Serves those Muslim women right or something.
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
That's the whole point. A small sector of Muslims will blame the fact that the other side did things against the views of their religion as a reason to kill a teacher and that causes tensions within a multi racial community. It becomes a war inbetween a community. Look at this news article -
"Two Muslim women were 'stabbed repeatedly' under the Eiffel Tower amid rising tensions in Paris after the beheading of a teacher last week.
French police have arrested two female suspects after an argument about dogs allegedly descended into violence and racist insults including the words 'Dirty Arabs'."
The rising tension happened because of the splitting of a community that happened due to one community thinking 'a drawing of their prophets shouldn't happen and now is suitable for murder'.
Who ever dies, whatever their names, personality or religion is - the fact they died is awful.
If this random woman had killed two random women just about their dogs then that's one thing hardly related to a religion or a colour of a person's skin.
But we see rising tensions between 2 communities happen after the blowing up of an arianda grande concert, the blowing up of underground trains, the blowing up of buildings and planes like 9/11, the killing of a teacher. Why? Because the religion and racial views are bought in as a reason for some people in a community to act in a certain violent way. Then what happens is the other community may retaliate with their own religious or racial views aswell.
If someone from a non atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, catholic, Jewish religion kill a random person in a multiracial community over something random that happens regularly like the thieving of money or even sexual abuse - does the persons religion ever get highlighted as a cause? Not really for me, the killer didnt bring a religious or racial view as a cause of their actions. Then compare that to people who kill someone for a drawing of their religion or shout their gods name before blowing up a population in a concert or underground train - it leads to tension directly against that religion and race because they themselves bought it up.
No, certainly not. But, I do think it's still not an entirely valid comparison. Anyway, I agree that there is a lot the white community can do. More than they have done already.
With regard to muslims, I wage to think that most muslims would think "He shouldn’t have published the images. They are insulting Muslims" - irrespective of whether they disapprove of the act itself or even do share some understanding of the anger that might have motivated them. And I think it would be better if they thought like "They are insulting Muslims, but it's still okay to discuss these sorts of things in school or in the media". We need to get there, in my opinion, and try to be happy with looking at things with mixed feelings - or at least deal with it in a more thoughtful way.
Instead, I often experience denial (not everyone, definitely not, but in my personal environment, it has to be at least 50% of the muslim opinions), in the form of:
- 9/11 did not happen, or it was a plot by the US ("isn't it a funny coincidence that they found the luggage of the 9/11 assassins...")
- the US control pretty much everything (sometimes it's the Jews), and I have also heard that Erdogan is controlled by the US (so at the end, it's still the US that is responsible for his actions)
- he or they (the perpetrators) were not proper muslims, because Islam is a religion of peace (this one I have only heard from devout muslims, but even devout muslims spout off readliy non-sense when it comes to the US or Jews
I am not sure. That's at least my take.
If people can't see the double standard they hold for one situation or 'community' to another
It's impossible for them to realise how these blindspots contribute to subconsciously dehumanising people
That this is a reflection of how ingrained racism and islamophobia is in certain parts of society, to the point people's rights can be impeded and it gets brushed off as 'that's life' while not seeing the irony of projecting the self as a champion of freedom
If you've been able to get through life without noticing how media portrayals or even the language our politicians use can trickle down to a woman getting battered on her way back from work for wearing a headscarf, then your privilege has you real cosy.
It's impossible for them to realise how these blindspots contribute to subconsciously dehumanising people
That this is a reflection of how ingrained racism and islamophobia is in certain parts of society, to the point people's rights can be impeded and it gets brushed off as 'that's life' while not seeing the irony of projecting the self as a champion of freedom
If you've been able to get through life without noticing how media portrayals or even the language our politicians use can trickle down to a woman getting battered on her way back from work for wearing a headscarf, then your privilege has you real cosy.
I agree there should be no apologies for non-muslims randomly as in this case attacking stabbing muslim women in retaliation to these events.
I've tried to engage with people in the past regarding Muslim attitudes towards these type of things with opinion polling, often ones that contradict the predominant narrative or their sweeping generalisations of what Muslims think.
It makes no difference. They will believe what they want to believe.
Nor does stating what my lived experience as a Muslim is either.
It makes no difference. They will believe what they want to believe.
Nor does stating what my lived experience as a Muslim is either.
What the best place to find polls on muslims attitudes and beliefs in Europe? On stuff like the muhammed cartoons, whether they want Sharia?
But how is not going to be double standards or Islamophobia with an attack every two months, including brutalities like Bataclan.
People have to be fed up. Don't you think there would be Christian / Hinduphobia,etc if a Muslim country had to suffer such punishment every little time?
The issue here has to do with religion & religious ideology, not the ideology of an certain skin color.
Until we compare & contrast religious fundamentalism, this argument can tend to be pretty unbalanced & childish.
Extremist Islam and White Supremacy are both political ideologies with defined Nationalist end-goals.
Islam isn’t a monolith ffs
Every philosophy and ideology can be subverted, and every subgroup of humanity contains murderous cnuts.
If it's possible to show that cuntishness is not unique to Islam, then that can absolve Islam itself as the root cause. The problem then becomes the fact that violence, tribalism and zealotry are innate in humanity as a species; and that vulnerable minds can be moulded to suit the agendas of those seeking power.
If you don’t include the religious influence in both, you’re not accurately discussing the elephant in the room. I agree with you that they both have political & nationalistic overtones, but to omit the substantial causation of religion doesn’t help get to the root cause.
Just right In your first sentence you are comparing a faction of a religious belief to a skin color ideology. It’s a tad like apples to oranges. Until we compare apples to apples, the arguments will always be skewed with bias & never going to pierce to the root issue.
It originally seemed to me that you wanted to draw a one-sided causality: racism against Muslims as a reaction to Islamist terror. That's what my reply was about. But I understand you want to draw a different picture - an escalation between "two communities". Imo, that's very dangerous as well.
Most importantly: don't view & pigeonhole people as representatives of "communities". These social demographics ("White people"/"Muslims"/"Turks", etc.) are politically diverse in themselves, so these issues must be regarded in terms of political conflicts. Which produces very different dividing lines. Militant racists and Jihadists bear much more similarity to each other (despite their mutual hatred), than to liberal people from their so-called "own communities". Portraying it as an ethnic conflict (or ethno-religious, which is the same) is doing the deed of the extremists on both sides - it's exactly what they want.
(Two caveats: 1. This identitarian logic is very much part of mainstream ideology everywhere, so not only a product of radical fringes. 2. If identity is pushed upon people, they may have to operate from that standpoint to defend themselves.)
If you only look at the religion and ignore the specific political movements driving the both examples of extremism, you're also not accurately discussing the elephant in the room.
You seem to have decided on the conclusion before analysing the underlying motivations and the overall power structures at the heart of the two ideologies. The way you've framed your post, it's obvious that the only "root issue" that you're willing to piece together is Islam. That kind of absolutism and zeal can be harmful in any walk of life.
You’re correct insomuch that I have pegged religion as the root issue, but you are ignorant in stating that I am only biased towards one religion. I discussed earlier in this thread the christian influence in white supremacy in my country. Please don’t think that I am simply against Islam because I am a white person, I’m equally contemptuous of all religious extremism. I don’t discount the political motivations & machinations in both sides of the debate, but those are typically adopted later in life & are vehicles through which people try to make the changes they want to see. The seeds for religious extremism are planted & germinated much earlier in one’s life.
This obfuscation to try to paint me as anti-islam again doesn’t allow us to get to a point where we discuss rationally the initial causation of religion. It’s just trying to create another imbalanced argument. It perpetuates the bunker mentality, the ‘everyone is against us’ mentality, the divisiveness that exists in virtually every religion, the ‘us v.them’ mentality. I just expressing the hope that we can start comparing apples to apples regarding the psychosis & horror that exists in all religious fundamentalism. I don’t paint entire swaths of skin color with the same brush nor do I view all religions by what their fundie factions due, but it would be a breakthrough if people didn’t retrench & circle the wagons when they have their fundie aspect of their religion criticized & engaged in discourse that will ultimately purge the fundie aspect from their ranks.
I didnt fully understand what you said because your english is amazing. I just understand why people dont want to be associated in the group that caused Islamophobia- yet does Islamophobia happen whilst people call out their own gods name before blowing themselves up and the population up? Or does it happen by the media and the government who talk about it in the 'wrong way' a day or two after?
The thing is, some of this violent activity is viewed by some to form from an extreme version of Islam & whilst some equally believe that its not anything related to islam, that it's just an act that should be separated from their own peaceful communities.
I just watched a 2 min 34s episode by the muslim apostate on youtube (I'd post this but there is a rude offensive word in it) which was talking with an Islamic person hinting that the apostate would be killed by islamic vigilantes if they were in an islamic country. Even if what an apostate is doing is irritating to any religion- does the thought of violence & murder by vigilantes come from a peaceful religion? Maybe maybe not. Was what they highlighted about an apostate being murdered when going against a religion the same thoughts that made someone kill a teacher for drawing the prophet Mohammed?
Anyway, it's nice talking to you. I think I'm done on this thread because I dont want to be talking about religion on a football forum more than I've already done.
Not sure if drawing a sharp distinction between religious and political spheres is a useful way to understand the type of radicalism we’re discussing here. I certainly don’t think such a distinction really exists in the minds of the radicals themselves. Very hard for us to free ourselves from these categories, but it may be crucial.
This might be the stupidest post I've read in a while.
How so? You specifically said that I am only anti-Islam, I am offering that I am not & I am against religious fundamentalism. I see white supremacy in my country as a form of religious fundamentalism, I abhor it equally. I’m just stating that until we look at the problem equally & not retrench every time someone’s specific religion gets called out, we could potentially advance things.
The distinctions don't have to be sharp if they can be combinational.
White and moderate is a distinct combination from one of white and extremist. Being willing to take it down to that level of understanding will make things more complicated. But it will also make them more accurate and revealing. Certainly more so than leaning towards a kind of reductive essentialism.
So there obviously does still need to be some categorisation in order to have a meaningful discussion. And you're right that we need to free ourselves from the way they're most commonly formulated in the West. But that also means being able to draw out greater intra-group differences and stronger inter-group similarities.
I respect that & not trying to draw you back in. Just a last remark, the question of a "true essence" of Islam isn't really interesting to me. In the end, real-life religion is what people make of it, no matter the theological credibility. And it can obviously vary a lot, from ugly, bigoted & violent to tolerant, humane & quite likable. And all kind of things in between.
Not 100% sure which viewpoints you're referring to - besides one poster, who did it quite openly. Where did you make out such a sharp distinction?
In any case, would be interesting to hear more about your criticism of the terminological framework.
Personally I enjoyed listening to this talk between Sam Harris and Majiid Nawas. Of course Isis was a far bigger deal then in 2015 then so they cover that but they also touch upon the cartoon and free speech etc. Overall I find Majiid Nawas a interesting person to listen to on these issues.
Sorry not being rude, will try respond to these in the next few days.
Oh, shit. I'm about to get dragged into an essay debate.
No problem, take your time.
A 19 years old gets 4 months on probation for suggesting Paty deserved it.
Link to an article. Article does not explain the probation bit properly.
Link to an article. Article does not explain the probation bit properly.
I'm not trying to attack you at all here by the way but I'm genuinely interested in what you say when you try to engage with people about this stuff and what you say about polling?
I say this as someone who comes from a Muslim background but no longer believes and who has a wife who is half Egyptian (and that side of the family has some very religious members) and still keeps some contact with our local Muslim (and Arab but Egyptian especially) community here in the UK too.
Because so far, the response on these whatsapp groups here has been to call for boycott of French goods and France in general. The general response in these groups, as well as over the phone etc has been very little about the actual beheading itself.
Its been exclusively focused on how, even though he didn't deserve to die, Paty shouldn't have shown those pictures in the first place and how France is apparently subjugating and treating its Muslim population in a horrible way because of the subsequent response to this attack.
I don't think Muslims need to go around condemning every single one of these attacks. I don't think Muslims are violent or Islam is inherently violent. There is clearly a political element to all of this too, with various Middle Eastern adventures, colonial history, current racism etc. But I also think its problematic and digging our heads in the sand to pretend that there isn't a problem with the prism which at least a significant minority of Muslims look at these situations.
In a way, it‘s an understandable reaction. I don‘t expect anyone in Pakistan to accept that. But, I would expect everyone living in Europe to respect and accept the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
I'm not surprised, as Uwebein says, in those countries. In a way, I don't even blame them, they're in their majority Muslim country, living by their laws, which they are of course more than free to do.
I think my issues are that the people I'm talking about are living in Europe (UK mostly, some in the Netherlands too, though I'm sure it is similar in other European countries) and many of them have either been here for decades or were born and raised here. They are, for all intents and purposes, otherwise integrated and highly educated, with most of them being doctors, lawyers, engineers, businessmen etc.
Yet, as I said, their main response to this particular attack has been to attack France, with the latest this morning being outrage at Macron specifically ordering the cartoons to be displayed on government buildings around France. Apparently.
On the far more extreme end of the scale, one of my wife's BiL in Egypt thinks all of the usual conspiracy tropes re ISIS (funded and set up by the USA and Israel, not real Muslims, set up to discredit Muslims etc). Yet while he is in no way violent, his thinking, for me anyway....is not all that different. He thinks that Muslims should be punished if they don't pray, with increasingly harsh punishments if they carry on not listening. He thinks the hijab should be mandatory in Muslim countries. He thinks of ISIS as a conspiracy in one breath and in the next, says that fighting in Syria against the unbelievers (the Shia) is a religious obligation.
Now if he actually were in charge, I don't think he'd do these things, he's actually a very nice and kind man. But these views aren't challenged and they're kind of laughed off within the family. While not usually as extreme here, I often encounter similar. People make comments like 'Macron has ordered the display of these cartoons, we must boycott France' or 'Obviously he shouldn't have died but the teacher really shouldn't show those cartoons, what did he expect?' and are either totally unchallenged or others pile on to anyone that does dare say something against this.
I don't think digging heads in the sand or saying there can't be a problem with the response within certain communities after events like these or saying that Muslims aren't a monolith is helpful. Of course Muslims aren't a monolith, no group in history has ever been homogeneous.
I venture that, in today's political climate, establishing that neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic is actually helpful - it's a necessary prerequisite to discuss the issues you talk about. You say "of course" no group has ever been homogenous, but that banality is far from a consensus. It may not always be explicit or on purpose, but popular culturalistic understandings (mostly variations on the "Western identity" vs "Islamic identity" theme) have a natural tendency towards such essentialist views. And that in turn has political consequences.
It's the same with the interconnection of certain popular views and radicalism inside various Muslim demographics you talk about: everybody with a bit of knowledge and two open eyes knows about this, but it's something that has to be maintained first. (And your posts on these matters are very good in general.)
I'd say that only when these two basic facts are made explicit, a reasonable discussion is even possible. There's simply no "of course" when it comes to these issues.
Last edited:
I think it perhaps depends on the context for me.
In a context where you are involved in a discussion with people who are suggesting there is a fundamental problem with Muslims/ Islam which means that they cannot integrate into European society, then yes it is both very helpful and important to emphasise that not all Muslims will think/act the same, as self-explanatory as that may seem to you and me and almost .
In the context that I mostly find myself within when having these discussions (Muslim groups or like minded left-wing, liberal people), it pretty much goes without saying. What does end up being said are the usual stereotypes on the other side and an almost blanket refusal to acknowledge that any of these problems may, in some part, derive from the general attitudes from within certain communities. So while you yourself may condemn the killing and beheading of this man for the cartoons, perpetuating a culture where it is deemed totally unacceptable and wrong for this teacher to show those cartoons means that while you are totally peaceful, others who are not many have different reactions to his actions.
And I'm not saying this is unique to Muslim communities, it is universal to all.
For what its worth, as someone who straddles 'both sides' in a way and can therefore maybe have both an internal and external approach, what I say and how I phrase it will be dependent to some degree on the audience. Were I to find myself in a discussion where the context is people talking about how Muslims don't belong in Europe or all think he should have been killed etc, I will come down hard with the prevailing view on this board for instance and argue vociferously against. Seeing however as how the zeitgeist on here is a bit different (and somebody was suggesting that the polls etc are misrepresenting how Muslims think), I wanted to give my own opinion, as well as enquire further as to how and why he thinks the polls are not quite doing their job properly.
Absolutely.
No disagreement either. And I think your posts on overlaps between mainstream and Islamist resentments are insightful. Where I partly differ is this:
While your personal stance towards reactionary attitudes of "both" kinds has always been clear, I think your assessment of the audience in this forum is too optimistic.
Just an obvious example, the post directly under your previous one is a speech by Douglas Murray, who believes immigration (not only of Muslims, but all kinds of people including black British and inter-European immigration) brings forth the "death of Europe" as a civilization. He propagates the mainstreaming of Front National, UKIP, AfD & suchlike, and his books are revered inside these circles. Despite all the talk of a supposed Libcafe, this is part of the Caf zeitgeist as well. Especially when including less explicit variants, who reject the overt right wing, but still share similar resentments. (I remember you having altercations with that kind of stuff during the BLM controversies too.) It needs to be addressed as well.
Last edited:
That is totally fair enough and I was probably being slightly disingenuous when talking about the prevailing attitude on this board. I do think there's a left tint (which I love) but certainly not universally so.
You're also right about those on here who never explicitly make clear their political (or moral) viewpoints but push the boat a little bit in what they say, which is less than ideal.
I'll be totally honest, I initially had no plan on getting involved in this thread but a combination of the post from Wolverine (who is a great poster, I just wanted to hear their thoughts) and the WhatsApp conversations within my wife's circles happened at roughly the same time.
Well, seems there's nothing to disagree about. And your input here is much appreciated, I'm sure not only by me.That is totally fair enough and I was probably being slightly disingenuous when talking about the prevailing attitude on this board. I do think there's a left tint (which I love) but certainly not universally so.
You're also right about those on here who never explicitly make clear their political (or moral) viewpoints but push the boat a little bit in what they say, which is less than ideal.
I'll be totally honest, I initially had no plan on getting involved in this thread but a combination of the post from Wolverine (who is a great poster, I just wanted to hear their thoughts) and the WhatsApp conversations within my wife's circles happened at roughly the same time.
As a muslim myself (although an athiest one) the reaction of the Muslim world has been piss poor.
Fecking beheading a guy in this day and age is beyond horrific. The religion needs a reformation.
Fecking beheading a guy in this day and age is beyond horrific. The religion needs a reformation.