The boundary between prejudice and legitimate criticism of Islam?

[Underseer]

First, let me mention a pet peeve about the above video: they casually throw around the word "racism" as a catch-all phrase for demographic-based prejudice, but they're applying the term to prejudices that are not necessarily based on race.

For instance, when they talk about the prejudice many Americans have for anyone of Middle Eastern descent, the more correct term is antisemitism, but that term is mistakenly used as "prejudiced against Jews." When they talk about "racism" within the Middle East, they're mostly talking about prejudice based on nationality, or perhaps ethnicity.

Islamophobia
I'm starting to shy away from this word, but this really is the topic I'm concerned with. My views in this area are very much in flux and have been since 9/11.

We're all familiar with the arguments of the Four Horsemen regarding the taboo against criticizing any religion, and that many take the basic concepts of cultural relativism too far. When I started reading the books of the New Atheists, I had to admit that these criticisms applied to me, and that is why my views on these things have been in flux ever since.

Islamophobia is a bad word because a lot of the demographic-based prejudice that bothers me extends far beyond Muslims, and because criticism of ideas are never a bad thing. As I've said many times before on these forums, people deserve respect, but ideas never do. Islam is a set of ideas, and as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as too much criticism or criticism that is too harsh when it comes to ideas.

Ex-Muslim Atheists
The phenomenon of ex-Muslim atheists has been on my mind a lot lately.

For those Muslims who believe infidels should be killed, ex-Muslim atheists are pretty much at the top of the kill list. Simply talking about atheism in a Muslim society is an act of extreme bravery. Hell, admitting to being an ex-Muslim atheist is incredibly brave even outside the Muslim world, as Ayaan Hrsi Ali can tell you. We're getting all kinds of reports of ex-Muslim atheists being hacked to death by angry mobs, being whipped or even facing execution. And yet, they're still posting things on the Internet, still writing books, still giving speeches, still willing to face the worst.

Imams are publicly arguing against atheism more and more. Muslim governments are publicly cracking down on atheists more and more. Use of words like "atheist" on the Arabic language parts of Twitter keep increasing. While it is impossible to accurately measure atheism in the Middle East, the few things we can measure suggest that atheism is on the rise, and those in power in the Muslim world are scared of it.

While ex-Muslim atheists offer the harshest and most detailed criticisms of Islam anywhere, they are also quite sensitive to demographic-based prejudice directed at Middle Easterners (as mentioned in the AronRa podcast above). Sometimes this sensitivity can go a little too far (such as when Cenk Uygur mischaracterized some of Sam Harris' statements), but the basis for this sensitivity is not very hard to understand.

We are quick to label someone a terrorist if they are Muslim, but incredibly resistant to applying that label to anyone who is similar to ourselves. We are quick to paint all of Islam with a broad brush based on the actions of the worst, but incredibly nuanced when dealing with a shockingly immoral American, white person, Christian, etc. We and the mainstream media wouldn't dream of judging all Christians by Jim Jones or the Westboro church, but it's incredibly easy to find people insisting that all of Islam answer for ISIS.

Isn't this the very essence of prejudice? You judge your own group by its best and judge external groups by their worst.

Isn't this exactly what we did to African-Americans for so long (and many of us still do)? Isn't this exactly what we did to indigenous Americans for so long? Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Of course, it's not just painting large populations with an inappropriately-large brush. We have plenty of examples of people getting kicked off of airplanes for being "Muslim-looking," or horrible epithets being hurled at random strangers, or that Muslim cab driver whose throat was slashed simply because he answered "Yes" to the question "Are you a Muslim?"

The Strategic Stupidity of Rightists' Broad Brush
The worst offenders are the people who deliberately stoke the fires of hate, and the ones who routinely stoke the fires of hate in this regard are clearly the rightist propaganda machine (and yes, I'm talking about both conservatives and libertarians, do we really need to make the distinction when they're in lock step on topics like this?).

Hardly a day goes by when some right wing friend or relative on Facebook posts a link to an article from a rightist web site that holds up some horrible act by Muslim terrorists and clearly implies that all Muslims deserve to "pay" for whatever the crime was. Isn't this very thing why the American people were willing to support the Iraq invasion despite knowing that it was an incredibly bad idea? The right wing media (and to a lesser extent the mainstream media) used our own prejudices against us to excuse an insane war that has cost us trillions of dollars in taxpayer money, and which has cost the Iraqi people around a half million civilian lives. And for what? Because of something a bunch of crazed Saudis living in Afghanistan did?

How can anyone listen to a conservochristian argue in favor of mass torture as a public policy and not think about the irrational prejudice driving the incredibly bad arguments they use to justify the unjustifiable?

Of course the right wing media loves to play up the Islamic boogeyman because it helps conservative groups raise money ("Give us money so we can stop the Islamic boogeyman!") and because it is another thing they can use to keep their audience so hopped up on fear that they are easily manipulated. They don't give a crap if this stuff results in bad policy or human rights violations as long as it gives them greater control over the American populace.

But this is unbelievably bad from a strategic point of view. If our goal is to oppose radical Islamism*, then we need to do everything we can to drive a wedge between the radicals and the moderates. I shouldn't have to explain why. If we can drive a wedge between the radicals and the moderates, then we potentially reduce the number of possible recruits and funding sources for the radicals.

The radical Islamists on the other hand want that wedge driven between all of Islam and the rest of the world. If they can do that, then they can accuse the moderates of being "with the infidels," and suddenly they massively increase the pool from which they can recruit and raise money.

So where is the American right wing trying to plant the wedge? Exactly where the radical Islamists want it. Why are they willing to sabotage our conflict against the radical Islamists? Because doing so happens to help them amplify their influence over Americans.

So Where Does the Line Go?
I'm still trying to sort out where I draw the line between prejudice against Muslims and legitimate criticism of Islam. Generally, I'm inclined to side with ex-Muslim atheists if only because their criticisms of Islam are so harsh, but they are incredibly sensitive to antisemitism (I'd rather use that word than Islamophobia, but if you have something better, feel free to offer it). Although they sometimes get it wrong, at least they're on the right track.

The problem is, I still don't quite understand where and how I myself draw the line.

How do you do it? What counts as unacceptable prejudice to you? How do you distinguish legitimate criticism? Where do you think the line should go? Where do you think the wedge should be driven? Do you side more with the ex-Muslim atheists? More with the New Atheists? More with the American conservolibertarians on FOX News and Breitbart's web site?


* Note: if our goal is simply to discredit radical Islam as rapidly as possible, the most efficient and thorough strategy would be to simply let (or even help) them take over the Middle East and abuse the population for a while. I find this solution morally untenable for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Islam is the problem. Most Muslims don't cause trouble.

The problem is the Islamists. Fundies of any stripe are bad.

 

[Blahface]

I think the line should be drawn when you paint Islam or Muslims with a broad brush. It is such a broad category that it means almost nothing. The only real criteria for determining whether a religion is a subset of Islam is if they believe Mohammad was the last greatest prophet and the Koran is divinely inspired. There is a wide latitude for creative interpretation and content in the scripture is pretty much meaningless.

I am totally in favor of criticizing elements of the holy texts. If any Muslim or sect of Islam states that we should enact female genital mutilation or cover women up, we should definitely criticize that person or sect. We shouldn't , however, attribute those elements as defining characteristics of Islam.

We also shouldn't have a double standard and only recognize the common human failings of one group and treat that group as if they are the outlier. For example, everyone agrees that we should have freedom of speech in theory, but in practice most people want their sacred cows to have special protections. In the US, there have been polls that shows that the super majority of Americans want a ban on flag burning. We forget this, but then treat it as a special case when a super majority of Muslims in the UK want the Danish cartoonists to be prosecuted for drawing Mohammad.

I don't think we should hold Muslims responsible for actions of a few extremists, but all Muslims should speak out against the actions of such extremists. Whether or not every Muslim agrees with them is irrelevant. They share the same identifier and they have a responsibility to undermine the tribal propaganda from the extremists who say they represent Islam.

I don't just hold that standard for Muslims though. A couple weeks back on Real Time, one of the panelists made the point that “good cops” need to speak out against the “bad cops.” I agree with that as well.

 

[Togo]

I'd suggest putting the same line for Islam and Muslims as for any other religion. In other words, criticise the tenets of the religion all you want. Don't pretend the religion is a featureless monolith with no variation, don't confuse fundies with the mainstream. Don't pretend that scripture is the same as what is actually done, or that that is actually done by a Muslim must somehow be a religious tenet. Don't confuse people and what they do with religion, or vice versa, and recognise that people will invoke religious reasons when their motivations may be anything but.

 

[tupac chopra]

The boundary between prejudice and legitimate criticism of Islam

One could also ask about

The boundary between prejudice and legitimate criticism of America

Not all Americans are like Chris Kyle. Yet probably there are people who judge America on the things Chris Kyle said and did. Many people probably see those in Isis as heroes and many people probably see Chris Kyle as a hero.
Is there that much difference?

The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?

 

[Warpoet]

I think the line should be drawn when you paint Islam or Muslims with a broad brush. It is such a broad category that it means almost nothing.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said, and the OP appears to be massively overthinking this. By adhering to this simple logic, you can weed out the bigotry from the legitimate criticism almost all of the time. The only difficulty is when people try to blur the lines, or pretend that they aren't painting with a broad brush when they clearly are. It happens frequently on this board.

You don't need to take anybody's "side," because every side has its own ideological slant and its own share of complete fucking idiots. Just use common sense.

 

[Underseer]

I think the line should be drawn when you paint Islam or Muslims with a broad brush. It is such a broad category that it means almost nothing.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said, and the OP appears to be massively overthinking this. By adhering to this simple logic, you can weed out the bigotry from the legitimate criticism almost all of the time. The only difficulty is when people try to blur the lines, or pretend that they aren't painting with a broad brush when they clearly are. It happens frequently on this board.

You don't need to take anybody's "side," because every side has its own ideological slant and its own share of complete fucking idiots. Just use common sense.

Then out of the commentary in the mainstream media and the partisan media, what would you think are examples of crossing the line and not crossing the line? Are there any examples of reports or actions that are in the grey area?

If you think the wedge should be driven between the sickos and the moderates, how do you propose to go about doing so?

 

[Toni]

I don't think Islam is the problem. Most Muslims don't cause trouble.

The problem is the Islamists. Fundies of any stripe are bad.

You are correct, but you really don't go far enough.

The rise of fundamentalist violent Islam has very little to do with religion at all and a lot to do with the desire for power and, parenthetically, money. Religion is just being perverted to justify the desire for power and control. If we could only remove the profit from war, we'd have far fewer of them. Even if some group got worked up enough to start the mayhem, if there was no money to made arming them, it would all die down quickly enough.

 

[untermensche]

The main way the US media crosses the line is the way it always crosses the line.

It works under the assumption that the US legitimately interferes in the affairs of other nations.

There are problems in the "Muslim world". They are problems for the Muslims to work out. Not an excuse for Christian nations to war against Muslims.

The only thing US interference is protecting is a measure of control of oil.

 

[Toni]

It's been many years ago (it was the age of disco, actually), but for several years, I worked with a very international group of people. Most but not all were Muslim, some more devout than others. A couple had practiced multiple marriages but found it unworkable and abandoned the practice. At least a couple were the offspring of wives who were divorced to make room for the next one as the father was only allowed 4 at a time. It was explained to me that some were wives only for one night...

Most did not drink alcohol but some did. Alcohol was openly served at official work functions. None ate pork and they strongly disapproved of one person who had a dog as dogs were unclean.

There was as great a variation of personalities and viewpoints as in any other work place. More, probably as far more countries were represented. But as a whole, the people I worked with, especially the Muslims were intelligent, well educated, kind, thoughtful, fair minded, open, generous and open hearted and curious about American life. I got to explain a lot of American things, from how being a vegetarian did not necessarily mean that one was particularly religious (or healthy) or virtuous. That a single woman could be virtuous. Modern birth control methods, and which required visits to the doctor and what could be purchased at the drugstore. Freedom of the press and freedom of and from religion (they were ALL big fans of both and marveled at how openly Americans could discuss their views on any topic, without fear of reprisals). Gay rights and the gay movement. A little more controversial but overall, it was felt to be the right thing. The American university system(s). How it was possible to understand someone from Mississippi and from New York City and New Jersey. Catholicism vs Protestants, and since i was most familiar: Baptists. I could not explain disco but they loved it and didn't need it to be explained.

They loved their families and their children with a devotion that matched any I have ever witnessed or experienced. They were forward thinking and wanted great things for their countries. And their children. They wanted education and science and opportunities for women. They were aware of racism within their countries and for the most part, saw it as evil rather than justified. They were in short, just people.

Then, the Shah fell, the Ayatolla rose to power and it all went to hell. I had left before it got bad. Oh, and Ronald Regan. That helped along the bad stuff quite a bit.

It's not Islam. It's not the culture as there are many cultures in the Muslim world, each unique and full of both good and bad. It's not Christianity or Judaism or Taoism or Buddhism or atheism or agnosticism.

There were a lot of changes happening very fast. Some (not those I worked with) feared that the good parts of their old ways were being lost, being swallowed up by the West. And that their country, their traditions were being made subservient to the Western Powers. So some wanted to reclaim their glory days from hundreds of years ago. Not the people I worked for/with. But some.

It is greed for power that is corrupting. It uses fear and religion as great tools to manipulate.

 

[dismal]

I think it's quite OK to believe all of Islam is a bunch of made up hooey, and therefore view pretty much all criticism of it as legit.

I do, however, believe in freedom of religion so I think it's OK if people want to believe in Islam or Unicorns or Healing Magnets so long as they do not attempt to export that belief onto others by law or force.

 

[Warpoet]

Then out of the commentary in the mainstream media and the partisan media, what would you think are examples of crossing the line and not crossing the line? Are there any examples of reports or actions that are in the grey area?

I make a point of listening to the media as little as possible, particularly when it comes to issues like this. It is sensationalist by nature and seeks to exploit these issues for ratings, so the quality of the discussion about it generally follows suit.

If you think the wedge should be driven between the sickos and the moderates, how do you propose to go about doing so?

I don't think it's my responsibility, or the atheist community's responsibility, to reshape the ideological makeup of the Muslim world to my liking.

 

[TSwizzle]

I do, however, believe in freedom of religion so I think it's OK if people want to believe in Islam or Unicorns or Healing Magnets so long as they do not attempt to export that belief onto others by law or force.

And therein lies the rub with teh islam and its pious followers.

 

[Underseer]

I make a point of listening to the media as little as possible, particularly when it comes to issues like this. It is sensationalist by nature and seeks to exploit these issues for ratings, so the quality of the discussion about it generally follows suit.

If you think the wedge should be driven between the sickos and the moderates, how do you propose to go about doing so?

I don't think it's my responsibility, or the atheist community's responsibility, to reshape the ideological makeup of the Muslim world to my liking.

Whether you like it or not, any time you comment on Islam, you are going to be placing that wedge somewhere. Where you drive that wedge matters given that we are in opposition to what the radical Islamists are trying to accomplish. Their goals are exactly the same as Christian dominionists, they're just more willing to use violence to further their goals.

 

[Warpoet]

Whether you like it or not, any time you comment on Islam, you are going to be placing that wedge somewhere.

Not really. If you've reduced the dichotomy down to one between "sickos" and everyone else, people are probably going to stay firmly in one camp or the other regardless of what I say.

Where you drive that wedge matters given that we are in opposition to what the radical Islamists are trying to accomplish. Their goals are exactly the same as Christian dominionists, they're just more willing to use violence to further their goals.

"Radical Islamists" are not some singular entity with a set agenda. But regardless, whatever threat they pose collectively is vastly, immensely overblown, because the media, as I said, profits off of sensationalizing and scaring the shit out of people.

This "wedge" you keep focusing on actually matters a lot less than it does in the case of Christian dominionism, at least in America, since there is actually a concerted and well-organized effort by the Christian right to undermine the Constitution, while there is a 0.0 percent chance of Islamists doing so.

But for some reason people don't worry so much about how to steer the conversation about Christianity, or where and how to drive a "wedge" between normal Christians and nutjobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Islam is the problem. Most Muslims don't cause trouble.

The problem is the Islamists. Fundies of any stripe are bad.

You are correct, but you really don't go far enough.

The rise of fundamentalist violent Islam has very little to do with religion at all and a lot to do with the desire for power and, parenthetically, money. Religion is just being perverted to justify the desire for power and control. If we could only remove the profit from war, we'd have far fewer of them. Even if some group got worked up enough to start the mayhem, if there was no money to made arming them, it would all die down quickly enough.

Fundamentalism is always about power for the leaders. The Islamists aren't any different in this regard.

 

[Underseer]

I think it's quite OK to believe all of Islam is a bunch of made up hooey, and therefore view pretty much all criticism of it as legit.

I do, however, believe in freedom of religion so I think it's OK if people want to believe in Islam or Unicorns or Healing Magnets so long as they do not attempt to export that belief onto others by law or force.

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that the mainstream media is quick to use the word "terrorist" with respect to violent Muslims, but extremely reticent to use that word to describe violent Christians? You see nothing wrong with the mainstream media's tendency to to ask us to judge all Muslims by the actions of terrorists, but not do the same thing with Christians?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's quite OK to believe all of Islam is a bunch of made up hooey, and therefore view pretty much all criticism of it as legit.

I do, however, believe in freedom of religion so I think it's OK if people want to believe in Islam or Unicorns or Healing Magnets so long as they do not attempt to export that belief onto others by law or force.

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that the mainstream media is quick to use the word "terrorist" with respect to violent Muslims, but extremely reticent to use that word to describe violent Christians? You see nothing wrong with the mainstream media's tendency to to ask us to judge all Muslims by the actions of terrorists, but not do the same thing with Christians?

Violence isn't always terrorism.

I've seen things like the abortion shooters called terrorism but understandably the news outlets don't really want to piss off a bunch of their viewers. It's the same reason they tend to be toning it down in the international news media--calling the Islamists terrorists doesn't go over too well in Muslim lands. You'll get more eyeballs if you say "militants"--and eyeballs are far more important than the truth.

 

[dismal]

I think it's quite OK to believe all of Islam is a bunch of made up hooey, and therefore view pretty much all criticism of it as legit.

I do, however, believe in freedom of religion so I think it's OK if people want to believe in Islam or Unicorns or Healing Magnets so long as they do not attempt to export that belief onto others by law or force.

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that the mainstream media is quick to use the word "terrorist" with respect to violent Muslims, but extremely reticent to use that word to describe violent Christians? You see nothing wrong with the mainstream media's tendency to to ask us to judge all Muslims by the actions of terrorists, but not do the same thing with Christians?

I would consider these sorts of issues to be questions of fact. Once one has defined "terrorism", I don't see anything wrong with calling an act of terrorism an act of terrorism if it's true. I don't see anything wrong with saying a given act of terrorism appears to have been motivated by religious belief if it's true. I don't see anything wrong with saying there are more terrorist acts committed by people invoking Religion X than Religion Y if it's true.

If media say things that aren't true then there is a problem, which may or may not be related to "bias".

 

[Underseer]

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that the mainstream media is quick to use the word "terrorist" with respect to violent Muslims, but extremely reticent to use that word to describe violent Christians? You see nothing wrong with the mainstream media's tendency to to ask us to judge all Muslims by the actions of terrorists, but not do the same thing with Christians?

I would consider these sorts of issues to be questions of fact. Once one has defined "terrorism", I don't see anything wrong with calling an act of terrorism an act of terrorism if it's true. I don't see anything wrong with saying a given act of terrorism appears to have been motivated by religious belief if it's true. I don't see anything wrong with saying there are more terrorist acts committed by people invoking Religion X than Religion Y if it's true.

If media say things that aren't true then there is a problem, which may or may not be related to "bias".

The problem is not the use of the word terrorism, but the lack of consistency in using the term, and the inconsistency is based on ethnicity.