|
I just read this article describing ten ways to talk to a Muslim so they wont hate you. I'm all for working on achieving good relations with Muslim countries but are a few PC word changes going to make us friends with people are taught to hate the USA in their houses of worship?
What do you think.
(Edited)
|
I just read this article describing ten ways to talk to a Muslim so they wont hate you. I'm all for working on achieving good relations with Muslim countries but are a few PC word changes going to make us friends with an entire region where people are taught to hate the USA in their houses of worship?
What do you think.
Well, a start might include not confusing Islam, the religion, with the Middle East, the region.
|
|
Well, a start might include not confusing Islam, the religion, with the Middle East, the region.I just read this article describing ten ways to talk to a Muslim so they wont hate you. I'm all for working on achieving good relations with Muslim countries but are a few PC word changes going to make us friends with an entire region where people are taught to hate the USA in their houses of worship?
What do you think.
Edited to remove references to regions.
|
|
Don't depict the prophet, or any religious figure, either. That's iconography, which they feel falls within the definition of "worshiping graven images".
Certainly don't use the term 'crusade'. The real Crusades were not exactly a high point in the Mulsim/Christian relationship. This is similar to jihad. It has two main meanings: one a war on the unbelievers, one a struggle, not necessarily violent, for a noble cause. Unless you want to keep explaining that you don't mean the kill the unbelievers version every time, don't bother in either event.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I just read this article describing ten ways to talk to a Muslim so they wont hate you. I'm all for working on achieving good relations with Muslim countries but are a few PC word changes going to make us friends with people are taught to hate the USA in their houses of worship?
What do you think.(Edited)
Most Muslims have not been "taught to hate the USA" as part of their religion.
Take care not to confuse political culture with religious culture, and take care not to mistake views of extremists as views of the whole.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Most of my students are from Saudi Arabia. I find it pretty easy to get along with them because we share many of the same values: we practice moderation in most things, we don't abuse substances, we pray regularly, we consider ourselves morally responsible for our actions etc. Well, a lot of these guys are young and immature but these are the values they espouse, if not practice.
Sometimes we run into 'culture bumps.' The other day, for example, the correct answer to one of the questions in the textbook was 'Israel'. None of them would say the answer and it took me a while to realize that they knew the answer, they just weren't going to acknowledge Israel's existence. One of them popped in with 'that other place' as an answer and we all had a chuckle at our mutual discomfort and moved on.
I don't try to be 'PC' with them. I try to be open-minded and not come in full of assumptions. It works out fine.
Most Muslims have not been "taught to hate the USA" as part of their religion.
Take care not to confuse political culture with religious culture, and take care not to mistake views of extremists as views of the whole.
This would be a good start.
|
The dozens and dozens of documented cases in the US, UK, Australia, Saudia Arabia, Dubai, Palistine, Syira, Turkey, Russia, and on and on, teaching hate the Us are the exceptions?
There are between 1 billion and 1.8 billion followers of Islam in the world, and even assuming that those "dozens and dozens" of cases where hatred of the US is being taught are successful, they would not even equate to a hundreth of a percentage of the muslim population.
There are extremists of every belief and, as has been mentioned already in this thread, they don't represent the whole.
|
|
The dozens and dozens of documented cases in the US, UK, Australia, Saudia Arabia, Dubai, Palistine, Syira, Turkey, Russia, and on and on, teaching hate the Us are the exceptions?There are between 1 billion and 1.8 billion followers of Islam in the world, and even assuming that those "dozens and dozens" of cases where hatred of the US is being taught are successful, they would not even equate to a hundreth of a percentage of the muslim population.
There are extremists of every belief and, as has been mentioned already in this thread, they don't represent the whole.
Except . . .
Looking at those "dozens and dozens" of cases, we repeatedly see certain common themes.
First among those is the influence of the Wahabbi sect of Saudi Arabia (though as it happens they dislike the term Wahabbi). Indeed, Saudi Arabia through the Wahabbi has been spending billions over the last 3 decades or so to build religious schools specifically to teach their version of Islam which is typically labeled as "conservative", often with superlatives attached. While the Wahabbi do not teach direct hatred of the U.S., they do teach the rejection of non-Islamic values, as well as the rejection of "innovation" in Islam, something that is a violation according to virtually all Islamic sects. Hatred of the west is the end result of that teaching.
Where the Wahabbi are not involved in such incidents, we next most commonly see the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the group that assassinated Sadat, and is the parent organization of such groups as Hamas and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). The goals of this group are rather simple and direct, that being to make Islam pure, re-establish the Caliphate, and extend Islamic rule worldwide. They employ terrorism as well as subversion, making great use of taqiyya (deception) as directed by Islamic law. Again, while hatred of the west per se is not manadatory, it is the ultimate result as they very much believe in the "clash of civilizations" that article finds so distasteful.
When those two groups are not involved we next come to the main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is where attempts to marginalize support of terrorism and anti-Western views as merely those of "extremists" become most disingenuous. Despite the accusations of "Islamophobia" that are the typical reaction, these schools very simply, very directly, and very explicitly mandate the vast majority of all the horrible things people say are only in the rhetoric of the extremists. Priority among these is the reality that "innocence" is a state that may only apply to Muslims; everyone else is automatically guilty (of not accepting the call to Islam), and is thus not protected by any of the laws. When attacks against innocents are condemned, those making the condemnations are most sincere; they truly believe innocents must not be harmed. What they are not saying, and taqiya permits them not to say, is that none of the victims of terrorist attacks actually qualify as innocents. That is why condemnations of terrorists themselves, as well as the use of terrorist strikes, are so few and far between. How can they actually condemn people who are not committing crimes?
So when people want to suggest these are just a few extremists, a closer examination reveals that really means these are just a few active jihadis of the sword.
After all, if Muslims are really required to stand up to evil and fight it at all costs, if these extremists are such a small percentage of their numbers, why are the others not actually standing up and fighting them? Would they not be entitled to immediate admission to the very same paradise the extremists "misinterpret" as being opened to them by their terrorist actions? By that standard, it would seem that any such accusation is really saying the vast majority of Muslims are rather lousy at understanding and following their religion, and really need a whole bunch of westerners and a few "extremists" to explain to them what they should really believe and how they should act. That seems a bit presumptuous to me, but . . .
|
|
Most Muslims have not been "taught to hate the USA" as part of their religion.
Take care not to confuse political culture with religious culture, and take care not to mistake views of extremists as views of the whole.
Except Islam is a political culture as well as a religious culture.
Care must equally be taken not to confuse taqiya with truth.|
|
Don't depict the prophet, or any religious figure, either. That's iconography, which they feel falls within the definition of "worshiping graven images".
Except the ones that actually have made images of Muhammed.
Certainly don't use the term 'crusade'. The real Crusades were not exactly a high point in the Mulsim/Christian relationship.
Really?
The last I checked, the Muslims won the Crusades. Why exactly do they feel so bad about that?I guess that means we cannot also mention the Reconquista in Spain, or the Battle of Tours, or any of the battles in the Balkans, particularly the failed Sieges of Vienna.
But . . .
Does this mean Muslims must not mention the Conquest of Constantinople?
Or the taking of Baghdad and Damascus? What about the initial invasion of Spain by the Muslims? And certainly the conquests of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan must be off the table. None of those were particularly high points for Christians or Hindus after all.
Will this "respect" be two way or only one way?
This is similar to jihad. It has two main meanings: one a war on the unbelievers, one a struggle, not necessarily violent, for a noble cause. Unless you want to keep explaining that you don't mean the kill the unbelievers version every time, don't bother in either event.
Jihad is only "struggle" for Muslims - one to properly submit.
It has four forms, including one that is internal, and three that are external. Among the external is the one that involves overt physical violence.It would seem the burden should be on Muslims to explain which form of jihad they are currently pursuing.
|
|
Well, muslims revere their prophet and to use his name in such a way as to suggest that he suffers the same foibles as regular people will not be taken very well by muslims. This I learned from muslims who I have encountered in my neighborhood.
It is more than that.
According to Muslims, Mohammed was the "perfect man", to be emulated in every way. That is why things like child brides are so prevalent in Islamic countries. Mohammed married one of his "wives" when she was 6 and consummated said marriage when she was 9. As he is the exemplar of behavior, Muslims seek to imitate this behavior.|
|
Here is a question:
When dismissing incidents as "just some extremists", how many instances of something like
this
constitutes "one too many" to actually tolerate?
Just sort of wondering and all.
|
Lots of Stuff in the last 10 minutes
So I watched the video and read all your posts (which I have to comment Sam, you are quite educated and you seem to know what you are talking about.), but the question I pose is aren't some of the Christian sects doing the same thing that some of the Muslim sects are doing (saying Islam is wrong and all that)?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
After all, if Muslims are really required to stand up to evil and fight it at all costs, if these extremists are such a small percentage of their numbers, why are the others not actually standing up and fighting them?
Someone halfway around the world could ask the same thing about hate groups in Canada and the U.S., couldn't they? If racist hatemongers are really such a small percentage of our numbers, why are we not actually standing up and fighting them?
|
|
So I watched the video and read all your posts (which I have to comment Sam, you are quite educated and you seem to know what you are talking about.), but the question I pose is aren't some of the Christian sects doing the same thing that some of the Muslim sects are doing (saying Islam is wrong and all that)?
Saying someone is wrong is one thing.
Saying you must "strike them in the neck" if they are wrong, having mainstream legal scholars say that such is not figurative but literal, indicating a direct way of striking someone so as to kill them, and supporting people engaging in such striking in whatever fashion (educating, recruiting, financing, volunteering, and so forth) is quite another.Saying that anyone questioning the concept of making such strikes is a violation of your faith that carries a penalty of being so struck, and that it is racist and "Islamophobic" and must be criminalized by all countries, assuming you are not so struck before they can manage their penalties of course, is yet another.
Now if you, or anyone else, would like to post links such as I have of any Christian sect rampaging about, sawing people's heads off, blowing themselves up in marketplaces, and the like, and if you would like to add additional links showing a lack of unequivocal condemnation of such behavior, feel free.
Really, go right ahead.
I think such information is critical to share. You cannot protest such things if you do not know about them, or advocate taking steps to end them if they remain perpetually hidden and people are prohibited from speaking of them.
Oh, and this developing in the last week:
Islam is not a political culture?
And this fun bit of security news:
Axis of misunderstood neutrality?
|
|
Someone halfway around the world could ask the same thing about hate groups in Canada and the U.S., couldn't they? If racist hatemongers are really such a small percentage of our numbers, why are we not actually standing up and fighting them?
We do.
Any time such groups commit crimes, they are pursued.Every time such groups speak, they are denounced, unconditionally and unequivocally.
Granted sometimes it takes a few weeks to denounce the Jeremiah Wright's out there . . .
But it gets done.
And again, I await information about how many killings such groups have performed so far this year, last year, the last decade, the last quarter century.
I just read this article describing ten ways to talk to a Muslim so they wont hate you. I'm all for working on achieving good relations with Muslim countries but are a few PC word changes going to make us friends with people are taught to hate the USA in their houses of worship?
What do you think.(Edited)
Just because you are a Muslim doesn't mean that you have an automatic hatred of non Muslims.
That is just like saying just like saying if you are Irish Catholic you have to hate all Protestants.
The current dislike of America and its allies is political. Those behind it find religious extremism a very handy tool to recruit for the cause.
Before I go any further I will qualify a few things.
I am an Australian, politicly I lean to the left. Australia is probably one of the US's most loyal Allies, we have fought side by side since the Boxer Rebellion. So I am talking as a "mate" not and not trying to bash the US.
There is a general feeling amongst Australians, that Americans have not asked them selves why there is such a great dislike of America in the Middle East or if they have they put it down to very black and white and simplistic reasons such as jealousy or religious extremism.
Research the history of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and take a look at Western interaction with the region.
Below is a very simplistic version of my view as I could write pages and I don't have time.
The current dislike of America and its allies is political. Those behind it find religious extremism a very handy tool to recruit for the cause.
Behind every good lie there is a core of truth. The US and it Allies did/do prop-up, support, supply arms to repressive regimes such as Saddam, The Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royal family, General Pervez Musharraf and so on.
When the only opposition to people who round up and shoot your family are the religious nutters down the road, with out thought of the consequences you are going to support them over the oppressive western backed regime every time.
Now add this to the mess that is Palestine and Israel and a perception that the US do what ever the Israel tells them to and there you have a very small part of a very complicated puzzle.
There are other reasons like US troops in Saudi Arabia is like having Muslim troops in the Vatican.
Finally there is the elephant in the room - Oil and the feeling that the west is doing its best to rip them off.
|
|
Ah, the old "PC" bugaboo, which, in this case, means "don't have a real dialogue because you may upset the ideologues".
First of all, it is difficult to separate "religion" from "politics" in this matter, as, to a devout Muslim, Sharia is the LAW. Why are separatists fighting in southern Thailand? They want Sharia, they do not want to follow Thai law. Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.
I'd be a little more concerned by the increase of "honor killings" in Canada and the U.S. than I would be about possibly "offending" someone.
Someone halfway around the world could ask the same thing about hate groups in Canada and the U.S., couldn't they? If racist hatemongers are really such a small percentage of our numbers, why are we not actually standing up and fighting them?We do.
Any time such groups commit crimes, they are pursued.
Every time such groups speak, they are denounced, unconditionally and unequivocally.Granted sometimes it takes a few weeks to denounce the Jeremiah Wright's out there . . .
But it gets done.
And again, I await information about how many killings such groups have performed so far this year, last year, the last decade, the last quarter century.
Hello Sam good to see that you are peddling your usual hate...
So Sam what is your "solution" - tell us all how you would fix the problem with Islam.
Do Muslims only use Macs?
|
|
Hello Sam good to see that you are peddling your usual hate...
As usual you have no response with any substance, just a personal attack accusing me of bigotry.
Time and again this is the tactic used against those who dare to criticize Islam, and point out the incidents that go with it.
Never a rebuttal, never a refutation, never evidence of anything else, just cries of "Islamophobia!" and "Hate-mongering!"
Fortunately, I remain steadfast, and will not be silenced by such baseless charges.
So Sam what is your "solution" - tell us all how you would fix the problem with Islam.
The first step is allowing people to discuss the problems openly, without people like you calling them names, or Islamists demanding they be imprisoned and threatening to murder them.
The second step is to recognize there are problems.
Problems like this.
First you have to get past peddling your usual hate though.
|
|
Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.Same reason there are Beth Din courts in the UK. The Sharia courts have even less power then those.
They shouldn't have either, frankly. If you want to move away from your third world s+!!hole to a better place, you should submit (catch the irony there?) to the laws of your new home. Period.
|
|
They shouldn't have either, frankly. If you want to move away from your third world s#~*hole to a better place, you should submit (catch the irony there?) to the laws of your new home. Period.Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.Same reason there are Beth Din courts in the UK. The Sharia courts have even less power then those.
They do. They follow UK Arbitration Laws to the letter. The Beth Din (and, some hope, Sharia) courts function as arbitration services, for certain civil cases, such as divorce or inheritance. Both parties have to agree to the arbitration, but if they don't, then it goes to the UK Civil Courts. Heck, in divorce cases, they must still get the civil divorce.
|
|
They do. They follow UK Arbitration Laws to the letter. The Beth Din (and, some hope, Sharia) courts function as arbitration services, for certain civil cases, such as divorce or inheritance. Both parties have to agree to the arbitration, but if they don't, then it goes to the UK Civil Courts. Heck, in divorce cases, they must still get the civil divorce.They shouldn't have either, frankly. If you want to move away from your third world s#~*hole to a better place, you should submit (catch the irony there?) to the laws of your new home. Period.Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.Same reason there are Beth Din courts in the UK. The Sharia courts have even less power then those.
You're ignoring reality to promote the ideal, I think. Truth is, if a Muslim woman goes outside the community on divorce and inheritance issues, they're treated as pariahs. And, just out of curiosity, do Anglo-British citizens have civil arbitration as an option if they beat their wives?
First of all, it is difficult to separate "religion" from "politics" in this matter, as, to a devout Muslim, Sharia is the LAW. Why are separatists fighting in southern Thailand? They want Sharia, they do not want to follow Thai law. Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.
One area of misunderstanding between many Westerners and members of Middle-Eastern Muslim cultures is the definition of Sharia law. Many Westerners see this as synonymous with stoning adulterers, honor killings, striking off the hands of thieves, caning women who don't wear burqas, and similar brutal practices. This is a gross misunderstanding of most Muslims' true beliefs.
To many Middle-Eastern Muslims, saying that "civil law codes should be based on Sharia" is similar to many Christians' desire that their laws "reflect Biblical morality". No Christian would seriously suggest that current laws should include the ancient punishments prescribed in Leviticus; similarly, most Muslims want their laws to be fair and just, protecting society, not oppressing it.
In fact, Sharia court cases in the Middle-East have argued against many of the practices Westerners see as part of their law: Even now, their courts wrestle with demands that women be given more freedom, based not on Western arguments, but on womens' rights described in the Quran.
Many Muslims admire Western justice systems, but they are very cynical about America's goals and practices. They see the U.S. extolling "freedom" while undermining those democratically-elected groups hostile to American goals. Because of this, they conclude that we "talk a good game", but serve our own purposes without respect for truth or fairness.
Despite my comments here, I would state that I am actually biased against Islam and Muslims. I consider Christianity to be the only creed that offers hope of true peace, and that only as long as people follow the Christian ideals of forgiveness and treating enemies as friends. Until people step away from old grudges and actively seek harmony and reconciliation, there will be no peace.
I don't see that happening anytime soon, but I hope.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. - Mahatma Gandhi
(To anyone who knows me, please forgive my hypocricy: My actions seldom match my ideals.)
|
|
To many Middle-Eastern Muslims, saying that "civil law codes should be based on Sharia" is similar to many Christians' desire that their laws "reflect Biblical morality". No Christian would seriously suggest that current laws should include the ancient punishments prescribed in Leviticus; similarly, most Muslims want their laws to be fair and just, protecting society, not oppressing it.
It must be kept in mind though that the essence of Sharia is laws from the Koran, and not merely based on it.
In fact, Sharia court cases in the Middle-East have argued against many of the practices Westerners see as part of their law: Even now, their courts wrestle with demands that women be given more freedom, based not on Western arguments, but on womens' rights described in the Quran.
Cases are certainly brought. They are however regularly lost, or "won" only by appeal to extra-legal authorities.
As for women's rights, they are overruled consistently by women's lack of rights. Specifically:
The inheritance of a woman is set at one-half that of a man.
The testimony of a woman is set at one-half that of a man.
Custody of children in a divorce is specified as being with the man after a certain point.
Yes, it is true that women retain control of their dowries during a marriage and after a divorce. This seems quite liberal until a closer examination reveals the reason why. A dowry comes from the woman's family. Her father and brothers have no interest in seeing "their" money taken by another family if a marriage fails.
Likewise all must be kept in the context of the commands in the Koran for Muslim men not to withhold their "hand" (sexual desires) from their "property" (using the word for inanimate objects, and not for people), said property being female slaves of course.
And even when women, if tween girls can properly be called women in such a context, assert their rights, such as to a divorce when a marriage has been consummated before an agreed upon time, that is they have been raped repeatedly, there still remains the underlying Islamic laws and their basis, Mohammed being the perfect man and marrying a 6 year old and such, that too many men will resist seeing changed. I will leave it to others to consider why they would resist such, despite the obvious threat it poses to their own daughters and sisters, but it would seem there is a bit more than meets the eye to the common refrains of "women's rights in Islam" and "most Muslims oppose Sharia law".
Perhaps, just perhaps, the "few extremists" are the ones advocating modernization and liberalization within Islam, constituting "innovation" which is of course forbidden.
As said before, don't use words like "Crusade" and expect people to forget the ugly history. (It's to Yale's everlasting shame that they gave George W. Bush a history degree.)
Generally speaking, simply be polite and sensible, and if you're dealing with people on a day-to-day basis, bother to familiarize yourself with their customs and traditions. This works with other people aside from Muslims as well.
|
|
I don't usually get into these arguments, but here's how I feel.
The problem is twofold--it's not just about how the rest of the world talks to Muslims, but how Muslims talk to us.
There are dozens of odd religious goings-on in the US every day, but very few of them are backed by singular personalities whose words and views can incite, literally, millions to action; and there are very few which will be backed by any sort of organizational structure similar to the Rule of Law.
That's not the case in the greater Muslim world. Examples are plentiful across the internet, and localized at CNN.com and other news sites, so I won't link here, but if you've been reading the news recently you'll recognize a few.
"Saudis sentence elderly woman to 40 lashes" [an unrelated man, accompanied by his friend, delivered bread to her house; she's 75 years old; caught by a concerned neighbor who called the police]
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD
"Saudi Rape Victim Gets 200 Lashes"
http://www.cbsnews.com
"Homosexuals should be stoned to death"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
"Make every woman wear a burkha"
http://www.express.co.uk
"Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk
Now let's take these and fictionalize (and I'll sensationalize a little) them as events in the US--
"NC grandmother to be flogged; young man delivered bread"
"Seattle woman to be flogged for getting gang-raped; looking sexy to perverted degenerates"
"Jerry Falwell says, 'Tie a homosexual up on Main Street and throw rocks at him until he bleeds to death.' Americans agree."
"New Wisconsin law forces all women to wear full dresses; Some Madison women allowed to show eyes and fingertips in public"
"D.C. Muslims outraged at White House advert featuring Obama girls' new cute puppy sitting in the Rose Garden; 'I can't believe they sent this in the mail,' says area man."
And you could go on and on.
The point is, every time I read something like this I can't help but hold it up to my culture's expectations--I read the CNN article on the gang-rape victim and I say to myself, the girl gets gang-raped and she is punished--what?! And this is OK? This is normal?
A 75 year old woman is publicly beaten because an unrelated man delivered bread to her house? This is an actual law? This is the kind of thing I'd expect in some strange post-apocalypse sci-fi/horror movie, not what I expect to read as a matter of law in a civilized country in the year 2009.
So, I'm trying to say, it has to go both ways--not to mention, if it's only expected that I, as a non-Muslim, will go out of my way to capitulate, but it's not really expected of them...? Well, that smacks of a time when I was a kid and my parents would tell me to be good to my sister, and when she pushed me and stuck her tongue out, mom laughed at her and glared at me you better be good.
|
|
Sometimes we run into 'culture bumps.' The other day, for example, the correct answer to one of the questions in the textbook was 'Israel'. None of them would say the answer and it took me a while to realize that they knew the answer, they just weren't going to acknowledge Israel's existence. One of them popped in with 'that other place' as an answer and we all had a chuckle at our mutual discomfort and moved on.
What would have happened, if the correct answer to another question had been 'Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'?
And some white-supremacist jerk in the class had refused to speak that name?
And then 'compromised' by calling him 'some uppity n***er, who don't know his place'?
Would you all have had a chuckle at that?
Or would the lesson plan have been thrown out the window, and you spend the rest of the session berating the guy for his ignorance, and attempting to hammer home some empathy for his fellow man?
Or maybe you'd throw your hands up in horror, and sprint to the Equality Commisar, to report this doubleplusungood Thought Crime?
Either both are acceptable, or both are not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Sometimes we run into 'culture bumps.' The other day, for example, the correct answer to one of the questions in the textbook was 'Israel'. None of them would say the answer and it took me a while to realize that they knew the answer, they just weren't going to acknowledge Israel's existence. One of them popped in with 'that other place' as an answer and we all had a chuckle at our mutual discomfort and moved on.What would have happened, if the correct answer to another question had been 'Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'?
And some white-supremacist jerk in the class had refused to speak that name?
And then 'compromised' by calling him 'some uppity n***er, who don't know his place'?
Would you all have had a chuckle at that?
Or would the lesson plan have been thrown out the window, and you spend the rest of the session berating the guy for his ignorance, and attempting to hammer home some empathy for his fellow man?
Or maybe you'd throw your hands up in horror, and sprint to the Equality Commisar, to report this doubleplusungood Thought Crime?
Either both are acceptable, or both are not.
You seem to underestimate my ability to tolerate racists or overestimate my 'PC-ness', I'm not sure which. I've been a teacher for over 13 years and situations not unlike the one you describe have come up in my classes.
In this case, however, I think the students answering 'that other place' were trying to avoid being offensive or obstinate unlike the hypothetical white-supremacist in the hypothetical situation you present. They seemed uncomfortable with the predicament they found themselves in and the chuckle, as I said, was one of discomfort.
EDIT: In fact, I've found it rather strange how careful my Saudi Arabian students are to not in any way criticize the U.S. or Israel publicly. Some students from other countries have made cracks about George Bush and I've noticed the Saudis stare straight at the blackboard and say absolutely nothing. From the 'facts' stated in this thread, I'd expect them to be frothing at the mouth. Of course, several of them have lived in or visited the U.S. and have relatives there.
|
|
You seem to underestimate my ability to tolerate a#&%@#*s or overestimate my 'PC-ness', I'm not sure which. I've been a teacher for over 13 years and situations not unlike the one you describe have come up in my classes.
In this case, however, I think the students answering 'that other place' were trying to avoid being offensive or obstinate unlike the hypothetical white-supremacist in the hypothetical situation you present. They seemed uncomfortable with the predicament they found themselves in and the chuckle, as I said, was one of discomfort.
Except of course it escapes your notice that refusing to say "Israel" and referring to it as "that other place" would in fact be offensive to Israelis and people with friends, relatives, and co-religionists there.
Thus it remains that you casually laugh off their incivility while asserting righteous rage at a similar situation involving black-white racial "tension".EDIT: In fact, I've found it rather strange how careful my Saudi Arabian students are to not in any way criticize the U.S. or Israel publicly. Some students from other countries have made cracks about George Bush and I've noticed the Saudis stare straight at the blackboard and say absolutely nothing. From the 'facts' stated in this thread, I'd expect them to be frothing at the mouth. Of course, several of them have lived in or visited the U.S. and have relatives there.
Given the close relationship between the Saudis and the Bush family along with the rather distinct lack of civil rights in Saudi Arabia, that should not be particularly unusual.
However, while you challenge what has been said here you still provide no rebuttal.
Can you demonstrate anything said about Islam is incorrect?
While you have your selected students as not being frothing jihadis, rioting in the streets, do you have evidence that any of the links regarding others doing just that are incorrect?
No, not every Muslim in existence is a terrorist, raging, lurking, or empowering, simply by virtue of being a Muslim.
There are indeed some that advocate a better way.
Of course that means they say things and write things, all sorts of things (scroll down to M. Zuhdi Jasser's segment), that seem . . . well, given what has been said about my comments, unspeakably evil and then some.
I guess maybe he did not get the memo about what not to say, and how the extremism is not rooted in traditional interpretations and all that. He must really hate Muslims to say such things. Yeah, that must be it. That accusation gets thrown around so much, and there is nothing to actually support the claims of the people so charged.
Re: Crusades:
that is indeed a bit weird thing to worry about, as Muslims were doing pretty well in those, and especially since at the same time Timurids were raiding through the Islamic world causing much more trouble than Christian crusaders ever could...
Now, if we are talking about history the part which is a) much closer to today and b) much more upsetting is the colonialist period, when UK, France and others ruled most of the Islamic world...and I guess that is a big motive to many to dislike USA, which appears to wish to re-introduce colonialism (Israel, Shah, occupation of Iraq and Afganistan to name some).
Wahhabis are indeed all very fashionable in Islam today, and unfortunately other groups have been somewhat marginalised. Curiously enough, secularization of Turkey seems to have been partially responsible, as it removed a strong Sufi presence from Middle East...
I've read many of the posts on this thread and here are some simple ways to relate to muslims (I've known a few, these are pointers they gave me):
- Respect the individual. Muslims are people too and they want to be treated as fairly as any other person. See the person, not the religion. My girlfriend is a secular humanist; I hated it back in the early days of our relationship when she saw what she thought all Christians were and not who I am. Same thing, see the individual and respect them.
- Don't be a d***. Muslims do not like it when you use the name of their prophet improperly. Well, Christians don't like it when you use the name of their (my) Lord and Savior improperly. Same thing, don't do it. Muslims don't want anyone to draw a picture of their prophet. Can you name any reason you have for doing it other than being a d***?
- Don't reduce a muslim down to the worse among them. Many muslims hate the extreme elements in their religion and don't really like being equated to those elements that hijacked the public face of their religion. I, as a Christian, hate it when someone assumes I hate homo-/bi-sexuals. I have had a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual friends over the years and saw them as people, not their sexual orientation. They did not assume I am like Jerry Falwell and I was very glad they did not see me as someone that hijacked the public face of my religion for many years. I am sure the same can be said for Scientologist and assuming they are all like Tom Cruise.
|
|
I've read many of the posts on this thread and here are some simple ways to relate to muslims (I've known a few, these are pointers they gave me):
- Respect the individual. Muslims are people too and they want to be treated as fairly as any other person. See the person, not the religion. My girlfriend is a secular humanist; I hated it back in the early days of our relationship when she saw what she thought all Christians were and not who I am. Same thing, see the individual and respect them.
- Don't be a d***. Muslims do not like it when you use the name of their prophet improperly. Well, Christians don't like it when you use the name of their (my) Lord and Savior improperly. Same thing, don't do it. Muslims don't want anyone to draw a picture of their prophet. Can you name any reason you have for doing it other than being a d***?
- Don't reduce a muslim down to the worse among them. Many muslims hate the extreme elements in their religion and don't really like being equated to those elements that hijacked the public face of their religion. I, as a Christian, hate it when someone assumes I hate homo-/bi-sexuals. I have had a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual friends over the years and saw them as people, not their sexual orientation. They did not assume I am like Jerry Falwell and I was very glad they did not see me as someone that hijacked the public face of my religion for many years. I am sure the same can be said for Scientologist and assuming they are all like Tom Cruise.
Make that last line read "Don't reduce a fill in the blank" and you've got great advice on how to relate to anyone, be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Black, White, Asian, etc....
Can you name any reason you have for doing it other than being a d***?
If Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, Cthulhu, L. Ron Hubbard, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, ect. can't handle some fun being poked at them, I question their qualifications for our respect.
My omission of your prophet/god of choice is by no means an indication that I think your religion is any less worthy of ridicule.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
The one our Religious studies teacher hit us with was "put the word Christian, American or Western in front of every crime that happens there."
A Christian went berserk and shot twelve children in his high school today, a white Englishman stole a candybar from a child today, a Westerner assaulted a pensioner...
The word Muslim in front of a lot of headlines is often unhelpful.
