One of the most impressive characteristics of religious extremists is the ability to hold facially contrary positions without any sense of contradiction or hypocrisy. Saudi Arabia decries any limitations on Muslims worshipping in other countries while banning churches and public worship of non-Muslims in its own country. Iran is particularly prone to such contradictions like executing homosexuals while denying that there are any homosexuals in Iran or objecting to the treatment of protesters in the West while jailing, beating and killing protesters in Iran. This week Iran offered another such example. In refusing to censor a Holocaust-themed cartoon festival, Iran (which has ordered the killing of authors and cartoonists for insulting Islam) insisted that it had to stand with free speech and would not think of interfering with an author or cartoonist in expressing their views. The same week, Iran has called for the arrest and punishment of models who allow themselves to be photographed without religious scarves. Likewise, it previously ordered the flogging of a model for a public kiss.
While governments should not censor such competitions and should protect free speech, Iran could condemn the competition. Thus, it is not that Iran is wrong in refusing to shutdown the competition. Rather, it is the towering hypocrisy of a nation that is one of the brutal suppressors of free speech in the world embracing free speech without a hint of self-awareness.
As Israel and the United States condemn Iran for allowing a Holocaust-themed cartoon festival to go on display in Tehran, the Iranian regime says it won’t censor what it says is free speech. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, “Don’t consider Iran a monolith. The Iranian government does not support, nor does it organize, any cartoon festival of the nature that you’re talking about. When you stop your own organizations from doing things, then you can ask others to do likewise.” Really, tell that to Salman Rushdie who Iran is still trying to murder for simply writing a book considered offensive to Muhammad.
Zarif added “Why does the United States have the Ku Klux Klan? Is the government of the United States responsible for the fact that there are racially hateful organizations in the United States?” Of course, that would a valid point if, like the United States, Iran allowed free speech. If that were the case, Iran would be on good ground in saying that it will not censor speech for any group, even hateful or divisive groups. But of course it not only suppresses free speech but kills people who express certain thoughts.
This year is the second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest to be held in Tehran. The competition was created as a juvenile response to the printing in 2005 by Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, of a series of cartoons that mocked Muslim prophet, igniting protests across the world. The Iranian organizers are trying to show that in the West people cannot satirize the Holocaust but can satirize Muhammad. The premise is of course false in the United States. However, in Europe, countries like France, England, and Germany are rapidly rolling back on free speech. It is possible in these countries that mocking the Holocaust would be treated as hate speech, something that many civil libertarians (including myself) have decried over the years. However, while there are plenty of countries that can reasonably point to that contradiction of free speech principles, Iran is not one of them.
Steve says:
“Perhaps rather than disagreeing with or criticizing foreign cultures we should turn our criticism inward and deal with our perhaps insurmountable domestic problems?”
——————————
Exactly. As I watch the “West” drop 23000 tons of bombs on Muslim countries in 2015 alone, and hear the constant drumming of war against Iran and Syria, and we hear about the corruption of our courts and our law making bodies, and the CIa “losing” the torture report, and of an unknown number of people shot and killed by the cops every year, of Flint, and women given forced abortions in prison, of pesticides in our food and water, and of elected office holders discriminating against gays in the name of the Bible and Christianity… Iaac’s speech on them and us, west and islamic nations seems both ignorant and unfair.
PR says:
“Are there any that you would view as not extremist? Of the 16 predominantly Muslim countries I would designate as Middle Eastern, I would consider Turkey (now, with Erdogan in power), Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria (especially with the war going on), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt (mixed, but certainly unstable), and Lebanon (with Hezbolleh, though the people seem to be more moderate in many ways) as extremist. I know very little about Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE and whether they have a very poor track record when it comes to natural rights (it is likely being such close neighbors to Saudi Arabia) or to what degree they engender extremism. So, ten out of 16 have intense extremist elements. That’s over half. If it is over half, isn’t generalization at that point not particularly problematic?”
—————————————————-
Turkey: was a beacon of freedom and individual rights in the ME until very recently. It took one man, Erdogan, to change decades of otherwise western standards of development. To the point where it is/was gauged for inclusion into the EU. Is Islam the problem in Turkey?
Iran is a very stable country, to call it extremist (or as Isaac does, a toilet) is pretty off. What makes Iran extremist? Yes, indeed, human rights violations are more prevalent there than they are in the US for example, but does that qualify it as extremist? Or a toilet?
Iraq was a secular, developing country until we broke and refused to own up to it. What does it have to do with Islam? Are the shia and sunnis sectarian violence due to religious primacy of sectarian/political fight for primacy?
Afghanistan was on the path to development in the 1970’s, before the Russia invasion. Women were walking freely without the veil then and were well educated. Religion was NOT the main ideology, there was no Taliban or al qaeda. War would do that to any country. Radical islam appeared after the Russia invasion, fostered by no less than the US.
Pakistan…let’s compare Pakistan to Brazil and we have a better idea what we are dealing with. A major power with nukes with huge societal inequalities but minus the religious overtones. The upper/middle classes are western bound and educated, the lower class and poor in undeducated, lives in slums and is prone to radicalization. Brazil’s radicalization is drugs and gangs, Pakistan’s is extremism.
Saudi Arabia is an extremist country by any standard. Self-oppression and support of international extremism. It is backward though also not poor. Fits in its own realm.
Yemen is backward. No doubt. But its extremism is recent, and is not being helped by US/Saudi bombing.
Egypt was also stable, not developed but developing. it was also educated under Mubarak. Morsi was elected to power, so it was also democratic. What changed? A military coup by a general supported by US.
Now Egypt is indeed backward. But that is merely a 4 year old condition. None of that has to do with Islam.
lebanon was a modern, developing country in spite of Hezbollah. It is also a Christian country as much as a muslim one.
jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the UEA, and kuwait are very stable, very modern countries, even in spite of some of them being a monarchy or a theocracy. They are not poor, nor are they extremist countries by any means, although their focus on human rights is not to par with those in the US or Britain for example, but MOSt countries around the globe are not up to par with those countries ( We must also add Syria to that group as they shared many characteristics, on top of the fact that Syria was actually very secular in addition to being stable and educated.?
PR says:
————————–
“I disagree that those standards are too high–one is an example of Sharia (used on a non-Muslim no less) in what is supposed to be a democratic country and the other is anti-sedition laws used to stifle dissent. I brought up Malaysia’s anti-free speech issues because you seemed to indicate that they did not have problems (“Which muslim countries do not allow a criticism of their own government? Have you gone to Indonesia? To Malaysia? To Nigeria, Senegal… The more populous muslim coutries are democratic countries with a thriving opposition, how do you answer that?”). Anti-sedition laws squash what could be a thriving opposition.
Are you thinking of non-Muslim repressive countries where their primary religious identity should be discussed in conjunction with their problems? Perhaps I do not see the connection between Catholicism and the problems in Venezuela. Can religion be an issue to varying degrees? Should it be part of the discussion sometimes and not others?”
Regarding sharia, why do we talk about sharia law without talking about Biblical law of judaic law, which are also present in any Christian and jewish community in every single country where they are found, including the US?
One may say, but sharia law is harsher than the others. but each one exists along its own spectrum. In Uganda for example, gays are lynched spurred by biblical justification, that is extreme sharia law, but most biblical law deals with civil and domestic issues. Same as Islam. Religious marriage at the church or mosque is shariah law. So is marital counseling by the pastor or the imam.
Shariah law in the US or Britain limits itself to the exact same realm that Biblical and judaic law occupy, because they are meant, here, to fill in the religious holes that the juridic law does not cover, necessarily. They are not coercive, unlike for example the mormon or Amish religious laws, and do not replace or go against constitutional law…at least in most cases.
As for anti-sedition laws, they exist in most countries, including the US.
Anti-freedom of speech laws are also existing in very country, as we see in the denial of the holocaust laws in many european countries.
AS we see in ISrael where 17 people, including an astrophysicist are jailed for facebook posts.
And no, I did not mean to imply that Malaysia does not have problems, they do, as do every single country worldwide. What I mean is that if their problems are similar or better than other non-muslim countries, isn’t focusing on their islamic nature an effective evidence of bias?
Prarie Rose writes, “At the same time I can vehemently disagree with how other countries/cultures conduct themselves.”
I agree with nearly all you write. The thought does occur to me, nevertheless, that criticizing (your term was “disagreeing with”) the conduct of other cultures is implicit to the violence associated with an industrial economy and its need for empire building to survive.
Perhaps rather than disagreeing with or criticizing foreign cultures we should turn our criticism inward and deal with our perhaps insurmountable domestic problems?
Steve,
“it’s also an expose on the imposition of western standards across the globe, a “be reasonable; do it my way” point of view.”
I am in no way advocating for imposing western standards by force. I do not think we should be the world’s police force. At the same time I can vehemently disagree with how other countries/cultures conduct themselves.
I definitely agree that we should lead by example.
po,
Regarding your reply:
“It is akin to karen saying that Middle east countries are extremist, and yet being unable to, even once in 10 years, explain which ME country.”
Are there any that you would view as not extremist? Of the 16 predominantly Muslim countries I would designate as Middle Eastern, I would consider Turkey (now, with Erdogan in power), Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria (especially with the war going on), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt (mixed, but certainly unstable), and Lebanon (with Hezbolleh, though the people seem to be more moderate in many ways) as extremist. I know very little about Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE and whether they have a very poor track record when it comes to natural rights (it is likely being such close neighbors to Saudi Arabia) or to what degree they engender extremism. So, ten out of 16 have intense extremist elements. That’s over half. If it is over half, isn’t generalization at that point not particularly problematic?
“Now we can delve into the subject better and ask ourselves what defines backward. It is poverty? Is it cultural practices? Is it the religion of Islam particularly?
If poverty, then is it islam that causes poverty? Then how do we deal with non-islamic countries that are poor?
If cultural practices, what about the cultures (which means nothing really because each country has its own cuture) of islamic countries causes it? Are those same cultural traits found in similarly poor non-islamic countries?
Is Islam as a religion, then what about it? Something in the quran, the hadith (collection of acts and deeds reportedly done or said by the Prophet Muhammad), the interpretation, the teachings, the psychological factors? I don’t doubt that each of those elements plays a role somewhat, but if one is to make a claim stating it, one is duty bound to support it.”
Those are all worthy questions that could stand to have greater elucidation. However, I would argue that there is a common understanding of backwardness: treating women practically as chattel, forcing women to cover themselves in a certain manner a la modesty police, child marriages and honor killings and “pretty boys”, murder of homosexuals, barbaric forms of punishment, denying women an education, deep denial of freedoms ranging from free practice of religion to freedom of speech, etc. Granted, not all of the aforementioned countries engage in every single example of backwardness I listed, but there is enough commonality for those countries to get painted as being backwards.
I would agree with you that some elements of the backwardness are related to cultural practices and some to a poor education. Saudi Arabia is using the hadith, I believe you noted, to defend the modesty police and some of their barbaric punishments. At present I am only going to note this one point as an example.
How can one be “duty bound to support” that which, if you actually addressed all your questions, would end up being a master’s thesis in a blog post? I strive to say what I mean and mean what I say and support my assertions with citations if I can, but you have a rather tall order.
“Additionally, the idea that the West has freedom of speech yet to deny the holocaust earns one a prison term? What freedom of speech is that? Charlie Hebdo for example, can say whatever it wants against Islam and Christianity but yet cannot deny the Holocaust?”
Indeed, a contradiction and hypocrisy of which Professor Turley and many of us here are critical of. This is not the case in the U.S.–and when it does become a problem that’s when people have the right to redress their grievances in the court of law.
“Notice that the standards you use here are pretty high! “not without problems… free-wheeling ability…”. Those same standards are not applied to other, non-muslim countries!
Many European countries, African and south american countries have a religious christian/catholic identity, yet are both poor or repressive, or face societal/religious/political upheavals, including repression of dissent. Yet we NEVER speak of their religious nature, we do not allow their religious identity to frame them among the rest of the countries where such repression is not found.”
I disagree that those standards are too high–one is an example of Sharia (used on a non-Muslim no less) in what is supposed to be a democratic country and the other is anti-sedition laws used to stifle dissent. I brought up Malaysia’s anti-free speech issues because you seemed to indicate that they did not have problems (“Which muslim countries do not allow a criticism of their own government? Have you gone to Indonesia? To Malaysia? To Nigeria, Senegal… The more populous muslim coutries are democratic countries with a thriving opposition, how do you answer that?”). Anti-sedition laws squash what could be a thriving opposition.
Are you thinking of non-Muslim repressive countries where their primary religious identity should be discussed in conjunction with their problems? Perhaps I do not see the connection between Catholicism and the problems in Venezuela. Can religion be an issue to varying degrees? Should it be part of the discussion sometimes and not others?
Now it’s really late and I will need to finish another day. 🙂
Prarie Rose writes, “I would argue that there is a common understanding of backwardness: treating women practically as chattel, forcing women to cover themselves in a certain manner a la modesty police, child marriages and honor killings and “pretty boys”, murder of homosexuals, barbaric forms of punishment, denying women an education, deep denial of freedoms ranging from free practice of religion to freedom of speech, etc. ”
Really good post. However, along with its good points, it’s also an expose on the imposition of western standards across the globe, a “be reasonable; do it my way” point of view. And it’s entirely hypocritical to advocate with regard to, for instance, homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage, the right to privacy of two people in the bedroom while at the same time advocating forced socio-political change in other countries. We wouldn’t even have a presence there if it weren’t economically profitable, yet out the angels come.
We’re not the world’s police, and knowing our history, we have no room to preach. It was less than a hundred years ago that women were given the vote and separate-but-equal doctrine outlawed.
Lead by example and not by force, because force shows you think they’re your intellectual inferior. They’re not as stupid as you think. Let them alone.
PR
I should have speciffied that the points I was addressing were not directed to you, they were issues that Isaac has raised and ones that tend to be generally asserted. So I was not demanding you address them.
But, as Steve says, your points are all valid, and those are points that Muslims themselves are debating currently, and have been debating even in the time of the Prophet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tNRtyYFf24
One of his wives challenged the fact that the Quran seemed to address men particularly, and his other wives were known to challenge Islamic patriarchy vehemently…but the main thing to remember and use as the main undercurrent of the islamic debate, is that:
1- The quran came as a reaction to societal/moral corruption and injustice (which is why every prophet was sent), and such injustice directly addressed the status of women, children and the poor. It made treating the poor well, honoring women and orphans, along with giving God His due, the cornerstones of the faith.
2- As such, the direct result of the coming of the Quran was that women’s obtained rights they never got before, rights as children, rights as young adults, rights as brides to be, rights as wives, rights as mothers and rights as citizens, and even rights as older people. Courtship rights, marital rights and divorce rights were all secured for women, in an age where they were mere chattel. What other society, up this modern age, assured women alimony? What other society, up to the modern age, assured women the right to earn money and to use that money as she sees fit, separate from her husband’s and out of his reach WHILE being due complete spousal support?
However, once the Prophet passed, all of the rights women obtained were slowly rolled back by an inherently patriarchal society where men held both the reins of power and of knowledge, which gave them secular and religious authority, which they combined into a political entity that is unassailable.
This is why, continuously, I request a distinction between terms. Arab societies, unlike Asian and African ones, are patriarchal. It is therefore unavoidable that their interpretation of the religion would be defined by their cultural perspective. But that patriarchy is greatly reduced from those Asian and african societies, many of which of actually matriarchal in nature (there is no society ever truly free of patriarchy, especially the US, compared to the nordic nations for example), yet it is the minority arabic culture that is used to define the greater majority.
I agree with you that a poorly educated populace is one the main causes of backwardness anywhere, whether an Islamic country or a a Christian one. That and political instability. But if you to research it, you would find that the cause behind poverty and backwardness is less religious practice but more political legacy. Look up on the poorest/most backward (using lack of infrastructure as standard) countries in Africa and else (South America for example), and you’d see the direct link to colonization, coups and dictatorships. You would also see that most of those countries are non-Muslim ones.
Another point worth noting is that islamic education is usually more prevalent where western education is not, and that islamic education is usually limited to knowing few verses with which to do the prayers. Most muslim parents across the globe, especially in muslim countries, would choose their children be engineers and doctors over mullahs (which explains the great number of engineers coming from those countries you mention, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria….)
Another thing we must point out is such ignorance was really never the norm. It is a rather recent thing (50 years at most.)
West Africa, Toubounctou, the Sudan…all of those places were reknown learning centers, where knowledge was prized and scholars abundant. That ended with the onset of the Transatlantic slave trade, which robbed Africa of its resources in main and potential for development.
In the Middle East, even under the Ottoman empire in the 1920’s, knowledge was prized and schools of learning were still well established, where scientific inquiry was pursued. Even in palestine, education was a strong tool development until the creation of Israel, the displacement of the people and the turning of them into displaced, uprooted people.
This all to say that if Islam has fostered the pursuit of knowledge and education since its first day (the Quran urges pursuit of knowledge every other verse,and the hadith demands it), and a great many muslims are now ignorant, would the cause be assumed a theological/religious one or another factor?( A good parallel is the Greeks and the Romans, thriving learned societies undermined by political warfare.)
This is where Isaac and I disagree, he is making a statement devoid of context, devoid also of knowledge, simplistic and therefore fallacious. I am saying that, yes, a great deal of the islamic world is backward, but a great deal of the non-islamic world is also backward, and one can see that the same causes for the latter cause the former, and those causes are more practical, societal, financial and political than religious.
I am also saying that if Islam spurs Muslims to be better citizens, better educated than most, more patriotic than most (polls show that in Britain and the US, muslims tend to be all of those) and studies also show that Islamic nations tend to be less violent than others, then we ought to ask ourselves why do we assign blame to Islam for the bad but refuse it the credit for the good?
Also, what I am asking is for a differentiation between the Quran and Muslims. We make such differentiation in EVERY other area, but don’t when it comes to Islam. If the quran says do not kill, or oppression is bad, why would we blame it when a muslim’s interpretation justifies his doing exactly that? We don’t blame Christianity for murdering abortion doctors. Nor do we blame Buddhism for the Myammar genocide of Muslims.
Isaac speaks in general terms that encompass all muslims, all Islam, the Quran and the Prophet. Furthermore, he is making a geographical distinction between the west and Islamic nations. Is Bosnia western, or is it islamic? Or both? Yet when I ask for clarification, he says the following, as he did previously :
“ issacbasonkavichi
1, December 8, 2015 at 7:08 pm
The world has taken a long time to evolve to forms of governance through rational approaches, not those based on fairy tales and pedophiles. This Islamic thing is the last great gasp of the feeble minded who can’t live with the questions and therefore in their minds no one else can either. The questions will always be there. If there is a god, it would want its creation to sort this out, but not by invoking its name, especially by a prophet that is a pedophile.”?
A final example is this: most of those islamic countries we target have non-muslim populations that tend to be in the same circumstances economically than their muslim countrymen, shouldn’t be the opposite if Islam was the issue?
Po,
“Read up on all the islamic scholarship from the advent of Islam, including the Quran, the hadith and even the modern portion of scholarship, listen to what most scholars say and you see that you, again, are wrong about both your premises and your conclusion.”
This is probably the main problem behind much of the backwardness in far too many predominantly Muslim countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, much of even Iran and Iraq, etc etc–I would really rather not list them all). Too many Middle Eastern and African Muslim nations have a poorly educated populace who believe what people say–even if it is wrong. Malala talks about this problem in the book I Am Malala.
All those people are also then wrong about Mohammed, the Quran, the hadith and other books of scholarship. Think of the twisted documents the Saudis are spreading, that I think you pointed out in one of our previous discussions.
You and Issac are discussing very different things it seems to me. You are defending the ideal Muslim religious perspective–the educated, tolerant, self-reflective viewpoint. Issac is critiquing the deeply flawed and far too prevalent Muslim viewpoints held by many poor, poorly educated, and easily led people.
I will try to get to respond to your thoughtful reply to me, but it is late (we have had an enormously busy day, well, the whole week really, so I have not had a chance to sit down til now).
Po
You keep reading what you want to read, that which serves your argument. The main thrust behind my and most others’ criticisms is that you cherry pick to defend that which is indefensible. Religion is or isn’t. Extremism is the problem. Extremism festers along with designer arguments such as you employ. No one, including myself, does not acknowledge the greatness that accompanies religions. That greatness lies in the acceptance of others to have other perspectives. That greatness is absent and replaced with all that is evil when accompanied with arguments such as those which you employ. The first move of a deception is to divert attention away from the issues at hand. You are not a very skilled prestidigitator or illusionist. Or, more accurately, your words do not fall on hungry ears.
Isaac, the only standard we have established so far is that you:
1- Compare “islamic nations” to the “west” as former being backward, and the latter “optimal ” for humanity, but cannot define what either term means and includes. So far there is no clarification as to what standard we are using…is Turkey an Islamic nation? Is Serbia in the West?
2- Refer to the Quran as a comic book, and the Prophet Muhammad derogatorily Meanwhile, you also acknowledge never having read the Quran, which means you have no idea what it says, and you know obviously nothing about the Prophet…and strangely enough, you use your stubborn ignorance as proof of your righteous stance??????????????????????????
3- You have made the case here repeatedly that religion is useless for humanity, and you have refuted here the claim that the Western development was born from religious inquiry, a historical consensus if there ever was one.
4- When challenged for clarification, you respond with red herrings and other fallacious arguments shifting the burden on your challenger…
So to summarize, you have attacked religion, Islam in particular, islamic nations (whichever ones there are), Muslims and the value and relevance of a faith of 1.6 B… and I wonder how do your arguments differ from the typical islamophobe’s?
Isaac. says:
“You may be a devout Muslim but you represent that which most of the world objects to regarding this, ‘only one’ faith. In order to have a religion it follows that it be the ‘only one’”
And here you exemply, Isaac, what I keep objecting to, that you claim to know what religion is when you surely don’t.
As to “most of the world”, most of the world being religious how do thus justify your conclusion?
Islam does not demand only one faith…religious extremists within islam demand only one faith! Again a tiny percentage vs the great majority.
Read up on all the islamic scholarship from the advent of Islam, including the Quran, the hadith and even the modern portion of scholarship, listen to what most scholars say and you see that you, again, are wrong about both your premises and your conclusion.
http://www.marrakeshdeclaration.org/
Read up on plurarity in islam… http://www.twf.org/Library/Pluralism.html
This is getting ridiculously fascinating… to keep spouting knowledge about that which one knows nothing 🙂
Prairie Rose
1, May 19, 2016 at 1:37 am
po
““The fact of the matter is that the US and the other Western nations are light years ahead of the Islamic nations.”
How so, Isaac, in what ways? And which islamic nations? Will you please be specific and stop speaking in generalities? I keep asking, you keep obfuscating”
Shortly before the above quote, Issac noted that the problems were with “extreme Islamic states” like Iran. Then you launched into discussing unfair generalizing on his part. I’m guessing that when he ‘generally’ used the term Islam, he continued to mean it in reference to the extreme Islam practiced particularly by those in power in places like Iran.
——————————
Po responds:
PR, I can see it may be hard following the thread if one has missed the previous conversations that took place between Isaac and me about this exact topic. This is the 4th, I think, of such convos, and they all follow the script that Isaac pits islamic nations against western nations. I responds by asking for specific examples of what constitutes an islamic nation and what is a western nation, just so we have an idea what it is we are comparing. So far, I have asked 4 times, and each time I have been denied a response. In light of the precedents, when Isaac goes from “Iran is a toilet” to “Islamic nations are backward”, or “a fairy tale that believes in a flying pedophile”, we have obviously gone from the specific of Iran to the general of Islamic nations and Islam. It is why, therefore, I asked for specifics about Iran vs the US to examples about the West (whatever that is) to Islamic nations (whichever ones that is.)
PR says:
In regard to the above quote, I’d bet that Issac is referring to places like Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the other ‘stans, that while not often in the news are also not 1st world countries with moderate Muslim populations; Lebanon is the only example I can think of that, might, maybe get close to that description), Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Nigeria has Boko Haram, as does Niger and Chad and Cameroon. Mali and Libya are having problems with extremist groups, too.
————————–
Po responds:
You see, PR, YOU define your places and your reasoning. You identify the countries and you explain why. It is not only fair to me but also clarifies you stance. It is really that easy. That’s all I am asking. If the conversation requires each to put forth his/her best argument, being able to explain one’s logic is required.
It is akin to karen saying that Middle east countries are extremist, and yet being unable to, even once in 10 years, explain which ME country.
Now we can delve into the subject better and ask ourselves what defines backward. It is poverty? Is it cultural practices? Is it the religion of Islam particularly?
If poverty, then is it islam that causes poverty? Then how do we deal with non-islamic countries that are poor?
If cultural practices, what about the cultures (which means nothing really because each country has its own cuture) of islamic countries causes it? Are those same cultural traits found in similarly poor non-islamic countries?
Is Islam as a religion, then what about it? Something in the quran, the hadith (collection of acts and deeds reportedly done or said by the Prophet Muhammad), the interpretation, the teachings, the psychological factors? I don’t doubt that each of those elements plays a role somewhat, but if one is to make a claim stating it, one is duty bound to support it.
PR says:
Perhaps I am inappropriately casting aspersions on the population of Senegal, but denying the Holocaust there might not be a big deal because it primarily happened to Jews and there is an ugly history of animosity between/against Jews and Muslims. Iranian leaders deny the Holocaust all too frequently, so why would it be a big deal at all in another predominantly Muslim country to do the same thing?
—————————–
Po responds:
That is why I also used the Armenian genocide parallel, a Christian genocide committed by Muslim Turkey.
But, I can only work with the tools given me, the tool being the Holocaust. Find the equivalent of the holocaust for Muslism and I would make the same case that denying it is NOT punished in MOST majority muslim nations. Additionally, the idea that the West has freedom of speech yet to deny the holocaust earns one a prison term? What freedom of speech is that? Charlie Hebdo for example, can say whatever it wants against Islam and Christianity but yet cannot deny the Holocaust?
PR says:
Indonesia, while primarily more open, is not without problems:
Malaysia, too, has issues. This is not exactly demonstrating a free-wheeling ability to criticize the government:
Po answers:
Notice that the standards you use here are pretty high! “not without problems… free-wheeling ability…”. Those same standards are not applied to other, non-muslim countries!
Many European countries, African and south american countries have a religious christian/catholic identity, yet are both poor or repressive, or face societal/religious/political upheavals, including repression of dissent. Yet we NEVER speak of their religious nature, we do not allow their religious identity to frame them among the rest of the countries where such repression is not found.
Let me quote https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/WorstOfTheWorst2011.pdf about the worst places for repression, and we see that most are not islamic. Worst of the Worst
Included in this year’s report are nine countries designated as the Worst of the Worst: Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Within these entities, state control over daily life is pervasive, independent organizations and political opposition are banned or
suppressed, and fear of retribution for independent thought and action is ubiquitous.
The report includes eight additional countries whose ratings fall just short of the bottom of Freedom House’s ratings scale: Belarus, Chad, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Laos, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Also interesting breakdown by country,,, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
PR says:
I will agree with you that Islamic scholars preserved many great Western texts that were “rediscovered” in Spain. I agree that Islamic scholars produced great advancements for science, math, and medicine. That said, those advancements stalled out in places that demanded strict observance of Islam in the culture. Even today, the term Boko Haram can be translated as ‘Western education is a sin”.
Po says:
Let me address that by quoting Neil Degrasse Tyson. I occasionally paraphrase President George W. Bush from one of his speeches, remarking that our God is the God who named the stars, and immediately noting that 2/3 of all star-names in the night sky are Arabic. I use this fact to pivot from the present-day, back to a millennium ago, during the Golden Age of Islam, in which major advances in math, science, engineering, medicine, and navigation were achieved. And I presented it that way, as Bush’s attempt to distinguish “we” from ‘they.” .
Of course, very little changes in that particular talk. I will still mention Islamic Extremists flying planes into buildings in the 21st century. I will still contrast it with the Golden Age of Islam a millennium earlier. And I will still mention the President’s quote. But instead, I will be the one contrasting what actually happened in the world with what the Bible says: The Arabs named the stars, not Yahweh.”
The above just to frame my response, which is that the golden age of Islam happened WITH strict observance of the religion, not without. The first muslim inquirers who set in motion scientific development did it spurred by their faith and its holy book, not independently of it. So ironically, one cannot take the Quran out of science because it was the proof to which every discovery, and every established knowledge (the Greek’s for example) was gauged. Additionally, it is the tool that inspired the inquiry to begin with.
Furthermore, Iran is very strictly observant, yet they have a major scientific structure, so does Turkey and even many other Islamic countries. The conclusion therefore is that it is not religious devotion that limited scientific development, it is political and social upheaval, which results in religious extremism and its tendency to stifle inquiry (as evidenced by Grenada where religious devotion of all 3 faiths combined with scientific inquiry to create a development that is still unmatched).
A good example of such is Israel, where the super-religious folks are very scientifically reticent…and the US, where a sizable portion of the population, including elected officials, reject both evolution and climate change.
as to Boko Haram, its origins have to be tracked to something else other than religion. Don’t get me wrong, they are religiously enabled and claim religion, but its mutation from local, religious sect to sprawling militaristic hydra was a DIRECT reaction to the Nigerian military torturing and killing its leaders.
PR says:
You bring up other countries that disallow criticism of the government. In those cases, they do not, to my knowledge, disallow criticism on the basis of religion. The mixing of religion and government is a problem because it taints the religion when there are problems.
We have had the discussion that Islam is not a monolith. Most people on this blog are probably aware of that to a degree. Perhaps I have forgotten where we left previous discussions, but I am not sure of your goal regarding people’s criticism of a huge element in Islam–the problem with radicals.
How would you prefer people refer to radicals who in the name of (their version) of Islam intend to hurt people, coerce obedience, and other anti-liberty, anti-democratic, anti-natural rights beliefs? They are not all Wahabists, they are not all Sunnis, they are not all Shiites or Alawaites or etc etc. The umbrella is Islam. What is the most accurate way to describe, to name the point of discussion: radical Islamists?
Po replies:
I agree with you that the mixing of religion and government has been problematic wherever it has been established. I believe religion has no place in the governance of a modern society, especially if a pluralistic society like ours.
As to islam not being a monolith, you as well as few other people here know it. But based on the hateful, and generalist rhetoric here, and based on the fact that those who speak on Islam most cannot define it or the realm upon which it operates, I am justified, I think, to request a distinction.
And as to how to define that distinction, easy, let us be specific. If karen speaks of the ME, let her just name the 2 or 3 countries she has in mind rather than including in the area countries that are not even in the ME. Saudi Arabia is not Iran, which isn’t Syria or Qatar, and neither is the UEA!
Each of those is very different from Turkey, Chechnya, yes, Senegal or Morocco.
As for Islam, what is Islam? Perhaps now would be the time to define it? So when people speak of Islam, are they talking about the quran? Then let them name it.
The hadith? Then let them name it.
Muslims? Then let them name it.
Either way, I have no issue with using any term that defines a group or an individual, islamic extremist, islamic radical, islamic terrorist… all I am asking is that one be clear enough so as not to lump 1.6 billion majority with the actions of the minority. Unfortunately, Isaac is of those who have never read the quran or the hadith, have no idea what faith is like yet want to globalize and speak authoritatively on something he himself agrees he knows little a bout.
Po
It has pretty much all been said and no one illustrates the problems with religion better than you. When I say problems that doesn’t mean there isn’t much to be appreciated regarding religion. Religion has provided much in the evolution of mankind from the early days of Christianity to how Christians today live, work, and worship within the secular society. The West, although it has benefited greatly from Islam, is primarily its own work. Islam came along at the time Christianity was at its worse and best, depending where in Europe one went. Both religions were preceded by centuries of philosophies and perspectives that are still the foundation for today’s civilization as well as today’s Christianity and Islam.
Your system of debate or argument parallels the bombastic speeches that come out of the extreme Islamic societies, nations, gangs of thugs, etc. In response to being exposed for inhumane activities, you turn the argument to something irrelevant, such as denial of the holocaust in Senegal. You may be a devout Muslim but you represent that which most of the world objects to regarding this, ‘only one’ faith. In order to have a religion it follows that it be the ‘only one’. Lately Christians and Jews have not been forcing non believers to accept their ‘only one’; not that secular countries are without shame, blame, and responsibility both directly and indirectly for much of the evil today, however, it is pretty much only Islam that is causing all these problems today, that are out of the control of nations dealing with nations. The natural expansion, collision, and transformation of peoples based on economics and standards of living would be happening in a much more amenable way if it were not for Islamic extremists and their supporters, Islamic moderates.
Christians still venture forth to convert through helping the poor. Muslims routinely slaughter them. In the modern Western world there aren’t too many if any instances of Christians slaughtering Muslims who were venturing forth to help. Of course you will respond with examples in places other than ‘the modern Western world’.
The only way to transform Islam from the extreme state of affairs that gives birth to these horrors through the marriage of promises of riches and/or salvations with destitute peoples is to clean your own house. The West may have been incompetent in its forays into these desperate areas of the world, however, the source of the problem today is not the economic ‘great game’ but Islam out of control. Arguing that it’s everybody else’s fault puts you in league with the thugs at work in Iraq and Syria.
Paul Schulte
1, May 19, 2016 at 7:16 am
po – it is not nice to make fun of the handicapped. However, maybe the Koran teaches that.
—————————————–
No, Paul, the koran teaches the opposite, I should know better than to make fun of you, you did not ask to be thusly afflicted.
Sorry!
po,
I am having trouble following the thread of the debate. I will address a few points, though.
““The fact of the matter is that the US and the other Western nations are light years ahead of the Islamic nations.”
How so, Isaac, in what ways? And which islamic nations? Will you please be specific and stop speaking in generalities? I keep asking, you keep obfuscating”
Shortly before the above quote, Issac noted that the problems were with “extreme Islamic states” like Iran. Then you launched into discussing unfair generalizing on his part. I’m guessing that when he ‘generally’ used the term Islam, he continued to mean it in reference to the extreme Islam practiced particularly by those in power in places like Iran.
In regard to the above quote, I’d bet that Issac is referring to places like Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the other ‘stans, that while not often in the news are also not 1st world countries with moderate Muslim populations; Lebanon is the only example I can think of that, might, maybe get close to that description), Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Nigeria has Boko Haram, as does Niger and Chad and Cameroon. Mali and Libya are having problems with extremist groups, too.
Perhaps I am inappropriately casting aspersions on the population of Senegal, but denying the Holocaust there might not be a big deal because it primarily happened to Jews and there is an ugly history of animosity between/against Jews and Muslims. Iranian leaders deny the Holocaust all too frequently, so why would it be a big deal at all in another predominantly Muslim country to do the same thing?
Indonesia, while primarily more open, is not without problems: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/21/first-non-muslim-lashed-breaking-sharia-law-indonesian-province/83325572/
Malaysia, too, has issues. This is not exactly demonstrating a free-wheeling ability to criticize the government: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/world/asia/malaysian-premier-says-sedition-act-will-stand.html
“The legacy of Islam is quite clear, and whatever greatness you want to attach to the West, is a greatness that derived from the legacy of Islam.”
I will agree with you that Islamic scholars preserved many great Western texts that were “rediscovered” in Spain. I agree that Islamic scholars produced great advancements for science, math, and medicine. That said, those advancements stalled out in places that demanded strict observance of Islam in the culture. Even today, the term Boko Haram can be translated as ‘Western education is a sin”.
You bring up other countries that disallow criticism of the government. In those cases, they do not, to my knowledge, disallow criticism on the basis of religion. The mixing of religion and government is a problem because it taints the religion when there are problems.
We have had the discussion that Islam is not a monolith. Most people on this blog are probably aware of that to a degree. Perhaps I have forgotten where we left previous discussions, but I am not sure of your goal regarding people’s criticism of a huge element in Islam–the problem with radicals.
How would you prefer people refer to radicals who in the name of (their version) of Islam intend to hurt people, coerce obedience, and other anti-liberty, anti-democratic, anti-natural rights beliefs? They are not all Wahabists, they are not all Sunnis, they are not all Shiites or Alawaites or etc etc. The umbrella is Islam. What is the most accurate way to describe, to name the point of discussion: radical Islamists?
Po
Just for the record. You argue with the most overworked and full of holes tactics available. So, you can argue the holocaust in Senegal and not get thrown in jail. Dis Islam and you won’t even make it to jail. In most if not all Islamic nations if you speak out against or defame anything to do with that particular fairy tale you might be lucky to get out alive. Like I said, light years behind in the dark ages. Now, for you and your beliefs, whatever fairy tale that may be, if you were to say something despicable about JC the water walker or the big M, the pedophile horseman, and all that guff, you would be OK, here in the West. You really have no argument. The world argues against you. Read a newspaper once in a while.
There isn’t a country on earth that doesn’t have some degree of hypocrisy and limitation of freedoms. The human race is a work in progress. The fact of the matter is that the US and the other Western nations are light years ahead of the Islamic nations. The fact that the citizens of the west can voice their opinions and voice their arguments against the shortcomings of their countries explains the condition better than any one. Perhaps disputing the holocaust can get someone a few months in jail or censured but that is rare, extremely rare. Whether it was one, two, or six million the fact of the matter is that it was attempted genocide, by one of today’s most advanced nations. Germany descended to where every element that made up its society contributed to the attempt at eradicating tens of millions of people who served to focus hatred. If there is no one to hate, there is rarely a war. Perhaps treating this denial as yelling fire in a crowded theater is the proper way to treat the condition. Perhaps the freedom Germans, French, and others had to express their disdain to hatred has not yet worked its way out of the human condition that is the West. There is enough exaggeration and spleen venting on this blog to support a heavy handed approach to holocaust denial.
Isaac says:
“The fact of the matter is that the US and the other Western nations are light years ahead of the Islamic nations.”
How so, Isaac, in what ways? And which islamic nations? Will you please be specific and stop speaking in generalities? I keep asking, you keep obfuscating 🙂
“The fact that the citizens of the west can voice their opinions and voice their arguments against the shortcomings of their countries explains the condition better than any one. Perhaps disputing the holocaust can get someone a few months in jail or censured but that is rare, extremely rare.”
You see no irony, Isaac, in that in Senegal, 95% Muslim, for example, one can voice denial of the holocaust, or of the Armenian massacre and not have to spend those few months in jail? How can the be, in an overwhelmingly muslim country, more freedom of speech than in those ideal western countries you speak about?
Will you please address that once for all?
Let me reoffer my questions from above, which you have still to answer:
Which muslim countries do not allow a criticism of their own government? Have you gone to Indonesia? To Malaysia? To Nigeria, Senegal… The more populous muslim coutries are democratic countries with a thriving opposition, how do you answer that?
Why is it you keep using the extreme two cases to base your argument on?
Is China a Muslim country? What happens there when you criticize your government?
Is Rwanda a Muslim country? What happens when you criticize the government there?
Try it in Ethiopia, a non Muslim country!
po – you are throwing around a lot of strawman arguments. That is one of the reasons I will not debate you.
Isaac, as usual, you make assertions you are unable to defend, you remind me of karen, and just like her, in order to avoid defending your arguments, you accuse me of ignorance, deceit and whatever else.
It is really this simple:
Which countries are you referring to?
You speak in generalities of Islam…and any non-ignorant person knows that islam means different things to different people. Are Chinese muslims same as saudi muslims? As indonesian Muslims? As Japanese Muslims? As Hispanic muslims? What about African muslims? What about American muslims?
What constitutes the west?
Is Turkey light years behind Poland?
What about Malaysia?
I am hugely disappointed in you, your bias is so huge as to blind you and drive your irrationality.
You won’t debate me not because you don’t want to, but because you are unable to. That simple.
The legacy of Islam is quite clear, and whatever greatness you want to attach to the West, is a greatness that derived from the legacy of Islam.
Please accept that, take a deep breath and make peace with it.
po – the reason no one wants to debate you is because you cannot keep to a single subject. You are all over the board.
hahahahahahahahaha LMAO…coming from ADHD-Paul, it is incredibly funny!
po – it is not nice to make fun of the handicapped. However, maybe the Koran teaches that.
karen says:
Strange. When I hear about the dirth of free speech in the Middle East, and elsewhere, I feel blessed to Iive in the US. We have the most robust free speech protection on the planet. Women have equal rights, and their testimony is valued equally to a man’s in the courtroom. There’s really no comparison. As long as we don’t throw our rights away…
——————————
karen, if by freedom of speech you mean calling minorities, muslims and Iranians evil, rapists and criminals, then yes, you are right.
Yet when I bring up your wanting to join a harem you want to deny me my freedom of speech to question that decision of yours.
As for equal rights for women, most oft eh globe has equal rights for women adn their testimony is also equal to a man’s in a courtroom. IN MOST COUNTRIES AROUND THE GLOBE, INCLUDING ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.
In most countries around the globe, a woman is paid the same as a man for the same position…not so the US. Have you heard of 77 cents on a dollar? The glass ceiling?
Even Sierra Leone has a female president… so let’s not even talk about court testimony.
Senegal? 95 Muslim? Female prime minister! Eh?
Meanwhile, I wonder why you remain blind to the scores of women murdered in Mexico?
What about the beheading, rapes and hostage taking that dwarf ISis’?
is this US of A the same country where pregnant women’s main cause of death is murder?
Where right to prenatal care, right to abortion and right to reproductive rights are being rolled back as we speak?
The same country where the likelihood a female soldier, college student or child faces rape or sexual abuse is off the charts?
Can’t be!
po – Studies show that three women are murdered out of every 100,000 women who are pregnant or have a child less than one year old. Another 2 will commit suicide. That is not even statistically significant.
BTW, because of the way they have rolled any unwanted sexual advance into the sexual abuse category, they stats are not to be believed. Where you have to get both partners (or more) to sign that they are consenting to sex is just going over the edge.
Well, Paul, I believe, unlike Karen, that even one murdered pregnant woman is one too many.
If we are going with what is statistically significant alone then the 3000 Americans killed in 9/11 are statistically insignificant in relation to the number of Americans lost to gun violence.
Meanwhile, there is no other place in the world, at least in any civilized nation that I know of, where such violence towards pregnant women is as extreme.
As for rape, we all know what rape is, whether physically violent or emotionally coerced.
po – they have changed the rules on what rape is. Don’t fool yourself into think you are in the clear.
“…in Europe, countries like France, England, and Germany are rapidly rolling back on free speech. It is possible in these countries that mocking the Holocaust would be treated as hate speech, something that many civil libertarians (including myself) have decried over the years….”
What about the fact that seventeen EU nations plus Canada, imprison persons today who deny the West’s version of “holocaustianity?”
What kind of free speech does the US have for persons on Peace Prize winner Obama’s Kill List? Obama is the anti-war President first to have spent all eight continuous years fighting foreign illegal wars not declared by Congress (only Congress has Const. authority to declare war).
What kind of free speech for US citizen, 16 year old minor, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who Peace loving President Obama placed on his cute little extra-judicial “Kill List,” without charge, without oversight (he does not even admit his Kill List exists), murdered in cold blood with an Obama drone missle strike? And thank hero-fellow US citizen Edward Snowden or you’d still not know of this kill list, or the SIXTY SIX THOUSAND Iraqi innocent civilians the US murdered in cold blood (the US admits this number, actual likely about 10x that number…the number was at the time Snowden took his docs, actual number now very much higher). Free speech for these dead?
What holy hell does free speech matter when POTUS’ so-called justice department purposely blessed the many major felonies committed in broad daylight by US Banks, that directly caused the 2008 melt down we still suffer under? The first step of a bloodless coup is to take over the nations Justice Department: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/must-watch-video-veneer-justice-kingdom-crime
I want to live in a USA where the government does not attempt to sway what other nations do within their borders, unless it personally harms an innocent US citizen who does not deserve it. Stop obeying President Wilson’s century old order to improve the world’s lot by spreading US-style democracy. Ask Anwar Al-Awlaki’s family about American democracy.
Yep, JJ, freedom of speech, another element of white privilege.
We claim it for ourselves while taking it away from others.
And guess who enables most cases of freedom of speech denial worldwide?
John Smith
Your arguments that mirror those of others who design history to suit themselves, their bias, racism, etc. are beyond ridiculous. Israel is the a**hole of the world. It is pretty much the height of failure to have been treated so badly throughout history and then perform like arguments on another minority, in order to create lebensraum. However one justifies it, the crimes committed by Israel are crimes and, unfortunately for us all, part of our common human nature. We take what we can. The Americas today are the result of the European lebensraum of centuries past.
However, regardless of whether or not it was one, two, three, or six million, millions of Jews hunted and exterminated for reasons that the human race, collectively, realizes is not worthy of said race, the most dangerous aspect of the human condition is that it can justify murder as collateral damage and theft as economic expansion. We are what we are and knowing thus we put laws and rules in place understanding our faults. The laws in Europe set in to thwart the horrific conditions that existed in Germany before WW2 may not be ideologically correct vis a vis free speech and other freedoms but they are, perhaps, necessary given the fallibility of the human race. Perhaps these are the wisest and most societally evolved nations that realize their shortcomings.
Your posts illustrate that fallibility beyond a doubt. Murder is murder, genocide is genocide, and drawing one’s attention away from the events by juggling numbers and relating it to other like events does not negate this horrendous aspect of the human condition. Most nations have performed this in one way or another at one time or another. Those that speak out most strongly against this festering characteristic sometimes realizing their vulnerability, use laws in a heavy handed manner.
So what if a racist nut case goes to prison for six months to thwart attempts at rewriting history. Perhaps there are more worthy targets of your bushwhacking. Any one can find rust on the pearly gates.
well who knows how many Jews died or survived the war in Axis areas! What I DO know is that its basically ILLEGAL in most EU nations to even study the topic unless your conclusion is “6 million died”
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2006/10/04/peine-avec-sursis-pour-faurisson_53258
I mean the international red cross statistics of a million and half dead? they MUST have been wrong and it’s illegal to ask the question and analyze how or why because Yad Vashem has it down as holy writ.
Putting aside the fact that Yad Vashem has changed its tally, as well. LOL
Po
Your response makes no sense at all. It falls into the, ‘I can recite the koran, therefore I know more about religion than those who cannot.’ stance. The bottom line, and it is graphically obvious, is that regardless of the faults of the US and regardless of the faults of Iran, only in the US can you criticize your own country, religion, government, et al, without fear of execution, jailing, beatings, etc. Or is the Western media making all that stuff up about Iran? Perhaps that is why you are in the US, even though you don’t sound like someone that would ruffle any Imam’s feathers. I, on the other hand, would be tucked away in jail. It’s the old proof of the pudding stance.
Issac, your obsession with the quran is derailing your argument. I never said anything about the QUran. Most muslims cannot recite much of the quran…most Muslims have never read it, as most Christians or Jews have never read their own holy books.
i know more about religion because I read more about religion, that simple.
So this has nothing to do with the quran, this has solely to do with a country that happens to be a muslim country , that tries to make a place for itself int he world without losing what is important to it. That it uses extreme means to achieve it is a fact, but in light of the trauma that led to this extremism, it makes sense.
Which muslim countries do not allow a criticism of their own government? Have you gone to Indonesia? To Malaysia? To Nigeria, Senegal… The more populous muslim coutries are democratic countries with a thriving opposition, how do you answer that?
Why is it you keep using the extreme two cases to base your argument on?
Is China a Muslim country? What happens there when you criticize your government?
Is Rwanda a Muslim country? What happens when you criticize the government there?
Try it in Ethiopia, a non Muslim country!
All religious states act in this way – Including Israel
the US should cut ties with all of them
we’d be safer and happier if we did
Isaac, not sure but I think you undermined your own argument above.
Let’s compare Iran to the US, point by point..
Human rights?
Rule of law?
Education?
Population aspiration vs government representation?
Leadership backing for religious prevalence?
Corruption?
And let us add yours…
Complacency?
Xenophobia?
As to America being light years ahead what it is now…sorry to burst your bubble, old chap, this the down facing side of the mountain. The ride is coming to an end, as it is for all empires, as it was for the Persian empire. As it was for the British empire…and before that the Roman, the Spanish, the portugese, the Deutch… This is the best US of A you are gonna see for a while.