FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[whichphilosophy]

Present != instrumental.

She has as I quoted stated she is involved.

1) Involved != instrumental.
2) Her making a claim is not supporting your different claim.

1. Involved because she was not the only organiser. She had an major part in this as Co Chair. This is instrumental in a large way,
2. I was not making any claims but reporting what has been claimed. Are you saying she has no part in the marches.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Present != instrumental. 1) Involved != instrumental.
2) Her making a claim is not supporting your different claim.

1. Involved because she was not the only organiser. She had an major part in this as Co Chair. This is instrumental in a large way,

Repeating the claim is not evidence to support the claim.

2. I was not making any claims but reporting what has been claimed.

Then cite the source saying she was 'instrumental.'
You seem to be the source of that claim.

Are you saying she has no part in the marches.

I'm saying that you used the word 'instrumental' and have yet to prove that she was instrumental in the normal use of the word.
Instrumental is not a synonym for involved.

 

[whichphilosophy]

1. Involved because she was not the only organiser. She had an major part in this as Co Chair. This is instrumental in a large way,

Repeating the claim is not evidence to support the claim.

2. I was not making any claims but reporting what has been claimed.

Then cite the source saying she was 'instrumental.'
You seem to be the source of that claim.

Are you saying she has no part in the marches.

I'm saying that you used the word 'instrumental' and have yet to prove that she was instrumental in the normal use of the word.
Instrumental is not a synonym for involved.

involved is a synonym of Instrumental, also conductive and contributory are just some of these.

 

[Keith&Co.]

involved is a synonym of Instrumental,

Except you already agreed that this is not the normal use of 'instrumental.'
So which is it? Is instrumental a trivial connection or a crucial one?

If 'instrumental' implies 'crucial,' then you have to have evidence of crucial involvement.

If 'instrumental' is satisfied by any old connection, then your claim is a trivial one and can be discarded easily as a meaningless one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Haven't seen the film, can't comment. Any project which touts the Clarion Project as a supporter, as though that lent it credibility, is pretty suspect in my eyes.

Which doesn't mean much. You've already shown you stand against anyone who shows Islam in less than a stellar light. Of course you will hate an organization that stands against radical Islam.

My sense is that it's highlighting significant human rights issues, but Hirsi Ali's prominence sets off alarms as she has an agenda that extends far beyond simply helping oppressed women.

She stands against the oppressors.

Moreover, the film seems to want to pin the blame for the mistreatment of women squarely on Islam when it obviously goes far deeper than that; women didn't fare much better in most of these countries before Islam, and there are abundant examples of non-Muslim countries where the treatment of women is comparably horrid. A few years back, around 400 experts on gender rights and equality were asked which countries were the best and worst to be a woman in. The country at the bottom of the list was not a Muslim country. Systemic misogyny, even when narrowed down to "honor killings," isn't something Islam has a monopoly over.

Other than the countries that are simply a mess the bad places to be a woman are where there is strong Islam or strong Christianity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think Sharia law in a familial setting is not appreciably different than halacha is for Jews. It's got its own set of problems, but those tie back to larger issues with religion in general. And it's certainly not something society at large needs to be too worried about.

Sharia law makes it all but impossible to prosecute most rapes. That's pretty vile in my book.

I think you're downplaying their looniness. They've produced a number of anti-Muslim films totally in line with the worldview of the likes of Gaffney and the gang.

You can't tell the difference between anti-Muslim and loony.

 

[Warpoet]

What about the Muslims involved. The particular project is by Muslims in Muslim societies. Of course similar things do happen the same in other countries. However the extent that some of these are institutionalised in these societies and intensely so, is a concern. ion
Muslims are concerned so I don't see this project as a problem. The trailer gives an idea of this. What are your views on that?

What matters is the message the film conveys to its audience. In this case, the film appears to be arguing that Islam is the cause of these problems, and doesn't seem terribly interested in looking at any other factors involved. That's why AHA and the Clarion people are on board with it. That there are Muslims in the film doesn't make this criticism less valid.

 

[Warpoet]

Sharia law makes it all but impossible to prosecute most rapes. That's pretty vile in my book.

No, if rapes aren't prosecuted in the West it's usually because the woman is afraid to come forward or due to insufficient evidence, and that's something occurs in all ethnic and religious demographics. Muslim men living in the West can't use Sharia as a get out of jail free card when accused of rape.

You can't tell the difference between anti-Muslim and loony.

Anyone who is anti-Muslim in the sense that they fear/dislike/oppose Muslims as an entire group is a loon. Plenty of the folks at the Clarion Project fit that description perfectly.

 

[Warpoet]

Which doesn't mean much.

Says the guy who pissed away any credibility he had, what, decades ago? Who asked you anyhow?

You've already shown you stand against anyone who shows Islam in less than a stellar light. Of course you will hate an organization that stands against radical Islam.

When you learn to comprehend peoples' views before spouting off about them, come back.

She stands against the oppressors.

Nope. She's against Muslims, period.

Other than the countries that are simply a mess the bad places to be a woman are where there is strong Islam or strong Christianity.

Uninformed, hand-waving nonsense. The country rated worst was neither majority Muslim nor majority Christian. Misogyny predates either and cuts across all cultures and religions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What about the Muslims involved. The particular project is by Muslims in Muslim societies. Of course similar things do happen the same in other countries. However the extent that some of these are institutionalised in these societies and intensely so, is a concern. ion
Muslims are concerned so I don't see this project as a problem. The trailer gives an idea of this. What are your views on that?

What matters is the message the film conveys to its audience. In this case, the film appears to be arguing that Islam is the cause of these problems, and doesn't seem terribly interested in looking at any other factors involved. That's why AHA and the Clarion people are on board with it. That there are Muslims in the film doesn't make this criticism less valid.

As one English Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz said, Islam is not the problem; (some) Muslims are. The question is, whether the film conveys truths. Actually most are Muslim.The Clarion project was established by Raphael Shore to expose the dangers of Radical Islam. Exposure as such should not be a problem. There is nothing to suggest it attacks people because they are Muslim.

Did the film highlight actual problems?
There are inherent problems in Islamic societies that need a change of thought.

In Dubai, a woman who is raped can still be jailed for sex out of marriage. This happened even when the woman was raped. A husband is allowed to slap his wife (but not cause injury). At the same time, progress is being made where more women are empowered and the job market has moved towards equality of pay and working rights.

The Clarion project is not anti Islam; it is against radical Islam. I tend to believe this at least on balance. Raheel Raza president for the Council of Muslims facing tomorrow is on the advisory board. If there is anything it has stated that is anti-Muslim I will be glad to read it.

Sarah Haider: Ex-Muslim
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=het5MDmrODM[/YOUTUBE]

I think this is quite a an interesting speech.

 

[Warpoet]

As one English Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz said,

Nawaz is not a reformer. He is an opportunist who plays the role of reformer so non-Muslims, most of them right-wingers, will pay him to say what they want to hear. He has no credibility with the Muslim community by and large.

Actually most are Muslim.The Clarion project was established by Raphael Shore to expose the dangers of Radical Islam. Exposure as such should not be a problem. There is nothing to suggest it attacks people because they are Muslim.

Yes there is. They are just another partisan anti-Muslim group trying to maintain a veneer of credibility. But their members are lunatics, and the films they make are utter crap that have landed people who have shown them in hot water. From the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.

“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America,” a narrator intones. “A strategy to infiltrate and dominate America. ... This is the war you don’t know about.”

...

The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich.

...

“Americans are being told that many of the mainstream Muslim groups are also moderate,” Mr. Jasser states. “When in fact if you look a little closer, you’ll see a very different reality. One of their primary tactics is deception.”

The film posits that there were three jihads: One at the time of Muhammad, a second in the Middle Ages and a third that is under way covertly throughout the West today.

This is, the film claims, “the 1,400-year war.”

Utterly insane, fearmongering crap. The Clarion Project is a loony bin, WP - even if the film you're touting here in this thread isn't as bad as the above, they are not a credible source, and you should own up to this if you want to be seen as a serious interlocutor on this subject.

Did the film highlight actual problems?
There are inherent problems in Islamic societies that need a change of thought.

Crime in latino immigrant communities is a problem. But a film that zeroes in specifically on that problem, tries to pin the blame entirely on cultural differences whilst ignoring other factors, and has the paw prints of known racists all over it would doubtless be called into question. Even if it had latinos, well-meaning or otherwise, working on it.

The Clarion project is not anti Islam; it is against radical Islam.

As I said, you need to research your sources more carefully before you cite them here, and be prepared to admit when you've chosen a poor one. But if you're going to fight tooth and nail over your misuse of the word "instrumental," I somehow doubt you're going to own up to your reliance on an untrustworthy source.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, if rapes aren't prosecuted in the West it's usually because the woman is afraid to come forward or due to insufficient evidence, and that's something occurs in all ethnic and religious demographics. Muslim men living in the West can't use Sharia as a get out of jail free card when accused of rape.

You're utterly missing the point here.

In any culture there are cases of rape that don't get reported.

Under Sharia, a woman generally doesn't dare report it. It's going to be his word against hers, his word counts for twice as much as hers and thus it's impossible to sustain her complaint. Meanwhile, she just admitted to adultery.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nawaz is not a reformer. He is an opportunist who plays the role of reformer so non-Muslims, most of them right-wingers, will pay him to say what they want to hear. He has no credibility with the Muslim community by and large.

Actually most are Muslim.The Clarion project was established by Raphael Shore to expose the dangers of Radical Islam. Exposure as such should not be a problem. There is nothing to suggest it attacks people because they are Muslim.

Yes there is. They are just another partisan anti-Muslim group trying to maintain a veneer of credibility. But their members are lunatics, and the films they make are utter crap that have landed people who have shown them in hot water. From the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/nyregion/in-police-training-a-dark-film-on-us-muslims.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.

“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America,” a narrator intones. “A strategy to infiltrate and dominate America. ... This is the war you don’t know about.”

...

The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich.

...

“Americans are being told that many of the mainstream Muslim groups are also moderate,” Mr. Jasser states. “When in fact if you look a little closer, you’ll see a very different reality. One of their primary tactics is deception.”

The film posits that there were three jihads: One at the time of Muhammad, a second in the Middle Ages and a third that is under way covertly throughout the West today.

This is, the film claims, “the 1,400-year war.”

Utterly insane, fearmongering crap. The Clarion Project is a loony bin, WP - even if the film you're touting here in this thread isn't as bad as the above, they are not a credible source, and you should own up to this if you want to be seen as a serious interlocutor on this subject.

Did the film highlight actual problems?
There are inherent problems in Islamic societies that need a change of thought.

Crime in latino immigrant communities is a problem. But a film that zeroes in specifically on that problem, tries to pin the blame entirely on cultural differences whilst ignoring other factors, and has the paw prints of known racists all over it would doubtless be called into question. Even if it had latinos, well-meaning or otherwise, working on it.

The Clarion project is not anti Islam; it is against radical Islam.

As I said, you need to research your sources more carefully before you cite them here, and be prepared to admit when you've chosen a poor one. But if you're going to fight tooth and nail over your misuse of the word "instrumental," I somehow doubt you're going to own up to your reliance on an untrustworthy source.

The point is whether the content in the film is correct from those activists who reported. Whether it is the Clarion project is or not insane the content of the film should be evaluated on its merits.

This is a vacuum which the popularist Muslim groups are not addressing. They are mainly addressing Muslim rights in the USA but not in Islamic and Islamist societies.

Can you show anything about the Clarion project which is directly anti Muslim? I think the statement I showed by the Council of Ex Muslims seems fair comment.

The Western nations are in need of reforms. Muslim countries are more in need of reforms. The message in this film is clear on this. Some of these problems such as FMG and forced marriages also exist in some Muslim communities in the West.

The Muslim champions of change have done nothing to change anything. Sasour has achieved recognition of Muslim holidays and contributed funds to repair wrecked Jewish grave yards. However apart from recent votes to condemn atrocities in Muslim states by vote CAIR and the allied councils did nothing tangeable

The Honor Diaries is a leap forward where Muslims in favour of changes (majority of them I meet) now have a voice.

 

[Warpoet]

You're utterly missing the point here.

What point? You aren't paying attention, and don't comprehend the context of the discussion you're butting into.

Under Sharia, a woman generally doesn't dare report it. It's going to be his word against hers, his word counts for twice as much as hers and thus it's impossible to sustain her complaint. Meanwhile, she just admitted to adultery.

WP and I are talking about religious courts in the West. I specified "Sharia in a familial setting," comparable to the Beth Din courts that Jews have at their disposal in the US. Both Sharia and Halacha place limitations on a woman's ability to testify in various matters; neither shields rapists from the laws of Western countries.

 

[Warpoet]

The point is whether the content in the film is correct from those activists who reported. Whether it is the Clarion project is or not insane the content of the film should be evaluated on its merits.

Nobody needs to bother with the work of known propagandist groups like the Clarion Project. And as I said, the trailer appears more fixated on Islam than on the actual problem of women's rights. You yourself appear more interested in defending the film than considering any flaws in its perspective.

Can you show anything about the Clarion project which is directly anti Muslim? I think the statement I showed by the Council of Ex Muslims seems fair comment.

I already did. Any film which accuses the Muslim community by and large of being engaged in Jihad, secretly infiltrating the West and thus, essentially, the enemy, whilst parading around pictures of terrorists shooting people and the White House with a Jihadist flag flying over it, is transparently anti-Muslim. I understand if you sincerely care about the problems the film claims to be addressing, but if you can't acknowledge the problems with your source, I can't take your arguments seriously.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nobody needs to bother with the work of known propagandist groups like the Clarion Project. And as I said, the trailer appears more fixated on Islam than on the actual problem of women's rights. You yourself appear more interested in defending the film than considering any flaws in its perspective.

Can you show anything about the Clarion project which is directly anti Muslim? I think the statement I showed by the Council of Ex Muslims seems fair comment.

I already did. Any film which accuses the Muslim community by and large of being engaged in Jihad, secretly infiltrating the West and thus, essentially, the enemy, whilst parading around pictures of terrorists shooting people and the White House with a Jihadist flag flying over it, is transparently anti-Muslim. I understand if you sincerely care about the problems the film claims to be addressing, but if you can't acknowledge the problems with your source, I can't take your arguments seriously.

There is nothing specific to show the Clarion project is fixated on Islam rather Radical Islam. Nothing suggests the Clarion project is an anti-Muslim organisation. There is nothing to convince anyone other than they can see the film for themselves and listen to those involved and make up their own minds. Some will have their minds set in the first place but nonetheless that is their own choice.

However it ignited attacks from some Muslim groups but with unsubstantiated claims the film is Islamophobic. You will not find a court in the UK who could find this to be advocating hatred against Muslims.

The film is clearly focussed on Women’s rights is Islamic and Islamist countries. I The Jihadists to want to take over the White house, but their first objective is Rome. (See ISIS Manual Black Flags of Rome.)

The events in the film are self-explanatory. Since we see that there are clearly Muslims who speak out against this, it diffuses claims that Muslims are all Jihadists etc. Political groups such as CAIR, The Arab American Association, the Arab American Action Network and others who gained favour with the US governments as champions of change remained silent on this. In fact you will not find a single project in favour of reforms funded or financed by them.

Perhaps they may scramble to do this later as the issues receive more exposure.

The clip showing the interview with CAIR indicates their speaker could not find anything wrong with the content.
The populist Muslim groups who want to sweep this under the carpet may not like it and may use groups like the Muslim Students’ Association and CAIR to ban its viewing in campuses etc just because it offends their feelings.

Do you think the film should continue to be banned from campuses not only in the USA but Australia and the UK so that people can make up their own minds? Should the speakers including Muslims be banned from speaking at events about the film?

In my view such events in Islamic and Islamist societies should be under the spot light and not hidden from view.

 

[Warpoet]

There is nothing specific to show the Clarion project is fixated on Islam rather Radical Islam. Nothing suggests the Clarion project is an anti-Muslim organisation.

Yes there is. I just presented it to you. Any film which makes an entire group out to be the enemy, and conveys the message that most of them are a fifth column out to subvert Western society is clearly preaching hatred. That's what Clarion's members believe, and what their film(s) convey. No one would dare argue otherwise were they smearing any other group in this same manner. They may be addressing important issues in this particular film, but their behavior disqualifies them as a credible source. You need to acknowledge this if you want to be seen as a serious commentator.

But, you don't appear interested in dealing with the abundant problems with your source. Like much of the forum, you seem to care far more about stating your opinions than about backing them up. Again, I liked you better when you stayed out of political threads.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nobody needs to bother with the work of known propagandist groups like the Clarion Project. And as I said, the trailer appears more fixated on Islam than on the actual problem of women's rights. You yourself appear more interested in defending the film than considering any flaws in its perspective.

Can you show anything about the Clarion project which is directly anti Muslim? I think the statement I showed by the Council of Ex Muslims seems fair comment.

I already did. Any film which accuses the Muslim community by and large of being engaged in Jihad, secretly infiltrating the West and thus, essentially, the enemy, whilst parading around pictures of terrorists shooting people and the White House with a Jihadist flag flying over it, is transparently anti-Muslim. I understand if you sincerely care about the problems the film claims to be addressing, but if you can't acknowledge the problems with your source, I can't take your arguments seriously.

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.

This is my evaluation also on the reactions of those Islamic groups who were once invited to the White House and hailed champions of change. However they addressed nothing regarding the rights of those in many Islamic countries and clearly don't like it when others do.

Nonetheless the message is relevant because it seems to have promoted at least motions in CAIR to condemn some of the atrocities (mentioned by the Honor Diaries) in one of their conferences recently. Hopefully this film will put more pressure on CAIR et al to act further.

Clearly CAIR in doing nothing seems to feel it was interrupted by the Honour Diaries doing something where it's only recourse seems to be calling for censorship.

 

[dismal]

Sarah Haider: Ex-Muslim
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=het5MDmrODM[/YOUTUBE]

I think this is quite a an interesting speech.

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.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sarah Haider: Ex-Muslim
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=het5MDmrODM[/YOUTUBE]

I think this is quite a an interesting speech.

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.