General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rise of the New, Liberal Islamophobia
from truthdig:
The Rise of the New, Liberal Islamophobia
Posted on Oct 9, 2014
By Sonali Kolhatkar
The recent television kerfuffle involving Real Time host Bill Maher and guest Sam Harris over whether Muslims are bad people because their religion is, in the words of Harris, the mother lode of bad ideas, is symbolic of the new American Islamophobia.
Muslim-bashing has become a popular sport several times over the last decade and a half, most notably in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; after the election of Barack Obama; over the proposal for the so-called Ground Zero mosque; and now with the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But this time, its not just members of the extreme right, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann and presidential wannabe Herman Cain, equating Islam with terrorism.
Maher, one of the bastions of liberal ideology, is the source of the latest strain of anti-Muslim racism, along with his cohort Harris, a neuroscientist and author whose bigotry was superbly exposed by Chris Hedges in his 2008 book, I Dont Believe in Atheists.
Historian and academic Reza Aslans brilliant response to Maher on CNN laid bare Mahers poor logic in equating the actions of extremists with nearly a quarter of the worlds population who identify as Muslim. But Mahers sentiments arent just dissonant with reality; they lend a liberal veneer to Islamophobia, which in turn casts as increasingly legitimate the ongoing government targeting and public venom aimed at American Muslims. ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_rise_of_the_new_liberal_islamophobia_20141009
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)aggression, anger, bullying, hate and sometimes even violence. It is sad to see liberals embrace this tactic but I have seen it done for many issues here on DU; fat shaming, religion bashing, voting bullying, etc. People think they have the right to force others to think and act like they do.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)I am not perfect either, but sometimes all this kerfuffle makes me ashamed to say what I am, politics wise, and I want to run away and hide somewhere.
samsingh
(17,602 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)samsingh
(17,602 posts)we supported saddam
then we supported those opposed to saddam
demosincebirth
(12,550 posts)power.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim.....
Throd
(7,208 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)to the innocent people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen so on so forth.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)is there really a big difference from rounding up innocent people and killing instead of killing them in the streets where live??? Sure maybe it is more humane to kill them instantly but the final outcome is the same, dead innocent people.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Perhaps some people are confused as to why there appears to be more terror under the banner of Islam?
marmar
(77,113 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That's either because you aren't looking properly or becase your media doesn't report it because it doesn't fit the narrative.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Anyone who abandons common sense and science for fantasy and magic entities in the sky is not someone I want in charge.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)discriminate against many different groups of people.
cali
(114,904 posts)How long have you been riding your high horse?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)"Oh, you're ALL guilty."
still_one
(92,492 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)much better than their chances in Mosul right about now.
Ditto a woman's chances. Actually, ditto ANYONE'S chances who wants to live with any sense of freedom.
still_one
(92,492 posts)Even in the most red state there are gays living and working,. Same with atheists. Perhaps you didn't catch the wolf blitzer interview of the survivor of the Oklahoma tornados when he was attributing her survival as an act of God, and she simply told him she was an atheist. Oklahoma is pretty red
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)that causes this kind of response?
still_one
(92,492 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Most of the world's Muslims aren't Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslim. Religion =/= Ethnic Group.
still_one
(92,492 posts)do execute gays that are found out, and women are treated as second class citizens.
It also happens in Pakistan, China, and other places in the world, especially in the jails.
Iran is NOT an Arab country and it also executed people for being gay.
If you think I went "full racist", please alert on me. Who are YOU to judge whether I am a racist or not based on a wording or miswording I made?
Throd
(7,208 posts)Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)His brand of smug, sneering self-superiority won't work for you.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)Hate ads should not go without something to counter them.
I don't see the Sam Harris statement "mother-load of bad ideas" any differently than I see criticism of Christianity though. He doesn't seem to be calling for discrimination against people, which would be completely against the foundation of this country. Calling for constant war, of course, really is the worst idea possible.
There has to be a way to permit the open criticism of anything without that leading to violence here or in another country.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)talks about how Islam is more deadly and dangerous than other religions. Even in a vacuum that would be problematic, but saying that in a country where Muslims (or those identified as them) have been physically attacked because of their religion, discriminated against, had FBI agents send operatives into their houses of worship trying to encourage violence, are portrayed as being violent and backwards in the media, etc., is truly horrible.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)The hate, violence and discrimination that Muslims endure in this country is shameful.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)the FBI teaches its agents that Muslims are inherently violent, where terrorism usually implies Islam (whereas gunning down six people at a Sikh center is just a shooting), where Muslim is used as a political smear, and where its common to hear in the media how bad Islam is. Wed find this kind of stuff disgusting if it was directed at other minority groups. I imagine our descendants will look back at this period and feel outrage.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Where are the Christian states that have a death penalty for their citizens for spoken blasphemy simply for being atheists?
The Jewish states that have a fundamentalist religious authority above the secular authority?
The Buddhist populations who kill their own family members for dating?
The Sikh families who stone their own daughters for being raped?
The Jain terrorist groups taking cities at gunpoint and enforcing strict religious law?
The Hindu riots and murders over pictures of Vishnu?
The Amish suicide bombers, Shinto rockets into neighboring countries, Confucian quasi-governmental agencies with founding documents that call for the utter annihilation of Taiwan?
Only fucking idiots confuse criticism of Islamist extremists with hatred of all 1.6 billion, mostly peacable and reasonable Muslims.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)that's the stock response you get from people who draw no distinction between being annoyed and being beheaded.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Just that right now they are sticking to testy news releases and aggressive tweets rather than the bits with tanks and AK-47s, or even stone-hurling mobs.
Trust me if the Fischers of the world ever get their hands on coercive power I am sure they would indeed follow much the same path. We however make that more plausible rather than less by getting all timid whenever there is a need to criticize religious tyranny coming from one of the other desert monotheisms. By not standing firm and unified against violent Islamic theocracy, we are likely indeed sowing the seeds of future Christian versions by emboldening their loonies with what might be possibly tacitly accepted if they try it. Just now though, that shite is only, or at the very least almost only, coming from one version of religio-craziness.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)If fundie Christians had their way, you would absolutely be beheaded for not being Christian. Phil Robertson would happily have you burned at the stake without a second's thought. We know that because when Christianity has been able to get away with it, that's exactly what it's done. The problem is not Islam, it's fundamentalism.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)This is gonna be good.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Tiller, McVeigh, The Lord's Resistance Army, the Hutaree, the Tamil Tigers (many of whom are Christian), the fucking Irish Troubles, at least part of Naziism That those are rare is purely, entirely and solely because the law constrains them. Given free reign, they would burn you and I so quickly, our doors wouldn't have even hit the ground after being smashed in. There is absolutely zero difference between Phil Robertson and ISIS except the law. That might not fit with your need to paint Islam as uniquely evil but the truth is, they are identical.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)But your claim that we'd have a Christian Theocracy but for it's illegal is the funniest
thing I've ever seen on DU.
DUzy, indeed. Well played.
Sorry, Christofascists. It's AGAINST THE LAW for you to take over.
Oh. My. God. I am literally trembling with laughter.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)it against the law in Saudi Arabia to discriminate against women life would by honky dory for women in Saudi Arabia. If Iran would just make it against the law to kill someone for leaving Islam, why it would be rainbows and circuses there. Why didn't the moderates think of that?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)How can anyone deny that statistically, [insert demographic] is more likely to [do/be]
[something horrible]. Here are the statistics, and numbers dont lie.
Falling back on statistics to smear a particular group is a favorite tactic of the bigot. Yes, there are times when certain demographics will have more of certain bad things than others do. In fact, thats often the case bad stuff isnt doled out uniformly, and different groups often deal with a huge number of different factors (different histories, different wars, different economic situations, different geographic situations, different types of institutional repression, different cultural cycles, etc.). Its the bigot that jumps upon one particular bad thing that at this particular point in time is more common in another demographic than their own and then uses that to smear the entire demographic.
Such a tactic is an enormous affront to not only common decency, but common sense.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)However, as most rational people can plainly see, there is a big difference.
Even the most virulent racist does not claim crime among black demographics is done in the name of blackness and to enforce blackness unwillingly upon others. Or that black criminals are indoctrinated into crime in order to hew to some eternal and unquestionable book that tells them how to be black. The analog however is true of Islamist violence
"Falling back" on facts is a favorite tactic of the logical.
There are many interesting viewpoints on why Islamic fundamentalists are currently more violent and dangerous than any other fundamentalist group. True enough, and disinterested historians can debate that for quite some time. But no sensible person can debate that they ARE currently more violent and dangerous.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Im not sure I understand your point. Smearing all black people for a crime committed by a single black person is wrong in general, but its OK to smear all black people if a black militant does bad things, in your words, in the name of blackness? How does that even begin to make sense? We shouldnt paint an entire group as bad because of the actions of a few bad individuals, unless those few bad individuals claim theyre actions are for the group (while others of the group condemn them), and then its fine to paint the entire group as bad? Thats a terrible standard to use.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)as nothing I've stated or even implied smears all Muslims with the actions of extremists. I have in fact made diametrically opposite points very clearly several times.
What you seem to be struggling most with though is the issue of cause as opposed to attribute. Many racists may claim blacks are inherently more violent and criminal. They see increased criminality as a black attribute, inherent in being black. It's unmitigated bullshit of course, just as (read carefully now!) it would be unmitigated bullshit to say violent extremism is inherent in being Muslim.
I'm sure there are a couple of examples somewhere, but by and large even the most pig ignorant white supremacists do not however claim that black people want to commit crimes to willingly advance and justify the cause of being black - to glorify blackness. Frankly real racists (as opposed to cartoonish strawman racists resorted to by flailing interlocutors as I stand accused of being) are unwilling to extend them that degree of conscious moral agency. They see blacks as subhuman and deficient by nature of their blackness, not as willing advocates of blackness killing in the name of a black cause (there was probably more of this in the Black Panther days before my time, but even then the idea of subhuman animalism was more common among racists than the idea of cultural jihadist). For extremists in Islam, it is excatly opposite.
Islamic extremists are not dangerous lunatics because dangerous lunacy is a Muslim attribute. They are dangerous lunatics because they take the cause of Islam to dangerous and lunatic extremes. They are wilfully killing in the name of Islam, driven by their interpretation of its dogma that they believe not just condones killing but demands it. That's the big difference between the facts of Islamic extremist violence and the facts (sadly yes, facts) of black crime rates. Black crime rates are higher it's true - because of poverty, failed schools, lack of jobs, racism in the law and society at large, population density, segregation, and many other reasons. Islamic extremist violence is more dangerous than Christian extremist violence because far more Islamic extremists are willing, ready and able to kill in the name of their extremism, driven to it by their narrow fundamentalist beliefs about Islam, and funded by quasi governmental and indeed governmental extremist power blocs in some Muslim states.
If that doesn't explain the difference between honestly stating Islamic extremism is more of a problem right now than Christian extremism, and the laughable and sad idea that I'm using the same rationale as white racists, then there is no help that can make you understand.
TLDR read version for the unforgivably dense out there. Islamist loons aren't bad because they are Muslims, but because they are loons in the cause of Islam. Racists (or technically in this case Islamophobes if we ignore the desperate diversion in the post above this one) would have the opposite reasoning.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That's purely because your media doesn't report it because it fucks up the narrative. There has been plenty of fundie Christian terrorism. The problem in the MidEast isn't that it's Islamic, it's that the Muslim version of the KKK is in charge.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)is in charge." Bingo. Extremism is bad, period. Even if some forms of extremism have lower body counts than others.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We should also note that the Christian population in many spots are gone. They had no choce but to flee.
randome
(34,845 posts)Giving children as brides. Stoning women for the 'crime' of being raped. Forcing women to remain clothed at all times. Making it a crime to leave the state religion.
At the very least, one must acknowledge that there are some pretty abhorrent things in Muslim culture today. Not all Muslim culture, but too much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I agree.
salib
(2,116 posts)In fundie LDS. In some Hindu groups. In some Jewish groups. In same "pagan" groups.
What's the real point?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)on both counts - not a liberal, and certainly not in any way a 'bastion' of liberal thought.
Although the underlying premise of this op-ed is very sound.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)There are people here who insist on labeling him a "libertarian," whatever the fuck that means, but Maher seems to think of himself as a liberal.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Granted, he seems to have a unique definition of that word but so does every single libertarian in existence.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)- Matt Rozsa
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)AND the lack of a rational Enlightenment period.
So the West is also to blame for the raging misogyny too?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Right.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)scary high percentage of those who think death is an appropriate penalty for leaving Islam. I'm sure colonialism is completely responsible for that.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Islam's response to caricatures of Allah leading to violent riots.
I don't think you can blame "colonialism.
still_one
(92,492 posts)is a perfect example. Of course it does not just apply to the Arab world but also other cultures.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)for alleged adultery, behead male homosexuals, and ban women from driving.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)We know that because, when they've been able to get away with it, that's exactly what they've done.
The problem with the MidEast isn't Islam, it's that the Muslim version of the KKK is in charge.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Willing to blame the West for every evil in the world.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Maher is Maher. He's an entertainer and he doesn't speak for any group of liberals anywhere.
As for Muslim culture, it is rife with tribalism and misogyny.
The West and America may not be perfect but we are further along the path of Enlightenment when it comes to separating the state from religion and giving equal opportunities for happiness.
tritsofme
(17,422 posts)I don't understand them.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)The fundamentalists of any religion don't want to let people be. They all want to cram their version of religion down our throats.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Oh, wait, I meant to say that I saw a Christian on TV and I turned the channel. That's AT LEAST as troublesome as people who behead others and publish videos of it, right?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)I DON'T think they'd do "the same" here at all, and I cite as examples the same things you'd
try to throw in my face: McVeigh. Dr. Tiller's murder. The Matthew Shepard murder.
Those things are rare enough, and unorganized enough, to mention separately and completely. In other
words, they are not "the same" as ISIS. No, they aren't.
I've heard the steaming pile of bullshit that "these clowns would do the same here" ad infinitum alongside the
wails that guns and ammo are too easily available. Tell me, seriously. Honestly. What are they waiting for?
Here is the uncomfortable truth: Fundy Christians annoy you. They offend you. They insult your sense of whatever
your sense is. But they don't KILL you, and they won't. And you know it.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)When the law hasn't stopped them, that's exactly what they have done. They absolutely WOULD kill you if the law allowed it. I know it full well and if you believe otherwise, you are deluding yourself, possibly out of optimism or possibly because it interferes with your need to paint Islam as uniquely horrible. But make no mistake, you are deluded. They are EXACTLY the same as ISIS.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Some of us do it rationally, others, like yourself, have to draw ridiculous equivalences to countenance horror.
You're the guy who mumbles, "This isn't happening thins isn't happening" in horror movies.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)You're the guy claiming "it can't happen here" as the Fascists start rounding people up. There is a rational person here but it's not you.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)then does that mean that beheadings and mass murder are legal in Iraq and Syria?
You're saying that all that is preventing American Fundies from going a rampage to put Phil Robertson
as the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Fundamentalist Christian States of America is...it's illegal?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)There is nothing in theoretical Islam that is substantially worse, or better, than theoretical Christianity
The vast majority of both groups are not extreme fundamentalists and a danger to others
The minority of both groups who ARE the above both commit egregious and despicable acts in the name of their indoctrinated make believe, but only those extremes.
All safe and happy groupthink so far.
BUT only the wilfully ignorant or mendacious pretend that those minority extremist actions are not far far more prevalent and far far more dangerous, right now, globally, amongst the Muslim population.
Yes the major western democracies like the US are at more legislative and socially normative peril from Christian theocrats, but even we are not at more physical and terrorist-based risk (not that the US has a huge amount of risk from either). And to globalize that view and say the overall physical risk is comparable is absurd. There are no states with widespread, state-sponsored Christian religious purity police as we have Saudi Arabia. There is no state where blaspheming the Christian deity verbally carries a death sentence. There is no Christian ISIL taking chunks of territory by force and imposing biblical law. There are no countries where the state and Christian church are so profoundly linked, with the state subordinate to the church, as in Iran. That is if you ignore the bullshit provenance of convenience of Rome's pedophile enclave being a proper country. Even if you cling to that laughable factoid, I don't think the Vatican is comparable in oppression, of any but altar boys, to Iran etc. Abortion providers and gay nightclubs are occasional targets of extreme Christians and yes that's an egregious bit of heinous fuckery, but their number and range pale by orders of magnitude before the victims of honor killings, blasphemy riots, and theocratic purges from Islam's extremes.
Is this fungible? Sure. 1200 years ago Islam saved civilization through the Christian dark ages, and was probably the more enlightened group for most of the next few centuries. Is it partly the fault of the Western powers as we carved up the Middle East into artificial groupings then took whatever wealth they had for our own while granting them precious little chance to amass more until we needed their dinosaur juice, then we funnelled that wealth into convenient tin-horn tyrannies? Also true. Not that these areas were ever likely to become agricultural OR industrial powerhouses without our interference anyway, but help we surely didn't. But we fucked over the indigenous folks of the Americas too and they are not killing people left and right for the fanged deity's sake. We fucked over the Indian subcontinent and they are more British than the British now, with any sectarian killing both self-contained and often Islamic there too. There are plenty of good, real reasons for Muslims in N Africa, the ME, and Asia to hate the West. Ther are no excuses for mass bombings of civilians there, and even less for oppression and slaughtrer of their own populations for even a hint of rebellion against retrograde theocracy though. And the extremist Christians, just as delusional and gullible and fulminatingly crazy though they may be, simply are doing much less of that than the extremist Muslims. Not zero, but just far far less.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Best post I ever read on this topic. But I have a $1 bet it will get glossed over by the OP and no response given, because its hard to argue with the truth, and the OP knows it.
still_one
(92,492 posts)You did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Don't include me in that "we!"
The "we" that fucked over the Indian subcontinent recently voted George Washington as England's Number One Enemy of all time. Yep, according to a British survey, he was "The Greatest!"
The thing that makes and keeps America strong is that "we" are diverse, and we include in our numbers Muslims, people from that Indian subcontinent, North (and South, and east and west) Africans, Asians, and people from all corners of the globe. Our diversity keeps us in check, despite the efforts of a few intolerant dullards to take us down a wrong path.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Johonny
(20,941 posts)Does an atheist care if you call him an Islamophobe? I think atheist care more if people start equating un-liberal like ethical norms to bigoted cultural standards instead of laws to live by by magical invisible beings? I think the rise of the religious right has left many liberals unafraid to attack cultural standards wrap in religion. There are many defenders of religion but always the discussion is do religions create cultural norms or do cultural norms drive religious interpretation. I think how you view religion in general and how you equate religion in society places many people in this Sam Harris debate. A debate where often it sounds to me like both sides are saying a lot of the same thing using different language. There isn't really much of a debate.
I think it is an interesting debate among liberals. I've read responses from both sides. I think people like Chris Hedges make good points. I think Sam Harris makes some good points. I'm not sure I agree 100% with either camp. Areas where these people see great divides in the other camps view point, I don't see much of a gap. I doubt there is a winner in this argument. Does anyone ever win when arguing about religion I think most issues are not clear cut black. white issues. Words like Muslim is such a loaded word covering such a diverse population and cultural belief system that how you use it and think about religion in general greatly colors how you read each man's argument.
tritsofme
(17,422 posts)At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName. In response, I said: Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonights show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousandsall in the name of Islamthe response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)But don't expect any type of reply from the OP on this little point
get the red out
(13,468 posts)It is quite succinct.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)...the PtB in those countries would allow pro-western riots? Remember, we are talking about countries headed by the Islamic version of the KKK, where media is heavily controlled (how many Muslims in, say, Afghanistan, even know that ISIS has done these things?) and there are literal secret police who will kill you for being insufficiently Islamic. The only thing that really compares is Soviet Russia.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Thanks for a post grounded in the real world and not one we make up in our heads.
still_one
(92,492 posts)discussion a week ago he made clear he was referring to fundamentalists, which he has also been critical of other religions who subscribe to a fundamentalist view
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)....
Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In these countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the UAE, and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.
....
With few exceptions all scholars of Sharia, or Islamic law, interpret homosexual activity as a punishable offence as well as a sin. There is no specific punishment prescribed, however, and this is usually left to the discretion of the local authorities on Islam.
....
Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority, the segregation of women in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on male virility leads adolescent males and unmarried young men to seek sexual outlets with boys younger than themselvesin one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[40] Men have sex with other males so long as they are the penetrators and their partners are boys, or in some cases effeminate men.[41] Liwat is regarded as a temptation,[42] and anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)American liberals are loathe to condemn anything that is also condemned by the Right, lest they be seen as having even the slightest of things in common. The fear of being viewed as in accordance with ANY RW beliefs causes exactly the moral equivalence and equivocation you see every day. To each critique of Islam a disclaimer or equivocation must be applied relating to Christianity, no matter how stupid or incorrect, because again, worse than seeming silly is seeming to agree with the Right.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's not "what is Islam really like" it's "what am I really like."
alp227
(32,073 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)but I think you're absolutely right.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)What I despise are theocratic backwards assholes.
Unfortunately the Middle East is overrun with those kinds of people in positions of power and influence.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and the cabinet is made up of the board members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the House and Senate have been abolished.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)If the law did not prevent him, Phil Robertson would have you burned so quickly that your smashed-in door wouldn't have had time to hit the ground. I know that for a certain fact because every time the law has permitted fundie Christians the chance, that's exactly what they have done.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)What we're talking about is the Islamic version of the KKK holding power.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Nonsense.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)For some reason, Islam gets a pass, whereas Judaism and Christianity do not. It's very inconsistent.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)still_one
(92,492 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)and potentially winnable.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)interpreting their religion correctly
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)or a "rise" of a "new, Liberal Islamophobia."
Bill Maher and Sam Harris are the same cranky, strict atheist, harsh critics of organized religions that they've ALWAYS been.
I get tired of hasty, sloppy analysis from the right and left. It's everywhere.
Gore1FL
(21,164 posts)It isn't Semiticphobia to discuss harsh realities of Judism.
It isn't Chirstianphobia to discuss harsh realities of Christianity.
To turn any criticism into a "phobia" is silly.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank YOU!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If Sonali Kolhatkar has to lie to get their point across, then the point isn't worth making.
There is a HUGE difference between "Muslim-bashing" and saying "it's wrong to execute gay people and apostates." Why is that so hard for people to grasp?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He has been saying stupid things for years so this should not be coming as a suprise.
The fact is we must differentiate between Islamophobia which i have seen in person and is very real here in NYC at times, and questioning religious practice and belief.
I think people are throwing the bigot word out too quickly sometimes but in the end they may not be wrong about Maher. But don't silence critics who make legit points about things that need to change in Islam. As i said before Islam is in need of a reformation.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)He's an anti-vaxxer, pro-bullying and has flirted with germ theory denialism.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Huh?
0rganism
(23,984 posts)i don't know which race is supposed to be the target of Maher's alleged "strain of anti-Muslim racism." From what i've seen, Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and national origins.
As has been observed, Maher does not constitute a "bastion of liberal ideology". And it's not like Maher is exclusively anti-Muslim -- he appears to dislike all religions.
The piece in the OP looks to me like an incoherent and inflammatory article. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but if the article does present any valid critique it's not in the quoted excerpt.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I believe that all humans should be equal. I believe that all humans should be free. I oppose the institutions that oppose such basic concepts. If a religion states that homosexuality is unacceptable, and they're using those passages to justify abuse and discrimination against others, I'm going to oppose that aspect of the religion with every fiber of my being. If a religion states that some imaginary god gave some land to one particular group, and they're using that statement to justify the oppression or expulsion of others, then I'm going to voice my opposition to those beliefs every chance I get. If some religion says that it's OK to kill unbelievers and that women are inferior to men, and people are using those passages to justify murder and oppression, I'm not going to shut up about the evils that the faith is propagating. If a religion states that you are "less" than another person simply because of your family or caste, and that religion is being used to deprive people of their basic right to be treated as equal humans, then I'm going to oppose and fight to undermine those aspects of the faith, to my very last breath.
That doesn't make me anti-Christian, or antisemitic, or Islamophobic, or anti-Hindu. It means that I'm a LIBERAL, and that I do NOT believe violence, oppression, and brutality should EVER be given a free pass simply because it's part of someones culture or faith. If your faith says that you are better than someone else, or that others must be harmed, or that only an "approved" group gets to enjoy the benefits of this world, then your faith or culture is WRONG and needs to be changed.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I can't disagree with anything in this post.
maced666
(771 posts)Can understand.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Just as I have been ANTI Christian, and ANTI Judaism ... All for essentially the same reasons ...
To also commit violence against innocent human beings would only add to my disgust with those Abrahamic faiths ... it's one of the primary reasons I am an atheist ...
Count me as an ANTI theist, in all regards ...
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think this new "topic du jour" of "Everybody Hates Muslims" is forced. I haven't seen any more "Islamophobia" of late than I've seen in the past fourteen years. And it's LIGHT compared to post-Nahn Wun Wun. No one is shooting Sikhs because they think all turbans are alike, after all.
Maher was a Republican Lite (Libertarian who wants to smoke pot) before he became a supporter of Barack Obama. He's hardly a "bastion of liberal ideology." He LIVES at the Playboy Club, treats women as disposable objects (he's honest about that, anyway, with his potential "Three Dates And You're OUT" groupies --doesn't try to play one game while fronting another) and he is a white guy who empathizes in some regard but he has never had "the experience" so he's just parroting the sense of his own acolytes. The fact that some "liberals" love him in his current iteration is because he's saying things they like to hear. He's not stupid--he saw what happened to Dennis Miller. He'll hew to the line because to do otherwise will impact his profit margin.
The whole idea that one sexist mouthing off gives a "liberal veneer to Islamophobia" is the argument I can't buy in this piece. Bill Maher is not "The Icon" I look to in order to figure out what to think. He's one guy with a big mouth, a few funny schticks, and a premium cable show. BFD. Cough, horseshit, cough--one swallow does not a summer make.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Kolhatkar lost me at the corner of "Reza Aslan's response to Bill Maher" and "brilliant".
Muhammed Syed and Sarah Haider of Ex-Muslims of North America exposed Aslan's "brilliant response" as the farce it was:
Maher stated (among other things) that if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS. Maher implied a connection between FGM and violence against women with the Islamic faith, to which the charming Aslan seems to be providing a nuanced counterbalance, calling Maher unsophisticated and his arguments facile. His comments were lauded by many media outlets, including Salon and the Huffington Post.
Although we have become accustomed to the agenda-driven narrative from Aslan, we were blown away by how his undeniably appealing but patently misleading arguments were cheered on by many, with the Washington Posts Erik Wemple going so far as to advise show producers not to put a show-host against Aslan unless your people are schooled in religion, politics and geopolitics of the Muslim world.
Only those who themselves arent very schooled in Islam and Muslim affairs would imply that Aslan does anything but misinform by cherry-picking and distorting facts.
Nearly everything Aslan stated during his segment was either wrong, or technically-correct-but-actually-wrong. We will explain by going through each of his statements in the hopes that Aslan was just misinformed (although its hard for us to imagine that a scholar such as Aslan wouldnt be aware of all this).
Aslan contends that while some Muslim countries have problems with violence and womens rights, in others like Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men and it is therefore incorrect to imply that such issues are a problem with Islam and facile to imply that women are somehow mistreated in the Muslim world.
Let us be clear here: No one in their right mind would claim that Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are a free and open society for women. Happily, a few of them have enshrined laws that have done much to bring about some progress in equality between the sexes. But this progress is hindered or even eroded by the creeping strength of the notoriously anti-woman Sharia courts.
For example:
Indonesia has increasingly become more conservative. (Notoriously anti-women) Sharia courts that were optional have risen to equal status with regular courts in family matters. The conservative Aceh province even legislates criminal matters via Sharia courts, which has been said to violate fundamental human rights.
Malaysia has a dual-system of law which mandates sharia law for Muslims. These allow men to have multiple wives (polygyny) and discriminate against women in inheritance (as mandated by Islamic scripture). It also prohibits wives from disobeying the lawful orders of their husbands.
Bangladesh, which according to feminist Tahmima Anam made real advancements towards equality in its inception, also created a barrier to womens advancement. This barrier? An article in the otherwise progressive constitution which states that women shall have equal rights with men in all spheres of the state and of the public life but in the realm of private affairs (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody), it acknowledges Islam as the state religion and effectively enshrines the application of Islamic law in family affairs. The Constitution thus does nothing to enforce equality in private life.
And finally we come to Turkey, a country oft-cited by apologists due to its relative stability, liberalism, and gender equality. What they consistently choose to ignore is that historically, Turkey was militantly secular. We mean this literally: The countrys founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, created a secular state and pushed Islam out of the public sphere (outlawing polygamy, child marriages, and giving divorce rights to women) through (at times, military) force. He even banned the headscarf in various public sectors and is believed by some to have been an atheist.
Only apologists would ignore the circumstances that led to Turkeys incredible progress and success relative to the Muslim world, and hold it up as an example of Islamic advancement of womens rights. In fact, child marriages (which continue to be widespread in rural Turkey), are often hidden due to the practice of religious marriages (Nikah) being performed without informing secular authorities. Turkey was recently forced to pass a law banning religious marriages with penalties imposed on imams for violations.
Aslans claim that Muslim countries have elected seven women as their heads of state is an example of technically true, actually false a tactic we have often noted among religious apologists.
It is true that there have been seven female heads of state in Muslim-majority countries, but a closer inspection would reveal this has little to do with female empowerment and often has much more to do with the political power of certain families in under-developed parts of the world.
It is well-known that Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was democratically elected in Pakistan. What is not as well-known is that her advancement had much to do with her familys power in her party (Pakistan Peoples Party) and little to do with female empowerment. Her father was once Prime Minister of Pakistan, and she was elected to the position fresh from her exile in the West with little political experience of her own. After her assassination, her nineteen year old son assumed leadership of her political party as was expected by many familiar with the power their family continued to hold.
Similarly, Sheikh Hasina (the current Prime Minister of Bangladesh) is the daughter of the founding father of the country, Sheikh Mujibur-Rehman. Khaleda Zia, the predecessor of Sheikh Hasina, assumed power over her party after the assassination of her husband the seventh President of Bangladesh.
In addition, Megawati Sukarnopotri, former President of Indonesia, was the daughter of Sukarno, the founding father of Indonesia.
To anyone familiar with womens rights around the world, neither Pakistan, Bangladesh, nor Indonesia can be considered states with a stellar track record. It is likely that in these cases, the power of political dynasties was the key factor in their success.
Furthermore, female heads of state were elected democratically in Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and Kosovo. But, as before, a closer inspection reveals a complicated reality. All three states are secular, where religion was forcibly uprooted from the government due to Atatürk (in the case of Turkey) or Communism (in the cases of Kyrgyzstan and Kosovo).
Predictably, Aslan fails to mention any of this.
Finally, we get to Aslans claim that it is actually, empirically, factually incorrect that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a Muslim-country problem. Rather, he believes it is a central African problem. He continues to state that nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
The idea that FGM is concentrated solely in Africa is a huge misconception and bandied about by apologists with citations of an Africa-focused UNICEF report which showed high rates of FGM in African countries. Apologists have taken that to mean that it is *only* Africa that has an FGM problem even though FGM rates have not been studied in most of the Middle East or South and East Asia. Is it an academically sound practice to take a lack of study as proof of the non-existence of the practice? Especially when there is record of FGM common in Asian countries like Indonesia (study) and Malaysia? It is also present in the Bohra Muslim community in India and Pakistan, as well as in the Kurdish community in Iraq Are they to be discounted as African problems as well?
We do not yet have the large scale data to confirm the rates of FGM around the world, but we can safely assume that it is quite a bit more than just an African problem. It is very likely that FGM *did* originate in the Middle East or North Africa, but its extensive prevalence in Muslim-majority countries should give us pause. We are not attempting to paint FGM as only an Islamic problem but rather that Islam does bear some responsibility for its spread beyond the Middle East-North Africa region and for its modern prevalence.
So is there any credence to the claim that Islam supports FGM? In fact, there is. To name two, the major collections of the Hadith Sahih Muslim 3:684 and Abu Dawud 41:5251 support the practice. Of the four major schools of thought in Sunni Islam, two mandate FGM while two merely recommend it. Unsurprisingly, in the Muslim-majority countries dominated by the schools which mandate the practice, there is evidence of widespread female circumcision. Of particular note: None of the major schools condemn the practice.
This isnt the first time Reza has stated half-truths in defense of his agenda. In his book No God But God, he misleads readers about many issues including the age of Muhammads child-bride Aisha. Scripture unanimously cites Aishas betrothal at age 6 or 7 and consummation at 9. Similarly, he quotes Mariya the Copt as being a wife of the prophet when overwhelming evidence points to her being Muhammads concubine.
We believe that Islam badly needs to be reformed, and it is only Muslims who can truly make it into a modern religion. But it is the likes of Reza Aslan who act as a deterrent to change by refusing to acknowledge real complications within the scripture and by actively promoting half-truths. Bigotry against Muslims is a real and pressing problem, but one can criticize the Islamic ideology without treating Muslims as themselves problematic or incapable of reform.
There are true Muslim reformists who are willing to call a spade a spade while working for the true betterment of their peoples but their voices are drowned out by the noise of apologists who are all-too-often aided by the Western left. Those who accept distortions in order to hold on to a comforting dream-world where Islamic fundamentalism is merely an aberration are harming reform by encouraging apologists.
Professional apologetists like Aslan never have anything negative to say about their own religion, and they always have a clever strategy for explaining away all-to-obvious slam dunk examples of their religion's failings. Something tells me Aslan would have looked markedly less brilliant had he been put onscreen next to Syed or Haider instead of bumbling dunderhead unlearned in Islam, the politics of the Muslim world, or apologetics in general.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
samsingh
(17,602 posts)liberals don't need to be fools or ignorant.
Skittles
(153,261 posts)they want forced respect too
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I'll think I'll quote you in the future.
samsingh
(17,602 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He is one of a new class of media politician: the comedian-pundit.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)American Muslims." While I would be careful not to overstate Maher's or Harris's potential influence, I am somewhat worried that their arguments could be misused in this fashion. Associating "Muslims" as a whole group (over 1 billion people) with the likes of ISIS - or the Saudi Wahhabists - is not only inaccurate, but tends to invite hatred and even violent acts toward innocent people.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Author believes Islam is a race.
No need to continue reading after that bit of wisdom.