FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[Jolly_Penguin]

She's good. She actually seems to be able to apply progressive principles to Islam as if there weren't some special exception for it.

Progressive Islam is common sense but even their actions are called Islamophobia.

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

 

[dismal]

Progressive Islam is common sense but even their actions are called Islamophobia.

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

Well, she (Haider)'s an Atheist now. So I don't think she's pushing the "Progressive side of Islam"(tm). Indeed from that speech I think her position that she dropped Islam because it was so inconsistent with her progressive ideals.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

Well, she (Haider)'s an Atheist now. So I don't think she's pushing the "Progressive side of Islam"(tm). Indeed from that speech I think her position that she dropped Islam because it was so inconsistent with her progressive ideals.

She speaks out against honor killings so shares a platform with reformist Muslims. The reformists represent the majority of Muslims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Haider is indeed ex-muslim, and speaks very well in championing her fellow ex-muslims and of the hatred they get from all sides.

This is a great article about her:

http://quillette.com/2017/03/16/on-betrayal

This is the damage done by the regressives, and the same misplaced righteous rage that the Muslim reformists face (hence why I named her above).

 

[dismal]

Well, she (Haider)'s an Atheist now. So I don't think she's pushing the "Progressive side of Islam"(tm). Indeed from that speech I think her position that she dropped Islam because it was so inconsistent with her progressive ideals.

She speaks out against honor killings so shares a platform with reformist Muslims. The reformists represent the majority of Muslims.

I think a lot of people are against honor killings.

I bet we have a few people here who are against them, even.

 

[whichphilosophy]

She speaks out against honor killings so shares a platform with reformist Muslims. The reformists represent the majority of Muslims.

I think a lot of people are against honor killings.

I bet we have a few people here who are against them, even.

This predates Islam. However it has been incorporated in some of Islamic/Islamist societies. The majority however are not involved in such practices but it is significant enough to cause concern.

 

[Warpoet]

There are actually a lot of mainly Muslim groups involved as well as the Clarion project. I have to see the whole film but I have not seen anything suggesting that the act of infiltration is by Muslims, but by Radical Muslims.

You're whitewashing and trying to downplay their horrid rhetoric. The description I linked to from the Times is plainly bigotry against Muslims; hiding behind the rationale that it's only the "radical" ones means nothing if that's what they think most Muslims are. That's the implication, it's what Clarion's work generally points to and what many of its members believe.

If you're not going to be honest about the problems with your source, or just want to keep grandstanding, we've got nothing to talk about.

 

[Warpoet]

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

 

[whichphilosophy]

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise. The actions of a minority of Muslims can (wrongly) be defined as the views of the majority. However there are issues in Islam where the activities of its reformers need to be supported. We have people like CAIR and various organisations which claim to be champions of change but while campaigning for Muslim rights in the USA, ignore problems in some Islamic societies which has spilt into the West such as forced marriages and FGM, be they small percentages.

I think we are getting a bit over the top if we ban women from wearing the Hijab or ban Sharia Courts which are legal in the UK for civil cases and that like any other form of arbitration they must conform to English Law.

The veil could be another issue due to security in the same way we would not allow people to walkabout in ski masks or completely cover their faces. This then hits a problem where someone wears a surgical mask for medical reasons.

 

[Warpoet]

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise.

He does all the time, though. He does it every time he comments on anything related to the subject, then claims that's not what he's doing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise.

He does all the time, though. He does it every time he comments on anything related to the subject, then claims that's not what he's doing.

Excuse my grammar. We should be able to distinguish more clearly. Media and others sometimes don't help with this.
I'm fortunate because I have worked in Muslim countries on contract and overall I don't see any problems. A Palestinian friend of mine has just given me a job to run his company for him. I was paid well while in the Middle East and also representing a UAE company in Italy for a few years.

Though it is abused somewhat, UAE Labour Law is pretty much on the side of the employee and the rules of hire and service are very clear.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise.

You see my point? You can't mention Islam in a negative light, the need for reform or the plight of ex-muslims without somebody like this fellow trying to distract and divert with a personal attack and a charge of bigotry. It makes life nigh impossible for people like Haider and her group.

The actions of a minority of Muslims can (wrongly) be defined as the views of the majority. However there are issues in Islam where the activities of its reformers need to be supported. We have people like CAIR and various organisations which claim to be champions of change but while campaigning for Muslim rights in the USA, ignore problems in some Islamic societies which has spilt into the West such as forced marriages and FGM, be they small percentages.

Yes. But we are not allowed to talk about such things. The irony is that the people most in need of feminism get ignored by feminists. People like sasour get trumpeted as feminist heroes while people like ayan hirsi ali (who herself was being pushed into a forced marriage and who was a victim of fgm) get branded as demons. Why are we not branded bigots when we speak out against Mormon poligamists abusing young girls? Why are we not told we must be talking about all Mormons?

Nor can you speak against Islam generally as an irrational mind virus the way we atheists and anti-religious people do about Christianity without folks like this presuming you are calling all Muslims everywhere terrorists. Notice how when Sam Harris says "Islam is the motherload of bad ideas" he's told "That's Gross. That's racist" but when he writes " letter to a Christian Nation" or when Dawkins writes "The God Delusion", there is no such charge of racism or bigotry. And there is no presumption that they are saying all Christians are Fred Phelps. You can mock general Mormonism even with a Broadway musical and nobody declares that you must be calling all Mormons poligamists.

I think we are getting a bit over the top if we ban women from wearing the Hijab or ban Sharia Courts which are legal in the UK for civil cases and that like any other form of arbitration they must conform to English Law.

The veil could be another issue due to security in the same way we would not allow people to walkabout in ski masks or completely cover their faces. This then hits a problem where someone wears a surgical mask for medical reasons.

My thoughts exactly. Aside from valid concerns over security and sanitation, you should be allowed to wear whatever you want, or nothing at all.

Now, let's see how many Muslims we can get to support the rights of nudists...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise.

Passive aggressive.
Warpoet, you make a good point in Jolly Penguin generalization of Muslims, but I don't think Jolly Penguin is generalizing Muslims.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You make a good point, but I don't think he is trying to Jolly Penguin intended to generalise.

You see my point? You can't mention Islam in a negative light, the need for reform or the plight of ex-muslims without somebody like this fellow trying to distract and divert with a personal attack and a charge of bigotry. It makes life nigh impossible for people like Haider and her group.

The actions of a minority of Muslims can (wrongly) be defined as the views of the majority. However there are issues in Islam where the activities of its reformers need to be supported. We have people like CAIR and various organisations which claim to be champions of change but while campaigning for Muslim rights in the USA, ignore problems in some Islamic societies which has spilt into the West such as forced marriages and FGM, be they small percentages.

Yes. But we are not allowed to talk about such things. The irony is that the people most in need of feminism get ignored by feminists. People like sasour get trumpeted as feminist heroes while people like ayan hirsi ali (who herself was being pushed into a forced marriage and who was a victim of fgm) get branded as demons. Why are we not branded bigots when we speak out against Mormon poligamists abusing young girls? Why are we not told we must be talking about all Mormons?

Nor can you speak against Islam generally as an irrational mind virus the way we atheists and anti-religious people do about Christianity without folks like this presuming you are calling all Muslims everywhere terrorists. Notice how when Sam Harris says "Islam is the motherload of bad ideas" he's told "That's Gross. That's racist" but when he writes " letter to a Christian Nation" or when Dawkins writes "The God Delusion", there is no such charge of racism or bigotry. And there is no presumption that they are saying all Christians are Fred Phelps. You can mock general Mormonism even with a Broadway musical and nobody declares that you must be calling all Mormons poligamists.

I think we are getting a bit over the top if we ban women from wearing the Hijab or ban Sharia Courts which are legal in the UK for civil cases and that like any other form of arbitration they must conform to English Law.

The veil could be another issue due to security in the same way we would not allow people to walkabout in ski masks or completely cover their faces. This then hits a problem where someone wears a surgical mask for medical reasons.

My thoughts exactly. Aside from valid concerns over security and sanitation, you should be allowed to wear whatever you want, or nothing at all.

Now, let's see how many Muslims we can get to support the rights of nudists...

Islam needs more critics from within who are not censored by Muslims. The Muslim Students' Association (MSA) and CAIR have been vocal in trying to block speeches by Hirsan Ali and those from the Honor Diaries. Yet some Muslims will have dialogue.

If Radical Islam spreads, then the ordinary Muslims will also face slaughter if they don't conform.

A lot of Muslims don't want to wear the Hijab. When families or women travelling alone from the UAE or Qatar where I once worked, arrive in London or Milan, they remove the Hijabs when they arrive in the UK. Recentthe ly British Muslim women have been sporting Hijabs, but more commonly just headscarves. If this is voluntary than it's okay.

However one fashion store has just launched a long floppy coat with a belt. A lot of Muslim ladies made a bee line to these because they looked like Hijabs but open at the front.

The first objections I received to the full face veil came from Muslim colleagues, saying this is something added to Islam.
I'm sure many Muslims don't mind nudists. The Jihadis of course will be calling for the death penalty.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why are we not branded bigots when we speak out against Mormon poligamists abusing young girls? Why are we not told we must be talking about all Mormons?

To be fair, a lot of this is because 98% of conversations about Mormons result in everyone involved getting bored and curling up for a nap or just wandering off in the middle of a

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And therein lies the problem. Haider, Nawaz, anybody else who seeks to push the more liberal and progressive side of Islam is immediately shut down by so-called liberals. Any criticism of Islam whatsoever is basically mistaken for an attack on brown people.

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

The problem is so many are like you--they treat attacks on the radicals as attacks on Islam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

The problem is so many are like you--they treat attacks on the radicals as attacks on Islam.

Actually, they are treating broadbrushing of Muslims based on the acts of radicals as broadbrushing of Muslims.

 

[Warpoet]

You see my point? You can't mention Islam in a negative light, the need for reform or the plight of ex-muslims without somebody like this fellow trying to distract and divert with a personal attack and a charge of bigotry. It makes life nigh impossible for people like Haider and her group.

Your point? You've literally just embodied the point I was making: you instantaneously jump into the role of victim when accused of smearing an entire group, without ever actually addressing the substance of the accusation. The reason is obvious: you actually are smearing an entire group, you know that's what you're doing but you're desperate to maintain the appearance of an impartial observer.

Why are we not branded bigots when we speak out against Mormon poligamists abusing young girls? Why are we not told we must be talking about all Mormons?

Not a thread goes by without you making some horrendous and inept analogy in defense of your behaviour. For starters, Islam is literally exponentially larger than Mormonism and far less homogenous. But even so, if we run with your crap analogy, it still falls apart.

The problem isn't with you speaking out against human rights abuses of any kind; it's your apparent concern for abuses only by a certain group of people, and repeated insinuation that this sort of behaviour, or support for it, is the norm. If you were implying that ordinary Mormons support child abuse, and that it's fair to assume that a Mormon you run into thinks this way until they demonstrate otherwise, that'd be different. You likely wouldn't say that, but you apply this kind of shitty logic to Muslims every time the issue comes up. And then you have the gall to complain when you're accused of being ignorant.

Now, let's see how many Muslims we can get to support the rights of nudists...

A rather pointless question. There would be considerable pushback against unrestricted nudism from many elements in society - and in the U.S., it would overwhelmingly come from Christians. Society in general would rank that issue far below things like LGBT rights or abortion in terms of importance. Maybe you think it's equally important, but that's a different issue. Regardless, I've been through this with you before. If Christians oppose it, it's because they're nutters and not mainstream. If Muslims oppose it, it's because all of them but a handful are nutters, since you've single-handedly assessed the ideological spectrum of 1.5 billion people via teh interwebz.

 

[blastula]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

 

[laughing dog]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

Warpoet can speak for him(?)self.

in my view, the problem with many critics is their broad brush approach. They fail to realize that there is a distinction
1) between the content of the Koran and the teachings of the various sects of Islam, and
2) within the various sects of Islam as to meanings of the Koran, and how the meaning should be put into practice.

Many critics of Islam appear to lump all Muslims together as if they all agree on what the Koran says and they all agree on how to behave. And they act surprised if it is pointed out that all Muslims agree on all the issues, even though they would never think all Christians agree or that all Jews agree. In fact, some appear to deny the diversity of views within Islam.