The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

Originally posted by AshleyD
The issue is the blatant disregard of the civility T&C's, profanity, personal attacks, and apparently a physical threat I seemed to have missed. I think that is what people are upset about.

I gathered that.

This thread just reminds me of the 'atheist conspiracy' one. Lacking in anything, just lots of wild claims and general rants against the 'other'.

So far, we have lots of evidence of muslims being radical when criticised. If that's the issue, then there is no argument. Then we have a BBC article where the headline apparently should have said something like 'radical muslim children murder beautiful christian teacher' rather than what was provided.

As I said repeatedly, I'm willing to accept the presence of such a taboo, I just don't see it from what has been provided. I see lots of people wanting there to be one, and taking the chance to place muslims in the animal-copulating uneducated radical 'towel-head' box we all know and love.

Now, I'll be back later, I have some animal-copulating uneducated 'towel-head' and some beautiful christian angelic students to teach.

cheers.

ABE: oh, and the piece de resistance for this thread was that apparently the presence of people who disagreed with the thread's thesis actually proved the thread thesis. That's a cracker (as the little Irish comedian says).

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
You didn't name which people or organizations, specifically, had conspired together.

And I will answer this now: Radical Islamic sects. I thought that was a given but will take the opportunity to answer. Radical Islamic sects would be the most obvious answer of a group who is very vocal and 'conspires together' to silence the critics or offensive material. For evidence of this, see above.

reply to post by AshleyD

And I will answer this now: Radical Islamic sects. I thought that was a given but will take the opportunity to answer. Radical Islamic sects would be the most obvious answer of a group who is very vocal and 'conspires together' to silence the critics or offensive material. For evidence of this, see above.

Now that you have finally come to the point.Can you also please tell us from where these 'radical islamic sects' come from and some sorta evidence on how they have been 'conspiring together'?

reply to post by Attari


Why do they do it? Fueled by a religion they believe requires them to protect what they hold sacred. Where? Their hub appears to be the Middle East although Europe get a few riots and problems as well. Evidence? See above. It seems to me we're passed the area of evidence for violent backlash and are left speculating about media bias and social taboo.

AshleyD;

Even though we see things differently being rationalists and such we have still been cordial to each other. I believe this proves the point you asked about in this post. From what I have seen and read on this thread (and I have not read all of them) there are alot of responses that seem irrational just for asking the question you asked. Point proven.

taboo? where? sorry but i fail to see what you mean. i dont know about others, but i dont see that people get disturbed every time there's talk about radical islam? of course it is wrong. it is as wrong as any other fundamentalist views of any religion. christianity is wrong, buddhism is wrong and certainly judaism is wrong. as long as people makes religions out of their faith, theyre all wrong. im not an atheist, but im not supporter of any religion either. my faith is in my heart and i dont feel need to preach it out for all the others.

i don't know where you feel this taboo manifests itself?

There is no 'Taboo' BS.I have been observing this thread and it clearly is very anti-islamic in an indirect way.It has been made very clear that the Radicals in every religion are maniacs but people still keep bicker about the islamic radicals.

Overall the thread has aded up to nothing and just puts a negative spin on Islamic religion as a whole.

reply to post by t0ken


i was kinda thinking the same, but couldn't type it out so i just starred your post.

indeed, radical mulsims extremists are just as intolerated as the others. all they are madmen; all radical religionists alike!

Ashley, you ought to do a bit of reading on Wahhabis and their money from Saudi Arabia (House of Saud).

Then at least you'll be closer to making a cogent argument. The Wahhabis are doing everything they can to silence and make it a taboo to criticize their agents/influence in Muslim countries. They're not very successful in western countries, though. The Jewish lobby is stronger and more influential than anything their (Wahhabi) money can buy.

The only problem with the Wahhabi argument is that it leads back to the US and it's unwavering support of the regime in Saudi Arabia. (This may not be a problem if you subscribe to the idea of "disaster capitalism" -- another conspiracy angle!). But the situation is not so simplistic. Wahhabis have a lot of investments Stateside, so to piss them off by calling them out might be tantamount to economic suicide. That's the taboo -- calling out this particular group of people.

Criticizing muslims in general is not a taboo. Even criticising the extremists that blow themselves up are fine, because the latter also eventually leads to the former, as evidenced by this thread. I've a feeling the Wahhabis are actually okay with this (maybe even counting on this). Why? Because it ought to polarise regular Muslims towards their cause. They can just point to all the stereotyping and say "see, these Western Kaffirs are out to get you! Look how they insult you and yours."

Now that's a more plausible conspiracy, no?

To Token;

I am truly sorry you think this, but I have not heard of any Christians, Jews,Buddists sending mentally ill women into a crowded market and blow them up.

My point is that there are radicls, morons, dumba$$ in every religion, but right now it is all pretty much radical Islamic sects commiting these acts.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Ashley, you ought to do a bit of reading on Wahhabis and their money from Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)....Now that's a more plausible conspiracy, no?

Thanks, Beach. That is an interesting addition you threw into the mix. I will most definitely look into it.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
If anything, there's a conspiracy to downplay the radical fringe of Judaism.

Sorry to quote you once again but I wanted to reply to this as well. You bring up an excellent point. Although I am ridiculously 'pro-Jew' (to the point of openly admitting a bias in their favor), this is virtually undeniable. We can all agree there are radical Islamic sects that use violence to silence opponents although a media bias is a harder nut to crack. On the other hand, violent Judaic sects might be a little hard to prove but it is very obvious there is a media bias concerning at least the Holocaust. In some countries it is even illegal to question the historical accuracy of it. Then we have the anti-defamation league in America. Although I think 'social taboo' is just about impossible to prove in either case.

reply to post by capgrup


It might be worth mentioning that in Iraq, it's Muslim killing Muslim, all over a weird interpretation of things in the past. The radicals are trying to hijack (no pun) the whole religion and turn it into a global power.

reply to post by mattguy404


Thanks, Matt. That is another point I wanted to bring up but kept forgetting. Most victims of Radical Islam are other Muslims. One of their main 'crimes' is going against the radical regimes or protesting that what they are doing is not Koranic. The West might be criticized from time to time or even suffer a terrorist attack for criticizing radical Islam but moderate Muslims who speak out against such things live the hell daily.

Originally posted by AshleyD
And I wouldn't call my continuing participation in this thread 'leaving the room'

Not literally. "J'accuse!" is a expression; I was implying that you made the point without any clarification, without any who's, where's, what's, or why's.

Telling me that a Muslim extremist murdered Theo Van Gogh is only relevent as proof of this conspiracy if you can trace its origins. Did a group of radical Muslim leaders have prior, direct contact with the murderer? How extensive was this contact? Is there any evidence that he was greatly influenced by them, ideologically, monetarily, or otherwise?

That's the "theory" part of the conspiracy.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
"J'accuse!" is a expression

I'm familiar with the term 'J'accuse' but thanks for the link.

who's, where's, what's, or why's.

I'm going to take you up on this. Although it is after four in the morning for me I'm going to get some of my stuff together. This could get interesting.

Just a quick unsubstantiated hypothesis that will need to be researched, of course:

Who: Radical Islam.
Where: It would seem the center would be in the Middle Eastern Islamic hot spots and hubs even if it sometimes trickles into other parts of the world.
What: Backlash/Repercussions.
Why: To defend the sanctity of the religion.

With regard to the OP's topic about the taboo or hesitancy to critisize Islam, some have demanded proof, and stated that they do not see such an attitude.
Here are just a couple exmples
I offer the following link as support for the op's statement.
The article is entitled, " "Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam"

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam -- and a target of Islamic fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The murderer left a death threat against Hirsi Ali pinned to van Gogh's corpse with a knife.

The rest of the story can be found here: www.salon.com...

Hirsi called Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. As a result she is under constant Police protection. She was born in Somalia and raised as a Muslim.
She also states,:

We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.

Given her background and her experiences I think her views should be given consideration.


Then we have the example of an outspoken Pastor; Rev Alan Clifford, pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church..
He was publicly denounced for stating his opinion that;

"The only antidote to this evil religion is the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ."......""Anyone who knows anything about the history of Islam knows it has devastated large parts of the world through the force of violence and the power of the sword."

Imagine the audacity of a Pastor takiing the unthinkable position that the Gospel of Christ should be taught to combat the spread of Islam. (sarcasm inteded)

Note however, that he did not call fellow Christians to arms, to react violently, or to treat Muslims inhumanely.

Nevertheless those in the Politically Correct camp, wre quick to condemn him and accuse him of inciting racial hatred.

Here is the link for any who would like to read it for themselves: www.jihadwatch.org...


I will be the first to admit that Christendom is also guilty of violence and bloodshed, but since this thread is not directed toward them I will refrain from providing examples. After all, their guilt in no way excuses the flaws and sins of Islam and its adherents.

Originally posted by Sparky63
With regard to the OP's topic about the taboo or hesitancy to critisize Islam, some have demanded proof, and stated that they do not see such an attitude.

These two cases were brought up earlier in the thread. What they show is that radical muslims have a taboo against criticising islam. When people criticise islam (showing there is not taboo) - radical or not - these people throw their dummies out the pram, they might kill someone, threaten someone, or parade round with signs threatening beheading for those who do criticise islam and their holy dude.

So, there is a taboo in islam against people criticising islam, radical or not. But can that be considered a social taboo? Without doubt, some muslims would like there to be one, but is there? I can give some possible examples that could be viewed as showing an element of taboo - the removal of various videos off youtube that can be readily viewed as very criticial of islam - but I'm talking about pooping on their holy book and flushing down the loo and stuff. But, although many muslims report vids critical to islam (and Xians do the same) on youtube, most remain.

I don't think the case has been made at this point, but maybe I have high standards of evidence.

Here is another example of a Journalist who comments on the subject:

Unfortunately, misplaced sensitivity is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism. Right now the Organization of Islamic Countries is conducting a successful campaign at the United Nations to rewrite international human-rights standards to curtail the right to free speech. Last year the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution against “defamation of religion,” calling on governments around the world to clamp down on cartoonists, writers, journalists, artists and dissidents who dare to speak up.

pajamasmedia.com...

The average man on the street, in my part of the country feels no hesitation about critisizing Islam, However, many public figures who have a wider audience are hesitant to do so for fear of reprisal or being labeled a bigot.



[edit on 26-2-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63

Last year the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution against “defamation of religion,”

pajamasmedia.com...

Now that is more like it. So, there might be a taboo against being criticial of religious faith? We've had rules about blasphemy for years, along with the little inbuilt 'must respect belief' meme.

So, what we find is that in historically christian countries we have rules against blasphemy (in the UK it only protects CofE), and in islamic countries you don't need rules (although some do methinks, e.g., pakistan - which banned the Da vinci code film for their Xians), it goes without saying. Now the UN is embedding the protection of religion from being 'defamed'. The EU has done the same thing recently. It is also embedded in the laws of several states in the US.

Just last year we have the 'christian voice' group attempt to use the blasphemy laws in the UK to stop the 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' - it was thrown out because it was a stage production. Luckily, most western states appear to ignore these laws now.

So, there might be some sort of social taboo against criticising religion? It is one of the things we as Brits are not meant to discuss around the dinner table, heh. Although this taboo has slowly lost its value in western societies?

ABE: after doing a bit of reading about british blasphemy cases, in 1977, a guy was convicted of blasphemy for reading a poem that suggested Jesus was 'just a little bit gay'. In 2002, the same behaviour led to no arrests or charges. And in 2005, we could sing operatically from the stage that jesus was a little bit gay.

So, it's a very recent change in the way the laws have been used in the UK, and it makes sense to view this as due to changes in the social climate. Indeed, 300 years ago in scotland, blasphemy was attracting the death penalty. So, hurrah, the UK has moved with the times. We just need islamic countries to catch us up.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Really couldnt be bothered to read through all thirteen pages so I apologise in advance for repeating anyone else.

The media is awash with criticism of Islam, and generally the entire religion has been tarred with same brush. The 'red top' papers of the UK are renowned for their obsession with Islamic Extremism. A social taboo would be something frowned up on by the majority of the population, say for example smoking crack with your grandparents in a play ground, not a topic that repeatedly dragged through the mud by national newspapers.

Extremism is even condemned within Islam itself news.bbc.co.uk... its not one giant homogeneous mass. In the same way not every Christian spends his weekends picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers, due to their deaths in Iraq / Afghanistan being the vengeful wrath of god. Unsurprisingly "Iman Says Nice Things About Being Peaceful" is unlikely to cause much of a storm and is there for 'un-newsworthy'.

The only taboo is generalising an entire religion.... i think its called racism. what it has to do with rakes i have no idea.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by tarichar]