Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking only of Muslims in Western countries, do you really think this is a particular problem? I get what you are saying about majority-Muslim countries elsewhere in the world, but I don't think many Muslims in the US or Western Europe think this.

I think that's exactly right. But don't you think the members of those communities have taken it upon themselves to try to speak out against violence in order to keep those communities that way?

Surely it's hard to bring disaffected, angry, sometimes-crazy people back in to the fold when they're looking for reasons to commit harm. And people committing acts of violence like the one in Paris have seized on this one idea as a reason to accomplish their goal and are looking to interpretations of Islamic law (and in this case blasphemy) emanating from Muslim countries that grant them some type of justification for their actions.

There must be a spectrum of opinions on what should be done to those who commit blasphemy. But if the baseline idea that it should never be done by anyone for any reason is common and should never be tolerated, and there are places where it is punished harshly (by law or otherwise), doesn't it stand to reason that many more people will be offended when they see it such that they may take it upon themselves to punish people for it? If others never actually take that step but reinforce the idea that they're okay with it, doesn't the pool of people who become completely intolerant grow? I think once that atmosphere is prevalent, you have yourself a problem.

But I also see your point. If a Muslim community in a non-Muslim state is nowhere near as harsh as those in Muslim states, what exactly can those communities do to keep those on the fringes from seeking out alternative, intolerant interpretations and taking action based on them? I don't know.

Should there be some sort of responsibility on those who make up a moderate community in a Muslim state as they watch more intolerant members of the community become increasingly dangerous and influential to take that on? Seems unfair for sure, but they are clearly in the best position to do so.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't think that saying that moderate Muslims should look at what is being said and taught as part of their religion, because that religion is so frequently being used to justify killing, as a suggestion that they are personally responsible for any killing. Apparently we disagree on that, and I'm content to disagree on that.

Yes, that is the disagreement. Obviously, no one thinks they are "personally responsible." The implication is that they agree with the horrible acts on some level -- that's the presumption that they essentially are told they have to refute. What's being said, implicitly, is that they have to stand up and prove that they are like us, that they're on our side in this war, because one can reasonably suspect that they aren't.

A lot of Muslims would say of the Islamists, that's not my religion. And it's not. Saying that their religion is being used to justify killing is a pretty reductionist way of ignoring really important differences. As I said before, we get that lumping Mormons and Russian Orthodox together as "Christians" doesn't make sense -- this seems to me on that level.

I also believe that, for example, white Americans have a particular responsibility to think carefully about what they say about race, about what messages they convey both explicitly and implicitly, because ultimately that is critical to evolving past our history of racism. Do my own actions, words, perceptions, things I teach, things that are taught where I send my kids to school, things said in my community.... do those things further the notion that black people matter less than white people? That black people are "other"? That stereotypes or prejudices are valid? If so, I need to change that -- because, while violent racist attacks are very, very far away from anything I can point to in myself or my community or my family, they are still on the same continuum. The same sentiments that led me, as a kid, to think that racist jokes were okay, led my uncle to think that talking about "niggers" was okay, and led people in my school think that beating up a black kid in response to something that other black kids had done was okay.

Believing that white Americans have that responsibility doesn't mean that I blame any particular white American for any particular incident or act in which they did not participate. It means that I believe that white Americans who are decent people need to always and ever further isolate those who are not -- not because that will necessarily change the thinking or behavior of those who have already crossed that line, but because it will make that line harder to cross in the future.

OK. I don't think I disagree.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wow, and I thought I needed to cut my treatises short sometimes!

Actually, you're completely wrong on Islam and conversion. A couple good books to read are "Under Crescent and Cross", which talks about the relative ways in which Jews were treated in Christianity and Islam, and "Ornament of the World", about Islamic Andalusia, to get some idea of the roots of the conversion/subjugation issue. It's a fascinating topic, and I could send you to more academic or religious sources, but those are good easily accessible books that give you a sense. This is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of hearing about Islam only through its opponents.

I'll address other stuff here and there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't think that saying that moderate Muslims should look at what is being said and taught as part of their religion, because that religion is so frequently being used to justify killing, as a suggestion that they are personally responsible for any killing. Apparently we disagree on that, and I'm content to disagree on that.

I also believe that, for example, white Americans have a particular responsibility to think carefully about what they say about race, about what messages they convey both explicitly and implicitly, because ultimately that is critical to evolving past our history of racism. Do my own actions, words, perceptions, things I teach, things that are taught where I send my kids to school, things said in my community.... do those things further the notion that black people matter less than white people? That black people are "other"? That stereotypes or prejudices are valid? If so, I need to change that -- because, while violent racist attacks are very, very far away from anything I can point to in myself or my community or my family, they are still on the same continuum. The same sentiments that led me, as a kid, to think that racist jokes were okay, led my uncle to think that talking about "niggers" was okay, and led people in my school think that beating up a black kid in response to something that other black kids had done was okay.

Believing that white Americans have that responsibility doesn't mean that I blame any particular white American for any particular incident or act in which they did not participate. It means that I believe that white Americans who are decent people need to always and ever further isolate those who are not -- not because that will necessarily change the thinking or behavior of those who have already crossed that line, but because it will make that line harder to cross in the future.

Much of this I agree with, but there is an important distinction when the dominant, majority group tells the minority group they need to control their people - and, to be clear, this logic is applicable to Muslims in the US, but much less so to Muslims in Egypt, for example.

If you're a 13 year old Muslim kid in America, lots of people have a view on what you need to be explaining or apologizing for, but no one has an interest in what you have to say unless it fits their narrative. Sebby wants to know if you reject Islamic views on conversion and subjugation, but he's not going to ask you first what Islamic views on conversion and subjugation are. There's a different dynamic in each case. I note, though, that despite this different dynamic, there are lots and lots of Muslims speaking out on terrorism when people care to listen.

When talking with Middle Eastern countries, there is a different dynamic, and, of course, a second part to the conversation. Because when we talk to them about terrorism, we can expect a response along the lines of, yes, sure, legitimate concern, love to help you, but can we also talk about some American bombs that have been falling on Muslims here, whether delivered by drone or plane, American, Israeli, Saudi, Iraqi or others?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're amazing. I considered actually including that as a footnote. Then I thought, "No douche would use an outlier thing like that... unnecessary."

Can you stop being annoying?

ETA: Here, let's get them all out there: Eric Rudolph, David Koresh. Any others I missed?

I'm sure there are others.

Why is the guy who killed Dr. Tiller "an outlier?" Are not the two guys who shot up Charlie Hebdo (and the ones who killed Theo van Gough) outliers too?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

J.K. Rowling excommunicates Rupert Murdoch over Muslim responsibility.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

J.K. Rowling excommunicates Rupert Murdoch over Muslim responsibility.

Think she excommunicated herself, actually.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think that's exactly right. But don't you think the members of those communities have taken it upon themselves to try to speak out against violence in order to keep those communities that way?

Surely it's hard to bring disaffected, angry, sometimes-crazy people back in to the fold when they're looking for reasons to commit harm. And people committing acts of violence like the one in Paris have seized on this one idea as a reason to accomplish their goal and are looking to interpretations of Islamic law (and in this case blasphemy) emanating from Muslim countries that grant them some type of justification for their actions.

There must be a spectrum of opinions on what should be done to those who commit blasphemy. But if the baseline idea that it should never be done by anyone for any reason is common and should never be tolerated, and there are places where it is punished harshly (by law or otherwise), doesn't it stand to reason that many more people will be offended when they see it such that they may take it upon themselves to punish people for it? If others never actually take that step but reinforce the idea that they're okay with it, doesn't the pool of people who become completely intolerant grow? I think once that atmosphere is prevalent, you have yourself a problem.

But I also see your point. If a Muslim community in a non-Muslim state is nowhere near as harsh as those in Muslim states, what exactly can those communities do to keep those on the fringes from seeking out alternative, intolerant interpretations and taking action based on them? I don't know.

Should there be some sort of responsibility on those who make up a moderate community in a Muslim state as they watch more intolerant members of the community become increasingly dangerous and influential to take that on? Seems unfair for sure, but they are clearly in the best position to do so.

TM

In the West, I wonder whether there are communities defined by Islam, or whether there are communities of people with a shared ethnic/national background who also share a religion. E.g., Somali immigrants worship with other Somalis, and Bangladeshis with other Bangladeshis, but do the two groups have much contact with each other? Malcolm X has been on my brain because the Wee Slothrop has been asking about him, and at the end of his autobiography there's this vision of a Muslim community (did he go to Mecca?) with all races and colors and no one notice, sort of Colbert-like but non-ironic, but that was fifty years ago and his autobiography is a sales job of sorts (as they all are, going back to Ben Franklin).

One of the articles I linked to last week said a little about the difference between the hard-line Wahhabi version of Islam and the many other variants. Maybe it's bad luck for the rest of us that a bunch of Wahhabis turned out to be sitting on the planet's largest petroleum reserves, because those funds have given their views a currency they might not have otherwise won.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In the West, I wonder whether there are communities defined by Islam, or whether there are communities of people with a shared ethnic/national background who also share a religion. E.g., Somali immigrants worship with other Somalis, and Bangladeshis with other Bangladeshis, but do the two groups have much contact with each other? Malcolm X has been on my brain because the Wee Slothrop has been asking about him, and at the end of his autobiography there's this vision of a Muslim community (did he go to Mecca?) with all races and colors and no one notice, sort of Colbert-like but non-ironic, but that was fifty years ago and his autobiography is a sales job of sorts (as they all are, going back to Ben Franklin).

One of the articles I linked to last week said a little about the difference between the hard-line Wahhabi version of Islam and the many other variants. Maybe it's bad luck for the rest of us that a bunch of Wahhabis turned out to be sitting on the planet's largest petroleum reserves, because those funds have given their views a currency they might not have otherwise won.

I think we'd find that almost every Mosque has its own history, and that there is a big difference between inner city Mosques with a large African American congregation and suburban Mosques filled with techies and academics.

The Wahabis aren't the biggest ethnic group in Saudi Arabia, and Wahabism is as much a creation of the House of Saud as the House of Saud is of Wahabism. Pretty much, as they vied to carve some territory out of the decaying Ottoman empire and fend off the various Western powers grabbing pieces (like the British in the Yemen), they figured out it would be nice to have their own religion to back them up. Brilliant PR ploy. At the time, the British didn't care about the oil in Saudi Arabia (or control over Mecca - idiots) but really, really, really wanted the Port at Aden.

But if the House of Saud suddenly decided slicing and dicing their subjects was a bad idea, I think Wahabism would quickly discover Islam's distaste for the practice.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In the West, I wonder whether there are communities defined by Islam, or whether there are communities of people with a shared ethnic/national background who also share a religion. E.g., Somali immigrants worship with other Somalis, and Bangladeshis with other Bangladeshis, but do the two groups have much contact with each other? Malcolm X has been on my brain because the Wee Slothrop has been asking about him, and at the end of his autobiography there's this vision of a Muslim community (did he go to Mecca?) with all races and colors and no one notice, sort of Colbert-like but non-ironic, but that was fifty years ago and his autobiography is a sales job of sorts (as they all are, going back to Ben Franklin).

The way I look at it, if there are groups of ethnic Muslims who live in a city, (i) there are probably smaller communities that center around specific mosques and the friends and families of those who attend that mosque and live in that neighborhood and (ii) because being Muslim in the West surely forces you to look out for one another and to self-identify as Muslim first even though you may be from different places, there is probably a looser larger community.

Malcolm did go to Mecca. It's part of the reason why he and the Nation of Islam were moving in different directions. Malcolm discovered that the religion is more inclusive and not as narrow-minded as what he was taught. He was trying to bring that message to the Nation and Elijah Muhammed wasn't having it (on top of being threatened by his charisma already).

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good times.

eta: Brilliant.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

J.K. Rowling excommunicates Rupert Murdoch over Muslim responsibility.

This is interesting.


The things that Rowling jokingly says she is responsible for are the kinds of things that led me to withdraw myself entirely from the Catholic church, many many years ago.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This is interesting.


The things that Rowling jokingly says she is responsible for are the kinds of things that led me to withdraw myself entirely from the Catholic church, many many years ago.

It's all based on a fundamental mistake, though, isn't it? I mean, Murdoch is certainly not Christian.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's the latest Charlie Hebdo cover:


Maybe this is a silly question, but I keep reading that this is the prophet Mohammed. How can you tell? Given a religion with a tradition of not depicting him, how does a cartoonist include visual clues that that is who this is, instead of any old Arab? Do you have to be a regular Charlie Hebdo reader to know this?

eta: This is an odd development. Was this really about religion?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's the latest Charlie Hebdo cover:


Maybe this is a silly question, but I keep reading that this is the prophet Mohammed. How can you tell? Given a religion with a tradition of not depicting him, how does a cartoonist include visual clues that that is who this is, instead of any old Arab? Do you have to be a regular Charlie Hebdo reader to know this?

Maybe an editor or the cartoonist suggested it was, though I doubt it. I think people are making an assumption.