A neutral, independent community in which members debate issues related to social justice.
Problems Within Islam
While everyone here knows about the rising tide of Islamophobia in the West, especially those with a huge influx of refugees, and while I hope everyone here understands that there is no justification to discriminate against, deport, ban, or otherwise single out Muslims on an institutional level, those same Muslims that we defend are definitely not all saints, and in fact in some cases do indeed have some problems within their communities disproportionate to their numbers.
While it is true that 94% of terrorist attacks carried out from 1980 to now has been carried out by non-Muslims, Muslims make up only 1% of the US population, which means they are 6 times more likely to commit acts of terrorism than the general population.
And this is in the US. American Muslims are generally considered to be more integrated than Muslims elsewhere. In Europe, there is a much darker picture. In Denmark, Lebanese and Palestinian immigrants have the highest rate of crime out of all groups, and Turkish, Moroccan, Somalian, and Pakistani immigrants are not far behind. In France, the prisons are disproportionately filled with men of North African descent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe). While a large part of that is because immigrants tend to be younger and have lower socioeconomic status, it is a key factor in why right-wing nationalist politics has taken hold to a great extent in many European countries.
Then you get to the Muslims in the Middle East. In that part of the world, attitudes held by the Muslim majority can become extremely nasty and damaging.
Muslims in most Middle Eastern countries have extremely backwards views on women. They also have extremely backwards views on abortion, homosexuality, and in some countries, do not approve of divorce. A significant minority condones honor killings as acceptable. In most countries with a Muslim majority, the majority of the population favors the imposition of Sharia law. Over half of Muslims under 65 surveyed by the ADL (so perhaps take with a grain of salt?) believe that the Holocaust is greatly exaggerated, and 10% deny it completely.
Of course, you will find similar problems with any country with a dominant religion without secular institutions, but it does lend credence to the idea that just like how Christianity has been widely used for the purposes of oppression and evil, Islam has too, and to a deadly extent that is more remniscent of Medieval Europe than the modern day.
So this leads me to a broader question: what will it take for Islam to evolve? Is it economic development? Modernization? Exposure to Western values? Because as of now, while the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists or even sympathize with terrorists, a majority of them are the equivalent of the Christian fundamentalists we see in the States, and a significant minority approves of the use of violence to enforce those puritanical social norms.




as sincerely as i can, and because it's late where i am, i find your articulation as an outsider to what is going on within the larger muslim world to be yikes for a range of reasons, beginning from the some key misapprehensions, like the question-begging tone of implying 'Islam' is a monolith and an unevolved one (thereby not even realising the trajectory of world history especially as it pertains to the 'Muslim world'), to this idea tht there is something essentialist abt the Muslim community that cannot find similarities in other demographics that therefore only the Muslim part of the community's identity must be the only salient point worth exploring as we patronisingly ponder the 'Muslim problem' to this entirely ahistorical view of the world that completely misses out the historical context as well as the entire field of postcolonial theory.
in any case, i do need to go to sleep, and if i do feel like i can take all comers, maybe i will respond further. good night.
Thanks for responding in good faith.
Of course I don't consider Islam to be a monolith per se. In the US, they have integrated extremely well, and this goes for both regular immigrants and refugees. While in Europe the picture is less bright, the fact that they commit crimes disproportionately in a number of countries is not necessarily due their religion so much as it is because of a combination of socioeconomic status and their relative youth demographically. That being said, I am explaining it as one of the reasons why the right-wing nationalists have gained ground - I am not excusing it, but I am saying their claims that "Muslims are criminals" are based on some form of evidence, though evidence that is lacking in context. Of course Muslims are not all the same - it's just that a significant proportion of them hold views which are backwards in terms of treatment of women and homosexuals.
The social attitudes in the Middle East can be directly traced to religion in particular - Islam is just what happens to be prevalent in that region. Those social norms may have preceded Islam but the Quran (much like the Bible, or any religious text from thousands of years ago) definitely contains verses which condone them. While it is true that historically the Middle East has been more tolerant than the West, especially in the Middle Ages, it is not true now.
Am I saying that Islam is inherently more violent and socially backwards? No - after all, plenty of other religions have similar problems - in Uganda for example, Christian fundamentalists are responsible for persecution of homosexuals and their refusal to invest in condoms has increased the transmission of HIV, and in the US abortion rights and LGBT rights are being attacked by Christian fundamentalists. But I am saying that adherents of Islam in many parts of the world do hold misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic views as of now, and that it needs to change. This is a problem not unique to Islam but just because adherents of other religions have similar problems doesn't mean that Muslims who hold those views are innocent.
The reason why I posted this was because I feel conflicted and torn - as a cosmopolitan I believe in freedom of religion, open immigration rules, and a "melting pot" view of cultures, but I'm also a secularist who can't help but see parallels between the draconian laws on morality that were in place in the West up to the 20th century because of "Christian values" and the draconian laws on morality (often based on Sharia) that is in place in a good number of countries with a Muslim majority because of religious values.
Perhaps that is what you are doing with your work - and if so, I would be happy to hear you explain.
This is one thing I've always been afraid to address on Tumblr. If nothing else, I think ex-Muslims often get sidelined by such discourse. I agree that "forced assimilation" is a bad thing, but I also strongly oppose compulsory "loyalty" to a group that you happened to be born into - and accusations of committing "treason" towards a group that you never voluntarily chose to be a part of.
Of course, apostasy is punishable by death in a number of countries and by prison in others. This is an example of the religious fundamentalism that, while not being terroristic in the sense that it's attacking the West, is reflective of how those with power in the Middle East treat its own who do not conform to their rules. That, on top of the attitudes held by the people in those countries, indicate that radicalism is not just a problem with ISIS, al-Qaeda, or other terrorist organizations, but rather with those in power and the people who support them.
I think in the US our picture of Islam is one of two extremes - the everyday people who are harmless, secular, progressive, and contribute a lot to society, but also ISIS/al-Qaeda and terrorism. Depending on your political views, one will dominate over the other (objectively speaking the former exists much greater numbers but the media focuses on the latter). But neither are reflective of the "typical Muslim", if such a thing were to ever exist.
I was deeply troubled over those polls, and what it meant - it meant that there is a problem with extreme social conservatism/authoritarianism within the religious group that is independent of terrorism, and that just like with other religions, it could (and does) lead to violence not so much in terms of terrorism but in terms of everyday violence against women, homosexuals, apostates, etc.
Prejudice against people just because they happen to be Muslim is wrong, but that doesn't mean the religion is above criticism - and, if anything, ex-Muslims need our support. They don't exactly agree with right-wing politics, either. I'm very anti-authoritarian, in general.
To use a non-Muslim example, look at North Korea. Any attempts to escape that totalitarian nation carries with it severe penalties. Even in the US, which often purports to be a free country, people who choose to leave the country (or, heaven forbid, even renounce their US citizenship) are often accused of being "traitors" by many right-wing conservatives.
Exactly. If anything, the attitudes displayed by the majority of Muslims in the Middle East and those in power there are very similar to what you see from Ted Cruz, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. The only difference is whether they believe Muhammad was God's prophet. So no, I don't believe a significant proportion of Islam's adherents should be immune from criticism just because the religion is currently under attack in the West by bigots.
As for your comment about ex-Muslims - that is very important. They will both be apostates, AND will be discriminated against by right-wingers in the West because of their skin complexion and/or their lack of religion.
Reading your response in total, overall I understand that you seem to be a person who believes himself to be an atheist, but more than that, a person who does not yet have a nuanced grasp of faith communities in general, either from how they are as ideological movements or as identity markers or how they can be in normative practice and behaviour as a polity as well as the historical context on how faith communities can and do act as advocates for social progress. You are also not critical enough of the idea that normalises Western values as normal values. So with this understanding, I want to say, sincerely, you're not the first I have had to have this conversation. Unfortunately I've learned, that in order to maintain my own well-being I cannot be the sole representative of trying to engage you on these very large blind spots.
So what I'm gonna do next is respond to each of your paragraph is try and identify where I think your assumptions have steered you badly, and then I'm going to have to leave it you to do the necessary legwork to educate yourself. I'm not really mentally fit to be your sounding board, I'm sorry. And until you do, I urge you to be more cautious in making declaratory statements.
you've already recognised the socioeconomic barriers (as well as systemic discrimination and racism), yet somehow you cannot imagine these real world factors to be more salient and exert more material pressure in shaping the choices and behaviour of a marginalised community? within this concern of yours will you also be saying that there is something inherent in the black american identity that also makes them more likely to be jailed, that is NOT due to socioeconomic and systemic discrimination? There is something in each community's identity-forming ideology that can be accessed to psychologically motivate them as they each construct the narrative of their group in the face of perceived threat or slight. You see this in the rise of the white identity in America, as it develops in opposition to newly freed African Americans, that it began to envelop previously discriminated Catholics of European backgrounds, ie the Italians and the Irish. And this white identity is accessed and is used to motivate a new class of terrorists in USA. Or are we forgetting that prior to 9/11, the FBI's main cointel targets were white supremacists, a community that actually caused the Oklahoma bombings? Explaining the psychology of the community is only a factor, PLENTY of credible counterterrorist experts also point radicalisation needs actual substantive and material support. And how that material support suddenly becomes available to a community to express their agitation is a function of both politics and economics. Catholic IRA terrorists in the UK and Ireland were able to do the bombings that they did before the Good Friday Agreement because of material support, and quite a bit of that from sympathetic Irish Americans. Am I to assume that there is something to the Irish character that needs evolving despite centuries of integration within the British polity?
That aside, you're asking basic questions that can be resolved if you had taken the necessary work to learn that not only 'progressive' Muslims and Islamic advocacy have always existed, the constant political push-and-pull is organic and sustained entirely by Muslims. Just because your view is entirely coloured by fundamentalist representation of my faith doesn't mean it's true. A lot of social justice work that has been done since the time of the Prophet and is continuing to be done isn't based on imported notions and values either. Tangentially, I am currently reading a long essay about the death of the political Left in Europe - but from a more ignorant fellow, the observation could be made that Europe is a racist continent that will never see the value of diversity and protection of the poor, using the same set of facts.
Sure, but again which plank gets pushed or not depends very much on the amount of resources that gets thrown at it. If the Koch brothers and other right-wing elite didn't throw their money at fostering a right-wing media in the USA that made it their business to not depend on facts at all, would the political discourse in that country be at the state where it is now? Can I just then dismiss all Republicans as ignoramuses and abortion-supporting Bible thumpers? That only does a disservice to the progressive Christian left who is actively pushing against the Right's going around as though they're the only representative of Christian politics. The same can in fact be said with the Middle East. Follow the money. How on earth did a wild-eyed ascetic from the desert called Abu Wahab suddenly found himself wedded so thoroughly with the House of Saud (who weren't that bothered one way or another about being Wahhabists), and how did THIS particular tribe somehow won the ability and the right to unite all the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula that now forms KSA? (if it's so hard, just watch Lawrence of Arabia). How did the other Mideast regimes continue to find longetivity and be able to perpetuate despite active resistance of their people? (by your logic, these people in the resistance somehow must be accessing values other than their own Islamic one). At the same time, recall what I said about the political usage of native identity in order to access some kind of essentialist ideology that can be used to legitimise all this. This is one of the more basic observations of politics.
And anyway, how on earth did Tunisia manage to come out with its most recent Constitution post-Arab Spring if not through the work of their Islamists, a constitution that's been roundly lauded for its progressive values? last I checked, they're still considered part of the MENA region. And are the only Islamic countries worth noting ONLY in that region? So let's just forget the Islamic majorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, and West Africa, and Africa in general? These are all historically and currently where Islam is being practiced, where centres of Islamic learning are located traditionally and currently and supposedly progressively compared to the Middle East (to follow your logic)
Re: Uganda - follow the money. Follow the American money. Before that, follow the Western colonialism money. Modern homophobia was pretty much a legacy of 19th century Western mores. And the story has very little difference in postcolonial states, be they Christian majority or Muslim majority or even Buddhist majority (see Myanmar and its treatment and rhetoric about the Rohingyas). We're all now grappling in trying to remove ourselves from this poison, develop ourselves socioeconomically and at the same time trying to construct a national identity out of these disparate tribes and kingdoms that are now made to live together.
[con't]
You're not reading enough history or politics. I will say opinions like this makes work for actual Muslim (and yes! even ex-Muslims! don't use them as concern trolling fodder) activists, advocates and politicians hard. They run the risk of being discredited because suddenly their work represents foreign/outsider/colonialist values when it's not, when in actuality they represent a threat to the existing elite. It's bad enough having the public risk of being discredited, but in parts of the world where you seem to be interested in, the risk is actually lethal and can mean certain death. Please don't contribute to this line of thinking, which is pervasive, and I see it too often amongst people who should know better. It's a good thing ppl like Malala Yousafzai survived, but understand that one of the reactionary rhetoric surrounded her was that she's an agent of the West because somehow her values could not possibly be Islamic values. Your kind of opinionating contributes to this.
I'd really rather not. But look, Muslims like me and my ex-Muslim friends talk about the problems you note A LOT. A LOT A LOT A LOT. and loudly. All I'm asking is, as you note these issues, could you maybe, idk, not phrase it as a 'problem with Islam' when it's not the faith that's the problem? It's the people. Once you resituate the paradigm like so, then the problem isn't so insurmountable and crazy hard to solve. Just fucking hard, not crazy hard.
Maybe they're jailed more because they actually commit a disproportionate amount of crime? But the higher rates of crime that's not something that is inherent to being black or Muslim. They are not genetically predisposed towards violence - it is because of how they are socialized by their environments. And being socioeconomically in worse shape does not always imply discrimination. It is true there is discrimination in these cases, but not always.
In terms of the ones who support terrorism or sympathize with its aims? Most definitely. It's definitely a problem if a significant proportion of any demographic is aiding terrorism. While this does not apply to Muslims and ISIS, it would be an example of where people other than the terrorists are complicit.
Where did I say progressive Muslims didn't exist? They're not the majority though. That's all I'm saying. Giving individual examples doesn't prove that they constitute the majority of Muslims.
Are those resistance figures actually progressive though? Sometimes they are even more fundamentalist than what they replace.
Those Islamists were more moderate than the typical Islamists. Islamism as an ideology is socially conservative though.
Indonesia and Malaysia are just as bad as the Middle East. If you read the polls I posted you would see that those same socially backwards views are just as prevalent in Indonesia and Malaysia as in most Middle Eastern countries. Data for West Africa is scant. The countries in which Muslims were more progressive tended to be in Europe.
The 19th century West wasn't the only setting that institutionalized homophobia. How do you explain the homophobia of China and Japan, then, as they were never colonized? What about Afghanistan (never colonized either)? Thailand? Even if you're talking about the Middle East, Iran was never colonized. Homophobia is a worldwide phenomenon that is not exclusive to the West and its former colonies.
Sure, the West is not the only source for social justice. But it just so happens that the West, right now, tends to treat women and LGBTs more equally than the majority of Muslim majority countries do. So while those activists may have those ideas independently of the West, there are similarities which will be noticed.
Except what are Islamic values, as represented in the real world, other than the values of the people who say they're Muslim? Of course there is wide variation, but it is clear that the majority of Muslims around the world take a traditionalist approach to Islam in which social conservatism and patriarchy are dominant. You may be a progressive activist, and so are many others. But you are not in the majority. That is what I am saying.
I understand that what I said could be easily misconstrued as saying that Islam can never be compatible with the values of feminism and LGBT acceptance, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the majority of Muslims, and nearly all of the ones who are in positions of power, hold views that are antithetical to those values, and that it is a serious problem. Islam can be used as a tool for social justice, but it is clearly in the minority.
Islam is a faith like any other in that ultimately, you're right, it is about the people. But the view of the people dictate the values of the religion. These people currently as a majority hold socially conservative views. Can you really separate the religion from the person? Because the beliefs and values of the religion are constantly evolving, in accordance with the time period, cultural exchange, and the work of important figures within the religion, and the people go along with that. Christianity isn't what it was 1000 years ago - yes it is because of the people, but the values of Christianity as represented in the world changed as well. Islam isn't what it was 1000 years ago - the values that it represents will change according to the people. Islam will change, and it is up to its adherents such as yourself to make sure that it changes for the better. I am not saying that Islam is an inherently bad faith, but rather that a majority of those who are Muslim wants it to be used as a tool of social control rather than a tool of social justice.
you need to be more cognisant of systemic discrimination. also progressive Islam pretty much brought an end to slavery as a cultural and socioeconomic practice. (a key part of how Western slavery was also abolished was also due to appeals to religious doctrine, in this case, Christian) Socialisation can move either way, and both based very much on the theology. Which political bent gains advantage in gaining foothold in the masses, is as I've pointed out repeatedly, is effected by material factors.
and that occured as a function of them expressing and agitating for a right of statehood. The Irish identity is a key part of this motivation, but that identity isn't an automatic gateway to terrorism. The agitation is for something material.
Thanks for speaking up for my people, I really appreciate it. Even with the data you provide it doesn't give a complete view, not to mention the bias of what's considered normative values. EVEN IF present Muslim polities tend to hold socially conservative views, the same can be said for a substantial portion of other polities (see: Indian Hindus; Myanmarese Buddhists; African Christians etc etc). In itself shouldn't mean an automatic pathway to terrorism. Actual weaponised radicalisation is a function of other factors.
Right, so somehow they're not progressive enough for you. Even as Hegel would point out, the course of a society's progress isn't meant to be a binary concept. That's just bad political analysis.
As well as you somehow bringing the unrelated examples of China and Japan, and not even realising the political realities of many Muslim-majority countries, I have to bow out. It's evident you are not as informed as you like about the matter at hand.
I agree with your article. The main obstacle to real modernisation in muslim societies is that religion rules the political life. Another danger is, that the Wahabism from Saudi Arabia takes over in the Sunna world. I remember the times 30 - 40 years back, there was none of this western agression and for foreignes no rligion discussion. The populistic movements all over the world increasted this insane argument to mistrust ALL muslims. Also to ban the majority of women from public work does not help to develop society.
To get straight to the Middle East question, a lot of the turmoil has to do with the turmoil that came before. They have been subject to a lot of war for various reasons, which has really ruined them. Here is a chart of median ages around the world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Median_age.png. You see how young people are in the Middle East? (Africa, too). Young people tend to be more radical, and young people are what are powering the unrest right now. When something happens that lets people live longer, they will become more conservative (not necessarily right-wing) and a lot of the other issues will dry up. It's kind of a feedback loop, I think; war kills the older young men, and then their younger brothers grow up in a bad situation and get radicalized easier. I don't really know enough to say any more, I haven't read up on the ME in a while.
When I was 16 (some 56 years ago) an imam tried to convert me to the faith. One of his fundamental statements was that as Man's law and Man's rule was ungodly it needed to be replaced by God's law. That was an immediate switch-off for me.
I have only ever seen his stated ambition perpetuated, either passively or actively by Muslims I read of, and or observe in my daily life. When I try to engage Muslims in debate about the wrongness of this approach (that their faith is the only true faith and all others are apostates and etc and etc) they will not engage with me. The passives are in denial at best or perpetrating a falsehood at worse (What? Us do a thing like that? Never! We are the religion of peace!) while the activists are busy doing the things terrorists are renowned for doing, in effect giving the lie to the religion of peace.
Now, my point is this; that irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of Muslim beliefs, of Islam being a religion of peace or a religion of war, and seeking a world caliphate (rule by God's only true representative on earth) or not, perception is everything, and the creation of a world Caliphate is in progress and is not going to happen without a great deal of trauma for both pro and anti Islamics and pro and anti Caliphatists, if indeed a Caliphate ever happens at all.
I know that some analysts believe that certain elements of Islam are actually trying to force Armageddon upon the world and are prepared to go to any lengths in order to achieve this ambition. I have no personal knowledge of this but I would not be surprised were it true, because some elements of Islam (are they one and the same elements?) behave as if there is no accounting for their deeds (sex slavery, public beheadings, to name but a few such acts) and no tomorrow where they will be held accountable, and anyway, if their actions result in their deaths they would be guaranteed a privileged place in heaven (or the Islamic equivalent). How can you counter such thinking? How can you bring this madness to an end?
The thing is this, if Islam is truly the religion of peace and Muslims who advocate this belief of peace and wish to pursue their lives in peace, they are going to have to get of the fence of denialism and take up cudgels against all their militant fellow Muslims and do it pretty quickly, before the non-Muslim world run out of patience. Britain had to do that with the fascist bullies of the 1930s. Look them in the face and deal with them.
This is not Islamaphobia speaking. I am just relating my personal experiences of Islam and otherwise sitting on the outside looking in and wondering at the insanity of it all and where it is taking us.
If this seems harsh, reality is harsh. Chamberlain refused to look reality in the face in the 1930's and look where that took the world. We need to look reality in the face and someone needs to do something about it before it is too late. My sense is that this is a problem within Islam, and the only people who can resolve it are members of that faith looking reality in the face, today, not tomorrow. And yes, I get it that Islam is already at war with itself but that is clearly not enough.
Phobia is a term meaning an unfounded fear of, well just about anything. The feelings in the West are NOT phobic!! I read recently a TERROR attack with loss of live happens every 84 hours! Frankly I think that is under reported, but something repeating every three and a half days is NOT random! It is not unexpected, and is REAL.
Even if one percent of Muslim's are "radical" that is still tens of millions! I would, and I believe if something like this was being instilled into a group of which I was a member those 99% would make it job one to do everything possible to remove these people from the group and if they committed a crime to inform and do I all could to stop them. If other members of Islam are so concerned about their public image then clean up your own house!!
There are an estimated 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world. This is close to 0.006%, not 1%.
Well, considering that most of the Middle Eastern countries are at war against ISIS, I'd say most of them are doing something about it.
They are doing so, at least when it comes to the terrorism problem.
My main problem with them are the regressive attitudes people in those same countries which oppose terrorism have against women, LGBTs, and Jews, many of whom are in countries which are allies of the United States.
Terrorism and petty crime are problems that Muslims in the West, especially in Europe, are responsible for - but it is a miniscule problem compared to things like honor killings, Sharia law, and extreme homophobia and anti-Semitism in Middle Eastern countries.
Wang,
1% was an example, i.e. "a tiny fraction". I'm not sure anyone knows the exact number. but if it's actually 100,000 that's 100,000 to many. All over Western Europe and here seems every time they go on a killing spree "someone" is aware, and therefore a person who COULD have stopped them. The latest example is the mad bomber of this past weekend. His father actually contacted authorities, but, IMHO, the Feds dropped the ball. We're hearing again each concerned federal/state seems to be more worried about "their" turf and budget. After 9/ 11 we were told all this would be, then was corrected, but seems the more things change the more they stay the same.
Our "good" friends the House of Saud seems to be among the worst offenders. I'm sure you are aware of the agreement formed between the Saud, and the Wahhabi, one of the most extreme of Islam. I'd venture a guess that there are 100,000 Saudis actively support the "Caliphate". While Saudi Arabia might be the worst of the bunch, Iran openly states it's actions against the "Big Satan", and thanks to Barack the First they have tens of billions which they will no doubt use to support groups who consider "death to America" as job one.
All in all considering the action and belief you have listed, plus dozens more of their beliefs I disagree with I feel it will be a long and hard fight for the West to survive and one day win over these groups.
No belief, no faith, will not have anyone who's not a terrorist. It's a miniscule proportion of any religious group that will be terrorists - and those percentages are usually so small they are not statistically significant from each other.
You mean ISIS? You might have a point. But the government, as repressive as it is, is one of the key fighters against terrorism, and most people in the Islamic world, regardless of what their views are on other issues, are against terrorism. Sometimes, you have to let "bad guys" fight things out when it comes to foreign relations - and support the side that is more aligned with your interests.
And if it can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, it's not a terrible trade-off - again, when it comes to international relations sacrifices have to be made. It's been the theme of international politics since the dawn of time. Either way, there will be some con to a solution - in this case, it is Iran getting additional money from the end of sanctions, which may be used to sponsor terrorism, but 1 nuclear bomb can cause more damage to US interests than money thrown at terrorists will.