The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

reply to post by AshleyD


Oh, I believe there's a bias. As I've been telling you, ALL information you receive is biased. One truth, four people, five different opinions on what the truth actually is.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No the story was Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran' See you are trying to make it sound like it is slanted against muslims.

No, no. That's me calling htem crazy. Sorry for the misunderstanding there. Nuttier than a peanut butter factory.

"Nigeria teacher dies over Koran" just dies? That is waling on eggshells she was murdered. But we don't want to portray muslims as killers do we?

It's not that - Muslims are frequently called murderers (or the even worse "terrorists") in the media. What we may be looking at here is the dehumanization of an African. This is pretty common in American and British media - If it happens in Africa, nameless people "die" just as if some mysterious thing caused them to fall over. You can only "murder" a human being, and African people are rarely considered such in modern media.

Not at all what it says

See ? It's not "religious differences" -- "In reality" take your pick of ethnic or political conflicts, or lack of resources or poverty.

Anything but Radical Muslim Extremism

And as I said, it's an afterthought to "crazy muslims beat the living hell out of someone and then riot over something ridiculously stupid."

But hey. Remember what I asked? Why the extremism?

I usually don't do long quotes, but I wanted to point out that you ignored his point. It says that she was killed over the Koran. Then the reporter says that there are other reasons people get killed there. INCLUDING religion. This falls in that category. Its just crazy how that would be portrayed if a catholic school class killed their Buddhist spanish teacher? and then then the rest of the community forgave them? seriously.

reply to post by jasonjnelson


Actually I did address the point - that it's a little addendum to a big indictment. Sort of a traditional red herring article. Say there's a big murder case. There's an article in the paper that tells you everything about it. What the guy did, how he did it, what motives he had, what weapons were used.

And then it tells you at the very end "of course, that's for the Jury to decide!"

Now, fact is, in the article all we have is hearsay as to the motives of hte guys who killed the teacher. So it behooves the reporter to toss in a followup "But well, it might be something else" - even after he's spent the whole article giving you the how's and why's.

And there's htat word again. Here's one.

If a transgendered Mormon astronaut killed his siamese twin sikh roomates over who ate the last of the wheaties, I'm SURE the media would focus on his Mormonism!

We can play the "if" game all night!


[Mod Edit - Remove large quote from above post]

Mod Note : Please Review-Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote
Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

[edit on 4/3/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by AshleyD
It is my personal belief these days that the 'war on terror' is a red herring but some might think that is me being a conspiracy nut.

You are almost on the right track with that comment. Delve deeper. As deep as oil wells, if possible.

Notice that in the media, criticism of Muslim wrongdoings only happen if the population of the region where it occurs is not... how shall we say... compliant of western interests (codeword for oil).

Click for conspiracy theory

Where they are compliant, wrongdoings get glazed over. In fact, they may even be rewarded. Example -- Kosovo (KLA). Yes there is oil in Kosovo. Click for sticky black goodness

You are right, it is political correctness. But not in the normal sense of the word. In the literal sense of the word. It is politics, and it is the correct way to play it.

Isn't global politics fun? If you would like to play a simulation, I recommend Sid Meier's Civilization IV. Click for review. Awesome game. Has almost all the elements of today's geopolitical dynamics -- strategic resources (like oil and uranium), religions, culture. In the latest expansion pack you can even have puppet states to do your bidding and fight your proxy wars. In fact, with the latest expansion pack, you can even conduct Holy Wars! Click for review.

Eh.. sorry, off topic. Or maybe not. A game it might be, but it has taught me a lot, to think of the political reasoning behind the simple headlines. And that's what this whole clash of cultures/religions is all about, in the final analysis.

Originally posted by mrwupy
A few hundred years ago the western world was in the dark ages. We were burning books and people for questioning the teachings of the church. It was a time when religion was in power and tyranny was the result.

During that same age Islam had the largest libraries in the world and kept the hope of light alive for all the world.

The western world eventually found the age of enlightenment and religion and politics were separated. (sort of)

Islam is now going thru it's own dark age. Religion is in control and the result is tyranny and the destruction of knowledge.

What I'm trying to say is during our dark age the Muslim community kept the light of knowledge alive for all the world. Now that they are going thru this tribulation I think it's the least we can do for them.

In fact, I think it's a debt we owe them.

While I am very historically ignorant as to comment on your story's veracity, I found its presentation very touching and positive, thank you for writing something independant of the thoughtstream like this.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
But you want to talk about a religion getting a "free pass?" Try Buddhism. For some reason that pedophile slave owner absolute theocratic monarch of Tibet gets the red damn carpet.

Are you talking about the Dhali Lama or something? This makes me desire elaboration.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by tyciol]

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread. I've read far too many 8+ paged threads on Islam.

Regarding the original point. I think it's valid. I can tell you that the reason it's more unacceptable to criticize Islam is because of the RACE issue. We can criticize Christianity freely simply because in the West, a large proportion of Christians are white. When we criticize Islam, people become fearful of being accused of racism, when in fact no-one is criticizing them for the colour of their skin, only for their actions in the name of religion. But somehow, we in the West have a hard time differentiating between the two.

The same goes for multiculturalism. Criticize that and you're a bigot. Rubbish! Multiculturalism promotes the blending (and in my opinion, degeneration) of a variety of cultures. Multiculturalism can only lead to a monocultural society where Europeans, Africans, Indians etc have all but forgotten their roots. What's more racist than that? I read an article recently about Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech. He was branded a 'bigot' when in fact, he never expressed any kind of prejudice and was a man highly familiar and knowledgeable with a number of world cultures. His only 'crime' was to warn about the dangers of immigration.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by jasonjnelson

Actually I did address the point - that it's a little addendum to a big indictment. Sort of a traditional red herring article. Say there's a big murder case. There's an article in the paper that tells you everything about it. What the guy did, how he did it, what motives he had, what weapons were used.


And then it tells you at the very end "of course, that's for the Jury to decide!"

Now, fact is, in the article all we have is hearsay as to the motives of hte guys who killed the teacher. So it behooves the reporter to toss in a followup "But well, it might be something else" - even after he's spent the whole article giving you the how's and why's.

And there's htat word again. Here's one.

If a transgendered Mormon astronaut killed his siamese twin sikh roomates over who ate the last of the wheaties, I'm SURE the media would focus on his Mormonism!

We can play the "if" game all night!

OK - Let's play the if game.

If theWalkingFox had read the article more carefully he would see the reporter walked on eggshells to spin the obvious religious motivation behind the murder of a Christian teacher by Muslim students.

There was no "little addendum" - In fact just as many words were spent spinning the motive than describing the murder and the victim combined.

Nigerian police say students beat the teacher to death outside the school compound after she had been invigilating an exam.

The students had apparently accused her of desecrating the Koran, though it is not clear exactly what she had done.

OK 40 words to describe the murder. Then it talks about restoring the peace and a different incident the previous year that caused riots.

Then he spins it.

Religious differences have long been used to justify all kinds of violence in Nigeria, our reporter says.

In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says.

article

The "little addendum" to spin it off of Islamic religious motivation is 46 words.

The spin is given equal time as the facts of the case.

I wonder if.... naaaaa


[edit to fix quotes and mess]



[edit on 2/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]

As to the actual topic, which society is being referred to in this "Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam"? If you are talking about Western or American Society, I'd have to disagree with you. I got over 2 million hits with searching for "Radical Islam" on google. Everytime some backwards country does some nasty deed, we are able to know about it. I don't think there is a Social Taboo of Criticising Islam.
Also, to clarify, AshleyD mentioned acts of terrorism and radicalism condoned due to backing by weak hadith. I contend that they are most of the time done with no backing at all (weak hadith or not). They are done by using 'Fatwas' (in the meaning of the term as "Permission to do stuff that is actually forbidden in Islam") from such eminent personalities as Osama Bin Laden.

TheDuckster mentioned (or quoted from Blaine) 'customs' carried out by muslims. I again contend that none of those 'customs' have any backing in the Quran or Hadith (weak or not).

Cruzion, I'd have been amazed that you actually believed something as absurd as "Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslim" (I think TheWalkingFox gave a nice long list, you can ask if you want more- the muslim terrorist groups make up a small percentage of terrorist groups as a whole), but then I saw the 'quranic quote' that you posted. I hope you speak out of lack of knowledge, and not purposeful malicious intent, because that entire 'quote' is a collection of quotes from all over the Quran (as well as some fabricated), combined together to make it look like a contiguous passage.

WhiteWash, you gave a list of 'proof', but I'm not sure what, or to who you were proving, considering that a very large number of those attacks are political (which brings to mind another, perhaps unrelated question: Are all (terrorist or otherwise) attacks by persons of the Islamic faith examples of Radical Islam?)

Anyhow, considering all the 'examples' being given here in this thread, I don't see how there is a Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam. If there was, those articles wouldn't have been published. That website (mentioned in the first few posts) wouldn't be up.

reply to post by babloyi

I contend that they are most of the time done with no backing at all (weak hadith or not). They are done by using 'Fatwas' (in the meaning of the term as "Permission to do stuff that is actually forbidden in Islam") from such eminent personalities as Osama Bin Laden.

Huh that one got me!
Don't the well educated Islamic scholars dash out the fatwas according to the Quran and Hadiths(strong or weak)?

Or is the 'fatwa' system wrong in first place? The Alims and Muftis who spend Years in the madrasas getting brainwashed are just play tools to the eiltes?

reply to post by Attari

Originally posted by Attari
Don't the well educated Islamic scholars dash out the fatwas according to the Quran and Hadiths(strong or weak)?

Yes, they do. But then again, anybody can issue a fatwa (even if it is not based on anything in the Quran or Hadith). Two people can issue contradictory fatwas. Which one should muslims follow, then? It usually ends up being the one issued by their 'leader'- something which I am against.
Fatwas are in no way legally binding.

A scholar from Al-Azhar said:
middleeastinfo.org...

He said, "Fatwasissued by Al-Azhar are not binding; individuals are free to accept them or not. It is the right of Muslims in France who object to the bill to bring it up to the legislative and judicial authorities. If the judiciary decides in favor of the government because the country is secular, they would be considered to be Muslim individuals acting under compelling circumstances.

A scholar from India said:
www.outlookindia.com...

a fatwa is nothing more than an opinion. It is just a view of a mufti and is not binding in India.

The Saudi Arabian vice minister of Justice said:

There is a difference between a judge and a mufti. The judge issues a verdict and binds people to it. However, the mufti explains the legal judgment but he does not bind the people to his fatwa. The decisions of the Islamic Fiqh Academy are fatwa decisions that are not binding for others. They only explain the legal judgment, as the case is in fiqh books.

Originally posted by Attari
Or is the 'fatwa' system wrong in first place? The Alims and Muftis who spend Years in the madrasas getting brainwashed are just play tools to the eiltes?

I'd say it is wrong when it is used to do something unislamic. You'll notice I the 'fatwas' I was referring to in my previous post were the ones used in the meaning in the meaning of the term as "Permission to do stuff that is actually forbidden in Islam".
This is why Osama had to 'issue a fatwa' claiming muslims are allowed to kill american civilians. It is not permissible in Islam.

Occasionally fatwas can provide some useful information, and checking out the referenced scripture, one is able to make an informed decision.
Aside from that, yeah, I think some places give out some otherwise weird fatwas -a woman can only breastfeed a baby at work if she first breastfeeds all the workers who would be noticing this- Al-Azhar University (but don't hold me to this!)- that should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. If someone really wants to bother with a certain fatwa, first they should check up on the person issuing the fatwa, then the references that they use for their ruling.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by babloyi]

Interesting stuff

I don't see any "social taboo" in this thread!

Theres two sides to every coin though, isn't there? In this post 9/11 world anything - and I do mean anything - to do with muslims is blown completely out of context, and people forget their own failings and their own history in order to condemn, condemn, condemn.....

Think about it. A Store gets rolled over by a white christian with a gun and its "Man with gun robs store".

If the same store gets rolled over by a muslim its "Radical muslim extremist robs store at gunpoint, Homeland Security involved, possible link to terror cell"

I'm generalising and painting a ficticious picture in that case of course, but it happens. And when that does happen it paints a picture that people seize on, and before long many people with no such radical beliefs get classed as "radicals", and then the whole thing goes full circle.

I have read some very intelligent criticisms of Islam in the Toronto papers. Things having to do with Sharia law, the need for Islam to look at themselves honestly in the mirror, pro and con about wearing the hijab, etc., etc. There is no prohibition up here about criticizing Islam, but I haven't seen the irreverent criticisms that we in the West are used to seeing in our press on any given subject. Up here everything is very earnest.

I think the OP is definitely on to something. I'm sure there is a lot of self censorship going on in the press in Toronto, but to be fair, in articles where Islam is not the main focus of the article but a side issue, I have seen some extremely critical views expressed, though politely.

I don't know why Islam is not getting the criticism I think it deserves. Here's a wild stab at it. Maybe the NWO do not really want the world polarized to the point where Islam is either ignored or held off at daggers drawn. Maybe Islam is supposed to simmer like a watched pot that never boils dry, because so much more money can be made that way. My two cents worth.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Walking you are right there are extremists in all religions. In the dark ages you couldnt even say that the earth revolved around the sun without "going against the religion" The crusades were fought over religion I can go on and on and on about what Ive learned in school and other places about how christianity is hypocritical.

But this is the point that you dont get that the thread OP is posing. You cant even teach or hear anything like this about the muslim religion because you can be killed. You name a bear mohammad you get death. You have dinner with someone who is not your husband or wife even though its about business you get death. You get raped by several guys that arent your husband the female is to blame.

In final yes christianity had these same issues but these were hundreds of years ago. I think its time islam comes out of the stone ages and gets with the 21st century. Once again other religions still do have their issues like priests molesting boys but at least you can question it without worried about getting killed. Plain and simple as that and there is nothing you can say to rebut this statement.

reply to post by mybigunit

In final yes christianity had these same issues but these were hundreds of years ago. I think its time islam comes out of the stone ages and gets with the 21st century. Once again other religions still do have their issues like priests molesting boys but at least you can question it without worried about getting killed. Plain and simple as that and there is nothing you can say to rebut this statement.

Hmmm i don't think islam will change no matter how forward we go.We shouldn't forget that any Muslim who brings innovations in Islam will be a Very Big Sinner=Doomed=hellfire 4eva.Even the liberal minded Muslims dont disagree with the Sharia law let alone the extremists.

But Islam doesn't stop Muslims from moving forward in education/technology as long as it doesn't collide with the basic principles of Islam (eg.Evolution/cloning).

I find Muslims generally really friendly and i don't think we should have a gap between us because he/she wears a veil or have a beard.

There are about 1.5Bil Muslims and even if there are 100million extremists (exaggerated number) than that doesn't represent the other majority of 1.4Bil Muslims.

Originally posted by Attari
reply to post by mybigunit

 

In final yes christianity had these same issues but these were hundreds of years ago. I think its time islam comes out of the stone ages and gets with the 21st century. Once again other religions still do have their issues like priests molesting boys but at least you can question it without worried about getting killed. Plain and simple as that and there is nothing you can say to rebut this statement.

Hmmm i don't think islam will change no matter how forward we go.We shouldn't forget that any Muslim who brings innovations in Islam will be a

There are about 1.5Bil Muslims and even if there are 100million extremists (exaggerated number) than that doesn't represent the other majority of 1.4Bil Muslims.

I agree all muslims are not bad my mother in law is muslim and she is the nicest person in the world. I disagree on your numbers of only 100 million because look at whole countries like Saudi Arabia. The extremist way is what is being taught there and that is why most of the Hijackers were from there. I find it ironic our government is in bed with them when that is where they were all from. I guess money talks.

Back on subject overall what I am saying is the extremist teaching is what is coming through on the mainstream media and until the moderates step up and say enough is enough this is what is going to make people like me look at middle eastern muslims the way I do.

Oh how ironic is this!!!

Pakistan blocks 'objectionable' YouTube

This points directly at the OP's original point. Ash was talking about how Islam freaks out when there religion is questioned. This article helps solidy her point. I love youtube, and have seen MANY videos on their degrading ALL forms of religion...christians, catholics, buddhists, etc...and I don't recall ever reading or seeing any of them trying to BAN a wesite because of it.

[edit on 2/25/2008 by rcwj75]

[edit on 2/25/2008 by rcwj75]



[Mod Edit - fix link]

[edit on 25/2/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by AshleyD
if people would like to discuss the possibility it is 'socially ignorant' to criticize other religions and whether or not it causes a backlash to do so.

Heh, I like the way you framed that question:

Thus, for radical islam the question is 'is there a social taboo to criticise'

But for religion it becomes 'is it socially ignorant to criticise'.

I do like these things, they are very interesting from a psychological point of view.

As hard as I have tried not to, I have to put my 2p worth forward.

As I have stated previously on ATS, whilst recognising that Islamic countries were a haven for progressive thinking people from Christian countries during the Middle Ages, Spanish Inquisition etc, it is fair to say that Chrisianity has progressed into a much more tolerant belief system whilst Islam has regressed.

As a result of the increased tolerance, any criticism of radical interpretations of Islam, whilst not strictly being seen as taboo, are frowned upon and are perceived by many as a criticism of Islam as a whole.

However, I do think there is a certain stigma attached to critics of radical interpretations of Islam within Muslim communities.
I recognise that these radical, extremist groups are not representative of Muslims as a whole, there does seem to be relatively little condemnation of these grous by the majority.
Yes, there are groups and I know people could post several links to news reports or websites recognising Muslim condemnation of Islamic fundamentalist groups and some of their actions, yet it can hardly be described as even a significant display of Anti-Fundamentalism.
The vast majority of Muslims do and say nothing.
The reasons are probably numerous.
Fear of retribution from the extremists?
A sense of tribal, national and religious loyalty?
A grudging respect or sympathy for the aims and beliefs of the radicals?
A genuine dislike of Western society and the corruption they perceive to be so prevalent there?

I genuinely don't know.
I suspect there maybe an element of all of these and many more.
Bit I am convinced that until large proprtions of the Muslim communities within Western countries start taking positive action themselves against these "radicals" then conflict remains inevitable.
That is the "taboo" which we really need to address.

I have to echo some of the previous posters and say that one of the most incomprehensible things about Islam to me is, how nice individual Muslims are, considering how problematic the Koran is from the point of view of getting along with people who don't share your views.

I have met many Muslims in Toronto. (I use cabs and go to convenience stores a lot. lol.) My experiences have been generally positive and in the case of some Afghani guys who run a 24 hr. store, absolutely outstanding.

And yet the Koran itself is full of fire and brimstone. I can't figure it out. Is this a case of human nature triumphing over ideology? Perhaps.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Starred and flagged with some hesitation.

I do of course see many lash out at radical Islam. I see jokes at the terrorists expense on television, youtube etc.

Denmark (Jyllands Posten) decided to repost the Mohammad cartoons because radical Islamics had planned to kill the drawer of the cartoons. (His name eludes me.) Six Muslims were arrested.

Jyllands Posten decided to reprint the cartoons to show that no death threat would keep the freedom of expression/speech from being practiced.

And each and every Islamic rioter in Denmark who has set ablaze schools/buildings/cars should be forcefully deported. What's really sick is that some of these rioters (who set fire to cars and schools) were as young as twelve!!!

Disgusting. What also upsets me is that we immigrate to another country to live IN THAT COUNTRY. Not to bring our country and our rules with us. What happened to "When in Rome, do what the Roman do"?

I'm all for individuality, but respecting the host countries rules and people should be required.

Peace,
FK