Islam's "Grey Zone"

[zoogs]

+1, knapplc. I think we can do better than doing Islamists the favor of having the U.S. government call them part of Islam. Who came up with the term 'Islamist', anyway? How confusing. Wouldn't it be nice to draw a clear distinction? You know, in case our own citizenry gets confused about who the bad guys are and start harassing Muslisms and threatening mosques.

 

Like crazy Evangelicals. I don't know my terminology. It seems like I shouldn't even call them real evangelicals, or Christians, or whatever -- I don't know. I'm more than a little perturbed by their calls for religious rule in America, for example.

[BigRedBuster]

So...is this like it's OK for a black guy to call himself a N***r but not for a white guy to do the same?

[knapplc]

It's more like, there are a LOT of stupid people in America, and a lot of those stupid people listen to sources that paint all Muslims with one broad brush. The fear is - and it's a reasonable fear - that if we associate terrorists with all of Islam, innocent Muslims like Ameer Abdullah will be persecuted.

 

Who wants to read a story about Ameer getting shot in a mosque during prayer, or any of his family? If we can prevent that by distinguishing between the bad guys and innocent Muslims, is that really an issue? Does it create a hardship to America's citizens?

[Landlord]

So...is this like it's OK for a black guy to call himself a N***r but not for a white guy to do the same?

 

 

not really but.....kind of?

 

People think there is a double standard at play with these sorts of things. And there is. But that's not a bad thing. Calling ISIS "Islamic Extremists' carries a different weight, different baggage, and different dangers of perpetuating fear/ignorance than, say, calling Westboro 'Christian extremists'. White people calling black people the n word, straight people calling gays queer (in a derogatory sense, not in the LGBTQ sense), etc. don't happen in a vacuum, but in a specific social context that includes systems of power, dominant/minority cultures, fear, propaganda, history, etc.

[NM11046]

So...is this like it's OK for a black guy to call himself a N***r but not for a white guy to do the same?

Wow, I must have taken a wrong turn at Alburquerque - how does this comment relate in any way to what's being discussed?

[BigRedBuster]

 

So...is this like it's OK for a black guy to call himself a N***r but not for a white guy to do the same?

Wow, I must have taken a wrong turn at Alburquerque - how does this comment relate in any way to what's being discussed?

 

We should not utter the word radical islamist or Muslim extremists but this guy who used to be one can use the terms and the news agency can use the terms.

[knapplc]

We should not utter the word radical islamist or Muslim extremists but this guy who used to be one can use the terms and the news agency can use the terms.

Why does this bother you so much?

[Landlord]

It's hard not to appreciate Obama's approach towards this, imo. Radicals and extremists are what they are, and what they are being radical/extreme towards doesn't necessarily make a ton of difference; it at least sure as hell isn't the main focus of concern. The term 'Radical Islam', to many, makes Islam the main subject and radical only a modifier. But we aren't at war with Islam. We're at war with radicalism, and that plays out against ISIS, that plays out against the ranch owners that holed up in Oregon, that plays out against Westboro, that plays out against the Ku Klux Klan, the Charleston church shooting, the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, and so on.

[BigRedBuster]

It's more like, there are a LOT of stupid people in America, and a lot of those stupid people listen to sources that paint all Muslims with one broad brush. The fear is - and it's a reasonable fear - that if we associate terrorists with all of Islam, innocent Muslims like Ameer Abdullah will be persecuted.

 

Who wants to read a story about Ameer getting shot in a mosque during prayer, or any of his family? If we can prevent that by distinguishing between the bad guys and innocent Muslims, is that really an issue? Does it create a hardship to America's citizens?

I'll admit there are a lot of stupid people and there will always be stupid people.

So....we can't say Muslim extremists because of stupid people taking it wrong?

There have been stupid people taking stuff that is said wrong since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean we haven't been able to be frank about things before.

[BigRedBuster]

 

We should not utter the word radical islamist or Muslim extremists but this guy who used to be one can use the terms and the news agency can use the terms.

Why does this bother you so much?

 

I'm not even necessarily saying it bothers me. It's more that I find it interesting because in a sense....it's dishonest.

 

These people are radical Muslims. I don't see it any other way. But...OMG....we can't say that.

 

I don't remember a time or a situation before where extremely bad people in the world couldn't be called something very honestly what they are.

 

For the record, with me, this has nothing to do with what Obama says or doesn't say. I really couldn't care less what he says. I'm talking about the movement towards white washing what Americans call these people.

 

But.....like I said, it doesn't bother me...just find it interesting that a guy like this openly calls himself an ex-radical Muslim and nobody bats an eye.

[knapplc]

So....we can't say Muslim extremists because of stupid people taking it wrong?

The bold is bunk. Nobody has ever told you that, and nobody is enforcing that. You've posted it on HuskerBoard dozens of times, including the last time you railed against Obama about this very phrase.

 

I want to know why it bothers you so much that the president is trying to separate peaceful Muslims from radicals co opting their faith. What's it to you? Obama is being diplomatic in what he says, and he's dropping bombs on ISIS. Seems like the best of both worlds.

 

Why is this a thing for you?

[BigRedBuster]

 

So....we can't say Muslim extremists because of stupid people taking it wrong?

The bold is bunk. Nobody has ever told you that, and nobody is enforcing that. You've posted it on HuskerBoard dozens of times, including the last time you railed against Obama about this very phrase.

 

I want to know why it bothers you so much that the president is trying to separate peaceful Muslims from radicals co opting their faith. What's it to you? Obama is being diplomatic in what he says, and he's dropping bombs on ISIS. Seems like the best of both worlds.

 

Why is this a thing for you?

 

I don't care what the President says and I don't care if someone personally chooses to just say "Terrorists" instead of labeling them as Muslim terrorists.

 

I have said, I find it interesting the movement towards "educating" people to not use these terms because they are inflammatory when they themselves call themselves that.

[Landlord]

 

It's more like, there are a LOT of stupid people in America, and a lot of those stupid people listen to sources that paint all Muslims with one broad brush. The fear is - and it's a reasonable fear - that if we associate terrorists with all of Islam, innocent Muslims like Ameer Abdullah will be persecuted.

 

Who wants to read a story about Ameer getting shot in a mosque during prayer, or any of his family? If we can prevent that by distinguishing between the bad guys and innocent Muslims, is that really an issue? Does it create a hardship to America's citizens?

I'll admit there are a lot of stupid people and there will always be stupid people.

So....we can't say Muslim extremists because of stupid people taking it wrong?

There have been stupid people taking stuff that is said wrong since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean we haven't been able to be frank about things before.

 

 

 

Being frank is fine, but how many people do you know or listen to that are frank while also maintaining a posture of actively trying to avoid labeling, stereotyping, profiling, or dehumanizing the side they don't agree with it? How many of those frank-talking people are actually trying to transcend party lines, to bring camps together and to get out of the rut of us vs. them?

 

 

 

All this comes down to is a desire to be careful with our narratives. How is that a bad thing? Nobody is saying that you can't call ISIS Muslim extremists. You can. You're totally allowed. Just know that you're responsible for how loaded that phrase is to some people, when you don't have to use it. ISIS' entire goal is to make the west continue to use a broad brush to paint Muslim culture/ideology. That makes it so much easier for them to recruit not-yet-radicalized individuals by saying, "See? They hate you. They hate all of us. But we can give you purpose." At the end of the day we all have to decide how we're going to fight against that, because there's no being neutral. For many of us, we've found that certain language is too easily tainted to perpetuate ignorance and fear, so we work against it.

 

Our brains are genetically hard-wired to quickly and efficiently label and categorize things, and a lot of times that's really useful. But if we want to keep moving forward as a society we need to elevate above that instinct, because the labels are an attempt to assert control and manage uncertainty, but they aren't a great one. A much better method, for the good of society, is to remember that people are people, and it's generally not very helpful to just put them in a neat little box of classification instead of listening, learning, and interacting.

[TAKODA]

Is not using the term "Islamic Extremist/Extremism" a Democrat thing or an Obama thing? I thought it was just an Obama thing.

 

Obama has explained why he uses the verbiage he uses:

 

Obama has explained his verbal strategy as an effort to isolate the group. Earlier this year, Obama said its members are "desperate for legitimacy."

 

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam," Obama said at the close of a summit on violent extremism Feb. 22. "That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’ And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam."

 

Obama went on to say "we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

 

This wording isn’t all that different from former President George W. Bush’s language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and at the onset of the war in Afghanistan.

 

"This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in January 2002.

 

 

LINK

 

 

I've gotta think guys like Ameer Abdullah probably appreciate the distinction Obama is making there.

 

Obama being Muslim himself probably has a better understanding of the difference better than most. ~ edited for clarification / sarcasm intended, my bad.. Note to self, read own post 3 times before posting!

 

These ISIS thugs as some would would call them, are not following the true rule of the Quran, just as not all of those who say they are Christians follow the true rule of the Christian Bible.

Edited June 20, 2016 by TAKODA

[TAKODA]

 

 

It's more like, there are a LOT of stupid people in America, and a lot of those stupid people listen to sources that paint all Muslims with one broad brush. The fear is - and it's a reasonable fear - that if we associate terrorists with all of Islam, innocent Muslims like Ameer Abdullah will be persecuted.

 

Who wants to read a story about Ameer getting shot in a mosque during prayer, or any of his family? If we can prevent that by distinguishing between the bad guys and innocent Muslims, is that really an issue? Does it create a hardship to America's citizens?

I'll admit there are a lot of stupid people and there will always be stupid people.

So....we can't say Muslim extremists because of stupid people taking it wrong?

There have been stupid people taking stuff that is said wrong since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean we haven't been able to be frank about things before.

 

 

 

Being frank is fine, but how many people do you know or listen to that are frank while also maintaining a posture of actively trying to avoid labeling, stereotyping, profiling, or dehumanizing the side they don't agree with it? How many of those frank-talking people are actually trying to transcend party lines, to bring camps together and to get out of the rut of us vs. them?

 

 

 

All this comes down to is a desire to be careful with our narratives. How is that a bad thing? Nobody is saying that you can't call ISIS Muslim extremists. You can. You're totally allowed. Just know that you're responsible for how loaded that phrase is to some people, when you don't have to use it. ISIS' entire goal is to make the west continue to use a broad brush to paint Muslim culture/ideology. That makes it so much easier for them to recruit not-yet-radicalized individuals by saying, "See? They hate you. They hate all of us. But we can give you purpose." At the end of the day we all have to decide how we're going to fight against that, because there's no being neutral. For many of us, we've found that certain language is too easily tainted to perpetuate ignorance and fear, so we work against it.

 

Our brains are genetically hard-wired to quickly and efficiently label and categorize things, and a lot of times that's really useful. But if we want to keep moving forward as a society we need to elevate above that instinct, because the labels are an attempt to assert control and manage uncertainty, but they aren't a great one. A much better method, for the good of society, is to remember that people are people, and it's generally not very helpful to just put them in a neat little box of classification instead of listening, learning, and interacting.

 

 

+1