Stop fretting over religious sensitivities. We must push hard against Islamists

[ray245]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -islamists

In this time of political uncertainty, we can be certain about one issue. The battle against Islamist extremism is one we are losing. News of 23,000 jihadis living in Britain, each considered to pose at least a “residual risk”, indicates the breathtaking scale of the challenge facing us. The horse, as they say, has well and truly bolted.

We need to learn lessons from previous mistakes, including our comatose response to growing religious fundamentalism. Yet the truth is we remain blind to the facts. With our liberal blessings, extremist preachers are free to promote their hatred, virtually unchallenged. Anjem Choudary radicalised hundreds, if not thousands of Muslims freely over 20 years. As a result, he influenced more than 100 Britons to carry out or attempt to carry out terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

We defended the right of extremists to free speech in the belief that the most effective way of undermining them was for us to counter their speech. This was nice in theory; there was, however, one rather large problem. Apart from a handful of people, no one did counter them. And those who did were promptly labelled “Islamophobes.”

Fully exploiting the uncontested space we provided them, extremists promoted their supremacist, hate-filled ideology to thousands of Muslims on satellite channels, through social media, on campuses and community events, day in, day out. In the battle of ideas, deconstructing their ideological world view was then and remains now one of our greatest failures. And fail we did – collectively, as Muslim institutions, human rights organisations, anti-racist groups and governments.

While the Muslim Council of Britain perfected the art of issuing press statements, it did nothing to push back on such poisonous teachings. For 10 years, my organisation Inspire, in an attempt to build resilience to extremism in Muslim families, taught theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology. The response I heard from hundreds of Muslim mothers was the same. No one has taught us this before and no one has taught our children it either. What was apparent is that the weak “community” defence system would not be able to hold back the tidal wave of extremist propaganda.

As extremists continue to radicalise people, we, however, are still flapping our hands over what we even define as extremism. Extremism has never been just about violence. Inciting hatred, discrimination and supremacist ideals for political, religious or ideological causes should be considered extreme in a 21st-century Britain which aspires to establish a culture based on equality, human rights and a pluralistic outlook. Yet thousands of videos of extremists such as Abu Haleema who seek to radicalise remain online.

Our inability to recognise the ideological nature of the beast, in particular Salafist, Islamist and Barelvi-inspired extremism, meant we never fully understood who the key extremist groups, websites and preachers were. We lack the essential insight into the activism of these groups and their influence among British Muslims.

Instead of recognising the diverse picture, we blindly continue to lump all 3 million Muslims – the good, bad and ugly – all under the mythical banner of a “Muslim community”. This serves the interests not of the ordinary Muslim, but of the extremists who hide behind this same banner. As a result, we continue to legitimise the voices we should be calling out.

Take Sky News for example. Last week, it invited Dilly Hussain of the Islamist-run website 5Pillars to take part in a discussion on how we should tackle Islamist extremism. Hussain has expressed his support for key 20th-century jihadi ideologues including Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam. Qutb’s book Milestones became the blueprint for modern-day Islamist extremist ideologies and influenced Osama bin Laden. Azzam is a pivotal ideologue in shaping the al-Qaida network. Yet despite this, you may want to ask why is it 5Pillars has more than 184,000 likes on Facebook alone? Yet here was Sky News asking an Islamist sympathiser how we should tackle Islamist extremism.

So what do we need to do ? Inevitably, a huge responsibility falls on Muslim faith leaders and institutions in our country. Statements condemning terror attacks do not reduce the Islamist threat we face, nor address the challenge of 23,000 jihadis. They have a religious obligation to build resilience in teaching young Muslims theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology, while promoting a contextualised understanding of Islam in the UK and amplifying such teachings to the masses both in the online and offline space.

We must provide platforms for young people to air their grievances, whether they are concerns around anti-Muslim prejudice or foreign policy and challenge wild anti-western conspiracy theories. It is vital that we hammer home the message that violence and terrorism, no matter what grievances the terrorists claim to hold, is never justified in Islam. Crucially, Muslim activists and scholars must weed out the extremists in our midst who justify their beliefs in the “name of Islam.” As one scholar said last week, it’s time we #CallEmOut.

Second, we need to start investing in grassroots Muslim counter-extremism organisations. At the moment, these lack essential funding and resources. Philanthropies and charities have a social responsibility to support Muslims who are on the frontline. A disastrous combination of muddled thinking about political correctness and a risk- averse outlook has acted as an obstacle.

Government must do more to explain the threat emanating from Islamist terrorism and build trust among Muslims so we work together in countering the extremists. This work should be supplemented with broader government strategies that empower communities through programmes of engagement, inclusion and integration.

Investing and reinvigorating a civil society movement based on our shared values is desperately needed to push back against the extremists. This requires all of us to defend our values over and above political correctness or religious sensibilities, to help build the united Britain we all want. We have already lost too much ground to Islamist extremists. We will continue to do so unless we urgently step up to the mark.

Sara Khan is author of The Battle for British Islam: Reclaiming Muslim Identity from Extremism, and director of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire. @wewillinspire.

The lack of any actual debate or discussion about the Muslim identity in Western nations is really not helping the public perception of Muslims in the west.

[Simon_Jester]

There's an underlying problem, which is the extent to which views on Islam have become a political football between the tribal affiliations of "Left" and "Right."

For Right Tribe people, terrorism plays right into the traditional narratives they've been sticking to for half a century or more: scary foreigners who don't honor our gods and traditions coming into our country to hurt the weak and innocent for no goddamn reason, and who can be forced to stop by a good stiff beating by Our Heroes in Uniform.

For Left Tribe people, Islamic terrorism... doesn't play into the narrative. This is not a group whose cultural diversity can or should be celebrated. The private opinion of nearly every member of Left Tribe is 'fuck terrorism.' And yet... there's a problem with saying it. The problem is that if you try to turn around and actively denounce terrorism, this rapidly gets turned cynically into a political weapon by Right Tribe people who care very little about the terrorism, and very much about sticking their thumbs into the collective eye of the Left Tribe.

And this is part of why when conservatives demand that Muslim leaders (or leftists in general) in western countries denounce terrorism, there's a tendency to shuffle the feet. Because it's really obvious to said Muslim leaders that these Right Tribe people are more interested in squeezing them out of the country and creating this horrible stereotype about Muslims, than they are about actually preventing terrorist attacks over the long haul.

It is far more in the interests of the Right Tribe that foreigners be viewed as demons, than that the country actually be safe from foreigners... Even though nearly every individual member of Right Tribe privately wants actual safety and nearly all would privately be willing to admit no basic problems with any specific individual muslim who isn't actively a terrorist themselves.

Just as it is far more in the interests of the Left Tribe that terrorists (who don't fit the narrative) be ignored, than that they be feared and discussed... Even though every individual leftist is all like 'fuck ISIL.' So the leftists shuffle their feet.

...

Of course, the foot-shuffling and reluctance to condemn is also taken as evidence against them. Furthermore, it creates some really bizarre results that don't make a lot of sense, the occasional people who said "how dare you celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden!?" but then turned around and celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, because there's an incentive to saying "look how Lefty I am!" by insulting Thatcher's ghost, but no such reward on the left for insulting bin Laden's ghost.

All in all, it's a terrible incentive structure and this is very far from the only issue where political polarization is stopping us from having an intelligent-ish response to a problem.

[Joun_Lord]

The problem is that if you try to turn around and actively denounce terrorism, this rapidly gets turned cynically into a political weapon by Right Tribe people who care very little about the terrorism, and very much about sticking their thumbs into the collective eye of the Left Tribe.

I disagree that the right cares little about terrorism, they do and not only as just a jab into the eye of the left. They might care about it in different ways and certainly have different solution then more left leaning people (not to assume your species) such as you or I (nuclear parking lots or Tali-bans as opposed to strengthened government agencies handling immigration and an attempt at cultural understanding and other hippie bullshit) but still do care about terrorism as much as the left.

Though I think its also true that the left likes to use terrorism, especially some forms, as a jab in the eye of the right. Just as the right likes to point to how liberal approaches to terrorism and immigration failed when some random brown immigrant goes postal but the left likes doing something similar when any white christian idiot shoots up a school. For terrorism and mass shootings (terrorism by another time sometimes) both sides blame the other. The right says terrorism is the result of lax liberal immigration policies and being militarily weak while the left says its the result of conservative war mongering and racism. The right says mass shootings are the result of liberals not letting people defend themselves and coddling psychos while the left says its the fault of lax conservatives gun laws and coddling psychos.

Both like to use tragedies to try to go after their opponents, both are more then happy to blame it all on the opposition even before the bodies are cold. They care but they also care about using these things as a cudgel to strike at their opponents, perhaps in fear of being struck at themselves creating some sort of cyclic system of smacking each other upside their dang fool heads with the bleeding bodies of the dead.

Both sides are more then willing to demonize people and play the straw man when it comes to terrorism. Now of course the right takes the cake when it comes to it, they are too willing to stoop to total racist bullshit in their stupidity, willing to blame an entire people for the actions of a few in a manner that would be ironic considering the lefts attempts at the same thing with regards to gun violence but flies completely over the heads of most right wing morons who think irony is a country we need to bomb. But that that doesn't excuse the actions of the left on attempting to shy away from admitting there is a problem with islamic terrorism or blaming other crap with little to do with the islamic terrorism because they are to scared to paint someone of a racial or religious group as a fucktarded ass terrorist because its not for them politically convenient.

Now I'll admit I'm coming from a bit of a damn dirty middle of the road fence sitting view point when it comes to these affairs, your own views may differ.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that if you try to turn around and actively denounce terrorism, this rapidly gets turned cynically into a political weapon by Right Tribe people who care very little about the terrorism, and very much about sticking their thumbs into the collective eye of the Left Tribe.

I disagree that the right cares little about terrorism, they do and not only as just a jab into the eye of the left.

See, you misread that.

It is turned into a political weapon not by "ALL THE Right Tribe people," but by specific Right Tribe people. Sorry for forgetting the disclaimer, should have known you'd interpret any possible slight against Right Tribe as an actual slight against Right Tribe. Can think of examples of people who behave the same way about possible slights against Left Tribe. I try to suppress the tendency in myself, but what the hey.

...

The key is to distinguish between the Right or Left Tribes and their chieftains. Right Tribe members include half of all Americans, roughly. Right Tribe chieftains are a special breed unto themselves... and they're the ones this point is about.

The point is, Bill O'Reilly didn't give a crap about terrorism, he cares about his show's ratings. Donald Trump doesn't give a crap about terrorism, he cares about his shows' ratings. He has two shows, one is "the presidency" with an audience of seven billion, and one is "my ego," with an audience of one. These are not, to put it mildly, men who will reach out across the aisle to compromise with you and actually work with you to solve serious problems faced by modern civilization. They are the precise right-wing mirror image of the left's most noxious Ess-Jay-Double-You Tumblr loonies, the only difference is that they have large corporations shilling for them instead of a swarm of social media clowns.

The difference is that when a Right Tribe chieftain wants to talk about terrorism, they can bloviate all day about how terrible it is because it fits the Right Tribe narrative. In Right Tribe's frame of reference, terrorism is easy to explain. It's evil foreigners doing evil things for nonsensical reasons, and Left Tribe being too paralyzed to be the Hard Men Making Hard Decisions While Hard and stop them. Even if the Right Tribe chieftain in question is a horrible asshole, it doesn't matter- he can still make the right mouth noises, because that is the first thing you learn in the process of becoming a Right Tribe chieftain.

...

Left Tribe chieftains cannot bloviate in this way about terrorism, even though they know intellectually it's terrible and everyone else in Left Tribe agrees with them. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

We can see the roles largely reversed on issues like health insurance. Now that Right Tribe looks like its elected leaders have actually gained the power to repeal the ACA like their elite warriors have been posturing about for six or seven years, Right Tribe's rhetoric on the issue has become very muddled and conflicted. And when you approach them as a member of Left Tribe or even a concerned Right Tribe citizen,* you can't get a straight answer out of the Right Tribe chieftains about exactly what they intend to do about the uninsured, and how, and why.

Left Tribe chieftains never have this problem. They always have something to say about health care for all, and it's always the kind of mouth noises their constituents will like, even if they then go around and partially or entirely sell out the interests of the Left Tribe constituents to the Left Tribe's hated enemies (e.g. the evil corporation-spirits).

Same basic pattern. Deliberately knocking 20 million people off health insurance doesn't really fit the Right Tribe narrative, deliberately tolerating millions of deaths and displacements overseas due to ISIL doesn't fit the Left Tribe narrative... but in both cases, obvious solutions like "keep the ACA" and "fight!" don't fit the respective tribal narratives either!

All things considered, I'd rather be with Left Tribe, but I can at least recognize this pattern when it evolves across multiple issues or leads to inconsistent behavior.
___________________

*Because concern is a sign of Left Tribe sympathies! Right Tribe's official narrative is not big on people being concerned about anything other than foreigners, communists, sympathizers to both, and damage caused by the previous three categories.

They might care about it in different ways and certainly have different solution then more left leaning people (not to assume your species) such as you or I (nuclear parking lots or Tali-bans as opposed to strengthened government agencies handling immigration and an attempt at cultural understanding and other hippie bullshit) but still do care about terrorism as much as the left.

Again, everyone on both sides except the horrible assclowns agrees terrorism is horrible. The difference is purely one of behavior by the chieftains of the two tribes

[The Romulan Republic]

Another part of the problem, Simon_Jester (which I think you are somewhat guilty of, though not intentionally) is the tacit (and in some cases explicit) equation of terrorism with Islamism.

Yes, Islamic terrorism is a problem that must be confronted, but not only do we need to remember that not all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers; we need to remember that not all terrorism is Islamic in origin. Terrorism is often used as a short-hand for Islamist terrorism, while terrorism from other groups is largely overlooked.

The enemy should be terrorism, of any stripe, tribe, or creed- not terrorism that happens to be inspired by an interpretation of Islam.

[Simon_Jester]

See, I don't even disagree with that as a factual statement. But it's another one of those redirections we of the Left Tribe tend to use rather than just grunting, nodding, saying "ISIL is terrible, wish more people would say so" and moving on.

And sometimes, there's that itching sensation that this admission can be used as a weapon by Right Tribe, incentivizing us to redirect the issue.

Again, this is something of a mirror image of why it's hard to get straightforward statements along the lines of "American poverty being disproportionately divided along racial lines is bad for the country" or "making it impossible for people with pre-existing conditions to afford health insurance is bad." Because those things do not fit the Right Tribe narrative comfortably, any more than "ISIL and everyone affiliated with them is terrible" fits the Left Tribe narrative comfortably.

Ideally, this should be the point at which everyone starts having actual fact-based conversations about things and not fanatically entrenching in one of two armed camps such that a huge array of issues become 50/50 splits when they really, really shouldn't be. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

[ray245]

Another part of the problem, Simon_Jester (which I think you are somewhat guilty of, though not intentionally) is the tacit (and in some cases explicit) equation of terrorism with Islamism.

Yes, Islamic terrorism is a problem that must be confronted, but not only do we need to remember that not all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers; we need to remember that not all terrorism is Islamic in origin. Terrorism is often used as a short-hand for Islamist terrorism, while terrorism from other groups is largely overlooked.

The enemy should be terrorism, of any stripe, tribe, or creed- not terrorism that happens to be inspired by an interpretation of Islam.

True, but I think Islamophobia also stems from a slightly different issue. Christian fundamentalists have been subjected to a huge amount of mockery and criticism for a while in the western world. However, Islamic fundamentalists ( not necessarily terrorists) are often seen as being protected by the left, and this gives the impression that some sort of double standards is being applied.

It's like condemning the IRA while shutting down any debate over Christian fundamentalism.

[Aleister Crowley]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Islam is vaguely interesting to me, mostly because of the autobiography of Mohammad. His life and the religion he helped create are both inspiring to me as a prophet myself. Especially coming from a Christian background, because I can see how Christian ideas influenced him. He wasn't a dummy at all, especially when it comes to what he wrote. So yeah, I don't believe he was inspired by God at all. I think he made up the entire Quran and did so in a special way - some by accident and some by design. He managed to summon his Holy Guardian Angel and thought it was Gabriel. I think that is partially because of his familiarity with the newly translated Christian Bible in Arabic. So yeah, there is a lot behind that whole religion. It is not super simple and neither is the life of Mohammad. He was very complex. A lot of people don't realize that.

As for his followers, I have no real opinion. I've gotten to know a handful of them and most were ok. I have no doubt that some of the Muslims are genuinely dangerous. I know some Brits who are 100% dangerous as well, so it's not them alone. Irish too...even though I have a soft spot for the Irish Republic. Violence is violence and I do not condone the killing of others without cause. Man has rights after all. I don't condone criminals of any kind. Or any violent ones at that.
Love is the law, love under will.

[Joun_Lord]

See, you misread that.

It is turned into a political weapon not by "ALL THE Right Tribe people," but by specific Right Tribe people. Sorry for forgetting the disclaimer, should have known you'd interpret any possible slight against Right Tribe as an actual slight against Right Tribe. Can think of examples of people who behave the same way about possible slights against Left Tribe. I try to suppress the tendency in myself, but what the hey.

Well, and I know I'm the last person who should be lecturing about having easily misread posts (or for that matter easily read posts at at all), but its hard to not interpret that statement of "the right cares very little about terrorism but instead cares much about sticking their dicks in the eyes of the left" as anything other then saying the reich.....sorry right as a whole cares little about about terrorism except to hurt their opposition. Their was no qualifier of you meaning a subset of the right tribe.

The key is to distinguish between the Right or Left Tribes and their chieftains. Right Tribe members include half of all Americans, roughly. Right Tribe chieftains are a special breed unto themselves... and they're the ones this point is about.

The point is, Bill O'Reilly didn't give a crap about terrorism, he cares about his show's ratings. Donald Trump doesn't give a crap about terrorism, he cares about his shows' ratings. He has two shows, one is "the presidency" with an audience of seven billion, and one is "my ego," with an audience of one. These are not, to put it mildly, men who will reach out across the aisle to compromise with you and actually work with you to solve serious problems faced by modern civilization. They are the precise right-wing mirror image of the left's most noxious Ess-Jay-Double-You Tumblr loonies, the only difference is that they have large corporations shilling for them instead of a swarm of social media clowns.

The difference is that when a Right Tribe chieftain wants to talk about terrorism, they can bloviate all day about how terrible it is because it fits the Right Tribe narrative. In Right Tribe's frame of reference, terrorism is easy to explain. It's evil foreigners doing evil things for nonsensical reasons, and Left Tribe being too paralyzed to be the Hard Men Making Hard Decisions While Hard and stop them. Even if the Right Tribe chieftain in question is a horrible asshole, it doesn't matter- he can still make the right mouth noises, because that is the first thing you learn in the process of becoming a Right Tribe chieftain.

Left Tribe chieftains cannot bloviate in this way about terrorism, even though they know intellectually it's terrible and everyone else in Left Tribe agrees with them. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

We can see the roles largely reversed on issues like health insurance. Now that Right Tribe looks like its elected leaders have actually gained the power to repeal the ACA like their elite warriors have been posturing about for six or seven years, Right Tribe's rhetoric on the issue has become very muddled and conflicted. And when you approach them as a member of Left Tribe or even a concerned Right Tribe citizen,* you can't get a straight answer out of the Right Tribe chieftains about exactly what they intend to do about the uninsured, and how, and why.

Left Tribe chieftains never have this problem. They always have something to say about health care for all, and it's always the kind of mouth noises their constituents will like, even if they then go around and partially or entirely sell out the interests of the Left Tribe constituents to the Left Tribe's hated enemies (e.g. the evil corporation-spirits).

Same basic pattern. Deliberately knocking 20 million people off health insurance doesn't really fit the Right Tribe narrative, deliberately tolerating millions of deaths and displacements overseas due to ISIL doesn't fit the Left Tribe narrative... but in both cases, obvious solutions like "keep the ACA" and "fight!" don't fit the respective tribal narratives either!

All things considered, I'd rather be with Left Tribe, but I can at least recognize this pattern when it evolves across multiple issues or leads to inconsistent behavior.

See, I don't see much of a difference often times. Lefty pinko commies have large corporations and big media shillin' for their illin' too, Faux News has big blowhards just the same as MSNBC. Politicians on the left and right are only too willing to try to out Trump the Trump when it comes to not caring about tragedy or working to compromise for the good of the nation.

People are just as willing to buy the lefts bullshit if the left chieftain makes the right mouth noises. Both sides just have to make mouth noises in opposition to the other and people will line up in droves to vote for them as well this last goddamn election showed. So fucking many people didn't like Hillary, hated Trump, thought they were both corrupt criminals and lying shitbags and even best goddam buddies pulling a fast one on the American people but because Hillary said she wasn't Trump and Trump said she wasn't Hillary people stuffed those ballot boxes like the worlds sorriest shitter.

Both freaking sides are just as guilty about spewing shit from their mouths about shit that aren't so down with. The left might have all the right mouth noises on health care (mostly) but are just as buzz wordy and vague when it comes to things like gun control or immigration as the right is about health care. Its all "common sense" and "reform" with no substance.

Yeah I'd rather be with the left tribe too but not because they are any better all things considered, they just happen to lie more in with my views. People on the left care about things as do people on the right, they care about people, they care about the impact. They have different ideas of how to best help the people but I'm quite sure atleast some......some on both sides really do care. Some don't. Either way the things the left cares about I care about more then the things the right does, human rights for all, public assistance for the needy, health care reform, the fucking environment. Health care in particular, the fact the right cannot make coherent mouth noises to explain how they are going to repeal and replace Obamneycare has me well and truly out of their corner, for all the ills of Obamacare it actually helped people and removing it without a worthy replacement might not cause "millions of deaths" but it certainly can cause the suffering and deaths of a great many people who shouldn't have to suffer or die because some cockgobbler in chief can't stand Obungler having even one lasting positive.

Somethings I don't agree with the left on too. But thats because I don't fully follow either "tribal narrative", again shitbag middle of the roader, so I can even with my no doubt less then stellar intelligence and understanding see their is bullshit spewing from both sides. Just so happens right now the shit spewing from the left is a bit less stinky. Maybe a bit less corn too.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of being an idjit too or being totally blinded by your own political beliefs but I do think you have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to your beliefs as you seem to see the ills of the right while not seeing the ills of the left as much. Of course I could be blinded by my own beliefs, everyones blinded and nobody can see. Free seeing political eye dogs for everyone.

Edit, lost my train of thought and left half a post like a botched circumcision.

Again, everyone on both sides except the horrible assclowns agrees terrorism is horrible. The difference is purely one of behavior by the chieftains of the two tribes

I partially disagree. The behavior is different but not by much. Some care, some don't on both sides. Some are more then willing to use a good tragedy for political purposes, some are more the willing to use a tragedy to hurt other people. Both sides seem to only answer the question of terrorism with ineffective response. One might preach inaction while the other too much action but I don't really see a super big difference.

[Simon_Jester]

See, you misread that.

It is turned into a political weapon not by "ALL THE Right Tribe people," but by specific Right Tribe people. Sorry for forgetting the disclaimer, should have known you'd interpret any possible slight against Right Tribe as an actual slight against Right Tribe. Can think of examples of people who behave the same way about possible slights against Left Tribe. I try to suppress the tendency in myself, but what the hey.

Well, and I know I'm the last person who should be lecturing about having easily misread posts (or for that matter easily read posts at at all), but its hard to not interpret that statement of "the right cares very little about terrorism but instead cares much about sticking their dicks in the eyes of the left..."

Yeah, that would be understandable... if that were what I'd said. What I actually said was: "turned cynically into a political weapon by Right Tribe people who care very little about the terrorism..."

Now see, suppose I had said "robbed and beaten by large men who don't care about the consequences..."

Would you hasten to start a #NotAllLargeMen hashtag? Probably not. Because it would be a matter of basic common sense that 'large men did this' does not equate to 'ALL large men did or would do this.' You wouldn't expect me to use a qualifier. You wouldn't have to expect that. Because it would be immediately obvious that no sane person thinks all large men do literally the exact same things in lockstep, especially not evil things. Unless of course you viewed "tall man" as a core identity group thing, in which case I might get the "tall man" version of Ess-Jay-Double-You-dom unleashed upon me.

But when we apply the same sentence structure to 'Right Tribe people,' a group you presumably identify with even if your political opinions align more with prescribed Left Tribe political opinions...

Suddenly, my statement becomes an attack on 'Right Tribe' as a whole and is presumed to apply to every individual Right Tribe member as though I think you are all a bunch of ghouls. To the point where you don't even notice the difference between what I said and what your takeaway summary was- not out of malice on your part, I'm sure, but simply because I did something that could reasonably be interpreted as dissing a tribe you're accustomed to defending.

...

If the problem is not a possible interpretation of what I actually said, but a possible interpretation of another interpretation of what I said, then the problem is deeper than "what Simon said was ambiguous or confusing." Because if you keep chaining 'interprets' you can turn any statement into any other statement by subtly changing the wording and emphasis a little at a time.

And this is kind of my point, because this process of chaining interpretations and reframing things until they look hella good for Our Side and hella bad for Their Side... That this is EXACTLY how we find Americans mysteriously polarizing themselves on every single fucking issue whether it makes sense or not. Even when there's no obvious reason that being, say, anti-abortion should make you in favor of lower taxes.

[This is not to say an anti-abortion voter might not tactically vote for the low-tax, anti-abortion party. What I'm pointing out here is that there's no reason why being anti-abortion should make me personally anti-tax, unless it's a consequence of reasoning like 'being anti-abortion means I am, and must be, a member of Right Tribe, which is anti-abortion. Right Tribe is anti-tax, therefore I am anti-tax." There is no obvious reason that anti-abortion beliefs should be correlated with anti-tax beliefs, and yet they are]

Basically, the brain invents reasons to rebel against any criticism of the tribe, or against any idea that might force a person to ally with the 'wrong' tribe. This has always been a feature of human nature. In tropical rainforests you get little bands of hunter-gatherers who view The People Across the River as subhuman freaks at best and outright demons at worst. In ancient Rome you got arbitrary divisions between fans of chariot-racing teams. Nowadays... we have Left Tribe and Right Tribe.

And almost any possible event can be creatively reinterpreted until it turns into a criticism of the other tribe, if that motive of boosting your own tribe and dumping on the enemy tribe is strong enough.

as anything other then saying the reich.....sorry right as a whole cares little about about terrorism except to hurt their opposition. Their was no qualifier of you meaning a subset of the right tribe.

Again, there wasn't a qualifier- but if I'd used that sentence structure for anything other than a tribal affiliation you're conditioned to care about, you probably wouldn't even have noticed, let alone cared about, the lack of a qualifier.

The key is to distinguish between the Right or Left Tribes and their chieftains. Right Tribe members include half of all Americans, roughly. Right Tribe chieftains are a special breed unto themselves... and they're the ones this point is about...

All things considered, I'd rather be with Left Tribe, but I can at least recognize this pattern when it evolves across multiple issues or leads to inconsistent behavior.

See, I don't see much of a difference often times. Lefty pinko commies have large corporations and big media shillin' for their illin' too, Faux News has big blowhards just the same as MSNBC. Politicians on the left and right are only too willing to try to out Trump the Trump when it comes to not caring about tragedy or working to compromise for the good of the nation.

See, this is kind of missing the point.

If a Left Tribe chieftain is secretly a manipulative ass out to exploit disaster or reject necessary compromise for the benefit of Left Tribe... They pick different things to bloviate about. The exact subject matter is still evolving, but health insurance is likely to be one of the main bludgeons used by the left for the next five to ten years. For Right Tribe chieftains, making correct mouth noises about terrorism is easy and it is easy to twist any conversation about terrorism to the advantage of Right Tribe and one's own control over Right Tribe. For Left Tribe chieftains, making correct mouth noises about health insurance is easy and it is easy to twist any conversation about health insurance, et cetera.

Meanwhile, looking at things from the point of view of pure analysis, Left Tribe and Right Tribe chieftains behave differently and do different things for different reasons. The most asinine Left Tribe chieftains behave differently from the most asinine Right Tribe chieftains. The most asinine Right Tribe chieftains form gun nut militias. The most asinine Left Tribe chieftains form social outrage hive minds on Tumblr and hound people into unemployment and misery for making bad comments on Facebook.

But we can say this without having to constantly make our own mouth noises about how both sides are equally terrible. Both sides are different, not identical, just as any other two tribes will differ noticeably in structure and motivations.

People are just as willing to buy the lefts bullshit if the left chieftain makes the right mouth noises. Both sides just have to make mouth noises in opposition to the other and people will line up in droves to vote for them as well this last goddamn election showed...

My own opinions about the two tribes and their relative types and levels of terribleness are perhaps irrelevant to this. And I'm worried that if I even express them, you'll react by going on for another three to five paragraphs about how Left Tribe is just as bad as whatever you think I said about Right Tribe and completely miss any actual points I make about the differences between the two.

I'd actually appreciate it if you'd agree not to do that, so that we can have a meaningful conversation about the differences between the two for a change. Instead of me having to defend Left Tribe against your defense of Right Tribe that you launched because you thought I was uniquely attacking and trying to discredit Right Tribe. When in fact I'm trying to analyze both.

Let's make an agreement NOT to put on our tribal warrior headdresses, okay?

Not just so we can reach the South Park-esque 'lol both bad' conclusion. So that we can actually understand what the hell is going on, in a country that is inexplicably divided into two massive tribes with virtually zero overlap. What are the structural differences between Left Tribe and Right Tribe that make them so mutually alien despite sharing so much language, culture, and physical space?

Yeah I'd rather be with the left tribe too but not because they are any better all things considered, they just happen to lie more in with my views.

My feeling is that you are a person with political views that align with the prescriptions of Left Tribe. But you seem to feel a strong instinctive cultural affiliation to Right Tribe that causes you to leap to its defense when you perceive it as being attacked.

If I were behaving as you do, it would be because to this particular alt-Simon, an attack on Left Tribe is merely an attack on my opinions, while an attack on Right Tribe is an attack on my kind of people.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of being an idjit too or being totally blinded by your own political beliefs but I do think you have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to your beliefs as you seem to see the ills of the right while not seeing the ills of the left as much. Of course I could be blinded by my own beliefs, everyones blinded and nobody can see. Free seeing political eye dogs for everyone.

See, what I'm trying to talk about is how the tribes are different and why this leads to incompatibility and constant strife. Doing that while pretending both tribes are literally identical in all ways and just happen to have evolved these huge mutually exclusive political platforms and cultural traits entirely by chance is very hard. It's a bit like trying to explain climate change without believing in greenhouse gases, in my opinion.

Again, everyone on both sides except the horrible assclowns agrees terrorism is horrible. The difference is purely one of behavior by the chieftains of the two tribes

I partially disagree. The behavior is different but not by much. Some care, some don't on both sides. Some are more then willing to use a good tragedy for political purposes, some are more the willing to use a tragedy to hurt other people. Both sides seem to only answer the question of terrorism with ineffective response. One might preach inaction while the other too much action but I don't really see a super big difference.

I would argue that there are structural differences between the two tribes, that lead to different categories of people becoming 'chieftains' of the two tribes.

There are also some special sub-factions within each tribe that have their own little customs and have different kinds of chieftains and power structures, like the right's population of full-on libertarians (Magenta Clan?), and the left's population of Ess-Jay-Double-You Internet hiveminds (Electric Blue Clan?) and so on.

[Don't take the 'reddish' and 'blueish' color affiliations too seriously, I'm just making that part up as I go along]

[K. A. Pital]

Left tribe.

Of course, there are no true "left" and "right", it is a postmodern political theatre, a discourse controlled almost in entirety by Evilcorp, where they shape and form narratives as they see fit. Lemmings follow.

True leftists are few and far between.

Also, terrorism is horrible, but so is the world. If the world had been perfect, there would had been no terrorism. Maybe no suffering even. Why fight in paradise? The source is the world itself, the world system. In the end, the source of deadly errors in the human cells that eventually kill the organism... is the organism itself.

[Simon_Jester]

Left tribe.

Of course, there are no true "left" and "right", it is a postmodern political theatre, a discourse controlled almost in entirety by Evilcorp, where they shape and form narratives as they see fit. Lemmings follow.

If you'd prefer I could call them "Red Tribe" and "Blue Tribe" or "Mountain Tribe" and "Coast Tribe." I went for something the people I was talking to are unlikely to misinterpret.

That said, the real leftists in the US tend to affiliate with the entity I refer to as Left Tribe; they're just a powerless fringe group within that tribe, like state secessionist movements in Right Tribe.

[Shroom Man 777]

The problem with the dialog is that both the left and the right, but this is more relevant to the left and/or progressives who in good faith want to defend a marginalized group against scaremongering and outright racism/islamophobia/whateveristic discrimination: They don't have a grasp, conceptually and thus linguistically, of the differences between strains of Islam, the differences between Shia and Sunni are hard enough to grasp as it is, so if their understanding of it is shallower than "Protestant versus Catholic = Reformation," then they can't internalize what's up with the very diverse Muslim world and so can't begin to articulate the hows and whys of moderate Islam versus fundamentalist extremist Islam and so on.

Then again, the mainstream liberal edifice sadly can't even approach the disillusioned blue-collar Murcan demographic properly either... there's barely any bandwidth in people's heads to distinguish between Mike Wong style "ALL RACIST INBRED FUNDIE TWATS" and understanding of the forgotten demographics (though this should not become apologism for Confed flag-waving foolish human shits). Likewise the other way around with the right's caricature of IVORY TOWER LIBRUL COASTAL ELITES. So if this is what we get with regarding to the mainstream American discourse on their own neighbors then sheesh no wonder everyone messes up the discussion points with regards to Islam.

(I mean, we get this anywhere too. Look at how moderates in the UK go nuts over Corbynistas and the reciprocating furor about sellout establishment Blairites, etc.)

[The Romulan Republic]

Another part of the problem, Simon_Jester (which I think you are somewhat guilty of, though not intentionally) is the tacit (and in some cases explicit) equation of terrorism with Islamism.

Yes, Islamic terrorism is a problem that must be confronted, but not only do we need to remember that not all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers; we need to remember that not all terrorism is Islamic in origin. Terrorism is often used as a short-hand for Islamist terrorism, while terrorism from other groups is largely overlooked.

The enemy should be terrorism, of any stripe, tribe, or creed- not terrorism that happens to be inspired by an interpretation of Islam.

True, but I think Islamophobia also stems from a slightly different issue. Christian fundamentalists have been subjected to a huge amount of mockery and criticism for a while in the western world. However, Islamic fundamentalists ( not necessarily terrorists) are often seen as being protected by the left, and this gives the impression that some sort of double standards is being applied.

It's like condemning the IRA while shutting down any debate over Christian fundamentalism.

Eh, Islamic terrorists aren't protected much by the Left generally, and certainly by no major Left-wing politicians in America, and frankly that strikes me more as a smear perpetuated by the Right in the wake of 911, to brand themselves as the "tough on terrorism" side and the opposition as terrorist sympathizers.

Their are, I am aware, some elements of the Left who are too sympathetic to Islamic extremism, but I'd be careful of painting the Left with too broad a brush here.

[ray245]

Eh, Islamic terrorists aren't protected much by the Left generally, and certainly by no major Left-wing politicians in America, and frankly that strikes me more as a smear perpetuated by the Right in the wake of 911, to brand themselves as the "tough on terrorism" side and the opposition as terrorist sympathizers.

Their are, I am aware, some elements of the Left who are too sympathetic to Islamic extremism, but I'd be careful of painting the Left with too broad a brush here.

I'm not saying the terrorists are protected by the left. I'm saying the Left which tends to discourage almost any main discourse on Islam in the western world due to the fear of an actual Islamophobe hijacking the discussion. We get constant slogans like "not all Muslim are terrorists" which is going to be something many on the right would agree with.

I'm arguing that the source of Islamophobia doesn't merely come from terrorist attacks alone. It also comes from the perception that the majority of Muslims aren't any better than a Christian fundie in the US. The western world has spent years mocking fun of fundamentalists in Christianity, but there seems to be a public perception that while fundie Christianity can be openly mocked without much consequences, the same cannot be said about Islam.

[Flagg]

Eh, Islamic terrorists aren't protected much by the Left generally, and certainly by no major Left-wing politicians in America, and frankly that strikes me more as a smear perpetuated by the Right in the wake of 911, to brand themselves as the "tough on terrorism" side and the opposition as terrorist sympathizers.

Their are, I am aware, some elements of the Left who are too sympathetic to Islamic extremism, but I'd be careful of painting the Left with too broad a brush here.

I'm not saying the terrorists are protected by the left. I'm saying the Left which tends to discourage almost any main discourse on Islam in the western world due to the fear of an actual Islamophobe hijacking the discussion. We get constant slogans like "not all Muslim are terrorists" which is going to be something many on the right would agree with.

I'm arguing that the source of Islamophobia doesn't merely come from terrorist attacks alone. It also comes from the perception that the majority of Muslims aren't any better than a Christian fundie in the US. The western world has spent years mocking fun of fundamentalists in Christianity, but there seems to be a public perception that while fundie Christianity can be openly mocked without much consequences, the same cannot be said about Islam.

That's because Mosques are having construction stopped (illegally, but still stopped) by many municipalities, Muslims and Muslim-looking people are having their temples attacked with innocent men women and children massacred by Christian Terrorists murderers, and on and on. When more "Islamists" start killing Americans than Christian Americans I'll give a fuck. Until then, zzzzzz.

[ray245]

That's because Mosques are having construction stopped (illegally, but still stopped) by many municipalities, Muslims and Muslim-looking people are having their temples attacked with innocent men women and children massacred by Christian Terrorists murderers, and on and on. When more "Islamists" start killing Americans than Christian Americans I'll give a fuck. Until then, zzzzzz.

Yeah, but the perception of this double standards is making it extremely easy to fuel the rhetoric of Islamophobia. What you're are doing isn't exactly helping the Muslims either.

[BabelHuber]

In Berlin, a new mosque for liberal muslims is created - with a female imam:

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.h ... &showall=1

A German lawyer born in Turkey has founded a liberal mosque in Berlin where men and women will enjoy equal rights and jointly lead Friday prayers.

Seyran Ates, a 54-year-old Muslim feminist and peace activist, is set to open the Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque on June 16th at the Protestant Church of St John’s in the Moabit district of the German capital.

Ms. Ates, a committed Sunni, will also present her latest book that day. It is called, Selam, Frau Imanin (“Selam, Ms. Imanin”) and explains why she founded the mosque.

She says the rooms being used at St John’s are only a provisional solution.

“I hope that at some later date we will have our own (separate) mosque building”, Ms. Ates told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
She said it’s important for the new mosque to be clearly visible, especially as a way of countering the religious understanding of the conservative Islam Assocbäiations (“Islam Vernde”) in Germany.

The Ibn Rushd-Goethe mosque will be open to Sunnis, Shiites, Alevis and Sufis.

Ates, whose family immigrated to Germany when she was six, has been campaigning for many years for a renewed theological understanding of Islam, especially concerning the role of women.

She has written several books on the subject in which she also draws attention to the works of other women Muslim theologians and scholars such as Asma Barlas in the United States and Katajun Amirpur, professor of Islamic studies at Hamburg University.
But now she wants to help make the leap from theory to practice with the establishment of the gender-inclusive mosque in Berlin, a place where liberal Muslims will feel at home.

Two imams – one a woman, the other a man – will jointly lead Friday prayers each week. And in contrast to traditional mosques where men and women are separated for prayers, both sexes will pray together.

In addition, Ms. Ates has already invited an openly gay imam to co-lead Friday prayers in the new mosque. He’s Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, Algerian-born founder of a liberal mosque in the French port city of Marseilles. Zahed, 40, insists that the Koran does not forbid either homo-or bi-sexuality.
For her part, Ms. Ates has long argued for an inclusive reading of the Koran and the Hadith. She favors a liberation theological view of Islam and insists on the need to modernize Islam, saying this is especially urgent because of the “particularly drastic” role the religion accords to women.
“Too many mosques preach an Islam of the day before yesterday,” Ates says.

“I think we should build a new mosque of mercy in Berlin, right in the heart of Europe, where generosity and forgiveness, compassion and freedom are taught”, she emphasized when she first revealed her plans a year ago.

Ates named the mosque after the Spanish-born Islamic philosopher and theologian Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), the man who translated the works of Aristotle into Latin and who was one of the most influential medieval thinkers on Christian Europe.

Westerners usually know him by his Latin name – Averroes.

If this catches on, I think it is a good development.

[AniThyng]

In Berlin, a new mosque for liberal muslims is created - with a female imam:

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.h ... &showall=1

A German lawyer born in Turkey has founded a liberal mosque in Berlin where men and women will enjoy equal rights and jointly lead Friday prayers.

Seyran Ates, a 54-year-old Muslim feminist and peace activist, is set to open the Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque on June 16th at the Protestant Church of St John’s in the Moabit district of the German capital.

Ms. Ates, a committed Sunni, will also present her latest book that day. It is called, Selam, Frau Imanin (“Selam, Ms. Imanin”) and explains why she founded the mosque.

She says the rooms being used at St John’s are only a provisional solution.

“I hope that at some later date we will have our own (separate) mosque building”, Ms. Ates told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
She said it’s important for the new mosque to be clearly visible, especially as a way of countering the religious understanding of the conservative Islam Assocbäiations (“Islam Vernde”) in Germany.

The Ibn Rushd-Goethe mosque will be open to Sunnis, Shiites, Alevis and Sufis.

Ates, whose family immigrated to Germany when she was six, has been campaigning for many years for a renewed theological understanding of Islam, especially concerning the role of women.

She has written several books on the subject in which she also draws attention to the works of other women Muslim theologians and scholars such as Asma Barlas in the United States and Katajun Amirpur, professor of Islamic studies at Hamburg University.
But now she wants to help make the leap from theory to practice with the establishment of the gender-inclusive mosque in Berlin, a place where liberal Muslims will feel at home.

Two imams – one a woman, the other a man – will jointly lead Friday prayers each week. And in contrast to traditional mosques where men and women are separated for prayers, both sexes will pray together.

In addition, Ms. Ates has already invited an openly gay imam to co-lead Friday prayers in the new mosque. He’s Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, Algerian-born founder of a liberal mosque in the French port city of Marseilles. Zahed, 40, insists that the Koran does not forbid either homo-or bi-sexuality.
For her part, Ms. Ates has long argued for an inclusive reading of the Koran and the Hadith. She favors a liberation theological view of Islam and insists on the need to modernize Islam, saying this is especially urgent because of the “particularly drastic” role the religion accords to women.
“Too many mosques preach an Islam of the day before yesterday,” Ates says.

“I think we should build a new mosque of mercy in Berlin, right in the heart of Europe, where generosity and forgiveness, compassion and freedom are taught”, she emphasized when she first revealed her plans a year ago.

Ates named the mosque after the Spanish-born Islamic philosopher and theologian Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), the man who translated the works of Aristotle into Latin and who was one of the most influential medieval thinkers on Christian Europe.

Westerners usually know him by his Latin name – Averroes.

If this catches on, I think it is a good development.

The Muslim's I know she likely to consider this blasphemy at worst, the imam misguided at best...

[ray245]

In Berlin, a new mosque for liberal muslims is created - with a female imam:

If this catches on, I think it is a good development.

The problem is, I don't think this is the thing that will really much change in the long run. Western attitudes towards religion in Europe has less to do with the fact that the various churches have to moderate their positions, but more to do with the fact that many people stopped going to churches en mass, regardless of how liberal or conservative the church is.

Church attendances has been dropping for a pretty long time in Europe.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll also add that part of why many on the Left are so hesitant to criticize Islamic beliefs is because they do not wish to feed into the climate of vilifying all Muslims created by the Right.

The Left may, by and large, be reluctant to criticize Islam, but our society as a whole leans more toward active hostility toward Muslims.

[Shroom Man 777]

Sometimes these things, unfortunately, have to come from "inside one's own house" since religious reform wasn't achieved by amazing atheist edgelords like Dawkins or whatever, it happened in-house due to schisms and argumentations and shit-fights and actual bloody murder. Christians shitting on Christians changed Christianity. We don't see Muslims telling Christians how to reform. Or Buddhists or whatever. Yes, to some degree in regards to the advancement of Christianity, some atheists and even supposedly-faithful-but-secularist-people contributed to the conversation... but that's because they're of the same "people" as the Christians and were former Christians themselves and are from the same communities...

So, unfortunately, there's that.

There has to be a process of familiarization. Unfortunately Islam's protocols for those who fall out of the religion are kind of too strict. But until gaps are narrowed, until they're no longer seen as a foreign other, then I guess the non-Muslims won't be familiar or "comfortable" enough to reach that level of conversation. Unfortunately.

[ray245]

I'll also add that part of why many on the Left are so hesitant to criticize Islamic beliefs is because they do not wish to feed into the climate of vilifying all Muslims created by the Right.

The Left may, by and large, be reluctant to criticize Islam, but our society as a whole leans more toward active hostility toward Muslims.

How well has that work out for everyone? Liberals has been adopting the same language for 15 years since 9-11. It has done nothing for the many kids that grew up and went ahead to support ISIS.

The reality is what the liberals have been advocating has not made up difference.

[Ralin]

Sometimes these things, unfortunately, have to come from "inside one's own house" since religious reform wasn't achieved by amazing atheist edgelords like Dawkins or whatever, it happened in-house due to schisms and argumentations and shit-fights and actual bloody murder. Christians shitting on Christians changed Christianity. We don't see Muslims telling Christians how to reform. Or Buddhists or whatever. Yes, to some degree in regards to the advancement of Christianity, some atheists and even supposedly-faithful-but-secularist-people contributed to the conversation... but that's because they're of the same "people" as the Christians and were former Christians themselves and are from the same communities...

But this is in the context of societies where a large majority of the population was some variation of Christian, usually with maybe a couple other minority religions like the Jews who were tolerated, mostly. Muslims and Jews absolutely would have told European Christians how to reform if they'd been able to, and probably they would have been right to do it.

You have a point, but I think you're kinda mixing 'it has happened this way' with 'it has to happen this way.' Having the impetus to reform be an internal thing isn't always a luxury that a religious community has, and that's not always a bad thing.

[BabelHuber]

The Muslim's I know she likely to consider this blasphemy at worst, the imam misguided at best...

True. But you have to start somewhere, otherwise nothing will ever change.

So if we want to have modern, liberal muslims, we also need to have mosques with liberal imams.