The debate over Islam

[M_BONG]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/an-open-letter-to-moderat_b_5930764.html

I think this is a well written article and what I find most interesting is the author's suggestion to keep cultural identity distinct from religious identity - although he seems to be a bit vague about what he means by "reforms".

Is it through Islam accepting that their religious texts - and hadiths - are questionable, open for discussion that we achieve some sort of peace? How do we educate (or should we even try) those on the other end of the spectrum (ie. not the so-called "moderates" but the extremists)?

Thoughts?

[brenden]

I'm just going to preface this and warn everyone to remain constructive and non-comparative. Like, even if you want to back a basic generalisation like... "Most Muslims", you'd better be pretty sure what you're saying is empirically supported. Similarly, if you're offended enough by anything said to start calling people names I will ban you immediately for a period of time I feel is appropriate. Just keep it constructive, people.

[slothpomba]

Yeah i'm going to echo what Brendan says, if you're going to make an argument, make it a proper one with reasoning and evidence. You are fine to say what you like, *within a degree* long as it is well reasoned and not outrageously offensive just for the sake of being offensive of controversial. If it goes down that path, we'll have no hesitation in reprimanding anyone. If you don't even really know what Islam is, i wouldn't bother.

It sounds harsh but i've been here a long time and in my experience, most (but not all, we actually have some good discussion) end up in a circle-jerk or a shitstorm. If everyone could be civil and we could have a nice discussion for once that'd make me so happy.

I'll respond later to the article.

[charmanderp]

My moderator advice: don't be an ass and you'll be fine.

[Professor Polonsky]

Okay, we done power-tripping mods?

I actually have to say that a lot of the things the article says are right on-point.

Islam, like the other Abrahamic religions, has terrible things in its religious texts. There's no way around that. But the difference between Islam and those other religions is that we don't see those texts being used as an excuse to terrorise people, to impose its ideology through violence, and so on.

The question is how you respond to the nasty stuff in your text. Judaism has slowly interpreted them away, over thousands of years. I'm not sure what Islam has done, but clearly there are people whose interpretation of their religion is a rather extreme one. I'm not going to try to come up with a figure of how many Muslims are fundamentalist, because that's really not the point. The issue is that there are enough radicalised Muslims for those attacks to occur.

While, of course, not every deeply religious person is going to become a violent radical, it is impossible to avoid how the former feeds the latter. Anti-abortion Christian theology is what inspires abortion clinic shooters; and anti-democratic Islamic theology is what inspired the Charlie attackers. Even if the willingness to use force to enforce those values is the bigger issue, we must as a society eschew not only those who use violence, but also the values they seek to uphold.

[Navy223]

Bill Maher is spot on here!

[M_BONG]

Ok I will weigh it on my views now.

I think it's important not to see Muslims in discrete categories - i.e. moderates vs extremists. Rather, we need to  understand why extremism exists and accept a middle ground exists. Because if we don't understand what drives so-called moderates to extremism, we will never solve the root problem - we will only start polarising people further. This is what the current government and the media have been doing - they have been calling out the so-called minority of Jihadists and isolating them from what they see to be "good" Muslims when in reality, it is never so black and white.

Understanding different people through the lens of their own cultures (not our own!!) is important. A lot of Muslims, I think, do not want to integrate into Australian mainstream society and that's fine with me, as long as they abide by the law. Why are we so defensive about our Australian ideals anyway? Equating Shariah law (when it's used peacefully, to a large extent, in Australia) with terrorism, publicly calling the burqa confronting etc. will not bring us closer to our aims. Forcing people to integrate to one mainstream society has never been the point of multiculturalism. There was an article in The Age recently entitled (I forgot the exact title) "Why I don't Want You To Ride With Me" (in response to #Illridewithyou) is such example and we need to understand that perhaps these Muslim people don't believe in our Western, Anglo-Saxon ideals and we should judge their actions from their point of view. And although there has been a few people championing rights movements for Muslim women (such as Malala) we need to understand that these do not reflect the views of all Muslim women. Not all of them want education (even though from our point of view, who wouldn't); not all of them need Westerns to "save them".

In saying that, we should never censor our society (eg. stop satires of Muhammed) to prevent extremist attacks. And terrorism is terrorism, period. But perhaps it's time to realise that a middle ground exists - that not all terrorism stem from one single action, not all terrorism is an unprovoked attack on our ideals, not all terrorism stem from one deranged faction of society.

[ValiantIntellectual]

Muslim mayor of Rotterdam tells Islamists to f*** off on live television

There is usually a lot more to the case then just terrorist hating our freedom. I am not saying they don't but I just don't buy the idea that terrorist are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to change other people to their liking. Especially since there are plenty of nations and people far more accommodating to their beliefs to immigrate to. Committing an act of terror is not something that just comes to you. There are strong motivations for it, religious and non religious. I guess I am more skeptical of how simplistic the coverage seems to be of these terrorist. They are painted as one dimensional villains and it actually hampers debate on topics such as these. Surely there had to be some sort of rationale to motivate their acts? More then just them hating the lifestyle of a particular nation. I do want to know why the Charlie Hebdo attackers did what they did, not the media's interpretation of it but their own response. Of course nothing can justify their actions but no act of this magnitude could be committed without at least some rationale behind it. That's is what I would like to hear.

[Professor Polonsky]

There is usually a lot more to the case then just terrorist hating our freedom. I am not saying they don't but I just don't buy the idea that terrorist are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to change other people to their liking. Especially since there are plenty of nations and people far more accommodating to their beliefs to immigrate to. Committing an act of terror is not something that just comes to you. There are strong motivations for it, religious and non religious. I guess I am more skeptical of how simplistic the coverage seems to be of these terrorist. They are painted as one dimensional villains and it actually hampers debate on topics such as these. Surely there had to be some sort of rationale to motivate their acts? More then just them hating the lifestyle of a particular nation. I do want to know why the Charlie Hebdo attackers did what they did, not the media's interpretation of it but their own response. Of course nothing can justify their actions but no act of this magnitude could be committed without at least some rationale behind it. That's is what I would like to hear.

Islamic terrorism is usually about a discontent with Western liberalism or foreign policy. You can concentrate on the individual, and point out to the events in their lives that caused them to be fucked up - you can do that for almost any offender. I don't think one can seriously suggest some form of 'higher motive', though - so much has been confirmed by Islamist groups' statements and their targets. If I recall correctly, the group that trained the Charlie attackers was AQAP - and that should tell you enough.

Ok I will weigh it on my views now.

I think it's important not to see Muslims in discrete categories - i.e. moderates vs extremists. Rather, we need to  understand why extremism exists and accept a middle ground exists. Because if we don't understand what drives so-called moderates to extremism, we will never solve the root problem - we will only start polarising people further. This is what the current government and the media have been doing - they have been calling out the so-called minority of Jihadists and isolating them from what they see to be "good" Muslims when in reality, it is never so black and white.

I don't think I agree with you there. While in the public sphere, we should (as individual citizens) oppose the creeping in of religion into it, the use of violence to effect fear and societal change in that direction is a line that should not be crossed, and the government has the obligation to protect us from it. So yes, I think that isolating those extreme enough to use violence is important.

[ValiantIntellectual]

Islamic terrorism is usually about a discontent with Western liberalism or foreign policy. You can concentrate on the individual, and point out to the events in their lives that caused them to be fucked up - you can do that for almost any offender. I don't think one can seriously suggest some form of 'higher motive', though - so much has been confirmed by Islamist groups' statements and their targets. If I recall correctly, the group that trained the Charlie attackers was

I completely agree with you, terrorism is primarily for those reasons. But that was what I was inferring as a higher motive. I am not trying to be some crazy conspiracy theorist but I am just saying that in my personal opinion the media coverage of these attacks hardly discuss the initial discontent the terrorist had to an appropriate level. I truly don't expect the media to give a complex analysis of every story it covers but I find that bad guy good guy card is repeatedly raised in situations like this which really simplifies the whole situation. For instance, I just don't believe the Charlie Hebdo attackers would commit an act as heinous as terrorism due to something as trivial as a cartoon. Nor do I believe they would throw their lives away in order to suppress freedom of speech for a nation they obviously don't care about. I believe that I order for a person to be driven to such violent extremes there must be stronger motives then what the media present to us and you are right on the money when you say it is discontent with western society and it's foreign policy. It's just that I would love to see more coverage exploring that discontent. There HAS to be some sort of rationale that the attackers had and we never get to hear that rationale.

[M_BONG]

To the extent that I agree and understand what you are saying, Professor Polonsky, I don't think there is a clear separation between what the "extremist" Muslim and the "moderate" Muslim is taught and indoctrinated with - difference is, as you point out, how one chooses to interpret and act on these dogmas. This is why I don't support the media or the government polarising one group of people because in many instances this is what drives the moderate to extremist behaviours - because they feel isolated and the need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values.

This is why I believe we need to see different cultures through the lens of cultural relativism (as I talk about above). I believe one of the reason why extremism thrives is the reaction and attention it gains - terror groups recruit followers through the guise of them being able to defend their religion, be rewarded with virgins in Heaven etc. Of course, terror attacks cannot be hidden under the carpet or concealed from the public eye but if the media stops its polarisation, governments stop its finger-pointing (and I know how hard that is), and start forming a more rational debate there may be less reason for these people to do these atrocious acts.

[Professor Polonsky]

I completely disagree with you there, for the simple fact that I'm not a relativist and believe that society's norms are far more correct than the ones they are trying to impose (and that's regardless of how wrong it is to try to impose it through violence, that's a different matter). And these extreme beliefs are what often yields violence, not vice versa. That's why it is that you see anti-choice Christians blowing up abortion clinics, extreme libertarians just blowing stuff up generally in the US, and extremist Islamists doing what they do. That's why we, as a society (not the state - it's not usually its role to regulate opinions, with the rare exceptions such as Holocaust denialism or, in some contexts, extreme forms of fascism) must shun those extreme beliefs in and of themselves, because they have no place in our society.

You are wrong about all Muslims following those beliefs that the extremists would have imposed on us, though. Religion moderating is its only way forward in our society.

[Navy223]

To the extent that I agree and understand what you are saying, Professor Polonsky, I don't think there is a clear separation between what the "extremist" Muslim and the "moderate" Muslim is taught and indoctrinated with - difference is, as you point out, how one chooses to interpret and act on these dogmas. This is why I don't support the media or the government polarising one group of people because in many instances this is what drives the moderate to extremist behaviours - because they feel isolated and the need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values.

This is why I believe we need to see different cultures through the lens of cultural relativism (as I talk about above). I believe one of the reason why extremism thrives is the reaction and attention it gains - terror groups recruit followers through the guise of them being able to defend their religion, be rewarded with virgins in Heaven etc. Of course, terror attacks cannot be hidden under the carpet or concealed from the public eye but if the media stops its polarisation, governments stop its finger-pointing (and I know how hard that is), and start forming a more rational debate there may be less reason for these people to do these atrocious acts.

I'm sorry, THEY need to "need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values". I mean you only have to look at the front few pages of your newspaper to see articles about IS and see photos IS combatants holding severed heads of westerners, and somehow i don't see that as a defence mechanism against being infiltrated by western values. The goal of the IS is to establish a universal and fortified caliphate. These Islamist extremists, seem to be doing quite a lot of finger pointing themselves blaming the western world for "poisoning" the minds of muslims around the world, if that is not a hasty generalisation i don't know what is. I also notice that you  attribute the motives of "these people to do these atrocious [terrorist] acts" possibly due to polarisation of the media. Personally, i find this a very facile and implausible reasoning for their actions, the media is not where the problem stems from, although it may not necessarily assuage the situation after a terrorist attack, the problem lies within the Islamic religion, more specifically within those Islamist extremists.

To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point.
Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists.
On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.   

[ValiantIntellectual]

To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point.
Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists.
On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.

I can assure you that the victims of terror get plenty of outcry, its all we hear about for the next three days after a terrorist attack. Not saying that's bad since they deserve this outcry but you cant possibly suggest that they are not getting enough media attention. As for the Muslim community, its perfectly natural and beneficial for the media to highlight some of the implications of terror attacks that average Muslims must go through. And after all, if moderate Muslims are going through abuse and discrimination then i don't see why the public wouldn't be concerned especially since they are a minority group. In fact it actually helps build stronger ties between the two communities. I am all for criticizing the Muslim community when we must but we must also spare sympathy for them if they are truly feeling alienated.
 

[M_BONG]

I'm sorry, THEY need to "need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values". I mean you only have to look at the front few pages of your newspaper to see articles about IS and see photos IS combatants holding severed heads of westerners, and somehow i don't see that as a defence mechanism against being infiltrated by western values. The goal of the IS is to establish a universal and fortified caliphate. These Islamist extremists, seem to be doing quite a lot of finger pointing themselves blaming the western world for "poisoning" the minds of muslims around the world, if that is not a hasty generalisation i don't know what is. I also notice that you attribute the motives of "these people to do these atrocious [terrorist] acts" due to polarisation of the media. Personally, i find this a very facile and implausible reasoning for their actions, the media is not where the problem stems from, although it may not necessarily assuage the situation after a terrorist attack, the problem lies within the Islamic religion, more specifically within those Islamist extremists.

To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point.
Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists.
On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.

Sorry, at no point did I attribute the media, or even governments, as the root cause of extremism. Please read carefully before you go on a internet rampage.

EDIT: Also, I don't think you can reasonably say IS is an isolated incidence or schizophrenic Muslims wanting excessive power through force. It is largely a failure of world leaders to deal with Al-Qaeda, post and pre 9/11. Why did 9/11 (and Al-Qaeda gain leverage?) really happen? Imperialism. It wasn't a bunch of violent Muslims wanting to annihilate all the infidels, it was due to a string of bad foreign policies; a string of manufactured wars and accusations slowly providing the thrust for a radical interpretation of the Koran (to defend the religion).