With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-27-2017, 12:58 AM)Dill Wrote: You seem like a reasonable enough guy, Masterp. But how would you respond to this counter-assessment of the current Islam debate.


When non-Muslim Westerners critics of Islam speak out on internet forums, there is a tendency to essentialize the religion. It is discussed as a monolithic whole, whose truest representatives are those whose practices are farthest from US norms. If one knows what Muslims in Afghanistan do, then one has seen the true face of the religion. And seen enough. One country bans women from driving, so it makes perfect sense to ask why “they”—world Muslims—do that.  The Islamic State kills homosexuals. Why do “they” do that? If Christians cut female genitals they are only fringe groups in backward places distorting Christianity. But if some Muslims do that, why must ask why their religion condones the practice. As Western armies continue their occupation of Muslim lands, we must question their claim Islam is a religion of peace.

When this tendency to generalize to the whole based on actions of some is criticized for what it is—a hasty generalization of the sort people always protest when applied to their own religion—then Pew polls and the like are trotted out. X% of Muslims living in Britain or Egypt think stoning adulterers is ok.  The gap is closed and we are quickly back to the monolith. If you know what the Islamic State or a Mullah in Iran says Islam is, then you know Islam. Obvious questions—how many women are actually stoned in Britain or Egypt or any Muslim country, how many homosexuals executed, etc?—are not asked.

 We hear that Muslims won’t step forward to criticize their religion, and that some group called “leftists” hypocritically criticize Christianity for misogyny and homophobia while “defending” Islam on the same counts, or simply remaining “silent.”  Some are puzzled that "leftists" will turn out by the thousands to protest the election of a sexual assaulter to the highest office in their own country, but don’t turn out crowds to protest religious practices in other countries like Saudi Arabia  or Afghanistan (where? Before an embassy? Every day?). They have in some sense “latched on” to Islam to defend this monolith.  But repeated invitations to provide examples of leftist “support” for Islam, when not met with silence, turn out to be ordinary defenses of the right to freedom of religion, and/or a refusal of the invitation to scapegoat based on religion and ethnicity.


That demographics and political groups famous for their persecution of gays and opposition to women’s rights suddenly hold up progressive liberal/leftist ideals of equality as the essence of Western civilization passes unremarked, even as those groups retain the logic of minority scapegoating and turn it upon a new religious group.

A hypothesis—there are in fact a great many liberals, “leftists” and liberal, leftist Muslims criticizing misogyny everywhere in the world, including the US and Muslim countries, often de-coupling misogyny from religion, but that dialogue and struggle over women’s rights gets little coverage in the US mass media—some in the MSM, almost none on Fox and the myriad right wing websites now emerging to warn us of cultural suicide.  It would not be very difficult in a forum like this to link to a wide variety of source evidence, but I am guessing the initial response would be that a list of links would have to be very long and detailed to escape the reverse of hasty generalization—the charge those many sources were marginal, a small percentage of worldwide debate on these matters.  

I will refer you back to my post earlier ( and other posts on this matter), to show exactly that I speak of nuanced discussion in this subject matter instead of the broad brush generalization (on both "sides").  In the past I have corrected posters who've ascribed cultural practices (genital mutilation being foremost) to the whole of a religion of more than one billion people, where these practices are localized to certain regions of the world and can also be found in Christianity in that part of the world.  I've also pointed out the errors of judging a whole religion by a miniscule fraction of a percentage which is dedicated to violent extremism and the terrorization of innocents.  You could say that this is a criticism of the "right".  I would point out how this would be unfair if the same approach was taken towards Christianity based on the practices of a fraction of its adherents.  

However, the point of SSF, if I may speak for him and upon which I would like to expand, is that polls/surveys of Muslim populations indicating their support of behaviors and beliefs that would be abhorrent to your "average" Westerner, are at the very least concerning and warrant further discussion.  While not necessarily acting on these beliefs, the implicit support/ private harboring of such beliefs is inimical to Western values, and the eradication of such beliefs both organically and via foreign policies (such as trying to understand what % of a population of certain Islamic countries, and I emphasize this has to be done on a nation by nation basis for accurately cataloging the ethos of specific populations, so as to not paint wrongly with a broad brush) so values that are foremost to the West are preserved within Western nations is an existential necessity.  I will repeat this requires nuance.  However, to have this nuanced policy approach and discussion, we must be able to speak freely and fearlessly based on an understanding of facts, which doesn't occur when the "left" is defensive of the "minority" to the point that frank discussion of such policy implications and the basis upon which they're reached never even sees the light of day.  It's fully possible that such conversations can enlighten the understanding of these issues in a different way possibly swaying people to a different position than they would expect, which is the natural outcome of an open and honest discussion.  Who knows, maybe it could lead to an understanding of both the West in terms of their "ignorance" and possibly to the Muslim moderates of issues within which must be more urgently vocalized.  I feel that a reasonable criticism of certain behaviors and possibly values of Islam such as those made by a man of Sam Harris' intellect and rational thought, do not warrant a defensiveness as if it is the argument for another crusade.  Even as a reasonable person inimical to persecution of minorities, I still feel it's correct to wonder what sort of incubation of thoughts is taking place when so many populations of Western muslims hold values (based on polls) that are inimical to our society.  What would happen if they reach majority status in the future?  An open conversation also needs to involve eradication of the prejudices of ignorant Westerners who ascribe qualities to the whole which are only seen in a smaller subset.  

So, to summarize, I have been arguing against wrong facts being presented by xenophobic arguments, while simultaneously arguing for discussions of ideas in the Islamic world which should warrant concerns of every reasonable Westerner.  

In my support of SSF's argument, I'm questioning why "leftist" protesters seem to be blind to resisting certain values of Islam which are plain as day to see.  I appreciate the groups which have high esteem of freedoms that we espouse in the Western world, but why is it not even a consideration when questions are raised about other groups (read certain Muslims), who hold values so contrary so as to flip completely the foundation of the western nations?  Even if this is not the case, is it at least not worth an open and honest discussion, instead of an instinctive "you said that because you hate Muslims"?.  And I'm sure if the hatred is there, it will become apparent during such a discussion.  The danger of not even having this discussion is that we could potentially allow such thoughts (I suppose on both sides) to incubate unhindered and away from the light of day, until it reaches a point where we're unable to simply "nip it in the bud".