Responding to anti-Muslim prejudices

[Jim]

@LuisDantas It occurs to me that you might be thinking that people actually read their scriptures.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Besides that, do you have any other reasons for thinking that most Muslims interpret the Quran the way you do?

It's Muslims Qu'ran ask them, but then knowing that Muslims can lie and deceive, how would a person know if their even telling the truth
As for one, Muslims are raised on their Qu'ran. Which promotes lying and deceiving, and so back to the question,
How would anyone know of a certainly that Muslims would even be speaking the truth

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas It occurs to me that you might be thinking that people actually read their scriptures.

I am well aware that most people do not.

The relationship of people towards their own professed beliefs is a fascinating subject matter. Not least because while it is hardly a secret that most people are only vaguely aware of the very scriptures that they supposedly consider sacred, to this day there is considerable taboo against saying that openly.


Warning: boring personal story ahead. Click under your own peril.

As it turns out, I can give personal testimony.

I was raised in a nominally Catholic environment at a time and place that expected me to go through the Eucharisty course and to undergo the ceremony. Other people had decided on my behalf that I had Catholic beliefs, not necessarily at any specific time; it was just part of the often-unspoken assumption and expectation. Oddly, it is just now while I type this that I realize that I am far from certain that those people had Catholic beliefs themselves. "Cultural" or nominal Catholicism was very much a reality in 1970s Brazil, and is very far from gone even now.

In retrospect, it is a curious state of affairs. Far as I can tell, the Vatican has my name on its records as an "official" Catholic despite the simple fact that I was never a believer, the closer to that ever having been being too unconfortable to actually tell the adults around me that I was not a believer. I spent months supposedly learning about "my" religion, its nature and meaning... and it was only years later that I learned that there are such a thing as Gospels - from a Buddhist teacher, no less. Buddhism taught me a lot more about Christianity than Christianity itself ever attempted to, although it rarely made me much more of a believer in anything.

With that out of the way, let's talk a bit about how scriptures work in practice, both broadly and specifically in Islaam.

Any Hindu will tell you that is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to have actually read the Vedas. I am not sure that it is even considered possible, or even desirable. The texts are huge and often challenging, to a degree that would humble Bible snobs. While that is an extreme example, accessibility is definitely not a typical attribute of scriptures.

Interestingly enough, Christianity and Islaam are (far as I know) by far the two doctrines that most emphasize their own scriptures, and therefore that suffer the most from the limitations and flaws of those scriptures. The Bahai Faith, unfortunately, seems not to have fully noticed and learned to deal with that fact. Bahais seem to enjoy quoting scripture almost as much as Muslims, and generally more than current Christians.

In practice, the relationship between adherent and scripture in Christianity or Islaam can be difficult to understand, and often a remarkably complex or even contradictory part of that person's religious identity. I would guess that it may even usually be by far the most complex. On the one hand, Christians and particularly Muslims are expected to extend nearly automatic reverence towards their scriptures. On the other hand, a remarkably small percentage of adherents is even capable of reading those - and if anything, that was even more true historically, for both doctrines.

Odd as it is, both of those two doctrines emphasize that we are all equally insignificant when perceived by their Gods and should therefore be equally humble, yet both also rely on some form of scripture scholars (of unavoidably high status) in order to justify their own continued existence.

The end result is a social-religious environment that has not only developed a highly ambiguous nature, but may easily end up requiring it. There is practical value in that ambiguity, because it enables a wide variety of situations and attitudes relating to people of an equally varied range of status and atittudes. Christians and Muslims, both laypeople and priests, have readily available the tools to be both proud and humble, ignorant and backed by well-respected authority, in any and all combinations as the situation demands. As a matter of fact, even internal contradiction is not only accepted, but actually encouraged as a mark of faith, courage and perhaps even "wisdom".

The bottom line is that I am well aware that most people definitely do not read their own scriptures, and that Christianity and Islaam particularly have in fact developed a fairly schizo attitudde towards their own.

Both doctrines are fascinating study cases of antifragility as an adaptative strategy for continued survival through a variety of environments. Interestingly, their strategies are not very alike at the end of the day. Christianity is much less rigid and less confrontational, despite itself, than Islaam demands and expects itself to be.

For a while now, I have been proposing that the tension between the scripture-backed teachings and the actual realized beliefs and religious wisdom is in fact a major, necessary and very welcome treasure of any religion (or even most pseudo-religions). Sacrilegious as that idea may sound to a Christian and most of all to a Muslim, it is in fact the adherents, the people, that improve the validity of the doctrine and who protect the perception of value of the scripture. Dharmi are generally better aware of that fact than Abrahamic adherents, although there are many, many exceptions for that rule of thumb in both groups.

Unfortunately, there is very little breathing room for such concerns to be even discussed in Muslim environments.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's Muslims Qu'ran ask them, but then knowing that Muslims can lie and deceive, how would a person know if their even telling the truth
As for one, Muslims are raised on their Qu'ran. Which promotes lying and deceiving, and so back to the question,
How would anyone know of a certainly that Muslims would even be speaking the truth

We do not have any real choice but to make the attempt, now do we?

What alternative would we have? Pray for all Muslims to convert away? Hope that they all die or just lose interest? Kill them all ourselves, including the children, and destroy all evidence of their teachings?

Not one of those conceivable alternatives is either morally defensable or workable.

So no, sorry, but ultimately it is our duty to attempt to reach out for Muslims and establish links of mutual acceptance and understanding with them. We should be on guard for Taqiya, of course, but that is no excuse for refusing to have any dealings with them.

Nor should we mislead them. In my case, that means not hiding that I do in fact perceive Islaam as a worthless, harmful and doomed doctrine. But that can not happen at the expense of basic decency and respect towards the people themselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've thought for a long time that exposing the fallacies in anti-Muslim propaganda is worse than useless, but now I might have seen some examples of where that might have done some good. Maybe it can do some good if it's done in the right spirit. One way I've thought of to help free people from anti'Muslim prejudices might be to help diversify their images of Muslims, but I haven't found any practical ways of doing that. I had some ideas that I tried on Facebook, but it took an enormous amount of searching on the Internet, and I couldn't keep it up. One way I've thought of to help counteract the effects of anti-Muslim prejudice is be a friend to some Muslims. Does anyone have any other ideas about how to help free people from anti-Muslim prejudices, and counteract their effects? Or maybe it isn't as big a problem as it sometimes appears to me to be in Internet discussions and media stories, and not even worth any attention.

One problem with this, is that many people seem to be confusing "mere criticism" with "anti-muslim propaganda".

Everybody and their mothers know that yes, radical islamists willing to take up arms to fight a religious war (what we would call "terrorists"), are a clear minority within the muslim community. This is a point that needs not be discussed. I consider it a given.

However, it's also very very true that eventhough they are a minority, the sheer size of their numbers is both alarming as well as unique to islam.

We (=the world) don't have such problems with armed militia of the hindu or christian flavours. So clearly there is something in the muslim community, and islam at large, that motivates some of this behaviour.

And it's okay to point that out. It's not anti-muslim propaganda to put ones finger in an open wound. It's not propaganda to mention the elephant in the room.

And it's very very counter productive to avoid talking about that at all costs, and label anyone who wishes to discuss it a "racist" or "facist" or "islamophobe" or whatever.

The first step in solving a problem, is recognising that there is a problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your arrogance is over the top and a huge turn off. Who do you think you are?

How was what he said "arrogant"?

I don't get that comment.

Seems to me that the dude was just being honest.

 

[sooda]

How was what he said "arrogant"?

I don't get that comment.

Seems to me that the dude was just being honest.

Perhaps you should read his posts. He presumes to speak for all Muslims... and claims he is an expert.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I read this thread there is a recurring idea that I think should be addressed. While I understand that humans tend to identify with what they believe, I think it's important do distinguish between ideas and not-ideas. So the phrase "anti-Muslim" seems dangerously imprecise to me. Many people associate Muslims with Arabs. And some people are prejudiced against Arabs and so sometimes being an Arab and being a Muslim get conflated. Then are are people like Luis and I who think that many of the IDEAS enshrined in Islam are bad ideas. I think it's CRUCIAL to distinguish between criticism of any set of ideas (such as Islam), and prejudice towards people based on things they cannot change (like being an Arab). So to me, prejudice towards an ethnicity or race is a bad behavior, but criticism of ideas - any ideas - should be viewed as healthy.

With all of that said, what do you mean when you mention "anti-Muslim"?

I'ld give this multiple "winner" ratings, if I could.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With all due respect: How do you expect "Muslims" to succeed at this if established and well funded Government Military and Intelligence organizations cannot?

Let me tell you the story of Belgian "foreign fighters" in Syria, the Paris death squads and the terrorists Abdeslam and Abrini.

So first, there was this group in Belgium called "Shariah4Belgium". These good-for-nothing radicals roamed the streets of Antwerp, Brussels, Molenbeek, Vilvoorde,... and basically brainwashed young kids into going to Syria and join Isis. The parents of any of these kids, knew very well that the people from Shariah4Belgium they hung out with, were very very bad news. They did nothing.

The Imam's of the mosques those families went to, also knew those guys. They did nothing.

Then there was this guy, Abdelhamid Abaoud. A young petty criminal (roberies, burglary, drug dealing,vandalism,... all-round scum) from Molenbeek. Among his friends were he Abdeslam brothers and Abrini. Abdelhamid was one of the first to go to Syria. Everybody knew.

Everybody also knew that he was still in contact with his old friends. Nobody did anything.

Then Verviers happened. A plot was uncovered of terrorists who were going to dress up as police officers and start shooting up places. They stormed the hideout and killed those guys. The leader? Abdelhamid Abaoud, who was hiding out in Greece at the time.

Shortly after, again contact with the Abdeslams and Abrini. People in Molenbook knew. They did nothing.

Big brother Abdeslam goes to Syria for a few weeks, along with a few others that were part of the Paris attackers. People knew. People did nothing.

Then Paris happened. Salah Abdeslam's suicide belt didn't work. He tossed it. He then called up 2 friends in Brussels to come and get him. They came by car. They knew who they were picking up and what he did. They said nothing.

They drove back to Brussels. Abdeslam then went hiding for weeks in Molenbeek, 3 blocks from his own house. Eventually has captured thanks to fine investigator work (a pizza ordering at the wrong time from the wrong place eventually caught up with him). After his arrest, we learn that plenty of people in Molenbeek, so called "non radicals", actually saw the guy simply walking around in Molenbeek late at night. Nobody said anything.



To be honest with you.... The ENTIRE Paris attacks, as well as the one at Zaventem, could have been avoided, if muslims of those guys' immediate environment would have notified authorities instead of the local imam, who then went on to only "have a chat", when these guys started showing signs of heavy radicalisation and went "missing" for a few weeks without notice, during a time when ISIS was heavily, heavily advertising to come to Syria to join their forces and / or train to then return and become a terrorist.



I'm not going to generalise this to the entire muslim community, off course.
But the facts are the facts: plenty of people in that community had the opportunity to "rat" on them and notify authorities. But nobody did. And most of them knew where it was heading.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's Muslims Qu'ran ask them, but then knowing that Muslims can lie and deceive, how would a person know if their even telling the truth
As for one, Muslims are raised on their Qu'ran. Which promotes lying and deceiving, and so back to the question,
How would anyone know of a certainly that Muslims would even be speaking the truth

The Quran promotes virtues and truthfulness.

For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for patient men and women, for humble men and women, for charitable men and women, for fasting men and women, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God’s praise: for them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward.” (Quran 33:35)

Sura 5:13

Truly God loves the virtuous.

119 God said, “This is the Day wherein the truthful shall benefit from their truthfulness. For them shall be Gardens with rivers running below, abiding therein forever. God is content with them, and they are content with Him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps you should read his posts. He presumes to speak for all Muslims... and claims he is an expert.

I did read his posts and I don't agree at all with what you are claiming here.

 

[sooda]

I did read his posts and I don't agree at all with what you are claiming here.

That's fine. I tend towards respecting the culture and heritage of other people. I am not convinced that our way of doing things is the only way.. and I am reluctant to speak for others.

 

[sooda]

It's Muslims Qu'ran ask them, but then knowing that Muslims can lie and deceive, how would a person know if their even telling the truth
As for one, Muslims are raised on their Qu'ran. Which promotes lying and deceiving, and so back to the question,
How would anyone know of a certainly that Muslims would even be speaking the truth

Taqiya is the same as Lashon Hara.

Taqiya is a form of Islamic dissimulation or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny their faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

Taqiya is also about keeping the peace by not slandering someone.. In fact, even if you know something damaging about a person, true or not, its prudent to keep silent.

If your wife says, "Does this dress make me look fat?" you should dissemble.

On the flip side, perjury is punished more severely in Islam than it is in the US.

Are you familiar with Lashon Hara? Its considered a very serious sin in Judaism.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is it ok if we confuse your civility with an abundance of caution? It is not just the US that has nukes now - North Korea does and so do other countries inimical to the US interests. If the US were to ever use nukes again - you would potentially be sacrificing a bunch of our countrymen on the coasts or Hawaii - that would face retaliation. Are you prepared for that?

Much further than Hawaii.

 

[dybmh]

The Google definition of Propaganda:

"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

Biased and Misleading.

Bias is natural and normal. To me this means that when communicating publicly, it's important to be proactive to counteract the effect of bias if a person wants to be fair in how they speak about controversial subject matter.

Whether or not a person speaks in a misleading manner is more difficult to define. I think it depends on the audience and it depends on the subject matter. In order to be proactive in preventing our own valid criticism from becoming misleading a person needs to fact check their own data regularly. Also, I think It's vital to know the audience.

Based on this, It's understandable why I feel like there is a lot of anti-Islam propaganda floating around. It's because people don't fact check their own data, and they don't know the audience well enough to tell how much detail is needed.

I add one more criteria to my own definition of propaganda: repetition.

Biased, misleading, repetitive = propaganda.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've been thinking a lot about Islam after the terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand. The perpetrator of the massacre had lived less than a kilometre away from my home as he made plans. Hearing about the Sri Lankan attacks yesterday has just brought the issue to foreground. Being the current chair of my cities interfaith council could add another dimension of responsibility. It is for each one of us to establish relationships with members of our local Muslim community or not depending on opportunities and personal motivation. I was just talking to a PhD student who grew up in India. So many of his professors and tutors have been Muslim. For him, its ridiculous to have prejudices. The numbers of Muslims in India who commit acts of terrorism compared to the overall number of Muslims is extremely small.

But it's very difficult to befriend radicals all around. They're just not open to it at all. I suspect if you dad been the neighbour of the fellow in Dunedin who committed the atrocities, you'd have thought to just leave him alone.

OTOH, it's fairly easy to befriend good people.

 

[sooda]

Taqiyya
Meaning 'to prevent' or 'guard against' .

This word is often misunderstood as lying or deceiving non Muslims for the benefit of Muslims. However lying in Islam is such a serious sin, it is said to be a greater offense than missing the 5 daily prayers,which is the most important pillar in islam.

Taqiyya is one of the most misrepresented words, a bit like 'jihad' that many people still believe means holy war, when actually means to struggle.

Also note: be aware of websites like thereligionofpeace,who disguise as Islamic representatives,but who are actually anti-muslim as their main objective is to misguid the masses.

 

[Audie]

It's Muslims Qu'ran ask them, but then knowing that Muslims can lie and deceive, how would a person know if their even telling the truth
As for one, Muslims are raised on their Qu'ran. Which promotes lying and deceiving, and so back to the question,
How would anyone know of a certainly that Muslims would even be speaking the truth

The amount of lying and deceiving that comes from
Christians here in this forum, especially from the
fundamentalist ones hardly makes them better than
the Muslims.
If their books says it is ok at least they are not adding
hypocrisy to their lies.
Which makes them better than the xians I mentioned.

 

[Audie]

The Google definition of Propaganda:

"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

Biased and Misleading.

Bias is natural and normal. To me this means that when communicating publicly, it's important to be proactive to counteract the effect of bias if a person wants to be fair in how they speak about controversial subject matter.

Whether or not a person speaks in a misleading manner is more difficult to define. I think it depends on the audience and it depends on the subject matter. In order to be proactive in preventing our own valid criticism from becoming misleading a person needs to fact check their own data regularly. Also, I think It's vital to know the audience.

Based on this, It's understandable why I feel like there is a lot of anti-Islam propaganda floating around. It's because people don't fact check their own data, and they don't know the audience well enough to tell how much detail is needed.

I add one more criteria to my own definition of propaganda: repetition.

Biased, misleading, repetitive = propaganda.

Of course some of it is propaganda.

But then, the bombs keep going off, dont they?

 

[dybmh]

Of course some of it is propaganda.

But then, the bombs keep going off, dont they?

I'm not an expert; but, I don't think propaganda is related to the bombings.