Islamophobia

[crackerjack]

But for the most part they dont say they do it because christianity or the bible tells them to, and that is what this thread is about

In which case perhaps we should praise Islam for the way its adherents succumb to the evils of nationalism (8000 unarmed men and boys murdered at Srebenica) and tribalism (1million butchered in Rwanda) less than others.

 

[vimothy]

In which case perhaps we should praise Islam for the way its adherents succumb to the evils of nationalism (8000 unarmed men and boys murdered at Srebenica) and tribalism (1million butchered in Rwanda) less than others.

And, of course, there are direct links between European nationalism and totalitarianism in the 1930s and the rise of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism in the 1950s. Islam wasn't the chief influence there. We were.

 

[vimothy]

???

Furthermore, I am talking about Islam, the faith, which incites violence and about actions by Muslims which they say are inspired by Islam.

Sorry, refers to another thread. She makes the same mistakes you do.

the same reason why there are adultrous christians.

Exactly -- you need to go beyond religion to discover the true motivations.

Is there any difference between Wahhabism or Salafism and Islam in general?

 

[droid]

By which you mean the invasion of Iraq. This is also total bullshit.
.

:slanted: Er.. no it doesnt, and no it isnt. Dont put words in my mouth. How would you characterise the US invasion of Vietnam exactly? The firebombing of Tokyo or the carpet bombing of Dresden? Or the acts of the Nazis for that matter? Massive acts of violence perhaps?

Just when you were starting to talk some sense as well...

 

[droid]

By which you mean the invasion of Iraq. This is also total bullshit.

Oh btw - if you dont think that the 'shock and awe' campaign and continued aerial bombardment of Iraq constitutes a 'massive act of violence' then... well what can I say? War is by definition the use of violence to achieve political, economic, or territorial aims.

We may have different views about the outcome, effects and motivations behind the invasion, but you simply can't deny that fact.

 

[droid]

and these were all acts comitted in the name of the god of the bible? if not, how is this relevant?

Maybe not 'in the name of god', but often justified through reference to him.

"In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills."

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 13 April 1923

"it is impossible to know "true motivations"" - now who said that recently?

 

[Mr. Tea]

:slanted: Er.. no it doesnt, and no it isnt. Dont put words in my mouth. How would you characterise the US invasion of Vietnam exactly? The firebombing of Tokyo or the carpet bombing of Dresden? Or the acts of the Nazis for that matter? Massive acts of violence perhaps?

Just when you were starting to talk some sense as well...

No, be fair: we're talking about acts carried out explicitly in the name of God, and none of these things were.

 

[Buick6]

Not not Islamaphobic, in fact I've got some work doing videos for the Islamic Centre where I work.

I do however hate Islamiofascists, most of whom seem to get alot of publicity in the media.

 

[vimothy]

Er.. no it doesnt, and no it isnt. Dont put words in my mouth. How would you characterise the US invasion of Vietnam exactly? The firebombing of Tokyo or the carpet bombing of Dresden? Or the acts of the Nazis for that matter? Massive acts of violence perhaps?

In the context of the conversation we were having, and in the context of the wider debate, I think it was pretty clear we were talking about what's going on right now.

Also, if you are going to talk about "massive acts of state violence" (including defensive wars), why didn't you mention any wars fought by "Muslim" countries?

Oh btw - if you dont think that the 'shock and awe' campaign and continued aerial bombardment of Iraq constitutes a 'massive act of violence' then... well what can I say? War is by definition the use of violence to achieve political, economic, or territorial aims.

We may have different views about the outcome, effects and motivations behind the invasion, but you simply can't deny that fact.

Yes, but let me remind you of what you wrote:

Christians: Their states commit massive acts of violence that aren't directly inspired by their religion.

Muslims: A tiny minority commit minor (in a global scale) acts of violence (arguably) based on a radical interpretation of their religion.

QED - The Muslims are to blame for all the hate and violence in the world.

That doesn't to me look like you are talking about the past. That to me looks like you are comparing "Muslims" to "Christians" and saying that "Christians" (represented by Christian states) commit massive acts of violence, whereas "Muslims" commit negligable acts of violence, and so really there is no reason to be worried about "Muslims", in fact you should really be worried about "Christians". I interpreted that as making the opposite mistake to polz's assertion that there is something wrong with Islam: that there is nothing wrong in the Islamic world, but that there is something hugely wrong with the West.

If you compare "Muslim" violence to "Christian" violence and say that "Muslim" violence is marginal compared to "Christian" violence, then I think you're ignoring reality in the hope that it will go away if you stop looking at it. But if that isn't what you were doing and you realise that there are serious problems in the Middle East that need to be addressed, for the benefit of the Middle East and the rest of the world, then I hold my hands up.

 

[droid]

No, be fair: we're talking about acts carried out explicitly in the name of God, and none of these things were.

Are we? Are you saying that every act of 'terror' or violence committed by Muslims is carried out in the name of god? Or motivated purely by Islamic beliefs? Cos thats what Polz seems to be saying - and its bullshit.

This is the same argument as last time... why are Islamic states so cruel and undemocratic? Must be purely because of their religion and culture - nothing to do with political, structural and historical causes. Why do Muslims commit acts of violence against us? must be purely because of the inherently violent nature of their religion - nothing to do with political, structural and historical causes... its an argument as old as politics and serves the interests of power well. The enemy is always irrational and motivated by evil.

Muslim terrorists distort religion to justify and encourage violence. States use patriotism and jingoism to do the same. Both explicitly justify their actions in reference to a higher power - American history in particular is littered with references to 'Manifest Destiny' and 'the will of god'. To the point where an American scholar can today seriously ask the question: "Was the advent of the Europeans in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians?"...

 

[droid]

In the context of the conversation we were having, and in the context of the wider debate, I think it was pretty clear we were talking about what's going on right now.

Also, if you are going to talk about "massive acts of state violence" (including defensive wars), why didn't you mention any wars fought by "Muslim" countries?

Ahem!

Deaths due to wars in the 20th century

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm

And thats just military casualties. The only 'Muslim' war featured is Iran/Iraq. Not only that, but Christians were involved in every single one of these conflicts, including Iran/Iraq, whereas Muslims were involved in only one. Acts of terrorism don't even factor.

That doesn't to me look like you are talking about the past. That to me looks like you are comparing "Muslims" to "Christians" and saying that "Christians" (represented by Christian states) commit massive acts of violence, whereas "Muslims" commit negligable acts of violence, and so really there is no reason to be worried about "Muslims", in fact you should really be worried about "Christians". I interpreted that as making the opposite mistake to polz's assertion that there is something wrong with Islam: that there is nothing wrong in the Islamic world, but that there is something hugely wrong with the West.

Yes - I was illustrating the idiocy of the entire argument - but I wasn't claiming there was nothing wrong with the Islamic world - just that, if you want to start talking about violent cultures and religions, then in comparison with the West the Islamic world is an amateur...

If you compare "Muslim" violence to "Christian" violence and say that "Muslim" violence is marginal compared to "Christian" violence, then I think you're ignoring reality in the hope that it will go away if you stop looking at it. But if that isn't what you were doing and you realise that there are serious problems in the Middle East that need to be addressed, for the benefit of the Middle East and the rest of the world, then I hold my hands up.

Yes there are serious problems in the middle East. Yes, they need to be addressed (but not through massive acts of violence). But Muslim violence IS marginal compared to Christian violence, and there is also something fundamentally wrong with how the West interacts in the world.

 

[vimothy]

Ahem!

Deaths due to wars in the 20th century

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm

And thats just military casualties. The only 'Muslim' war featured is Iran/Iraq. Not only that, but Christians were involved in every single one of these conflicts, including Iran/Iraq, whereas Muslims were involved in only one. Acts of terrorism don't even factor.

Of course acts of terrorism don't factor -- that's a chart of casualties from military conflicts.

Muslims were also invloved in WWII, as you surely know, which was started by a modern radical secular type state (Nazi Germany), and fought along a major front with another modern radical secular state (USSR). Christianity and Islam have little to do with WWII in any causal sense. Iran/Iraq was no more "Muslim" than WWII was "Christian". In fact it was directly analogous -- a pointless war fought by political radicals for atavistic reasons.

The greatest killer in the last century was the stupid ideology (or stupid ideologies that vary the theme ever so slightly) that we developed in Europe and then exported all round the globe, to China, to Russia, to Central Asia, to South America, and of course, to the Middle East: the faith of the "movements of a new type", to use Lenin's phrase; the politics of a new era industrialised death and a society of radical purity. (Mao alone is responsible for more deaths than WWII).

In any case, you ignore my point: What is happening right now? State violence directed towards the citizens (democide) in the West is pretty much over (poss. barring the war on drugs), and the democratic peace now holds. In the Middle East, however, the situation is very different. It is not a judgement on Islam to say that, but it is a judgement on Middle Eastern politics: then they read Fichte, now they read Qtub. Little has changed, and little will change.

Yes - I was illustrating the idiocy of the entire argument - but I wasn't claiming there was nothing wrong with the Islamic world - just that, if you want to start talking about violent cultures and religions, then in comparison with the West the Islamic world is an amateur...

We both have long histories of violence and imperialism. I'm not sure that there is any point in trying to hold a competition. "Ahh, but Muslims killed more in the 15th century." "Yes, but Christians killed more in the 16th". The real evil of the last century was not the West (Britain and America, e.g., never fell to fascist violence), but the various totalitarian-atavistic politics that still today dominate the Middle East, to the detriment of the Mid East itself and the West.

Yes there are serious problems in the middle East. Yes, they need to be addressed (but not through massive acts of violence). But Muslim violence IS marginal compared to Christian violence, and there is also something fundamentally wrong with how the West interacts in the world.

Huggy-bunny crap: Muslim violence is not marginal compared to Christian violence today. There is almost no violence carried out explicitly in the name of Jesus today (bombing abortion clinics, excepted), while there is plenty of violence carried out in the name of Allah. Is this wrong? Can you point to any terrorist atrocities carried out in the name of establishing a totalitarian Christian state? Can you point to any "Muslim" states with comparable GDPs to "Christian" states? Can you point to any "Muslim" states that receive comparable levels of "Christian" immigrants to "Christian" states? Can you point to any "Muslim" states with solid democratic institutions?

Also, I can't help but feel that this,

Yes there are serious problems in the middle East. Yes, they need to be addressed (but not through massive acts of violence).

basically states that we expect Middle Eastern regimes to just vanish in the desert mist.

 

[vimothy]

The truly imortant distinction is not between Christian or Muslim, or the West and the Middle East, with the conclusion that the West is worse than the Middle East or Christianity is worse than Islam (because that just reprises polz's idiocy from the other direction), but between liberalism and totalitarianism.

 

[vimothy]

Are you saying that every act of 'terror' or violence committed by Muslims is carried out in the name of god? Or motivated purely by Islamic beliefs? Cos thats what Polz seems to be saying - and its bullshit.

Agree with this. It is not clear what "Muslim violence" would or should describe. It could be ethnic "Muslim" teenagers drinking, smoking spliffs and shouting at old people on the street corner. It could be acts of state repression in Cairo. It could be Pakistan fighting in Kashmir. It could be Jordanian jihadis torturing "apostates" in Iraq. It could be Kurdish terrorists detonating bombs in Istanbul. It is impossible to know with any certainty what is in the mind of a murderer as he pulls the trigger or brings down the blade. And we can see by analogy that looking at Islam for motivation in all cases is wrong: we wouldn't describe the Holocaust as Christian, nor would we describe riots in Paris as "Catholic riots" if the rioters were white.

Clearly, every act of terror or violence committed in the Islamic world is not inspired by Islam. Yet acts of terror certainly are committed in the name of Islam, justified by reference to Islamic scripture, blessed or encouraged by extremist ulema or preachers. The rise of these acts of terror have paralleled a fall in "secular" terrorism and the atrophy of Nasserism, Arab socialism, pan-Arabism and the populist revolutionary currents of the Middle East in the latter half of the last century, as Arab nationalist governments have sclerotised into stagnant and repressive regimes that have failed to fulfill their hoped for promise. Therefore I feel that most radical Islamic violence is merely the same as the old Arab radical violence. Ideology is the excuse and it provides leverage. Lust for power, resentment, anger, hatred, mob-mentality, envy: these are the reasons that people kill for, and they always have been.

This is the same argument as last time... why are Islamic states so cruel and undemocratic? Must be purely because of their religion and culture - nothing to do with political, structural and historical causes. Why do Muslims commit acts of violence against us? must be purely because of the inherently violent nature of their religion - nothing to do with political, structural and historical causes... its an argument as old as politics and serves the interests of power well. The enemy is always irrational and motivated by evil.

But the enemy sometimes (frequently, in fact) is irrational and motivated by "evil". Not to put too fine a point on it, but how else can you characterise the mass slaughter of the 20th century -- rational?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Are we? Are you saying that every act of 'terror' or violence committed by Muslims is carried out in the name of god? Or motivated purely by Islamic beliefs? Cos thats what Polz seems to be saying - and its bullshit.

What? Are you seriously claiming that acts like 9/11 have *nothing* to do with religion? Because the perpetrators and their supporters, for one thing, would have something to say about that...
Edit mk. 2: OK, so you probably aren't. But I'm not saying they *all* are, because I'm not Polz.

I think it's rather disingenuous for people to just repeat "It's not motivated by religion, it's all to do with politics", because to Islamists religion IS politics. They are one and the same.

Edit: I'm certainly not claiming that every act of violence committed by Muslims is "carried out in the name of god". Iraq, under Saddam, was a Muslim country with a secular leadership and it managed to carry out plenty of violence that wasn't in the name of god (although much of that violence was of a sectarian nature with religious differences as an 'excuse' - like the Celtic/Rangers rivalry writ large). But when a Muslim commits an act of violence with the name of God on his lips as he swings the sword or presses the plunger, I'd say it's only fair to call it a religiously motivated act. Of course, there could be all kinds of other factors that have led to his adoption of an extremist ideology - I don't think otherwise-sane Muslims just wake up one day and decide to go on jihad, because of the 'unique violence and irrationality of their religion'.

Edit mk. 3: there's a lovely little pub just off Brick Lane that has thankfully been refurbished and reopened since it was firebombed a few years ago - with people in it, I believe - by some local Asian kids. Now I'm not blind to the fact that they were probably just a bunch of Banglatown rudeboy thugs and not 'Muslims' any more than the average Nation Front bonehead is a Christian. However not far from there is the big mosque on Whitechapel Road; a friend of mine and some of his mates were started on by a group of young Muslim blokes emerging from there for the 'crime' of being seen coming out of a bar during ramadan - which is pretty worrying if that's in any way indicative of the attitudes being promoted in that mosque. So I think it's important to keep distinct violent or otherwise antisocial behaviour that happens to be committed by people who are of 'Muslim origin', and the 'real deal' of actions inspired by religious fundamentalism.

 

[vimothy]

Here's a pertinent example of what I'm talking about:

Baghdad’s fragile peace was shattered yesterday when explosives strapped to two women with Down’s syndrome were detonated by remote control in crowded pet markets, killing at least 91 people in the worst attacks that the capital had experienced for almost a year.​

Is that rational? Understandable? Do structural and / or political causes come into it? Is that anything to do with Islam? Or is it more of the same atavistic cruelty that has dominated all human history?

 

[Gavin]

Here's a pertinent example of what I'm talking about:

Baghdad’s fragile peace was shattered yesterday when explosives strapped to two women with Down’s syndrome were detonated by remote control in crowded pet markets, killing at least 91 people in the worst attacks that the capital had experienced for almost a year.​

Is that rational? Understandable? Do structural and / or political causes come into it? Is that anything to do with Islam? Or is it more of the same atavistic cruelty that has dominated all human history?

It's abhorrent, but why is it irrational?

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's abhorrent, but why is it irrational?

Well it rather depends on what you mean by rational and irrational, doesn't it?

If you accept that it is desirable (or even necessary) to kill and maim a load of unarmed people, then it's a perfectly rational thing to do. However I think it's reasonable to question *why* someone wants to kill and maim a load of people they've probably never met and certainly never been harmed by. So you go one step further back along the chain and ask how someone could benefit from this: perhaps they're hoping to foment civil war for the purposes of increasing their own power. Which could be described as rational: horrible, but rational.

 

[Gavin]

Well it rather depends on what you mean by rational and irrational, doesn't it?

If you accept that it is desirable (or even necessary) to kill and maim a load of unarmed people, then it's a perfectly rational thing to do. However I think it's reasonable to question *why* someone wants to kill and maim a load of people they've probably never met and certainly never been harmed by. So you go one step further back along the chain and ask how someone could benefit from this: perhaps they're hoping to foment civil war for the purposes of increasing their own power. Which could be described as rational: horrible, but rational.

Exactly. Vimothy has done this before, where he's refused to say this or that terrorist attack could have a reason behind it (which is what I mean by rational). I'm not sure what the agenda behind that is, that asking why people would do such a thing somehow legitimates it perhaps? Plenty of the worst violence has been rational.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I love the way you lump together a set of at best tenously connected processes, provide no empirical evidence to show that they are even occuring, and then lay resonsibility for the whole dastardly plot on a set of philosophical/economic ideas - neoliberalism.

Each one of these processes you claim needs to be empirically validated, historically situated, and causally explained. But i guess its much easier to conflate them into one grand scheme by the sinister neo-liberal cabal to exploit the world! Not content with impoverishing the lower classes in the U.S., consigning them to misery and destitution 'by stealth', the neo-liberals seek to extend their tentacles overseas by insiduously fostering islamaphobia as a cover for their true intentions?!

Using bullshit terms like "neo-liberal class war" has virtually no analytic value, and in the process obscures a far more complex reality.

Well Gavin, I'm interested to hear what you have to say to this.....