Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[Fragony]

Mayor Bloomberg also declined to comment for that article, so he must be evil too. Seriouly, how can you slam them for avoiding comment to a Rupert Murdoch paper when they're in the middle of a whipped-up firestorm?

Sounds to me like Patterson is doing the right thing. Although a muslim-friendly gay bar still rocks.

It's hilarious, but if they decide to see it as an act of agression (and they would be right, it is, that gay-bar is a big screw you) and play innocence lost the argument turns in their favor, funny as hell but not very smart. If you think it's a good idea that put a that gay-bar next to it you must already have some doubts about this mosque being what they say it is, as that would be pretty disrespectful if you don't care about the mosque's location.

[Lemur]

If you think it's a good idea that put that gay-bar next to it you must already have some doubts about this mosque being what they say it is, as that would be pretty disrespectful if you don't care about the mosque's location.

I find your attempts to summarize my position amusing. Not very accurate, but good enertainment value.

I believe in the Bill of Rights and the primacy of property rights. You might want to read up on both before typing again.

Rauf has every right to create a mosque in a property which he or his foundation own. And someone else has every right to create a gay bar next to it. This is fighting freedom with freedom, rather than reverting to some sort of tub-thumping populist panic, the mode your quoted bloggers seem to prefer.

[Fragony]

I find your attempts to summarize my position amusing. Not very accurate, but good enertainment value.

I believe in the Bill of Rights and the primacy of property rights. You might want to read up on both before typing again.

Rauf has every right to create a mosque in a property which he or his foundation own. And someone else has every right to create a gay bar next to it. This is fighting freedom with freedom, rather than reverting to some sort of tub-thumping populist panic, the mode your quoted bloggers seem to prefer.

Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.

[Lemur]

Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.

Your use of pronouns is confusing at best. I'm fine with gay bars next to mosques, and I'd like to see them next to the Westboro Baptist Church as well. My chief complaint against Islam (as it is currently practiced in most of the world) has to do with the treatment of women and gays, so let's put some battered women's shelters next to Rauf's mosque as well.

That said, you're getting sidetracked. Remember, this is all about how Rauf's mosque is a secret triumphalist plot to humiliate America. Or something like that, depending on which hysterical panic-monger you're giving credence to.

[Skullheadhq]

I'm fine with gay bars next to mosques, and I'd like to see them next to the Westboro Baptist Church as well.

I would love to see that happen.

[Fragony]

Sorry if my my English is kinda lacking Lemur, I just don't need it all that much. How do you know how someone pronounces what is written anyway. My French is much better.

[rvg]

Sure he does, but would you normally go all rofltov if they build a gaybar for muslims next to a mosque.

I remember Jon Stewart covering a similar event: a group of muslims bult a large mosque somewhere in the backwoods of rural Texas. Their neighbor, a cow farmer, didn't take very kindly to that and promptly switched from raising cows to raising pigs. Next thing you know, there were weekly pig races every Friday to coinside with the prayer schedule. Now, raising pigs in NYC is not practical, but like Lemur mentioned, a gay bar would do very nicely.

[Fragony]

I remember Jon Stewart covering a similar event: a group of muslims bult a large mosque somewhere in the backwoods of rural Texas. Their neighbor, a cow farmer, didn't take very kindly to that and promptly switched from raising cows to raising pigs. Next thing you know, there were weekly pig races every Friday to coinside with the prayer schedule. Now, raising pigs in NYC is not practical, but like Lemur mentioned, a gay bar would do very nicely.

That ones are the people who are from whateversta they were just born there, they don't get millions from very shady people. USA is being just as naive as Europe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wonder if the Hassan incident has caused any critical reassessment of this. We've seen what happens when the military bends over to placate the Muslims. Real Americans get shot to death....

Your post seems to imply that Muslims are not "Real Americans." I very SINCERELY hope that that was an accident of proximity in phrasing.

Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.

I think that's a false equivalency seamus. And criticism of islam is only based in part on threats of terrorism--most people have issues with how common anti-semitism is and how women are treated in islamic cultures. Not acknowledging issues like that is much worse than painting with too broad a brush--why would it be just as foolish? One is essentially a failure of statistics, the other is blindly complicit with human rights violations.

[PanzerJaeger]

Your post seems to imply that Muslims are not "Real Americans." I very SINCERELY hope that that was an accident of proximity in phrasing.

Failing to acknowlege that our current threats often stem from persons who are from an Islamic background and factor that into our response would be foolish. Marginalizing an entire religious tradition in a country that was, at least in part, FOUNDED on the ideal of religious freedom would be just as foolish.

As I said in post #206, a true Islamic lifestyle is incompatible with the American (and Western) way of life. That's not to say that there aren't millions of 'Muslims' in America that adhere to a highly diluted Islam-lite.

Major Hassan was not what I would consider a real American; the soldiers he shot to death were. He was, however, a real Muslim – adhering to the proscribed Qu’ranic teachings about cultural deviance.

[Reenk Roink]

I think that's a false equivalency seamus. And criticism of islam is only based in part on threats of terrorism--most people have issues with how common anti-semitism is and how women are treated in islamic cultures. Not acknowledging issues like that is much worse than painting with too broad a brush--why would it be just as foolish? One is essentially a failure of statistics, the other is blindly complicit with human rights violations.

Your characterization of one as a "failure of statistics" and the other as "blindly complicit with human rights violations" is ABSOLUTELY laughable. Not marginalizing an entire religion based on the actions of a few members like Seamus so wisely suggests is the right and nice thing to do, and painting with too broad a brush is both factually and politically incorrect. In fact the one disagreement I might have with Seamus is that they are not just as foolish, no, the former is MUCH LESS foolish than the latter.

This is beginning to remind me of that ridiculous Church bashing thread. The ridiculousness of it only eased by the inefficacy of such criticisms on the two largest and most influential religions in the world, may God preserve them.

On the other issues except terrorism which you tried to give to justify this marginalization of Islam (? - that's probably (hopefully) not what you're doing, but damn, it sure sounded like it), the women issue is a legitimate problem in the Muslim world though overexagerrated, but as for Muslim anti-semitism, I posted before on this and it seems to have to do in most part with the geopolitical issue with Israel, which is why Lebanese Christians have the exact same view of Jews as Lebanese Muslims (0% favorable) and why Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah now more than Lebanese Sunni Muslims (all on Pew Global Research). Basing a criticism of Islam on Muslim anti-semitism feelings seems tenuous.

Either way, I'm pretty sure one could take the Seamus route and show that the actions of a minority. You're better off if you do want to criticize the religion itself attack at it's doctrines or scriptures than on actions of a minority of followers. Though of course don't be surprised when you are met with disagreements about your interpretations and exegesis.

The ONLY problem with Seamus's post is that he seemed to imply that the greatest threat to America with regards to terrorism is from Islamic terrorism. THIS IS a failure of statistics:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terr...m2002_2005.htm

Pretty clearly shows that the number of terrorist attacks caused by Muslims is quite low.

In Europe, the proportion of attacks from Islamic terrorists is even lower:

http://www.europol.europa.eu/ (go to publications)

Of course, due to 9/11 being by far the most destructive attack on American soil in terms of loss of life, it's understandable why more attention is payed to radical Islam. But the facts state that since then terrorism really simply has not come from Islamic sources in any significant degree:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06...ization.study/

A small number of Muslim-Americans have undergone radicalization since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the study found. It compiled a list of 139 individuals it categorized as "Muslim-American terrorism offenders" who had become radicalized in the U.S. in that time -- a rate of 17 per year.

"Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization," said Charles Kurzman, professor of sociology at UNC, in the statement. "This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11."

150 odd some radicalized individuals and 36 murders seems quite low figures for the stress the media, the politicians, and society as a whole place on Islamic terrorism. Granted, terrorism is a much bigger problem in countries like Iraq, but again, this seems ultimately tied in to the geopolitical issue of the invasion in 2003 and so such a criticism of Islam on this basis is again is tenuous.

If this isn't enough and you want to go the way of trying to make a case of Muslim support for terrorism (like Sam Harris retardedly did to justify nuclear attacks in the Muslim world in The End of Faith - good god I was hoping that the Church would reinstate the Index when reading that book ), well, unfortunately, that avenue itself is a failure of statistics because it doesn't show much:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ls/index.html/

As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You are completely wrong and off track reenk.

When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali--Infidel

But the kids at madrassah were tough. They fought. One girl, who was about eight years old, they called kintirleey, "she with the clitoris." I had no idea what a clitoris was, but the kids didn't even want to be seen with this girl. They spat on her and pinched her; they rubbed sand in her eyes, and once they caught her and tried to bury her in the sand behind the school. The madrassah teacher didn't help. Once in a while he called her dammin, dunce, and kintirleey, too.

My teenage cousin Sanyar used to pick me up after madrassah. One day she arrived just as a girl hit me in the face. Sanyar took me home and told the story. "Ayaan didn't even defend herself," she said in horror. "Coward!" my family jeered.

The next day Sanyar waited for me outside the madrassah with another teenager, the older sister of the girl who had hit me the day before. They caught hold of the two of us and tugged us over to an open

11N1-1.U£L • ji

space, then ordered us to fight. "Scratch her eyes out. Bite her," Sanyar hissed at me. "Come on, coward, think of your honor."

The other girl got the same encouragement. We flew at each other, fists tight, hitting, wrestling, pulling each other's hair, biting. "Ayaan, never cry!" Sanyar called out. The other children cheered us on. When they let us stop, our dresses were torn and my lip was bleeding, but Sanyar was delighted. "I don't want you to ever let another child hit you or make you cry," she said. "Fight. If you don't fight for your honor, you're a slave." Then, as we walked away, the other girl shouted after me, "Kintirleey!" Sanyar winced. I looked at her, horror dawning on me. I was like that other girl? I, too, had that filthy thing, a kintir?

In Somalia, like many countries across Africa and the Middle East, little girls are made "pure" by having their genitals cut out. There is no other way to describe this procedure, which typically occurs around the age of five. After the child's clitoris and labia are carved out, scraped off, or, in more compassionate areas, merely cut or pricked, the whole area is often sewn up, so that a thick band of tissue forms a chastity belt made of the girl's own scarred flesh. A small hole is carefully situated to permit a thin flow of pee. Only great force can tear the scar tissue wider, for sex.

Female genital mutilation predates Islam. Not all Muslims do this, and a few of the peoples who do are not Islamic. But in Somalia, where virtually every girl is excised, the practice is always justified in the name of Islam. Uncircumcised girls will be possessed by devils, fall into vice and perdition, and become whores. Imams never discourage the practice: it keeps girls pure.

Many girls die during or after their excision, from infection. Other complications cause enormous, more or less lifelong pain. My father was a modern man and considered the practice barbaric. He had always insisted that his daughters be left uncut. In this he was quite extraordinarily forward-thinking. Though I don't think it was for the same reason, Mahad, who was six, had also not yet been circumcised.

Not long after that first fight of mine at the madrassah, Grandma decided that the time was right for us to undergo the necessary and proper dignity of purification. My father was in jail and my mother was away for long periods, but Grandma would ensure that the old traditions would be respected in the old ways.

After she made the arrangements, Grandma was cheerful and friendly all week long. A special table was prepared in her bedroom, and various
•^ J^ " ^ iVUUtL 1 lit^i JL iti

aunts, known and unknown, gathered in the house. When the day itself came I was not frightened, just curious. I had no idea what was going to happen, except that there was a festive atmosphere in the house and we— all three of us—were going to be cleansed. I wouldn't be called kintirleey anymore.

Mahad went first. I was driven out of the room, but after a while I stole back to the door and watched. Mahad was on the floor, with his head and arms on Grandma's lap. Two women were holding down his spread-eagled legs, and a strange man was bending down between them.

The room was warm and I could smell a mixture of sweat and frankincense. Grandma was whispering in Mahad's ears, "Don't cry, don't stain your mother's honor. These women will talk about what they have seen. Grit your teeth." Mahad wasn't making a sound, but tears rolled down his face as he bit into Grandma's shawl. His face was clenched and twisted in pain.

I couldn't see what the stranger was doing, but I could see blood. This frightened me.

I was next. Grandma swung her hand from side to side and said, "Once this long kintir is removed you and your sister will be pure." From Grandma's words and gestures I gathered that this hideous kintir, my clitoris, would one day grow so long that it would swing sideways between my legs. She caught hold of me and gripped my upper body in the same position as she had put Mahad. Two other women held my legs apart. The man, who was probably an itinerant traditional circumciser from the blacksmith clan, picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it, like Grandma milking a goat. "There it is, there is the kintir," one of the women said.
Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests, Grandma's words of comfort and encouragement. "It's just this once in your life, Ayaan. Be brave, he's almost finished." When the sewing was finished, the man cut the thread off with his teeth.

That is all I can recall of it.

But I do remember Haweya's bloodcurdling howls. Though she was the youngest—she was four, I five, Mahad six—Haweya must have

struggled much more than Mahad and I did, or perhaps the women were exhausted after fighting us, and slipped, because the man made some bad cuts on Haweya's thighs. She carried the scars of them her whole life.

I must have fallen asleep, for it wasn't until much later that day that I realized that my legs had been tied together, to prevent me from moving to facilitate the formation of a scar. It was dark and my bladder was bursting, but it hurt too much to pee. The sharp pain was still there, and my legs were covered in blood. I was sweating and shivering. It wasn't until the next day that my Grandma could persuade me to pee even a little. By then everything hurt. When I just lay still the pain throbbed miserably, but when I urinated the flash of pain was as sharp as when I had been cut.

It took about two weeks for us to recover. Grandma tended to us constantly, suddenly gentle and affectionate. She responded to each anguished howl or whimper, even in the night. After every tortured urination she washed our wounds carefully with warm water and dabbed them with purple liquid. Then she tied our legs again and reminded us to stay completely still or we would tear, and then the man would have to be called again to sew us back up.

After a week the man came and inspected us. He thought that Mahad and I were doing well, but said Haweya needed to be resewn. She had torn her wound while urinating and struggling with Grandma. We heard it happening; it was agony for her. The entire procedure was torture for all of us, but undoubtedly the one who suffered the most was Haweya.

Mahad was already up and about, quite healed, when the man returned to remove the thread he had used to sew me shut. This was again very painful. He used a pair of tweezers to dig out the threads, tugging on them sharply. Again, Grandma and two other women held me down. But after that, even though I had a thick, bumpy scar between my legs that hurt if I moved too much, at least my legs didn't have to be tied together anymore, and I no longer had to lie down without moving all day.

It took Haweya another week to reach the stage of thread removal, and four women had to hold her down. I was in the room when this happened. I will never forget the panic in her face and voice as she screamed with everything in her and struggled to keep her legs closed.

Haweya was never the same afterward. She became ill with a fever for several weeks and lost a lot of weight. She had horrible nightmares, and during the day began stomping off to be alone. My once cheerful, playful little sister changed. Sometimes she just stared vacantly at nothing for hours. We all started wetting our beds after the circumcision. In Mahad's case, it lasted a long time.

etc.

The issue with the debates on this topic are that some people (almost pigheadedly) act as if "Islam" is being used a sentence in the same way that "Christianity" would be used. This is a blatant comprehension error that should be obvious. Arguing technical definitions is facile. Words are defined by their usage.

So what happens is:

Person A: "I criticize islam thus, *something about the above passage for example, or anti-semitism or terrorism (which I de-emphasized in my post so I don't know why you talked about it so much)* aka practices in various countries that are culturally tied to the religion of islam

Person B: There's no basis for that in the koran. Islam can be a beautiful "secularized" religion like christianity is today, and has been in history and often is today.

Basically, person B is focusing on the fact that person A's list of problems of islam could be misinterpreted. This is true, and many people do. Many people overgeneralize when they talk about it. Over generalization is pervasive. Atheists paint christians with a broad brush, christians paint atheists with a broad brush. Sometimes it leads to friction. And I'm sure it's nasty and stuff to have that kind of friction in our own precious little countries. But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems (even if you think they are "overexaggarated" as you dismissively say).

You have to understand exactly what you're saying reenk. That someone who doesn't have precise knowledge of how many secular-islam muslims there are is more foolish than someone who ignores female circumcision because they have accepted relativism for stupid reasons.

[Andres]

You are completely wrong and off track reenk.

When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.

Is that really so?

If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.

"Islam" is not = " "fundamentalist" Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today"

Yes, there are real problems. Let's not create an additional problem by using "Islam" and "fundamentalist Islam" as synonyms. It's important to make the distinction between religious fundamentalist nutjobs and moderate, reasonable muslims. That's got nothing to do with "political correctness", but more with intellecutal honesty and fairness.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is that really so?

If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.

"Islam" is not = " "fundamentalist" Islam as it is interpreted and practiced today"

Yes, there are real problems. Let's not create an additional problem by using "Islam" and "fundamentalist Islam" as synonyms. It's important to make the distinction between religious fundamentalist nutjobs and moderate, reasonable muslims. That's got nothing to do with "political correctness", but more with intellecutal honesty and fairness.

I don't have an issue with that really andres. It is certainly potentially misleading--although I think you have to be obstinate not to see what people are really referring too.

My beef is the people who hijack any critism of fundamentalist islam and yammer on about how the criticism is islamaphobic. It's a footnote that has been elevated to being the whole debate. Can't we focus on what's really important? We have had threads on this very forum where an issue with fundamentalist islam was raised and people were unwilling to criticize because (to paraphrase) "I'm uncomfortable that islamaphobes are supporting it".

Focusing on a relatively unimportant part of the argument is not intellectually honest. Relativism is a disease of the mind.


*****

Look, there have been quite a few anti-muslim attacks in our countries. I remember seeing a bit on 60 minutes about one how one of our best cia agents was falsely accused and her citizenship revoked after 9/11 due to anti-muslim sentiment. Combating that is important. But you have to have a sense of perspective when you decide on what to emphasize. The incidents are in the 100's--and they don't happen as a result of the reasoned arguments made against fundamentalist islam that just say "islam" instead. It is not a reason to stifle debate--but that's what I have seen consistently. The political lines have been drawn, and many peoples sole comment on issues far more serious than local anti-muslim sentiment is to chuck a rock with "right wing nutjob islamaphobe" written on it over to the other side.

[Reenk Roink]

You are completely wrong and off track reenk.

No, I don't think I've ever been more right in my entire life. You CERTAINLY haven't shown me otherwise either, as we will deal with below...

When people say "the problem with Islam", they mean, quite precisely, "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam as it is interpreted and practiced today". There are real problems.

OK?

For god's sake who the hell is denying that there are real problems? Who? The problem comes with people who make sweeping generalizations in feeble attempts "to show the real problems". It is sad, as I think some of them are unaware of how much their approach is backfiring on them.

Hirsi Ali quote - etc.

See, one thing I don't like about myself is that I actually bother to read what people post when I get engaged into a discussion out of courtesy even though my brain screams don't waste your time. When I saw the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I knew what to expect. As I read, the thing that I instantly drew parallels to was Louis's graphic story about a child being sodomized by a priest (and him smuggling in the 10000 kids figure there to somehow imply that 10000 cases were all of the most grotesque sodomy that he described). I mean, do you guys think this is at all convincing to your interlocutor? They just get annoyed by the appeal to empathy and the unnecessary length of the content.

So there is FGM practiced the Muslim world. It does even get support from Muslims, including leaders. Does this in any way excuse the flagrant factually and politically incorrect generalizations made by some posters? No. When the root causes of Problem X are shown to be something different from the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers, is the criticism of Islam based on the occurrence and justification of X by some Muslims still valid? No, it is rightly called tenuous. Of course people like Hirsi Ali will still go and spout off incorrect factoids about the frequency and proportion of Islamic terrorism in America for a very clear political agenda, but people who are actually aware of the truth will call out such demagoguery.

The issue with the debates on this topic are that some people (almost pigheadedly) act as if "Islam" is being used a sentence in the same way that "Christianity" would be used.

First, who is being pigheaded about it? Second, they shouldn't be pigheaded about it? Rather, I say people should be more particular about their choice of words...

This is a blatant comprehension error that should be obvious. Arguing technical definitions is facile. Words are defined by their usage.

Trust me, in my discussions with you I know that you are...causal... with your terminology. I wanted to nitpick your terms, I would have done so. That was not at ALL what my post was about Sasaki, and you may have to reread it to understand. The only person bringing up semantics here is you.

I understand it is hard to argue against the quantitative evidence I pointed out, but are you serious with some of these responses?

Person B: There's no basis for that in the koran. Islam can be a beautiful "secularized" religion like christianity is today, and has been in history and often is today.

Who the hell in this thread is person B?

Sometimes it leads to friction. And I'm sure it's nasty and stuff to have that kind of friction in our own precious little countries.

This is why people shouldn't paint things with broad brushes. Because then they will be dismissed as 1) wrong and 2) inflammatory and not worth the time. People who do this have got to realize how much this doesn't do anything for their case.

But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems (even if you think they are "overexaggarated" as you dismissively say).

I don't blame anyone for not wasting their time with islamophobes. So again, who is this person B? Who.

You have to understand exactly what you're saying reenk. That someone who doesn't have precise knowledge of how many secular-islam muslims there are is more foolish than someone who ignores female circumcision because they have accepted relativism for stupid reasons.

Actually, I think you need to understand what I'm saying Sasaki, instead of reading something in that you may think is at all sympathetic to relativism and jumping on it. My point is clear from my last post: The problems frequently attributed to Muslims and Islam are VASTLY overexagerrated. Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done.

Do people ignore pedophilia because they don't buy into the Church bashing broad strokes of others? Are people retreating into "lazy relativism" because they argue against the notion that the Church was a persecutor and an hindrance to scientific progress. A lot of buzzwords, no substance.

Lastly, do all of your posts get into tirades against relativism? We get it, you don't like moral relativism. We have since the morality thread or before.

[PanzerJaeger]

On the other issues except terrorism which you tried to give to justify this marginalization of Islam (? - that's probably (hopefully) not what you're doing, but damn, it sure sounded like it), the women issue is a legitimate problem in the Muslim world though overexagerrated, but as for Muslim anti-semitism, I posted before on this and it seems to have to do in most part with the geopolitical issue with Israel, which is why Lebanese Christians have the exact same view of Jews as Lebanese Muslims (0% favorable) and why Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah now more than Lebanese Sunni Muslims (all on Pew Global Research). Basing a criticism of Islam on Muslim anti-semitism feelings seems tenuous.

One small independent clause couched between two other points in such a long defense of Islam(And its sole purpose was to understate the problem!) is all these women merit? They don’t even deserve a complete sentence? And what of the gays… and really anyone who isn’t and upstanding Muslim male? What does Islam proscribe for them?

If it is, well, when people say "the problem with Islam" while they mean "the problem with "fundamentalist" islam", then they need to learn to be more specific and to chose their words more careful.

Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Everything else is just a diluted exercise in maintaining cultural tradition.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It is certainly potentially misleading--although I think you have to be obstinate not to see what people are really referring too.

Or just never giving anything more than a cursory glance, accepting any opinion as fact without questioning its merit. If a person does that long enough when reading “Islam” and “fundamentalist Islam” in one sentence, is that person going to see a difference between the two, able to distinguish meaning in the context? Especially when that person comes across the occasional opinion maintains all Islam is fundamentalist Islam or at least just as bad?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Fundamentalist Islam is Islam. Everything else is just a diluted exercise in maintaining cultural tradition.

Thank your for proving the point. By the way: substitute religions as you see fit here, and you can still make a case for the result. (Fundamentalist Christianity is Christianity. Fundamentalist Hinduism is Hinduism.) All the fundamentalists do, they live off that sentiment.

[Reenk Roink]

One small independent clause couched between two other points in such a long defense of Islam(And its sole purpose was to understate the problem!) is all these women merit? They don’t even deserve a complete sentence? And what of the gays… and really anyone who isn’t and upstanding Muslim male? What does Islam proscribe for them?

I considered omitting the part about women because I didn't have the research in front of me to argue more thoroughly against it like with terrorism. Then I realized that I would be called out for not mentioning it by people in the thread who would likely ignore the rest of the post. But I wasn't feeling like spending time actually doing the google, so I just went ahead and conceded what my general impression is, the problem exists but is overexagerrated.

Of course look at the content of the response. Not even a complete sentence!

Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So there is FGM practiced the Muslim world. It does even get support from Muslims, including leaders. Does this in any way excuse the flagrant factually and politically incorrect generalizations made by some posters? No.When the root causes of Problem X are shown to be something different from the religion of Islam and the majority of it's followers, is the criticism of Islam based on the occurrence and justification of X by some Muslims still valid? No, it is rightly called tenuous. .

It is used as justification. Fundamentalist religion is like that. This makes it problematic. This is what makes your argument facile--what was that comment earlier where you excused the 100% anti-semitic number for jordanian muslims because the christians there were 100% anti-semitic too? Do you imagine that it's some competition, where we only speak badly of islam if at least 20% more of the women in those countries are beaten than in other countries? I know you're religious, but get with the 20th century, fundamentalist religion has been used to justify many terrible things and that is undeniably a problem with it. Neither "religion is fine when modernized" nor "there are other things that cause wife-beating" are excuses.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

so I just went ahead and conceded what my general impression is, the problem exists but is overexagerrated.


Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.

Reenk are you seriously going with this last line? misogyny is a problem no matter the cause. Historically it's been part of every culture, hasn't it? The institutions that encourage and enforce it are bad, that's common sense. Sad thing is it's quite likely that the only reason the world is focusing on misogyny in islam right now is because of the terrorist attacks. It's clear that in muslim societies the fundamentalist islam is bad for women (among other things). I don't know what you say about that. Are you just pissed that islam is being singled out at the moment or something? Your protests about the flagrant factual errors fall flat.

[Reenk Roink]

It is used as justification. Fundamentalist religion is like that. This makes it problematic. This is what makes your argument facile--what was that comment earlier where you excused the 100% anti-semitic number for jordanian muslims because the christians there were 100% anti-semitic too? Do you imagine that it's some competition, where we only speak badly of islam if at least 20% more of the women in those countries are beaten than in other countries? I know you're religious, but get with the 20th century, fundamentalist religion has been used to justify many terrible things and that is undeniably a problem with it. Neither "religion is fine when modernized" nor "there are other things that cause wife-beating" are excuses.

So essentially, your only real point to be made is that Islam is used as an justification for things like FGM, which also leads you to the larger point that religion is used as an justification for many bad things. And that this is problematic. Great. Well, just so you know, I like religion, and I'm not going to rage against religion because it it used to justify bad things, just like I don't rage against, well, anything because it justifies something. I know you aren't religious and you have an axe to grind against it but that's just silly.

The rest of your post really is telling Sasaki. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you blasted through my posts (and probably Seamus's post to boot), read some gist INTO it about moral relativism which got you predictably outraged, and then replied. Now you are either really clueless about what I wrote or are constructing the worst strawman ever.

The purported 100% anti-semitism thing is actually a 0% "favorable" opinion - and it's in Lebanon. The point of the comment wasn't to "excuse it" as you ridiculously assert, it was to show how dumb the idea of there being some kind of simplistic link that Islam caused anti-semitism, when it is pretty obvious that geopolitical concerns play a big part. Then you rhetorically ask some more dumb questions, like about their being competitions and put some statements cleverly in quotes like I actually said or implied them. How boring. Still, I guess I'll take this weak attempt at a smear over a rant on semantics.

Do yourself a favor and try to actually understand what the hell you post about before posting. Don't rage against things that aren't even meant to be written between the lines.

Reenk are you seriously going with this last line? misogyny is a problem no matter the cause. Historically it's been part of every culture, hasn't it? The institutions that encourage and enforce it are bad, that's common sense. Sad thing is it's quite likely that the only reason the world is focusing on misogyny in islam right now is because of the terrorist attacks. It's clear that in muslim societies the fundamentalist islam is bad for women (among other things). I don't know what you say about that. Are you just pissed that islam is being singled out at the moment or something? Your protests about the flagrant factual errors fall flat.

Well this post is a big improvement over the first one (though I guess that isn't saying much). But honestly, you're repeating what I've already answered in the thread. Misogyny may be a problem. Islam may be used to inspire and justify it. OK????? What does that have to do with Seamus's or my positions on things?

If you haven't read the original post I made, then the first reply to you, here it is again:

My point is clear from my last post: The problems frequently attributed to Muslims and Islam are VASTLY overexagerrated. Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done

You know for a person who was so worried about this:

But all too often Person B goes "eww I don't want to associate with "islamaphobes", retreats into lazy relativism, and doesn't speak out against very legitimate problems

You haven't demonstrated ONE example of it. On the other hand, it's become clear that you yourself simply view any defense of Muslims/Islam as lazy relativism/justifying atrocities/other crap, even if that 'defense' is just a nuancing of ridiculously wrong generalizations.

Since you seem to like to portray yourself as concerned about atrocities, do realize how much the hate crimes against Muslims (and Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, any one who "looks" Muslim or Arab) due to simplistic, factually and politically incorrect statements. On the other hand, the problems you're speaking about aren't going away because of this rhetoric.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, the relativism comments weren't directed at you. I was making general statements about the debate--we've had dozens of threads on it and it's in the news. I thought you understood that when you said that "who's person B???" stuff but were just being argumentative :p but if you think i'm strawmanning you then I guess not, but remember this?

My beef is the people who hijack any criticism of fundamentalist islam and yammer on about how the criticism is islamaphobic. It's a footnote that has been elevated to being the whole debate. Can't we focus on what's really important? We have had threads on this very forum where an issue with fundamentalist islam was raised and people were unwilling to criticize because (to paraphrase) "I'm uncomfortable that islamaphobes are supporting it".

My general point was about the negatives of underestimating the problems that islam contributes to with the negatives of overestimating.

Painting Muslims and Islam with broad strokes is wrong, mean, and counterproductive to the problems these people seem to want to solve, and it shouldn't be done

Well yes--

Look, there have been quite a few anti-muslim attacks in our countries. I remember seeing a bit on 60 minutes about one how one of our best cia agents was falsely accused and her citizenship revoked after 9/11 due to anti-muslim sentiment. Combating that is important.

Still, I guess I'll take this weak attempt at a smear over a rant on semantics.

You've been a bit antagonistic too

[Reenk Roink]

No, the relativism comments weren't directed at you. I was making general statements about the debate--we've had dozens of threads on it and it's in the news. I thought you understood that when you said that "who's person B???" stuff but were just being argumentative :p but if you think i'm strawmanning you then I guess not, but remember this?

My general point was about the negatives of underestimating the problems that islam contributes to with the negatives of overestimating.

Fair enough point here in theory, but the impression I get from following news is that the "overestimating" goes on a lot more than the "underestimating", obviously both are problematic, but one seems to be a lot more problematic than the other.

You've been a bit antagonistic too

Given that you basically went off on every little tangent and read things into my posts I didn't say, can you understand why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fair enough point here in theory, but the impression I get from following news is that the "overestimating" goes on a lot more than the "underestimating", obviously both are problematic, but one seems to be a lot more problematic than the other.

It seems like underestimating by some feeds overestimating by others--and vice versa. I have more of a personal beef with someone who underestimates than someone who overestimates.

Given that you basically went off on every little tangent and read things into my posts I didn't say, can you understand why?

Sure. I meant to make it clear that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but rather thinking of all the arguments that I've heard made on both sides and looking for a common trend.

[PanzerJaeger]

Do realize this Panzer, though I have not touched on women/gays, I haven't seen any good statistics backing it either. All I know is that women aren't exactly treated well in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and all of the countries are certainly not Muslim. I also know of an Ugandan anti gay bill that prescribes some pretty tough penalties. But hey, I'll admit it when I'm shown that Muslims are significantly more homophobic or misogynistic than other people with similar cultural backgrounds.

In your estimation, what is the main justification given for hatred and mistreatment of gays, for example, in predominantly Muslim parts of the world. I know what it is in the United States, and I doubt it’s any different over there.

[Reenk Roink]

It seems like underestimating by some feeds overestimating by others--and vice versa. I have more of a personal beef with someone who underestimates than someone who overestimates.

OK, well if I hear someone say "the Church has no problems with molesting children at all and such actions are completely against" I consider that to be less offensive than saying "A majority of priests molest kids and the Church's teachings lead to and support it" It seems to me that hiding the dirty laundry of someone is just a more classy thing. Is it better to let guilty men free or punish innocents? I prefer the former. Further in my estimation, the whitewashed statement is closer to the truth.

But here's the thing, I really don't see this happening. People who would defend the church would likely say "The Church's allegations of pedophilia are vastly overblown, as statistics have shown that the occurrence rates are about the same in other religious communities, and the Church certainly does not condone this practice."

This third approach is definitely one the good guys take. It's factually correct, but it also is done in a tactful way. This also is a lot more likely to be successful in remedying the problem, rather than exaggerate which leads like you pointed out to flat out denial, but also feelings of exclusion and anger, and which can exaggerated the problem.

If however these type of people were then accosted and accused of excusing and justifying pedophilia, moral relativism, and playing semantic games, you can probably guess they would be pissed off. Especially if this kind of stuff came from a guy you expected a lot better from in your prior experience.

PJ: The justification is Islam.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh, I read a book recently (tyranny of guilt) and the guy was very convinced that underestimating is a pervasive and serious problem in europe. I figured he's european so he probably knows more about europe than I do. His psychoanalysis was a bit broad and sweeping so I gave it a test run on the forum. His basic idea seemed pretty sound.

[Fragony]

The problem with the Islam is first and foremost leftists who want to fold it in their loving embrace, like an overly protective mother they hiss at everyone who bring up even the remote possibility of a problem, and when they see it themself they ignore it because there can't be trouble in their perfect family. I AM A GOOD MOTHER.