4 ms·

Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism. 42% of yo

Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism. 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

dang 11y ago
> Islam soils the reputation of islam. No slurs, please. We've already banned one account for turning this thread into a religious flamewar. Comments here need to stay factual.
- imaginenore 11y ago
  I did stay factual, I even provided a link. If you're going to restrict speech, restrict all mentions of religion, not just the ones that contradict your preconceived notion.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Indeed. The moderation in this thread has been supremely disappointing. Your post contained no slurs, only an interpretation of data along with a link.
    - davesque 11y ago
      No. What dang quoted was a slur. Definition from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slur http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...: "An insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation" Saying that "Islam soils the reputation of islam" is a slur by any reasonable interpretation. The link provided some information but the first sentence did nothing to that effect and was simply inflammatory.
      - deciplex 11y ago
        This wasn't a mere insinuation, this was a claim made along with some study linked in support of the claim. And since the topic at hand is precisely Islam's reputation in the first place, it seems we can't have any conversation about Islam's reputation for violence (deserved or not), and what to do about it, at all. If your goal is to integrate Muslims living in Western nations into Western society, what is going on here is not helping to achieve it.
        davesque 11y ago
        The OP began by saying "Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism." Without further proof, that statement is an allegation at best and a slur at worst (especially if the following proof doesn't hold up). He then went on to say "42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall)." So why wasn't his original statement "Islam in France among 42% of Muslims less than 30 years of age (that were prompted to answer a survey question in an environment we know nothing about) soils the reputation of Islam?" So, he began by making a broad generalization about Islam as a whole and then quoted a statistical observation about a small percentage of Muslims. Sorry, but 2 + 2 = 4. Broad generalization + no proof = slur.
        deciplex 11y ago
        I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't. And OP is not claiming that all Muslims are violent or making a generalization like that - he very specifically referred to reputation for same and cited a document showing a significant minority of Muslims who support or tolerate violence, especially in France. I also agree that he would have been better served to clarify in his post that the problem is particularly acute in France rather than in general, but even a cursory glance at the document he provided will bear that out. However that is something to bring up in further discussion (as I have actually done in a sibling comment). Then you can have a conversation about what France is doing differently from other countries that are having relative success, even to the point of e.g. the US where Muslims tend to be more peaceful than the wider population. But when you just shut down the discussion as was done here, none of that can happen. That's why, as I say, if your goal is to integrate Muslims living in the West into Western society (and French Muslims into French society), then what happened here is counterproductive.
  - dang 11y ago
    The part I quoted was not factual and was a slur.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      It's not a slur against Islam in the slightest, it's a supposition, with a link in support of it. If one-third of a population supports or tolerates a heinous thing, then it is not unreasonable to claim that the reason the population has a reputation for supporting or tolerating the heinous thing, is that one-third of them actually do support or tolerate it. I don't think it would be particularly controversial to say "American whites in the 50s had a reputation for racism" due to widespread support of Jim Crow and segregation, even if those things were not actually supported by the majority, but only a significant minority. So it goes here. My takeaway from it would be "why does one-third of this population support this heinous thing?" but it's impossible to have that conversation with people like you piping in and asserting that any interpretation of data that could offend anyone's sensibilities, is off limits.
e12e 11y ago
I'm sure that if you did a survey of disenfranchised white youth in the US, you'd find a lot of people volunteering to enlist, and you could probably get some sympathy for the need to "go kill ISIS" or some other media-oriented headline. France has many issues, I doubt any of them are truly deeply connected to Islam. But it is of course easier to point at religion as the source of civil unrest, rather than at a failing economy, systematic discrimination and a growing divide between rich and poor.
- imaginenore 11y ago
  ISIS is a jihadist terrorist organization, and that's recognized by most governments, many Islamic ones even. It's dishonest to compare openly fighting ISIS with blowing up and shooting civilians as a primary mean. What happened today was not "civil unrest".
  - aianus 11y ago
    > It's dishonest to compare openly fighting ISIS with blowing up and shooting civilians as a primary mean. That's all well and good to say when you know enlisting in the US military in conventional warfare against ISIS has a good chance of succeeding. But what if the US was the small poor state and ISIS was the world's largest economy whose military targets were too well-defended to attack? I'm sure you'd find lots of recruits in Texas for "guerilla special units behind enemy lines". Especially if cruise missiles and drone strikes were hitting US soil every other day.
    - m_mueller 11y ago
      I find this relativism disconcerting. Please explain how targeting innocent civilians for their ethnicity or beliefs is equal to military vs. military operations. Most of the world is shades of grey but one has to recognize when an ideology is clearly a danger to human society and needs to be fought against. Whether and how violent the means need to be is up for discussion, I just can't understand why people would downplay what ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban and similar groups are doing. Just because the term "Freedom Fighters" has long been intemixed with Terrorism doesn't mean that it applies here. IMO most of these groups don't want to 'liberate' people, instead they want to either bind them to their religious ideology, kill or enslave them.
plcancel 11y ago
The question posed was: "Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?" (p. 53) Not a lot of wiggle room in that one. Thought perhaps the question might've been a bit more vague or general. However, it states specifically "civilians". Really...? ...42%? That's astonishing.
j-conn 11y ago
Would love to hear from the people down-voting. Is this data flawed / limited / not consistent with personal experience? I've heard people like Bill Maher cite this survey before. I'm sure there are different and interesting perspectives in the HN community-- please don't just reflexively downvote or avoid addressing this because it's uncomfortable.
deciplex 11y ago
This seems to be mainly a problem in Europe (and France in particular) as opposed to Islam in general. Even the study you've linked indicates that. Here is an article that explores a bit more the attitudes among American Muslims in particular. I don't have time to find the actual study, sorry: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascin...
johncolanduoni 11y ago
For clarity, the categories from the survey are often/sometimes/rarely/never justified, with respective percentages of 6%, 10%, 19%, and 64% for all Muslims.

dang 11y ago

> Islam soils the reputation of islam. No slurs, please. We've already banned one account for turning this thread into a religious flamewar. Comments here need to stay factual.

imaginenore 11y ago
I did stay factual, I even provided a link. If you're going to restrict speech, restrict all mentions of religion, not just the ones that contradict your preconceived notion.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Indeed. The moderation in this thread has been supremely disappointing. Your post contained no slurs, only an interpretation of data along with a link.
  - davesque 11y ago
    No. What dang quoted was a slur. Definition from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slur http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...: "An insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation" Saying that "Islam soils the reputation of islam" is a slur by any reasonable interpretation. The link provided some information but the first sentence did nothing to that effect and was simply inflammatory.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      This wasn't a mere insinuation, this was a claim made along with some study linked in support of the claim. And since the topic at hand is precisely Islam's reputation in the first place, it seems we can't have any conversation about Islam's reputation for violence (deserved or not), and what to do about it, at all. If your goal is to integrate Muslims living in Western nations into Western society, what is going on here is not helping to achieve it.
      - davesque 11y ago
        The OP began by saying "Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism." Without further proof, that statement is an allegation at best and a slur at worst (especially if the following proof doesn't hold up). He then went on to say "42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall)." So why wasn't his original statement "Islam in France among 42% of Muslims less than 30 years of age (that were prompted to answer a survey question in an environment we know nothing about) soils the reputation of Islam?" So, he began by making a broad generalization about Islam as a whole and then quoted a statistical observation about a small percentage of Muslims. Sorry, but 2 + 2 = 4. Broad generalization + no proof = slur.
        deciplex 11y ago
        I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't. And OP is not claiming that all Muslims are violent or making a generalization like that - he very specifically referred to reputation for same and cited a document showing a significant minority of Muslims who support or tolerate violence, especially in France. I also agree that he would have been better served to clarify in his post that the problem is particularly acute in France rather than in general, but even a cursory glance at the document he provided will bear that out. However that is something to bring up in further discussion (as I have actually done in a sibling comment). Then you can have a conversation about what France is doing differently from other countries that are having relative success, even to the point of e.g. the US where Muslims tend to be more peaceful than the wider population. But when you just shut down the discussion as was done here, none of that can happen. That's why, as I say, if your goal is to integrate Muslims living in the West into Western society (and French Muslims into French society), then what happened here is counterproductive.
- dang 11y ago
  The part I quoted was not factual and was a slur.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    It's not a slur against Islam in the slightest, it's a supposition, with a link in support of it. If one-third of a population supports or tolerates a heinous thing, then it is not unreasonable to claim that the reason the population has a reputation for supporting or tolerating the heinous thing, is that one-third of them actually do support or tolerate it. I don't think it would be particularly controversial to say "American whites in the 50s had a reputation for racism" due to widespread support of Jim Crow and segregation, even if those things were not actually supported by the majority, but only a significant minority. So it goes here. My takeaway from it would be "why does one-third of this population support this heinous thing?" but it's impossible to have that conversation with people like you piping in and asserting that any interpretation of data that could offend anyone's sensibilities, is off limits.

e12e 11y ago

I'm sure that if you did a survey of disenfranchised white youth in the US, you'd find a lot of people volunteering to enlist, and you could probably get some sympathy for the need to "go kill ISIS" or some other media-oriented headline. France has many issues, I doubt any of them are truly deeply connected to Islam. But it is of course easier to point at religion as the source of civil unrest, rather than at a failing economy, systematic discrimination and a growing divide between rich and poor.

imaginenore 11y ago
ISIS is a jihadist terrorist organization, and that's recognized by most governments, many Islamic ones even. It's dishonest to compare openly fighting ISIS with blowing up and shooting civilians as a primary mean. What happened today was not "civil unrest".
- aianus 11y ago
  > It's dishonest to compare openly fighting ISIS with blowing up and shooting civilians as a primary mean. That's all well and good to say when you know enlisting in the US military in conventional warfare against ISIS has a good chance of succeeding. But what if the US was the small poor state and ISIS was the world's largest economy whose military targets were too well-defended to attack? I'm sure you'd find lots of recruits in Texas for "guerilla special units behind enemy lines". Especially if cruise missiles and drone strikes were hitting US soil every other day.
  - m_mueller 11y ago
    I find this relativism disconcerting. Please explain how targeting innocent civilians for their ethnicity or beliefs is equal to military vs. military operations. Most of the world is shades of grey but one has to recognize when an ideology is clearly a danger to human society and needs to be fought against. Whether and how violent the means need to be is up for discussion, I just can't understand why people would downplay what ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban and similar groups are doing. Just because the term "Freedom Fighters" has long been intemixed with Terrorism doesn't mean that it applies here. IMO most of these groups don't want to 'liberate' people, instead they want to either bind them to their religious ideology, kill or enslave them.

plcancel 11y ago

The question posed was: "Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?" (p. 53) Not a lot of wiggle room in that one. Thought perhaps the question might've been a bit more vague or general. However, it states specifically "civilians". Really...? ...42%? That's astonishing.

j-conn 11y ago

Would love to hear from the people down-voting. Is this data flawed / limited / not consistent with personal experience? I've heard people like Bill Maher cite this survey before. I'm sure there are different and interesting perspectives in the HN community-- please don't just reflexively downvote or avoid addressing this because it's uncomfortable.

deciplex 11y ago

This seems to be mainly a problem in Europe (and France in particular) as opposed to Islam in general. Even the study you've linked indicates that. Here is an article that explores a bit more the attitudes among American Muslims in particular. I don't have time to find the actual study, sorry: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascin...

johncolanduoni 11y ago

For clarity, the categories from the survey are often/sometimes/rarely/never justified, with respective percentages of 6%, 10%, 19%, and 64% for all Muslims.