominous light. The thing that huge masses of people are "moderate", have no qualms with the secular world we live in can be totally sidelined by the simple argument that it's not what the religion is about. Just to give an example, shouldn't women cover their hair in Christendom too? Hence, can we make the case that any married women that doesn't cover her hair isn't a true Christian, because she isn't following the guidelines of the Bible?

Above all, if a religion is judge by the political actions of some, the positive role that it plays for many can be totally disregarded. Yet if one takes a holistic approach, that ought not to be forgotten. If one talks about religions on how they are used in politics, that is another matter.

Perhaps when it stopped beating its wife. But alas, that's not an aspect of Roman history I've researched. — Ciceronianus the White

Perfectly acceptable to beat your wife in Islam.

Hmm. You can always tell the ones who harbor hidden racism. They're the ones who get the most sanctimonious. — Mongrel

I will ask this question again: which "race" is Islam?

Race is not biological. It's a social construct. So it can be configured as desired.

Not all Muslim violence is state sponsored, though. The first Muslims were tribal. They waited in the mountains to pounce on caravans. States came later. — Mongrel

Well, Muslim states appeared in the first generation of Islam; Mohammed's career was defined by his relationship with states around his area; and there certainly were states (such as, the Roman Empire) before Islam.

Now, if you say that the nation-state came later, then I agree. This construct (a political entity that spans over a territory, representing a people -- an ethnos -- and responsible for enforcing laws through violence in that territory) resulted from a long evolutionary line which was barely starting in the 7th century AD. But there were states (non-national states) nevertheless. And the problem of violence lies there, in the notion of the state, rather than in the notion of any given religion. Any religion can become an ideological weapon to be used by a state (including in self-defense, cf. Khazars).

The political aspects of a religion, though, are a very small portion of what it is. Which is why to claim that "X is violent", when X is a religion, is only the beginning of the story, and it is always influenced by historical aspects. Islam was not particularly violent in the centuries between, say, 1300 and 1900. (The Turks were violent -- not particularly violent, but violent -- in these centuries, but Turks are not "Islam").

Race is not biological. It's a social construct. So it can be configured as desired. — Mongrel

Then it can also be ignored as desired, and thus yours (and others') tendentious claims about "racism" against Muslims can be disregarded for the conversation-inhibiting rhetoric that it is.