The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Trumpy-Gunt

The difference is you just called an agnostic Semite who criticized Zionism an anti-Semite.

Yet again, you miss the point that the substance of your argument is a vast distortion of what other people have said, just like I vastly distorted what you said, and in both cases, this distortion was in service of an ad hominem attack that looks ridiculous to anyone not as self-important as yourself, and even ridiculous to YOU when it's not you doling it out, but taking it.

No one is fleeing because you've dropped The Truth Bomb on their heads. They leave because you are acting like an annoying git who isn't worth debating, other than on the level I've chosen, of mocking how much of a self-important donkey you act. Realize this and own it: people stop debating with you because one can't outbray the most righteous of righteous asses, not because that ass is honking out inconvenient facts.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I'm not sure your right that they think they can't talk to liberals in general. They both consider themselves liberals and they can talk to each other. Rather there's a subset of liberals they can't have a conversation with; this is the part they call the regressive left.

You're right, and I agree, I was being inaccurate.

I ended up expanding my post quite a bit (meant to only do a quick addition, but it got out of hand).

You might want to go back to it to check if my point is any clearer now.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Itse

You're right, and I agree, I was being inaccurate.

I ended up expanding my post quite a bit (meant to only do a quick addition, but it got out of hand).

You might want to go back to it to check if my point is any clearer now.

That clears it up a lot. I also agree with that clarified point.

Though I do think it's worth noting that some of the most dangerous people that have good intentions but are wrongly informed (for any of a myriad of reasons)

[jayswin]

Man, I never realized what an awesome poster Itse is, until recently. Opinionated, but extremely well spoken and patient with posters on both sides of an argument.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by jammies

Yet again, you miss the point that the substance of your argument is a vast distortion of what other people have said, just like I vastly distorted what you said, and in both cases, this distortion was in service of an ad hominem attack that looks ridiculous to anyone not as self-important as yourself, and even ridiculous to YOU when it's not you doling it out, but taking it.

No one is fleeing because you've dropped The Truth Bomb on their heads. They leave because you are acting like an annoying git who isn't worth debating, other than on the level I've chosen, of mocking how much of a self-important donkey you act. Realize this and own it: people stop debating with you because one can't outbray the most righteous of righteous asses, not because that ass is honking out inconvenient facts.

You missed the point that Itse and Pepsi have picked up on. Im not here to have any serious debate with people who believe in a clash of civilizations and others who's imaginations have allowed them to stray even further into the realm of claiming there was a historical kingdom called Israel when it is a historical fact that Jews lived in the region in small numbers and travelling through the 'religious' lands of other people namely the Caanites and their pagan dieties like Astarte El Baal etc...They were a small group of people who were hated by the pagan (ruling) majority. Their own bible is basically a scrap book of the beliefs of people they lived among.

In case you didnt know it I am not looking to drop truth bombs on peoples heads or have a debate with them. Im perfectly comfortable being the cyber 'annoying git/righteous ass', refuting nonsense and ridiculing passionately stupid people.

Thanks for taking part in this.

PS Trumpy-Gunt would be an aweome username. I truly hope Trump beats Hillary because I think America and The Donald kind of deserve each other. He is like a physical personifiction of the good ol' USA even more than Bush was so he would have my vote!

But good effort laddy

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Man, I never realized what an awesome poster Itse is, until recently. Opinionated, but extremely well spoken and patient with posters on both sides of an argument.

There are a number of really good posters on these forums.

Itse is one of them; I'll add willing to argue in good faith, avoids dogmatism, and generally doesn't worry about convincing people that disagree. I think Itse argues more for the benefit of the audience than the person the discussion is happening with.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

However, there isn't currently a Christian equivalent to the Jihadists. Historically you might point to the inquisitors, papal armies, Jesuits, some missionary groups, and the Christian imperialism of the 19 century, but those aren't today.

True, but how much is that really about the re-interpretation of Christian texts, and how much of it is simply that we live in much better socioeconomical conditions?

As an atheist I'm prone to think that the same s*** is still around in religions or more exaxtly in the way people are prone to use religions in extreme circumstances. The reason it's not popping up in the west (much) is because people have no social or psychological needs for those kinds of interpretations.

If you take the example of the apocalyptic cults of Europe in the Middle Ages (some of which were pretty much exactly like ISIS both in ideology and in their brutality). They were mostly born after The Plague, which completely decimated many areas in Europe in a way that is almost impossible to grasp no matter how hard you look at the numbers and try to imagine it.

Large scale extremist movements are born out of large scale extreme situations. Like the complete clusterf*** that is the Middle-East. People often seem to forget that it took like a decade of essentially constant war before ISIS was born. Parts of Iraq were a really extreme mess even by Middle-Eastern standards.

Sometimes the causes that make the difference really can be narrowed down to a select few things like religion and culture.

I don't agree. I can't think of a single example from history where that has been the case, and I seriously doubt such an example exists.

The closest thing to a single-issue war I can think of right now is the American Civil War, which was in very large part about the slavery issue. Yet would anyone seriously suggest in an adult conversation that that war was simply an ideological/cultural fight over slavery?

As far as double standards go, why should I not speak as plainly and strongly about Islam as I do about Christianity.

I strongly agree that such a double standard should not exist.

I fail to see how crying bigot, islamophobia, racist before giving someone else's point of view even a moment's thought helps people better understand the quality of their point of view. It seems to me that these people are every bit as caught up in maintaining simple answers as those who would ban all Muslims because they think it will keep out terrorists.

I agree with all of this, mostly.

The only thing I would like to comment on is that not every accusation of racism is wrong, even if the person being accused does not recognize it.
People can be incredibly blind to their own biases, and while I seriously dislike the whole privilege discussion, there are absolutely a lot of times when people really should check their privileges before speaking. And maybe choose to let others do the talking.

Which brings me to the point that not all identity politics is BS. There is absolutely merit to the notion that white middle-class culturally-Christians in the west (especially middle-aged straight men like me) should where possible let others speak with their own voices instead of talking over their heads or for them. Many liberals are active in circles where this really is an issue, and they are essentially daily reminded of this in various ways. It's a very human mistake for those people to say that we should not be telling fundamentalist muslims what's wrong with their culture.

They're pretty clearly wrong in this case, but they're not IMO wrong in the general case. Criticizing cultures from the outside should be avoided if possible. It's just not always possible. There are not enough people like Maajid Nawaz right now to represent the critical voices in this matter. Us middle-aged western whites need to chip in.

But I would much prefer if we do it from the sidelines and try to keep the Muslim critics in the focus where possible. I also think it's vastly more effective.

It's striking how both sides see the other as holding to a double standard.

By the way I have a feelign that one of the fallacies around this topic is that there even are clearly definable sides. It seems to me the discussion is quite multisided when you start digging into it.

But of course double standards really are super common.

[nik-]

Sorry but why should criticizing cultures from the outside be avoided?

A person doesn't have to grow up in something to point out bad things about it. This is just another form of dismissal. The vast majority of us didn't grow up in the gun culture of the US, but we have no hesitation justly criticizing it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Man, I never realized what an awesome poster Itse is, until recently. Opinionated, but extremely well spoken and patient with posters on both sides of an argument.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

There are a number of really good posters on these forums.

Itse is one of them; I'll add willing to argue in good faith, avoids dogmatism, and generally doesn't worry about convincing people that disagree. I think Itse argues more for the benefit of the audience than the person the discussion is happening with.

Thank you, although you have me blushing now

For the record and for those wondering, I've been home sick this weekend with unusually little else to do

I think there have been lots of good talk in this thread, even though things have gotten heated at times. I think some people have certainly also been patient with me. So while I've given Thor some s*** for the creation of this thread, I'm now glad he did it. I've certainly gotten a lot of perspective on things.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

The subset that is generally more interested in the feelings of the small minority of Muslims that live in the west than the actions of the majority outside the west. The subset that seems incapable of holding two thoughts at the same time, namely that you can treat your peaceful, hardworking, Muslim neighbors with the respect they deserve and condemn the atrocities committed in the name of Islam elsewhere. The subset that engages in the oppression Olympics in determining the validity of an opinion or fact. It is this subset, and only this subset for which they have coined the term "Regressive Left".

And I disagree that doing good in one area is not a reason to challenge a person in another. There's nothing incoherent in both fighting against discrimination against Muslims and acknowledging that human rights are being curtailed in the name of Islam.

[/trolling]


You make some great points that I agree with. I have a few honest questions for you and Itse and whoever else is here for serious discussion.

In what ways do you feel you are unable to criticize Islam in the same way you are able to criticize Christianity. Is there something you wish you could say and express to people about Islam that you currently feel like would have negative consequences to do so? If so what is it? Feel free to express yourself I dont think anyone here will ban you or have you fired from your job or anything.

I ask because this is something I hear a lot. "You're not allowed to criticize Islam". I think we are allowed to criticize whatever we want in the west tbh. I come from a family that is mostly Muslim and I criticize certain aspects of their culture and religion. In fact it seems like there has been no shortage of criticism of Islam? I'm not sure you could say anything about it which hasn't been said by people before you so I'm curious to know what it is you feel won't be accepted.

I think most people would agree that Islam is probably the most criticized religion of this millennium so far. Do you feel like more criticism is needed or do you feel like different criticisms are needed, if so what should we 'deal with'.

Another question I have is do you think we are as critical of modern western terror and its religious foundations as we are of modern Islamic terrorism and its religious foundations?

Could the fact we continually in the western world elect leaders based on their religious beliefs and that these clearly religiously motivated leaders go on to control supposed secular military forces and supposed secular even-handed global organizations like the UN mean that we are in a way fighting religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism? People who believe in a re-establishment of a mythical ancient kingdom vs people who believe in the establishment of a modern religious caliphate.

I really agree with your point that people who claim this is 100% about Islam are just as silly as those who claim this is has nothing to do with Islam at all. I would go further and say people who claim this is 100% about western foreign policy are just as silly as those who say it has nothing to do with the destabilization of the area and consequent gravitation of a small percentage, but rather large number of Muslim people to fundamentalist extremist ideologies.

Another thing I would like to say is if you think you cant criticize Islam here - imagine how it is in the Muslim countries. Shouldnt we be pushing for their freedoms just as much as we are pushing for our freedom to criticize them?

I can assure you the majority of the people in these countries dream at night of a day when they can live in a just secular state with no corruption or discrimination. Perhaps we should put pressure on our governments in the west to stop laying in bed with regimes in the middle east that not only mistreat women, gays, minorities, etc but suppress their own people. Is the cheap oil worth these peoples freedom? Could it be that a form of neo-colonialism has played a part in the rise of and sympathy for more extreme religious leaders in the ME?

I think Islam has been criticized quite a bit in the west despite the efforts of the so called PC regressive left. Most of it imo has just spread a lot of fear and intolerance for Muslims rather than making any noticeable positive change in the lives of people on either side. What if people in the middle east are secretly crying out for the ability to do the same in their own countries without fear of going to jail and disappearing in the desert or being beheaded.

This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions about Africa and the continual sore on human consciousness that continent has become.

People A Live in a historically violent and corrupt country. People B in their peaceful and prosperous secular country are bemused as to the lack of civilization. People A have been ruled by the same corrupt oppressive leaders for decades. People B elect a government which supports the corrupt oppressive leader in the country of people A. People B wonder why these people are in the 'stone age' and refusing to develop or advance going from colonialism to corrupt, violent and oppressive terrorist dictator.

How long will it take to realize that people B keep electing leaders with no interest in seeing any change in the country of people A because that could potentially threaten them the leaders of people B economically, militarily etc.

It applies just as well to Africa as it does to the ME. How do we expect oppressed people who are afraid to speak out with no rights and no elections to change their circumstances.

I think people in the ME specifically in the Gulf states, who's leaders (wahhabi kings) literally fund and train terrorists are very interested in change. The common person in Saudi Arabia doesnt want to live in a theocracy but wouldnt dare even mention it to their own family out of fear they may be in big trouble.

Even in other regions I think if people living there felt less threatened by the west and less desperate they would turn towards a more liberal and secular state. But they cant even begin that process because some Nissan Petrol will show up at their door with a government officer named Ahmed who wants to take them for a 'ride' to the desert.

I think the only people who can safely put pressure on theocratic dictatorships that fund terrorists, export extremist sheikhs and oppress their own people; the only ones that can remove these people or at least spur a change in these nations without losing their lives are us in the west.

The illusion or the image that is painted is that 100% of people in the middle east are totally content with things, otherwise they would change them. Trust me a lot of moderate secular muslims are supressed. Tons of journalists in jail across the middle east for simply speaking out. That isnt an environment in which people can exactly organize a million man march and have a safe peaceful revolution. Their armies are literally trained to shoot civilians in any protests.

Criticizing Islam is something we are allowed to do here. Criticizing our governments is a western pastime. Why cant we elect leaders who are able to put pressure on regimes like the Saudis or Mugabe. Why did we nit-pick Saddam and Ghaddafi when there are tons of oppressive regimes we support every day. I mean we just sold 15 billion dollars worth of Canadian made weapons to Saudi Arabia, mostly armored vehicles.. To a theocratic regime that beheads people on live tv and stones people to death. You have to ask yourself if the most productive thing we can do to help the entire situation is to criticize Islam and the regressive left.

While Islam is something that needs discussion. I wish we had 1 million smart, intellectual Maajid Nawaz types we could parachute into the middle east and they would have their revolution and that would be it. But at present if we flew in 1 million brilliant secular moderate Muslims they would all be in jail or beheaded by the same Wahhabi kings our governments have been snuggling in bed with for the past several decades.

[nik-]

see that was a good post

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Itse

I don't agree. I can't think of a single example from history where that has been the case, and I seriously doubt such an example exists.

The closest thing to a single-issue war I can think of right now is the American Civil War, which was in very large part about the slavery issue. Yet would anyone seriously suggest in an adult conversation that that war was simply an ideological/cultural fight over slavery?

I think we are talking past each other here.

I'm not arguing that there aren't a myrad of different things that contribute to wars, instability, etc, including the islamic terrorism and middle eastern conflicts that are today's particular issue.

Rather, I'm arguing that the presence of those contributions with different cultural norms or religious tenants could have resulted in very different actions. Would the civil war have happened and been as bloody without disagreements around slavery? It's hard to say. It's not even close to the only thing the war was about, but the issues may have been resolved in other ways, for better or worse, without the disagreement around slavery. Same thing goes for the religious wars in Europe during and after the reformation. These wars were less about religion than a host of other things, but without the religious disagreements, perhaps, though it's only a bare possibility, a less bloody solution could have been found to political issues. So when I say that it's possible that much of the conflict in the middle east is caused by religious and cultural conditions, I'm not saying that imperialism, foreign interference, etc didn't result in massive discontent, dictatorships, etc, but rather that the terrorists this spawned might have chosen some other occupation had the cultural and religious conditions been different.

I agree with all of this, mostly.

The only thing I would like to comment on is that not every accusation of racism is wrong, even if the person being accused does not recognize it.
People can be incredibly blind to their own biases, and while I seriously dislike the whole privilege discussion, there are absolutely a lot of times when people really should check their privileges before speaking. And maybe choose to let others do the talking.

Which brings me to the point that not all identity politics is BS. There is absolutely merit to the notion that white middle-class culturally-Christians in the west (especially middle-aged straight men like me) should where possible let others speak with their own voices instead of talking over their heads or for them. Many liberals are active in circles where this really is an issue, and they are essentially daily reminded of this in various ways. It's a very human mistake for those people to say that we should not be telling fundamentalist muslims what's wrong with their culture.

They're pretty clearly wrong in this case, but they're not IMO wrong in the general case. Criticizing cultures from the outside should be avoided if possible. It's just not always possible. There are not enough people like Maajid Nawaz right now to represent the critical voices in this matter. Us middle-aged western whites need to chip in.

But I would much prefer if we do it from the sidelines and try to keep the Muslim critics in the focus where possible. I also think it's vastly more effective.

I agree. I think that we should let people talk about their own experiences, rather than trying to assign experiences to them. However, once these experiences are known, I think anyone that properly informs themselves properly can have a valid opinion about them. Often the solutions to problems that large portions of a particular minority faces can be resolved by considering the point of view of both the insiders and the outsiders. Most of the time the point of view of either group alone is incomplete and insufficient.

When I think identity politics though, I think beyond making sure everyone has a voice and to it's use in public policy. I have no problem allocating funding to certain programs in a identity specific way if a certain group has unique needs. For example, it makes sense to fund more early childhood education in poor black communities in the US vs other poor ethnicities as this has been shown to have a unique but major effect in long term academic achievement and general iq for these communities. When it becomes a matter of deciding who to listen to in things beyond personal experience, or when it's used as an excuse to deny privileges to one group because they have an advantage in an unrelated part of life, I think it's worthless at best and often harmful.

By the way I have a feeling that one of the fallacies around this topic is that there even are clearly definable sides. It seems to me the discussion is quite multisided when you start digging into it.

But of course double standards really are super common.

Agreed.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

[/trolling]


You make some great points that I agree with. I have a few honest questions for you and Itse and whoever else is here for serious discussion.

In what ways do you feel you are unable to criticize Islam in the same way you are able to criticize Christianity. Is there something you wish you could say and express to people about Islam that you currently feel like would have negative consequences to do so? If so what is it? Feel free to express yourself I dont think anyone here will ban you or have you fired from your job or anything.

I ask because this is something I hear a lot. "You're not allowed to criticize Islam". I think we are allowed to criticize whatever we want in the west tbh. I come from a family that is mostly Muslim and I criticize certain aspects of their culture and religion. In fact it seems like there has been no shortage of criticism of Islam? I'm not sure you could say anything about it which hasn't been said by people before you so I'm curious to know what it is you feel won't be accepted.

I think most people would agree that Islam is probably the most criticized religion of this millennium so far. Do you feel like more criticism is needed or do you feel like different criticisms are needed, if so what should we 'deal with'.

Another question I have is do you think we are as critical of modern western terror and its religious foundations as we are of modern Islamic terrorism and its religious foundations?

Could the fact we continually in the western world elect leaders based on their religious beliefs and that these clearly religiously motivated leaders go on to control supposed secular military forces and supposed secular even-handed global organizations like the UN mean that we are in a way fighting religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism? People who believe in a re-establishment of a mythical ancient kingdom vs people who believe in the establishment of a modern religious caliphate.

I really agree with your point that people who claim this is 100% about Islam are just as silly as those who claim this is has nothing to do with Islam at all. I would go further and say people who claim this is 100% about western foreign policy are just as silly as those who say it has nothing to do with the destabilization of the area and consequent gravitation of a small percentage, but rather large number of Muslim people to fundamentalist extremist ideologies.

Another thing I would like to say is if you think you cant criticize Islam here - imagine how it is in the Muslim countries. Shouldnt we be pushing for their freedoms just as much as we are pushing for our freedom to criticize them?

I can assure you the majority of the people in these countries dream at night of a day when they can live in a just secular state with no corruption or discrimination. Perhaps we should put pressure on our governments in the west to stop laying in bed with regimes in the middle east that not only mistreat women, gays, minorities, etc but suppress their own people. Is the cheap oil worth these peoples freedom?

I think Islam has been criticized quite a bit in the west despite the efforts of the so called PC regressive left. Most of it imo has just spread a lot of fear and intolerance for Muslims rather than making any noticeable positive change in the lives of people on either side. What if people in the middle east are secretly crying out for the ability to do the same in their own countries without fear of going to jail and disappearing in the desert or being beheaded.

This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussions about Africa and the continual sore on human consciousness that continent has become.

People A Live in a historically violent and corrupt country. People B in their peaceful and prosperous secular country are bemused as to the lack of civilization. People A have been ruled by the same corrupt oppressive leaders for decades. People B elect a government which supports the corrupt oppressive leader in the country of people A. People B wonder why these people are in the 'stone age' and refusing to develop or advance going from colonialism to corrupt, violent and oppressive terrorist dictator.

How long will it take to realize that people B keep electing leaders with no interest in seeing any change in the country of people A because that could potentially threaten them the leaders of people B economically, militarily etc.

It applies just as well to Africa as it does to the ME. How do we expect oppressed people who are afraid to speak out with no rights and no elections to change their circumstances.

I think people in the ME specifically in the Gulf states, who's leaders (wahhabi kings) literally fund and train terrorists are very interested in change. The common person in Saudi Arabia doesnt want to live in a theocracy but wouldnt dare even mention it to their own family out of fear they may be in big trouble.

Even in other regions I think if people living there felt less threatened by the west and less desperate they would turn towards a more liberal and secular state. But they cant even begin that process because some Nissan Petrol will show up at their door with a government officer named Ahmed who wants to take them for a 'ride' to the desert.

I think the only people who can safely put pressure on theocratic dictatorships that fund terrorists, export extremist sheikhs and oppress their own people; the only ones that can remove these people or at least spur a change in these nations without losing their lives are us in the west.

The illusion or the image that is painted is that 100% of people in the middle east are totally content with things, otherwise they would change them. Trust me a lot of moderate secular muslims are supressed. Tons of journalists in jail across the middle east for simply speaking out. That isnt an environment in which people can exactly organize a million man march and have a safe peaceful revolution. Their armies are literally trained to shoot civilians in any protests.

Criticizing Islam is something we are allowed to do here. Criticizing our governments is a western pastime. Why cant we elect leaders who are able to put pressure on regimes like the Saudis or Mugabe. Why did we nit-pick Saddam and Ghaddafi when there are tons of oppressive regimes we support every day. I mean we just sold 15 billion dollars worth of Canadian made weapons to Saudi Arabia, mostly armored vehicles.. To a theocratic regime that beheads people on live tv and stones people to death. You have to ask yourself if the most productive thing we can do to help the entire situation is to criticize Islam and the regressive left.

While Islam is something that needs discussion. I wish we had 1 million brilliant Maajid Nawaz types we could parachute into the middle east and they would have their revolution and that would be it. But at present if we flew in 1 million brilliant secular moderate muslims they would all be in jail or beheaded by the same Wahhabi kings our governments have been snuggling in bed with for the past several decades.

Well, to start, I don't actually feel I'm less able to criticize Islam that Christianity, but that's because of the circles I run in and I rarely do so in a public forum.

I just think that when I do, the criticism I face from liberals for criticizing how women and children in many Muslim communities (including in the west) should be consistent with their response to my criticism of many fundamentalists Christian communities treatment of women and children.

However, I observe that there is a group of people so concerned about how the majority of Muslims are treated (forgetting about the minorities within the Muslim communities) in their western communities that they forget that criticism of the religion is healthy both for Islam and the Muslims that adhere to it, so long as there is an opportunity for the defenders of the faith to do so as well. This is the group the cries Islamophobia when a person makes a comment about some tenant that appears to be held by a large portion of Muslims, but applaud when you do the same with Christianity.

Should such criticism, debate, and defense become more visible and common, I think that not only will those that practice Islam slowly adjust the practice of their religion in ways that benefit the minorities within them as become more integrated in western society, but that Islam will be considered less of a threat, and therefore Muslims will be treated more like proper members of western society too.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see anything to disagree with. It matches my understanding of the current situation for moderate muslims in the middle east quite well. I too wish there were more Maajid Nawaz types. Since there aren't, we can at least try convince the liberal media to give them a voice more often.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry but why should criticizing cultures from the outside be avoided?

A person doesn't have to grow up in something to point out bad things about it. This is just another form of dismissal. The vast majority of us didn't grow up in the gun culture of the US, but we have no hesitation justly criticizing it.

It shouldn't be. However, when you have the opportunity, you should listen to a person within that culture to get their perspective to both get a better understanding of the culture and to make sure your criticism is targeted as accurately as possible.

Your brought up gun culture. I will use that as an example. Perhaps you make the criticism that failing to routinely lock up your guns and ammo is an accident waiting to happen. However, if you ask someone who lives within such a gun culture why they leave their guns loaded an accessible, they might say that they feel the threat to their person by accidental or deliberate use of such a gun is far less than the threat they won't be able to defend themselves or their property from burglars should they be robbed so they leave it out. If that's the case for the majority of these people, then you could re target your message to these feelings instead of the failure to lock up the gun. You might even have an advertising campaign that says, install an alarm, lock up your guns, live safer and sleep better.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry but why should criticizing cultures from the outside be avoided?

A person doesn't have to grow up in something to point out bad things about it. This is just another form of dismissal. The vast majority of us didn't grow up in the gun culture of the US, but we have no hesitation justly criticizing it.

I don't see it as a dismissal to say that "it should be avoided if possible". It's more like a really huge caveat. But I'd like to rephrase that to what is now a popular expression in liberal circles: You should avoid punching down.

In other words, people who represent a group with the power (such as Christians in the western countries) should avoid "throwing punches" (metaphorically speaking obviously) at those who are in a more vulnerable position (such as minority religions), because there's a huge risk of doing more harm than good in that situation. Big fist, small target, be careful.

For example, there is a very real chance that loud public criticism of Islamism by white Christians does indeed strengthen extreme right narratives and increase discrimination and outright violence towards Muslims. The risk for that happening is much, much smaller if these discussions happen mostly within the culture itself.

Another very real risk is that loud criticism from outside in a situation like this can drown out the critical voices on the inside, to the point that the people being criticized simply feel discriminated by outsiders and become more segregated and end up being less responsive to all criticism.

Yet another problem (that is more an inside/outside thing than a punching up/down thing) is that people from the outside mostly can't help being clueless. This is not such a huge problem if you have a small group criticizing a large group, but if you have a large group criticizing a small group, it can become quite intolerable for that minority. Plus the clueless criticism from the outside is likely to be so much more common than not-clueless criticism, that the latter will again likely be drowned out.

I think you get the point.

Again as I said, these are all simply caveats. It doesn't mean you should never do it. You should just think carefully before you go there, and choose your words even more carefully. (Keep it limited, avoid generalizations and so on.) If you're not certain you're not being clueless, it's often best let someone else do the talking and just go "what that guy said". Generally the best critics come from the inside anyway.

Of course some basic stuff just obviously needs to be said. Such as "you can't tell me what I can draw or not". Or "you can't do that to your daughters genitals". Just real no-brainers. If that stuff creates problems in the Muslim society, then it's up to them to deal with it.

On the other hand, the odds of a non-academic Christian getting their criticism on the relationship of Quran and present-day Islamic practices right is so close to zero that I would not go there.

(I could talk more about social power structures too, but I think that would just bring unnecessary complexity to what is already another quite a long post.)

[nik-]

Those are fair points and I'd agree that outside criticism can contribute to a defensive mindset. However, even knowing that risk, I just can't abide by it. To me it's too important than no religion, culture or political system is sacrosanct.

And I personally don't see another "minority" religion as something that's vulnerable. We're not going to criticize Islam to death here. Just like people haven't criticized Christianity to death.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Well, to start, I don't actually feel I'm less able to criticize Islam that Christianity, but that's because of the circles I run in and I rarely do so in a public forum.

I just think that when I do, the criticism I face from liberals for criticizing how women and children in many Muslim communities (including in the west) should be consistent with their response to my criticism of many fundamentalists Christian communities treatment of women and children.

However, I observe that there is a group of people so concerned about how the majority of Muslims are treated (forgetting about the minorities within the Muslim communities) in their western communities that they forget that criticism of the religion is healthy both for Islam and the Muslims that adhere to it, so long as there is an opportunity for the defenders of the faith to do so as well. This is the group the cries Islamophobia when a person makes a comment about some tenant that appears to be held by a large portion of Muslims, but applaud when you do the same with Christianity.

Should such criticism, debate, and defense become more visible and common, I think that not only will those that practice Islam slowly adjust the practice of their religion in ways that benefit the minorities within them as become more integrated in western society, but that Islam will be considered less of a threat, and therefore Muslims will be treated more like proper members of western society too.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see anything to disagree with. It matches my understanding of the current situation for moderate muslims in the middle east quite well. I too wish there were more Maajid Nawaz types. Since there aren't, we can at least try convince the liberal media to give them a voice more often.

Do you think it is possible that people are as you say less open to criticism about Islam because they feel it could be a danger in the sense it can, depending on how it is done, serve as fantastic propaganda for terrorists to turn around and use and say look - people in the west cant stand you. So in a sense maybe the regressive leftists whoever they are - perhaps agree with the criticism of the religion but feel like it may be inflammatory depending on how it is done.

I think as a society we have forced Christians to swallow their pride and kind of realize they arent getting around some things like for example teaching evolution in schools or same sex marriage. Whereas Muslims generally speaking still feel that a criticism of their religion is an attack on their religion. I think it comes from pride or ego. If I could use a term for horses without people taking it the wrong way - I think Christians have by and large been broken to secular life where as Muslims are still mustangs in that sense. They've never had - in their own societies - any tolerance for moderate secularists never mind 'heretics' who denounce religious ideologies wholesale. I think while people get upset at those who say that Islam and Muslim nations are in the dark ages - it is a surprisingly good analogy although it may bruise some egos. In the dark ages you couldn't challenge religion. In the dark ages nothing was secular and everything was very directly influenced by religion. I think extremists within Islamic societies are a by product of the lack of secularism. If these people werent so religious I believe they would still be angry but had they a population of moderate secularists they wouldn't necessarily use Islam to justify or motivate their resistance to neo-colonialism but they would do it through some political medium like socialism or nationalism etc. But since Islam in many Muslim societies is deeply involved in everything from banking to entertainment to fashion to law - it means people view things though a religious scope. Us vs them, believers vs disbelievers.

In more secular nations people see it in different terms which dont push people to be as fundamentalist or dangerous. Terms like colonialism, west, communism, proxy, foreign influence. But currently the only terms they have to express their view that an injustice is being commited against them are terms like infidel, kafir, jew etc.

I think there are 4 very powerful factors influencing things. Foreign influence > religion that lends its self to self-sacrifice and violent resistance when people are occupied / threatened > The fact that Islamic societies are hardly ever secular to begin with nevermind when the people feel like the whole world is against them > Large amounts increasingly radicalized people, turning to increasingly radicalized preachers and looking in their quran and basically looking to manufacture a religious context for what is happening politically.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Those are fair points and I'd agree that outside criticism can contribute to a defensive mindset. However, even knowing that risk, I just can't abide by it. To me it's too important than no religion, culture or political system is sacrosanct.

And I will defend your right to say your piece against people who might try to silence you if need be.

Assuming you're not just making a fool out of yourself. At that point I'll just quietly let myself out of the room. Or go for the popcorn. Because life if too short to defend every well-meaning idiot on the internet

And I personally don't see another "minority" religion as something that's vulnerable. We're not going to criticize Islam to death here. Just like people haven't criticized Christianity to death.

Pretty much agreed. This is why in this case I'm not that worried about the whole "who can talk" thing.

I do however think that people should make a much bigger effort to be accurate in their criticism. So much of what people write and say mixes up Islam and Islamism and fundamentalism and Jihadist terrorism to a point where it only creates more anger and frustration.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Do you think it is possible that people are as you say less open to criticism about Islam because they feel it could be a danger in the sense it can, depending on how it is done, serve as fantastic propaganda for terrorists to turn around and use and say look - people in the west cant stand you. So in a sense maybe the regressive leftists whoever they are - perhaps agree with the criticism of the religion but feel like it may be inflammatory depending on how it is done.

I think as a society we have forced Christians to swallow their pride and kind of realize they arent getting around some things like for example teaching evolution in schools or same sex marriage. Whereas Muslims generally speaking still feel that a criticism of their religion is an attack on their religion. I think it comes from pride or ego. If I could use a term for horses without people taking it the wrong way - I think Christians have by and large been broken to secular life where as Muslims are still mustangs in that sense. They've never had - in their own societies - any tolerance for moderate secularists never mind 'heretics' who denounce religious ideologies wholesale. I think while people get upset at those who say that Islam and Muslim nations are in the dark ages - it is a surprisingly good analogy although it may bruise some egos. In the dark ages you couldn't challenge religion. In the dark ages nothing was secular and everything was very directly influenced by religion. I think extremists within Islamic societies are a by product of the lack of secularism. If these people werent so religious I believe they would still be angry but had they a population of moderate secularists they wouldn't necessarily use Islam to justify or motivate their resistance to neo-colonialism but they would do it through some political medium like socialism or nationalism etc. But since Islam in many Muslim societies is deeply involved in everything from banking to entertainment to fashion to law - it means people view things though a religious scope. Us vs them, believers vs disbelievers.

In more secular nations people see it in different terms which dont push people to be as fundamentalist or dangerous. Terms like colonialism, west, communism, proxy, foreign influence. But currently the only terms they have to express their view that an injustice is being commited against them are terms like infidel, kafir, jew etc.

I think there are 4 very powerful factors influencing things. Foreign influence > religion that lends its self to self-sacrifice and violent resistance when people are occupied / threatened > The fact that Islamic societies are hardly ever secular to begin with nevermind when the people feel like the whole world is against them > Large amounts increasingly radicalized people, turning to increasingly radicalized preachers and looking in their quran and basically looking to manufacture a religious context for what is happening politically.

I think these people are less open for a variety of reasons including the ones you mention, but I think it's primarily a matter of focus and conflation between race and religion. In many ways the current fear of Islam manifests itself in ways that look like racism. People are scared of Muslims, and therefore discriminate against them. By and large, you can't tell a Muslim from a non-Muslim just by looking at them, so it's those that wear head scarves, turbans, particularly large and full beards, or have brown or olive skin that are targeted for harassment and abuse, even if they aren't Muslims. As a result, criticism of Islam has, in the minds of some, become a form of racism, and since it's racism, they think it needs to be called out, which often ends up derailing the conversation or ending it.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Itse

Of course some basic stuff just obviously needs to be said. Such as "you can't tell me what I can draw or not". Or "you can't do that to your daughters genitals". Just real no-brainers. If that stuff creates problems in the Muslim society, then it's up to them to deal with it.

On the other hand, the odds of a non-academic Christian getting their criticism on the relationship of Quran and present-day Islamic practices right is so close to zero that I would not go there.

(I could talk more about social power structures too, but I think that would just bring unnecessary complexity to what is already another quite a long post.)

Good post. I agree that any non-academic christian or any non academic period usually sounds like they are regurgitating something they read online rather than something they know and understand about Islam.

To correct you..the female genital mutilation is an African culture/tradition you wont find it in one Arab Muslim country but you will find it in "In Africa, FGM is known to be practiced among certain communities in 29 countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria" according to the UNFPA. I'm not sure if you know but the thing these nations have in common is not that they are Muslim, in fact the majority of these countries are now Christian. Perhaps female genital mutilation is a Christian thing then?

Its little myths like this, that all the Muslim girls have their clits snipped that make people very turned off to many people who want to criticize Islam. The thing is most of these people have had about as much exposure to Islam as someone in Pyongyang, North Korea. So they are literally spreading stories and statistics they read as if they personally have a degree in Islamic studies and conduct censuses in the ME.