The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

reply to post by melatonin



I'm not a real barrister I just play one on TV.

I'm American and I have no idea. It does appear from my research that the "eggshells" are much more delicate in Europe. I suppose because the fear is greater. So the taboo starts to rise above social acceptability into the realm of the survival instinct.

This is what I think will happen:

Year 2009: John McCain pushes towards ultimate victory in Iraq, by deploying more troops.

Year 2010: Mysterious Plague hits most of Asia.

Year 2012: Important vaccine not permitted production in or export to middle east for reasons only known to G8.

Year 2015: middle-east becomes a restricted zone.

Year 2020: Last muslim dies.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm American and I have no idea. It does appear from my research that the "eggshells" are much more delicate in Europe. I suppose because the fear is greater. So the taboo starts to rise above social acceptability into the realm of the survival instinct.

I was thinking the same thing. Because Americans still essentially live in a 'bubble' we are actually probably experiencing the least amount of social flack for our opinions.

We still have a lot of inbred Jeds, God bless them, who love to go around snorting "I'm an Am-er-eh-can" while proudly showing pictures of their gun collection in the front image slot of their wallet while the pictures of their kids might be in the fifth slot. Not knocking them: my husband is one of them. Sometimes I even think it is them who keep this country in check of an all out politically correct idiocy regime. But if you accuse them of being 'intolerant' they'll purposely get 10 times worse just to aggravate you.

So, while America probably has it the easiest, the Middle East by far has it the worst, and Europe seems to be stuck in the middle.

I think there maybe some sort of unwritten, unspoken taboo in the UK about people in the public eye speaking out against Islam.

Any criticism of Islam is wrapped in spin and limits the criticism to individual acts of intolerance, hatred and terrorism.

Criticism of extremist interpretations of Islam is portrayed as racism and as a result politicians seem to pussy foot around the subject.
It is not.

It is a shame that so much of this thread has been taken up by personal attacks and subsequent responses.
There has been a lot of valid and reasoned debate from both sides.

Originally posted by DuneKnight
This is what I think will happen:

Year 2009: John McCain pushes towards ultimate victory in Iraq, by deploying more troops.

Year 2010: Mysterious Plague hits most of Asia. disappear

Year 2012: Important vaccine not permitted production in or export to middle east for reasons only known to G8.

Year 2015: middle-east becomes a restricted zone.

Year 2020: Last muslim dies.

Except add this...

Year 2011: 2 billion Christians disappear, reportedly abducted by aliens.
Charismatic new leader promises a cure for plague.

Year 2012 : Vaccine created for plague by Will Smith. However to be vaccinated you must obtain an RFID identity chip on the back of your hand. Important vaccine not permitted production in or export to middle east for reasons only known to G8.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm American and I have no idea. It does appear from my research that the "eggshells" are much more delicate in Europe. I suppose because the fear is greater. So the taboo starts to rise above social acceptability into the realm of the survival instinct.

It's a law related to inciting racial hatred, and was also applied to many members of the radical islamic nutter groups in the UK who were parading around London calling for beheadings.

So, it's also been applied to right-wing christian BNP-supporting british nutter. We don't discriminate between our bigots and ranting hate-filled nutters on the basis of religion or social taboo, we're good like that.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Here is some interesting information originally brought up by Beach Coma concerning Wahhabism and the original thread. This at least gives some information for all those who may be asking for who, what, where, why, and how evidence.

TBH, maybe it's my waning energy, but I'm not sure I get how this relates to a social taboo which hinders criticism of radical islam.

First link appears to say that wahhabism isn't the bogeyman (e.g., most major radicals have no love lost for the Saudis). Second suggests that wahhabism is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And the wiki tells me what I knew anyway, saudis are spreading their wahhabism by funding mosques and islamic materials.

I'm not sure that tells me much. What I do know is that the poor human rights of the Saudi's is generally overlooked, as we like to be nice to them for their oil and $$$$$.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by melatonin]

I dunno, but appears to me after reading through this thread,

there is a lot of open criticism about Radical Islam, in this thread.


There is a lot of criticism of Radical Islam on the news. Especially once one of them goes nuts and explodes their self.

Reason Magazine which mentions Giuliani's book 'World War IV: The Long Struggle Against IslamoFascism'.

Radical Islam

Muslims turning Radical

Beck mentions radical Islam

Radical Islam

Gays against radical islam

militant islam monitor



Oh, there are tons more links ... a lot of them don't distinguish normal Muslims from Islamic extremists (Radicals).

It is funny how many claim how they can't speak about radical islam as they speak about radical islam.


I see no problem with discussing radical islam, I find people do talk about it in person, online, and in the media. Not mislabeling all Muslims as 'radicals' is necessary though, as some here prove they don't have the ability to distinguish it.


I think some have made the point that if you war against one religions extremism, then you should war against all religious extremism, since they are equally violent as proved in recent and past times.

The other point is, war doesn't eliminate religious extremists, it creates more of them.

It is similar to having a bad neighborhood. Authoritarian violence doesn't solve the violence, but, finding the cause of the turmoil and violence and starting programs to solve the problem does.

In another analogy, you can kill the ants that found a way into your house, or you can find out what caused them to come into your house and eliminate and prevent the cause, not fight the effect.


So, instead of bickering amongst ourselves, and displaying ignorance (hate is ignorance) ... let us solve the problem with dignity and peace.

If you are a Christian, then, you should follow J-sus's words and examples and other Bible references of peace and calm.


But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you Matthew 5:44

For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34

Judge not, lest ye be judged. Matthew 7:1

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me remove the speck out of your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye. Matthew 7:3-5

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Proverbs 15:1

A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife. Proverbs 15:18

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3



Remember, you are all brothers of Abrahamic religion. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. That is a fact.


So, Extremists are bad all around, and each sub-group of the extremist group does get attention in public discussion in person, internet, and media.


Know anyone who ever tried to have an abortion? Those extremists scare the crap out of those girls who are making a hard choice whether you personally agree with it or not. Abortion clinics have been bombed and people have been shot by Pro-Life Extremists. Does that mean all of them are crazy? No. Most people contain their passion for their belief into an acceptable level.


btw, I try to boycott the term radical, since I grew up in the 80s and radical meant cool, and I am rather sure those of you saying radical islam are not saying islam is cool In fact, there was a movie named rad I remember watching in a daycare facility.


Honestly, I don't see the social taboo of which you speak from this discussion and searching. I also don't think aggression stops aggression.


So ... just to clarify, since there seems to be a lot of confusion when someone doesn't tow the line ... I think all violent people need to be locked in looney wards where they can not hurt, mame, kill, or destroy anyone or anything. Those who find war fun and exciting need to be locked up with them. Let the peaceful, loving people of the world have rule ... Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth Matthew 5:5

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

So ... just to clarify, since there seems to be a lot of confusion when someone doesn't tow the line ... I think all violent people need to be locked in looney wards where they can not hurt, mame, kill, or destroy anyone or anything. Those who find war fun and exciting need to be locked up with them. Let the peaceful, loving people of the world have rule ... Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth Matthew 5:5

As I recall the word meek came from a word which is more correctly translated as "a person who is so low they have no place to turn but to God".

On the topic -

I see this as a valid thread and I've enjoyed reading it immensely. People interact better when they understand each others thoughts better.

I see some merit in both sides of this issue. I think the problem is more due to terminology and real motives. To condemn some nut who just blew up their child to kill some Civilians who belong to another Faith is just stating the obvious. To believe the average Muslim approves is a completely different issue. It is hard to separate ourselves from Radicals in our own faiths and we react wrongly and often on both sides. To publish a crude cartoon of an important religious figure like Jesus or Muhammad is the act of an angry child. What determines true character is how we react to those mental children who participate in such nonsense. To hate someone because they are different is the cause of most human misery.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Let me get this right? Did you actually threaten me? " I'll cut your tongue
out of your mouth".etc. Do you feel BIG now all puffed up? You really like the sound of your own voice don't you?

Do what now? The only mentioning of tongues I've made is pointing out your little passive-aggressive "Gosh, aren't you glad you live in a place where Christians can't cut our your tongue while you're asleep" threat that you made back on page 9:

Originally posted by paxnatus
Aren't you glad that when you go to bed tonight you can lay your head down on your pillow and not have to worry that your tongue be cut out for speaking poorly of " All"christians?

And my Reply:

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
As for my tongue? That's a nice little passive-aggressive threat, there. "Ooooh, you be glad we don't live somewhere where I could cut out your tongue for talking bad about my religion." Aren't you supposed to leave a warning first, like a little man nailed to a stick? A sheep's head in my bed? Something like that?

Basically you're saying I should be scared of this happening, and adjust my attitude accordingly. How you take this as a threat to you is beyond my ken. Maybe good at reading you are not?

Or, perhaps, you're hoping that the mods are kind of dim, and htey'll just take your word at it.

Here's a tough question? (WARNING MAY REQUIRE THOUGHT) Careful don't hurt yourself.

I doubt any question you could provide would ever provoke much thought.

How old are you? I marvel at your maturity level.

Why thank you. I'm sure from your position though, pretty much any maturity level can be pretty impressive. I mean really, what with your rambling, incoherent and accusative posts, and your most recent display of lying out your cornhole when you lack a decent counter-argument...

Grow Up!!

The irony here is that you continue arguing with a guy on an internet message board after telling him to grow up. We don't give extra credit here, son.

There is an old saying "Do not cast your pearls before swine" This is a waste of my time and others.

Oh, I know. But I figured that even if you pigs can't appreciate the value, you can at least get your daily dose of calcium by gulping htem down amid all the mud and filth you so like to wallow in with htese neverending threads on how much you hate X religion.

For a waste of your time, you sure do enjoy persevering in it. I go 'round with you guys because it entertains me and because I think that maybe, somewhere, somehow, one of you might have a lucid moment and actually read what i put down, rather htna making up what you think I'm saying.

By the way, still waiting to hear what YOU
know about LRA.

No you're not. I already gave you the parts relevant to the point I was making.

Gonna need more than genaralities. I'm sure you can rise
to the challenge. So go ahead enlighten all. After all you seem to be the expert on everything. I'll wait.

Yes you will. Hopefully you're one of the sort that remain quiet while waiting.

P.S. in the meantime I'll pray for you. We all could use a little prayer.

Praying to Yahweh for me requires the incineration of at least three live doves. Or a single virgin goat. If you have the livestock, go for it, but I assure you, what that fella considers a pleasing smell is likely to be argued by your neighbors.

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


Oh, now you're just talking crazy.

Everyone KNOWS that there's a conspiracy demonizing people who talk about the radicals and extremists. I know it, and you know it! If you deny it, you're a terrorist supporter! And you OBVIOUSLY have no clue what you're talkign about. I know this is true because I read it on WorldNetDaily.

...Sorry Freethinker, I just figured I'd preempt the "Arguments" of hte people who actually buy that junk.

Hey Ashley, let me throw you a couple more pointers in the right direction.

Firstly, you can't jump straight to the US/West to see how Saudi influence works. You have to look at how they operate in their own region first. So here is the first link:

Saudi Arabia’s Media Influence

From that article, it should be clear that in their neck of the woods, they've pretty much dominated the region's media through a combination of money and intimidation. Now that you are aware of how they operate, let's take a look at the money trail leading towards the US (and elsewhere in the globe).

U.S. Eyes Money Trails of Saudi-Backed Charities

Of course on the face of it this isn't anything new. But what that article also tells us is that like all "aid and "charity" money, it doesn't come without strings attached. The "aid" buys influence, Wahhabi influence. And this is how they influence Muslims worldwide.

Now we go towards how they influence larger institutions that aren't necessarily linked to Islam/Muslims.

Implications of Saudi Funding to Western Academic Institutions

Did you know that a Saudi prince owns 5.46% of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation? I was shocked to find out about it myself. This last article is really the trump card. Using his influence, the prince managed to change the wording of a certain news report. Now that's your smoking gun right there.

The above articles just scratch the surface. It's really hard to find balanced (or as close to unbiased) articles on the subject matter. Most of the articles I came across are either rabidly pro-Arab (and anti-Israel) or rabidly pro-Israel (and anti-Arab). To make matters worse, there is rarely a distinction between Arab and Muslim in their reporting (which may explain why people who are pro-Israel are vehemently anti-Islam).

It's a tangled web of monetary influence. But just keep following the money trail -- it's the best way to get to the truth of it all. And try your best to separate what's political and what' religious -- it is not easy, they've intertwined it to the point that it's almost homogeneous. You can see this in action right on this very thread (where other people have posted their "proof").

Despite it all, I have to say that there isn't really a taboo on criticizing radical Islam or even Islam itself. However there is definitely a Saudi influence going on behind the scenes that seeks to make it a taboo to do so. They've already succeeded in making it a taboo to overly criticize Saudi Arabia (especially true in the Muslim world).

Edit: Anal retentiveness towards spelling and grammar...

[edit on 27/2/2008 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by Attari
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Wow what an amazing post.

Is that why the Danes decided to reprint the cartoons of Muhammad again?

If you think making fun out of other peoples beliefs/religions is exciting than i think you might have a problem there my freind.

I am sure you can find things that are more exciting the bashing other religions.

The muslims seem to be more firm on their belief thats why they dont like it being bashed.

Humour is used as a way of highlighting the stupidity, hypocritical and arrogant aspects of anything. Religion and politics are easy targets due to the excessive way they indulge in these traits. At the moment we have the holier than though Mohammed and Islam. Allah be praised ooeerrr. Islam is currently portraying itself in ways that Christianity did a few hundred years back in the days when non believers were burned at the state and tortured to death to admit to being a heretic. Most westerners have grown up, most Muslims haven't.

I have no problem poking fun at extremist hypocritcal idiots who make people lives a misery. Why do you?

Admittedly, there are more fun things (PS2, XBOX etc ) BUT when this particular aspect of world life today affects so many in so extreme detrimental ways it is my DUTY as a civilised human being to do all I can to get these poeple ostracised from the human race!

Those muslims are no firmer in their belief than any other religion where the followers have been brainwashed. Just look at how upset some non muslim religious folks get here on ATS! What they currently have is the support of the overly PC PC brigade. PC has its place but some people have taken it to extreme lengths and the extremists are laughing all the way to the next explosion.

reply to post by AshleyD


It's wrong to label Islam - a radical religion, because Islam is a summary of Judaism and christianity, it means that Sharia Law is developed from old and new testimony , or in another words, Quran is the new version of Bible and Torah. Try to read both books then Quran, the only difference between them that Quran is discussing in more details the everyday problems that need laws to manage them, but the laws are the same for everything, adultry, killing , women ...etc.

The other difference, Islam is a new religion comparing to Judaism and christianity, and because of that, Muslims are more attached to Sharia laws than jews and christians, and practice most of them on the contrary to the other religions followers.

reply to post by tamar.kh85


I am sure there is no need to point this out to you but....

Islam in itself may not be radical.
However, there are many interpretations of Islam, each of which believes it to be the correct one, some of which can only be described as radical and extreme.
It is these interpretations which the thread is discussing.

I would be interested in your opinion on the perception that there is a taboo within Muslim communities discouraging the majority of peace loving Muslims from speaking out against the actions of the minority of Muslim extremists.
Yes, some do, but the vast majority seem to simply turn away and ignore their presence and actions.

Every war on this planet was provoked by radical religous men. I wonder why all the fuss about Islamic radicalism ...it's normal for men from all kinds of religions to kill each other in the name of their religion..God created them like that ...stupid and violent.

Did you ever notice where Mr. bush used to go before annihilating Afhganistan and Iraq....to the CHURCH.

What about Sharon or Barak (Israeli Prime Ministeres) ???!!!! they used to put their tiny hats on their heads and pray in devoutness at one of their Synagogues before annihilating whole blockes of Southern Bierout or Palestenian refugee camps in Gaza.

It is the same mechnism for all men...Muslims , Jews or Christians....men love blood and they think that they solve problems by killing innocent people, and that's the real problem...not Islam or any other religion.

reply to post by tamar.kh85


Its true that religion has led nations, peoples, and tribes into bloody wars, crusades, and vendettas, jihads, blessing them with incantations, holy water, prayers, and fiery patriotic speeches

Her clergy class, whether they be priests, clerics, rabbis, ...ect, have been willing tools of the rulers in herding the masses as cannon fodder into the slaughter of two world wars and other major conflicts. Catholic has killed Catholic, and Protestant has dutifully massacred Protestant, Muslims killing Muslims with a loss of some 50 to 60 million lives in just the two world wars.

The “holy” Crusades (1096-1270), the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (1618-48), two world wars, and the slaughter of some 200,000 Hindus and Muslims on the partition of India (1947) are just a few examples of religion’s bloodguilt.

In this "enlightened" 20th century, religion’s legacy continues to breed hatred and death—not just in the realm of Christendom with its Catholic versus Protestant confrontation but also in the non-Christian world with its Islam versus Judaism, Hinduism versus Islam, Buddhism versus Hinduism, Sikhism versus Hinduism, and so forth.

Back to the subject at hand, regarding the taboo of critisizing Islam, I offer this for thought. Every year around Christmas time, the local paper publishes an article detailing the pagan origin of Christmas and its many pagan customs, ie: mistletoe, fir trees, yule log, the use of Dec 25 as the date of the celebration.
I welcome such information by the way.

There have been no such articles about Islam or the customs surrounding its beliefs. Why? I feel the reason is in line with the OP's statement.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Sparky63]

The subject of this thread, and it's ideas have once again been proven true and valid. I assume you all know about the issues with YouTube this last week. The site was effectively killed and hardly worked due to a video that Pakistan says is "blasphemous". So what was this blasphemous material? It's funny and eye-opening that most news sites won't say exactly what this material was. At first I was thinking it was some sort of porn or obscene behaviour. No, it was a video that criticized Islam.

Geert Wilders' film called "Forbidden"



So, not only does Pakistan try to hijack the Internet, most news organizations won't even say what the fuss was about. They just attribute it to "blasphemous" material. In what other scenario would news sites report on a viral video shutting down YouTube, and yet fail to mention exactly what video it was that started the fuss? Some venture to say a Dutch Politician. A few even mention Geert Wilders by name but the news site that actually mentions the name "Forbidden" is a rare find.

Once again, we shiver in fear at the prospect of insulting Islam.

First off the majority of people (at least on here) who criticize Islam, know the least about it, and generally don't want to know more.

Second of all the only ones who can offer a valid criticism of Islam (that means anything) are Muslims themselves, since they are the ones radicalism affects the most.

If you look and read carefully you will find that there is a lot of self and critical analysis of Islam going on out there... but usually it is directed towards other Muslims and is not meant for external consumption.

The thing is you hear the most about the militants and radicals because they are the ones making the most noise... a truth regardless of religion.

Originally posted by grover
the only ones who can offer a valid criticism of Islam (that means anything) are Muslims themselves

That's just not resonable. What company or bank is allowed to audit itself? Are Christians the only ones who can offer a valid criticism of Christianity? Can only Democrats critique the Democratic Party? The very reason and need for an exernal audit or review is that those inside the group or association are often too jaded by their own views to be objective.

Ask me about my car and I'll tell you it's the coolest one in the neighborhood. Ask my neighbor and he'll say it's his. The only way to get an honest opinion is to ask varied sources that have no stake in the matter.