Addressing Muslim prejudice...

[cleanbluesky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7894721.stm?lss

He's a wifebeater who beheads his wife, a stereotype that's probably more extreme that those he would have liked to counter.

[Del Lardo]

Plenty of non Muslim murdering wifebeaters out there. Only "Muslim" thing about it is the weapon of choice and that's probably because he could easily get his hands on one.

[cleanbluesky]

Plenty of non Muslim murdering wifebeaters out there. Only "Muslim" thing about it is the weapon of choice and that's probably because he could easily get his hands on one.

It tends to be illegal rather than encouraged in other cultures... the irony involved makes this particularly noteworthy.

[Del Lardo]

It tends to be illegal rather than encouraged in other cultures...


Muslim isn't a culture, it's a religion and all the practicing Muslims I know find the idea of murder abhorrent.

[phykell]

CBS, do you think your title should have been, "Capitalising on Muslim Prejudice"?

[cleanbluesky]

CBS, do you think your title should have been, "Capitalising on Muslim Prejudice"?

I'd rather all discussion was related to the material presented in the news piece.

[Del Lardo]

I'd rather all discussion was related to the material presented in the news piece.

Or rather you'd prefer if people didn't point out your obvious anti Muslim bias. I was trying to work out what your first post reminded me of and I worked it out this morning when I popped out to buy some milk and saw the Daily Mail.

[cleanbluesky]

Or rather you'd prefer if people didn't point out your obvious anti Muslim bias. I was trying to work out what your first post reminded me of and I worked it out this morning when I popped out to buy some milk and saw the Daily Mail.

I wished to discuss the irony although it seems that many are unable to put their feelings about the subject to the side. I'm not getting much change out of either of you though.

[Del Lardo]

I wished to discuss the irony although it seems that many are unable to put their feelings about the subject to the side. I'm not getting much change out of either of you though.


I think the problem we have here is that I don't see any irony, just a sad news story. It's hard to put feeling aside when you're telling me that my Muslim peace loving friends are from a culture that encourages violence against women when the religion they practice seems to do the opposite.

There are countries in the world where extreme Sharia law is still in place but last time I checked Packistan and Texas weren't on the list and if you look at countries like Iran where the extremist government is starting to struggle because the Muslim population are getting fed up with being ruled by a minority who want Sharia law you'll get a better idea of what Islam is about.

Unfortionately there will always be a vocal extremist minority who want to do stuff like stoning rape victims and decapitating adulters but I think it's very naive to think that the Muslim faith generally encourages this.

[cleanbluesky]

I think the problem we have here is that I don't see any irony, just a sad news story. It's hard to put feeling aside when you're telling me that my Muslim peace loving friends are from a culture that encourages violence against women when the religion they practice seems to do the opposite.

I don't care about your friends. You need to study Islam a little more if you are under the impression that violence is not prescribed under certain conditions, including beating a wife for disobedience under most interpretations of sharia.

There are countries in the world where extreme Sharia law is still in place but last time I checked Packistan and Texas weren't on the list and if you look at countries like Iran where the extremist government is starting to struggle because the Muslim population are getting fed up with being ruled by a minority who want Sharia law you'll get a better idea of what Islam is about.

Unfortionately there will always be a vocal extremist minority who want to do stuff like stoning rape victims and decapitating adulters but I think it's very naive to think that the Muslim faith generally encourages this.

It isn't a question of a minority and I think you'll find that the idea of 'minority responsibility' is abstract. In some Muslim countries at various points, minorities have seized power have enacted their views of sharia - in Afghanistan for example, it was once illegal for a woman to laugh in public - a punishment for which she would get beaten. This was enacted by the now famous Taliban, a group which still resides in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[phykell]

I'd rather all discussion was related to the material presented in the news piece.
Is my comment not related to the material presented in the news article?

OK so this is pretty dramatic but it's still a real one-off and hardly representative of Muslims in general, regardless of the irony of the radio station's "mission".

[cleanbluesky]

Is my comment not related to the material presented in the news article?

OK so this is pretty dramatic but it's still a real one-off and hardly representative of Muslims in general, regardless of the irony of the radio station's "mission".

Someone has yet to suggest that it IS representative of Muslims in general, what is it about this that makes you want to preemptively deny something?

[Jhadur]

It tends to be illegal rather than encouraged in other cultures.

Someone has yet to suggest that it IS representative of Muslims in general,

Aren't you suggesting that it's representative of muslims in general?

[cleanbluesky]

Aren't you suggesting that it's representative of muslims in general?

I am suggesting it is prescribed in many current interpretations of Islam.

[phykell]

Someone has yet to suggest that it IS representative of Muslims in general, what is it about this that makes you want to preemptively deny something?
This is not about me.

I wonder at your motivation because, and this is just an observation, you're very quick to condemn them.

[cleanbluesky]

This is not about me.

I wonder at your motivation because, and this is just an observation, you're very quick to condemn them.

The speed of my condemnation is immeasurable. I am merely very frank, open and objective with my criticism - on top of that I also seem unwilling to pay selective attention in order to perceive something in Islam that is more morally appealing as some do.

[Del Lardo]

I don't care about your friends. You need to study Islam a little more if you are under the impression that violence is not prescribed under certain conditions, including beating a wife for disobedience under most interpretations of sharia.



It isn't a question of a minority and I think you'll find that the idea of 'minority responsibility' is abstract. In some Muslim countries at various points, minorities have seized power have enacted their views of sharia - in Afghanistan for example, it was once illegal for a woman to laugh in public - a punishment for which she would get beaten. This was enacted by the now famous Taliban, a group which still resides in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm sure my friends wouldn't care much for you either :p

Unfortionately when the vocal minority have an Army backing them up the majority have an annoying habit of being subjugated. Look what has happened in Afghanistan since the Taliban were toppled, most of the population have welcomed the end of extreme Sharia law and the Taliban have been forced to use bases in the Pakistan border area to avoid being killed. You use the laughing example, what would happen now if a woman stood in the middle of Kabul and started laughing? I honestly don't know but I'd put a pound to a penny that apart from a few odd looks **** all would happen because the majority of Muslims have read the bit about stoning women who laugh and have chosen to ignore it because it's a bit silly or made a different interpretation to that section of the Quran and think women who laugh in public are stoned.


on top of that I also seem unwilling to pay selective attention in order to perceive something in Islam that is more morally appealing as some do.

Instead you choose to pay selective attention to the parts of Islam you don't like.

Any religious book is open to massive amounts of interpretation and for the majority of Muslims their interpretation doesn't involve going round cutting off the heads of women who dare to laugh in public and declaring holy wars against those who don't believe in Allah. Instead they choose to interpret the bits which encourage them to be peaceful and get along with those around them.

[cleanbluesky]

Instead you choose to pay selective attention to the parts of Islam you don't like.

Not at all, although I will concede that the parts that I don't like are extraordinarily shocking. Also, people seem willing to accept the good parts rather than find excuses for their existence.

Any religious book is open to massive amounts of interpretation and for the majority of Muslims their interpretation doesn't involve going round cutting off the heads of women who dare to laugh in public and declaring holy wars against those who don't believe in Allah. Instead they choose to interpret the bits which encourage them to be peaceful and get along with those around them.

Simply reenforcing the idea that it is a question of majority of minority without examining the subject is an assumption. The law in the UK is the law, no-one feels the need to constantly point out that a minority of people enforce that law as if that somehow makes the idea less legitimate. In some Islamic countries, due to Islam, there are harsh breaches of human rights on the basis of widely accepted Islamic laws - for something to be unjust it doesn't mean that every single person needs to be directly involved for order for it to happen.

For example, if a KKK member has never been at a hanging, does that make him part of the 'good' KKK versus the 'bad' KKK? Anyone who wants to associate themselves to something that involves systematic and prescribed civil rights abuses is either collusive or ignorant.

[phykell]

The speed of my condemnation is immeasurable. I am merely very frank, open and objective with my criticism - on top of that I also seem unwilling to pay selective attention in order to perceive something in Islam that is more morally appealing as some do.
"Those who look for the bad in people will surely find it".

[cleanbluesky]

"Those who look for the bad in people will surely find it".

Does that mean anything? If you want to tolerate people who believe in violence against homosexuals and women for disobedient then you are a collusive coward at best, you are also perhaps morally worse as you have less excuse to indulge in ignorance.

Perhaps your quote should be "Those who click the BBC website..."

[Rich_L]

If 'Islam' is seen to encourage civil rights abuses, violence against homosexuals etc and is 'bad', I trust the same would be applied to other preachers of intolerance, like the BNP for example with their accomodation of members with a history of violence and stated policies towards homosexuality, where their 'tolerance' extends to "We would offer counselling to get people away from their deviant lifestyles, or ask them to become celibate,"

[cleanbluesky]

If 'Islam' is seen to encourage civil rights abuses, violence against homosexuals etc and is 'bad', I trust the same would be applied to other preachers of intolerance, like the BNP for example with their accomodation of members with a history of violence and stated policies towards homosexuality, where their 'tolerance' extends to "We would offer counselling to get people away from their deviant lifestyles, or ask them to become celibate,"

For myself it would, although I'd hasten to add that whilst I consider 'counselling for deviant lifestyles' to be unnecessary its a world away from killing homosexuals and beating disobedient women.

[Del Lardo]

For example, if a KKK member has never been at a hanging, does that make him part of the 'good' KKK versus the 'bad' KKK? Anyone who wants to associate themselves to something that involves systematic and prescribed civil rights abuses is either collusive or ignorant.

I'll get you a full response later on when I have more time but the KKK is a group soledy dedicated to the persecution of non whites so there are no good members as they are all racist pieces of ****. Islam is a faith dedicated to the worship of a God and the fact that some members of the faith choose to do this by killing homosexuals doesn't mean that everyone who follows the faith thinks this is a good idea.

[Del Lardo]

Does that mean anything? If you want to tolerate people who believe in violence against homosexuals and women for disobedient then you are a collusive coward at best, you are also perhaps morally worse as you have less excuse to indulge in ignorance.

Perhaps your quote should be "Those who click the BBC website..."

What about fundimentalist Christians who go around beating up homosexuals? Does that make all Christians evil people who should be critised?

What about George Bush? He's a Christian and he said that God told him to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that make all Christians war mongering loonatics?

[Rich_L]

For myself it would, although I'd hasten to add that whilst I consider 'counselling for deviant lifestyles' to be unnecessary its a world away from killing homosexuals and beating disobedient women. So say a policy is introduced of educating people away from Islam and its associated apparent intolerance, 'banning it' if you will by attempting to marginalise the influence of the ideology and suchlike, would you also be in favour of the same approach to be taken against the intolerance and divisive views which are preached by the BNP?

It seems to me that many BNP supporters are willing to accept the 'good parts' which, as you suggest with Islam, apparently includes a tacit endorsement of the intolerant and divisive policies they pursue. Perhaps BNP supporters should be 'educated' out of their views and given compulsory tolerance training along with the Muslims, Catholics, football supporters, .

[I]Why can't we just all get along?

[cleanbluesky]

So say a policy is introduced of educating people away from Islam and its associated apparent intolerance, 'banning it' if you will by attempting to marginalise the influence of the ideology and suchlike, would you also be in favour of the same approach to be taken against the intolerance and divisive views which are preached by the BNP?

It seems to me that many BNP supporters are willing to accept the 'good parts' which, as you suggest with Islam, apparently includes a tacit endorsement of the intolerant and divisive policies they pursue. Perhaps BNP supporters should be 'educated' out of their views and given compulsory tolerance training along with the Muslims, Catholics, football supporters, .

Apples and oranges, but a problem is a problem regardless of who is causing it. The current problem is dual standards and a willingness to tolerate violence in some groups.

[I]Why can't we just all get along?

Because its more fun if at least one group are fed into a blender.

[cleanbluesky]

What about fundimentalist Christians who go around beating up homosexuals? Does that make all Christians evil people who should be critised?

What about George Bush? He's a Christian and he said that God told him to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that make all Christians war mongering loonatics?

STRAW MAN, if you don't already notice the differences I suspect it will mean nothing if I point it out to you.

[cleanbluesky]

Islam is a faith dedicated to the worship of a God and the fact that some members of the faith choose to do this by killing homosexuals doesn't mean that everyone who follows the faith thinks this is a good idea.

So in the first part of your sentence you feel free to talk about Islam in absolutes about one aspect, yet you revert back to the popular minority/majority concept for another aspect. There is a question over how much influence an ideology would have over an individual although this doesn't change the fact that Islam prescribes death as a punishment for homosexuality. This fact cannot be fluffed up, it is cruel and barbaric and our loyalty to our fellow man should far supersede any ideas of tolerance for an ideology, particularly when it was only written by a man anyway.

[Jhadur]

particularly when it was only written by a man anyway.

I'd like you to show me any religion/culture where the current ideology/laws wasn't written by a man.

[loki]

I am suggesting it is prescribed in many current interpretations of Islam.

Would that not suggest then that interpretation of Islam is wrong. Or possibly that those with a vested interest(extremists) distort it for their own gain ?

[cleanbluesky]

Would that not suggest then that interpretation of Islam is wrong. Or possibly that those with a vested interest(extremists) distort it for their own gain ?

Branding something 'wrong' merely tells me that you disapprove of it, which I would is the case although it would unfortunately place you in a global minority. I prefer to be open and direct in my criticism rather than find convoluted ways to justify the existence of things that I do not like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm - I'm not alone in my belief that some have selective attention when it comes to Islam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7899000/7899302.stm

[loki]

Branding something 'wrong' merely tells me that you disapprove of it, which I would is the case although it would unfortunately place you in a global minority. I prefer to be open and direct in my criticism rather than find convoluted ways to justify the existence of things that I do not like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm - I'm not alone in my belief that some have selective attention when it comes to Islam

This is the issue that I can never get my head around though. I don't think I would be alone in the minority in saying that some of us if not the majority have had some personal contact with somebody who is Muslim and when you get on a personal level it is a lot different than the group in which we try and understand it. I have a colleague at work who is Muslim and lives in part of Bolton that is predominantly Muslim. It would be easy to assume that he would have some fanatical tendencies yet when you speak to him and try to understand his faith, it boils down to him being different and nothing more and I respect him for his faith. We have fundamental differences on a variety of topics.

I am not a Muslim apologist as I can't understand the rationale of country before faith. Is there fanaticism and extremism well of course there is. By it's nature extremism is at the periphery of most groups is it not and not representative of that group as a whole

I think it's too easy to at times to use our own preconceived prejudices and stereotypes to maintain our own ignorance of a group. Let's not forget that this is not a new phenomenon. You only have to go back twenty years to see how Irish Immigrants living in the UK were treated in the same way. Treated as second class citizens, labeld as terrorists from all institutions in society. When you walk down the streets of inner city Britain you could easily replace some of todays graffiti "Muslim Scum" for "Irish Scum" of years gone by. Why ?? Because we choose to deal with groups rather than individuals. It is easier to maintain our own prejudices this way.

[cleanbluesky]

This is the issue that I can never get my head around though. I don't think I would be alone in the minority in saying that some of us if not the majority have had some personal contact with somebody who is Muslim and when you get on a personal level it is a lot different than the group in which we try and understand it. I have a colleague at work who is Muslim and lives in part of Bolton that is predominantly Muslim. It would be easy to assume that he would have some fanatical tendencies yet when you speak to him and try to understand his faith, it boils down to him being different and nothing more and I respect him for his faith. We have fundamental differences on a variety of topics.

Most of the religious people I know hold a specific kind of ignorance - for the most part this doesn't impact too far on their lives although it can make them quite intolerable. I cannot respect a person for ignorance but I can respect them for strong mindedness, that is no to say that strong-mindedness is good for themselves or others around them BUT its more fun to be around than a liberal.

I am not a Muslim apologist as I can't understand the rationale of country before faith. Is there fanaticism and extremism well of course there is. By it's nature extremism is at the periphery of most groups is it not and not representative of that group as a whole

The very fact that the debate is very often split down the question of minority/majority is a mechanism through which behaviours are dissociated from the ideology that causes them, the the collusion of the wider community is ignored or excused and that we fail to recognise the more complex way in which a wider community man influence an individual and vice versa. There is no 'threshold' for an extremist, there is no badge to identify a moderate and these people do not necessarily exist separately. They often consider each other to be on the same side and very often take an attitude that they are the enemy of the enemy.

I think it's too easy to at times to use our own preconceived prejudices and stereotypes to maintain our own ignorance of a group. Let's not forget that this is not a new phenomenon. You only have to go back twenty years to see how Irish Immigrants living in the UK were treated in the same way. Treated as second class citizens, labeld as terrorists from all institutions in society. When you walk down the streets of inner city Britain you could easily replace some of todays graffiti "Muslim Scum" for "Irish Scum" of years gone by. Why ?? Because we choose to deal with groups rather than individuals. It is easier to maintain our own prejudices this way.

Prejudice cuts both ways, and I think that our idea of prejudice is far too influenced by romantic notions of the civil rights movements in the 60s. We made a bargain with ourselves that as long as we treat those that we don't identify with in a kind of enforced politeness (i.e. political correctness, affirmative action) then we're not bad people. In other words, as long as all our prejudices are positive on the outside, we're still good people.

[phykell]

Does that mean anything? If you want to tolerate people who believe in violence against homosexuals and women for disobedient then you are a collusive coward at best, you are also perhaps morally worse as you have less excuse to indulge in ignorance.
You're generalising again, which is always a risk when using the term, "people"; especially when those people number around a billion souls. And I completely refute any suggestion that I would tolerate anyone who would commit violence against women and homosexuals based on a religious belief; but then you already know that. Why, knowing what you do, would you make such a suggestion? :huh:

Anyway, my response is somewhat late and made redundant by others' answers so I won't go into any detail about the obvious fact that a single beheading, no matter how tragic it obviously is, is hardly representative of over 20 percent of the world's population. You might as well say it's representative of men in general for all the rationality that argument has.

Perhaps your quote should be "Those who click the BBC website..."
There is a lot of wisdom in that quote if you care to consider it.

[phykell]

We made a bargain with ourselves that as long as we treat those that we don't identify with in a kind of enforced politeness (i.e. political correctness, affirmative action) then we're not bad people. In other words, as long as all our prejudices are positive on the outside, we're still good people.
They say a man is judged by his actions and this is true when it comes to a civilised society. Of course we have prejudices but that's not to say we should be content for them to exist, not while there's even the slightest chance they may be based on ignorance rather than anything tangible. If there's one thing I do believe it's that hatred, mistrust, prejudice and ignorance are all associated with a basic fear of the unknown. I believe it's wrong to live in ignorance and it's ultimately self-destructive. Saying you can't identify with someone is saying that you're happy to live with any potential prejudice rather than try and understand and empathise with them. Is that the enlightened way and is this something you would aspire to or would you rather continue feeding and fuelling your own personal prejudices?

[cleanbluesky]

They say a man is judged by his actions and this is true when it comes to a civilised society. Of course we have prejudices but that's not to say we should be content for them to exist, not while there's even the slightest chance they may be based on ignorance rather than anything tangible. If there's one thing I do believe it's that hatred, mistrust, prejudice and ignorance are all associated with a basic fear of the unknown. I believe it's wrong to live in ignorance and it's ultimately self-destructive. Saying you can't identify with someone is saying that you're happy to live with any potential prejudice rather than try and understand and empathise with them. Is that the enlightened way and is this something you would aspire to or would you rather continue feeding and fuelling your own personal prejudices?

That meandering question is laced with a number of erroneous assumptions, so I only quoted it for amusement.

We live in a hostile world Phykell, a competitive world whereby the standard for ethic will be decided by the last man standing.

Fear of the unknown is much different than the concept of prejudice against people with turbans, particularly those who belong to an ideology that espouses violence.

[phykell]

...so I only quoted it for amusement.
:/

We live in a hostile world Phykell, a competitive world whereby the standard for ethic will be decided by the last man standing.
You're getting that from Freud and his idea of ritualised combat I'm guessing?I don't think he meant that might was right though.

Fear of the unknown is much different than the concept of prejudice against people with turbans, particularly those who belong to an ideology that espouses violence.
Once again, you are happy to speak for almost 20% of the world's population. Where do you get the idea that you're in any way qualified or justified to do such a thing? And they alll wear turbans now?

[cleanbluesky]

Once again, you are happy to speak for almost 20% of the world's population. Where do you get the idea that you're in any way qualified or justified to do such a thing? And they alll wear turbans now?

Actually I'm happy to listen to that group, the information on Islam's attitude towards homosexuality isn't hard to find. It's funny how many believe it impossible to describe a group in any way when they don't like what they find, yet somehow still recognise the group.

[phykell]

Actually I'm happy to listen to that group, the information on Islam's attitude towards homosexuality isn't hard to find. It's funny how many believe it impossible to describe a group in any way when they don't like what they find, yet somehow still recognise the group.
You like your "groups" don't you? Do you not see any advantage of looking at people as individuals?

Returning to the theme of prejudice though, would you accept that other "groups" are as guilty regarding their attitudes towards homosexuality? How about the Church for example? It's a male-dominated religion, that's for sure. I've yet to hear you condemn Christians for their beliefs regarding women yet there are plenty of examples in the Bible which speak of women as less than equal and its attitude towards homosexuals is probably just as distasteful. Where is your outrage?

[cleanbluesky]

You like your "groups" don't you? Do you not see any advantage of looking at people as individuals?

LOOK AT THE WAY YOU USE LANGUAGE. Advantage? To whom? In what? An individual is a component of a group, and influence passes both ways.

Where is your outrage?

No-one is wringing their hands at the church.

[phykell]

LOOK AT THE WAY YOU USE LANGUAGE. Advantage? To whom? In what? An individual is a component of a group, and influence passes both ways.
The advantage would be to the person trying to ascribe the behaviour of individuals to a group in the vain hope of abstracting away all the myriad reasons why individuals act as they do. Such abstraction tends to ignore details and I suspect, where religious fanaticism is concerned, that's where the devil is.

No-one is wringing their hands at the church.
I'm sure there are thousands of abused individuals who would disagree with you. I'm sure there are plenty of women and homosexuals who would disagree with you.

[A Place of Light]

Poor Andrew.....not feeling the love in the room, really.

;)

[Fayshun]

Psychology experiment FAIL.

[leowyatt]

No point leaving this open as the OP isn't around anymore.