American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?

[heliochrome85]

Im reminded of the Van Gogh incident. Shortly after, the makers of South Park started a controversy over whether they were going to actually be so brazen as to show Muhammad on an episode. They kept it secret, and ran the tension right up till the end of the episode, then popped a quick pic of him in, and that was that. But what was funny was the whole discourse that surrounded the episode, more than the episode itself.

Question for T and Z, does an accurate portrait of Muhammad actually even exist, or is he given the same sort of generic "robed beardy" look. Theres no portrait of Jesus, and its funny to see the portraits you see in different churches, some have him white as a ghost as if he were an englishman.

In Islam, its considered idolotry to have or make depictions of God, Muhammad, or any other prophets. The Shiites dont see things that way, and so they have pictures of Ali, and Muhammad. As a result, outside of iran, you wont find any pictures or depictions.

[stebo0728]

Its strange you mention the idolotry angle, because as a young christian I remember my parents teaching me similar things about Jesus, that you shouldnt have a picture of him, and the crucifix was evil because it depicted Christ as still being on the cross, but he's not, he's risen in Glory. That alway struck me a bit odd, seems the crucifix commemerates the event, it doesnt seek to send the message they were claiming it did.

[heliochrome85]

Its strange you mention the idolotry angle, because as a young christian I remember my parents teaching me similar things about Jesus, that you shouldnt have a picture of him, and the crucifix was evil because it depicted Christ as still being on the cross, but he's not, he's risen in Glory. That alway struck me a bit odd, seems the crucifix commemerates the event, it doesnt seek to send the message they were claiming it did.

the inhabitants in and around mecca who converted to islam, predominately, prior to Muhammad, worshiped clay and stone idols. The Kaabah, in Mecca, used to house said idols. So if there is added importance in avoiding depictions of the Prophet, that is partly why.

[stebo0728]

Well you know for catholics, the virgin mary came about from the conquistadors in central america. They wanted to "convert" the locals, which worshipped a goddess of some sorts, so the church set up the virgin mary to take the place of this goddess. I may be mucking that up a bit, im sure Vikes can fix me.

[heliochrome85]

Well you know for catholics, the virgin mary came about from the conquistadors in central america. They wanted to "convert" the locals, which worshipped a goddess of some sorts, so the church set up the virgin mary to take the place of this goddess. I may be mucking that up a bit, im sure Vikes can fix me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Mary

its in our Holy Book, which was revealed and compiled in the 7th century AD. It continues the belief that Jesus was born by Mary, who was a virgin.

[IBCoupe]

I don't know if you heard the comment on On Point (I think it was), but the scholar they had on as a guest was saying that the only reason Muhammed advocated stoning as a punishment was because he was reading the Old Testament at the time which advocates it as a proper punishment for certain crimes, and that the New Testament, which he was also reading, didn't explicitly provide that stoning is wrong. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," which is a hair different than, "Dude, don't throw rocks at people."

[heliochrome85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm

[AZhitman]

I'm not asking you to care. I'm not asking you to identify. I'm asking you to acknowledge that there are other issues, and not be satisfied with the simplest answer until it's been justified.

OK, there are other issues at hand. It's acknowledged. There are other issues at hand for BOTH groups.

The fact remains that creating an unflattering or mocking image of Jesus won't get your head lopped off. Making a cartoon of Mohammed just might. Regardless of any "other issues", a reasonable person can see the vastly disparate responses to perceived slights.

Absolutely. The factors I think of are that the West (where we'd look for that non-reaction) is composed of far more secular societies, with almost no centralized control of information to speak of, much better records (at least in the last quarter-century or so, I mean - no point in looking past the births of the people who are actually rioting) on human rights, and so on and so forth.

Great job looking at the reasons they DON'T respond. What if tomorrow morning, that all changes? Will you then consider, perhaps, some equivalent "mitigating factors" when all the Jesus freaks worldwide suddenly stop "turning the cheek"?

when a simplification of a situation logically leads one to the retarded conclusions "That book makes you crazy," or "Only crazy people read that book," it's a fair bet that the simplification itself is retarded".

No need for a lecture there, I'm well-versed in debunking flawed correlational studies.

Those aren't facts, though. The "simplistic" example Matt posted is, for the most part, factually-based. Saying, "that book makes you crazy," or "only crazy people read that book" is a value judgement and is debateable.

Saying, "No one died over the Virgin Mary painting, but all hell broke loose over the Mohammed cartoon" is FACTUALLY BASED. You're sharp enough to see the difference - unless your view is clouded by a "partisan" leaning (which I also think you're sharp enough to avoid).

That was intended to be the more rhetorical "you;" my bad. I meant when you guys start complaining about groups other than Muslims in a simplistic way, you'll see me start to remind you of the complexity of the world as it relates to those other groups, too.

Maybe THAT'S where our disconnect is coming from. If we continually beabor the intricacies and complexities and MITIGATING FACTORS that try to explain away WHY people do the things they do, there's literally no end to it. And even if we DO "take the intellectually honest path" (you like that, don'tcha), we've STILL got to act on what we know, and our responses, STILL need to be equitable. It's not enough to lend mental assent to the fact that there are "other factors" at work - We need to legislate fairly, and that means setting aside all those confounding factors.

You, as a wannabe attorney, can certainly appreciate this. Even if Little Johnny was mistreated as a child, he's still likely to end up on death row if he murders a house full of people - same as if the crime was perpetrated by Little Susie, who was mollycoddled and catered to as a child.

When the situation is presented to us as "Muslims riot when insulted and Christians don't," what course of action do we take? Forced conversion? Genocide? Being really really nice to Muslims? Making sure that we go out and insult everyone else more?

No, no, no and no. We handle each instance on its merits. We apply the law equitably. As I stated above, we can certainly seek to understand. We can certainly lend congnizant assent to those other factors. But when the gavel drops, the rules are clear: Our judiciary should NOT give a damn who your deity is, nor should it give a damn WHY you acted out.

Give me an opportunity to do it, and I will. And is that a promise of ban or just a lighthearted "No more?"

Neither. It's a request for introspection cleverly disguised as a directive. No need for me to belabor the point I made repeatedly... You "got" it, you just haven't defended yourself (other than some weak defense about not knowing enough about Islam to make wisecracks).

You've done nothing to warrant banning - I was pointing out the well-documented hypocrisy of how easy it is to say something offensive about one group while tiptoeing around another. "White men can't jump" but those "nappy-headed hoes" will get you called on the carpet.

We've started down the ice-covered road of becoming a nation of apologists.

[AZhitman]

http://en.wakopedia.org/wiki/Rajm

VERY interesting. Potentially dumb question follows:

I see several references to the applicability of this law to believers. What if someone who ran afoul of these "laws" were to renounce their beliefs? Do the punishments then still apply? Or are they simply then an "infidel" and free to behave as infidels do? And what punishment awaits them then?

[IBCoupe]

OK, there are other issues at hand. It's acknowledged. There are other issues at hand for BOTH groups.

The fact remains that creating an unflattering or mocking image of Jesus won't get your head lopped off. Making a cartoon of Mohammed just might. Regardless of any "other issues", a reasonable person can see the vastly disparate responses to perceived slights.

Right. And it's perfectly fine by me to point it out, so long as we're willing to admit to ourselves that it's not as simple as "Christians good, Muslims bad," which is what you risk doing with a bare-bones summary.

Great job looking at the reasons they DON'T respond. What if tomorrow morning, that all changes? Will you then consider, perhaps, some equivalent "mitigating factors" when all the Jesus freaks worldwide suddenly stop "turning the cheek"?

I don't know what I've said or done that could suggest to you that I wouldn't.

No need for a lecture there, I'm well-versed in debunking flawed correlational studies.

Those aren't facts, though. The "simplistic" example Matt posted is, for the most part, factually-based. Saying, "that book makes you crazy," or "only crazy people read that book" is a value judgement and is debateable.

Saying, "No one died over the Virgin Mary painting, but all hell broke loose over the Mohammed cartoon" is FACTUALLY BASED. You're sharp enough to see the difference - unless your view is clouded by a "partisan" leaning (which I also think you're sharp enough to avoid).

That it's a simplification of factual events doesn't make it any more correct. When asked, "How would you like your sandwich?" it may be perfectly factual to say, "With two slices of bread," but that says nothing as to its reliability as a summary of how you would like your sandwich. Similarly, a history of WWII could find a perfectly factual basis in the statement, "There was Germany, there was Japan, and then there were dead people," but that's not really helpful, is it? If we're approaching it from a question of "How do we avoid dead people?" the lesson we logically derive from that summary of WWII is that we need to go without Germany and Japan.

Maybe THAT'S where our disconnect is coming from. If we continually beabor the intricacies and complexities and MITIGATING FACTORS that try to explain away WHY people do the things they do, there's literally no end to it. And even if we DO "take the intellectually honest path" (you like that, don'tcha), we've STILL got to act on what we know, and our responses, STILL need to be equitable. It's not enough to lend mental assent to the fact that there are "other factors" at work - We need to legislate fairly, and that means setting aside all those confounding factors.

I'd say that we need to legislate not only fairly, but effectively, too. And that requires a certain level of understanding that is not furthered by overly-simplistic worldviews.

You, as a wannabe attorney, can certainly appreciate this. Even if Little Johnny was mistreated as a child, he's still likely to end up on death row if he murders a house full of people - same as if the crime was perpetrated by Little Susie, who was mollycoddled and catered to as a child.

Absolutely. But, as a wannabe attorney, I also recognize that a determination that Little Johnny was mistreated as a child and that can be determined to have led to his psychotic behavior does not preclude us from putting him on death row. The only way it would is if you take a very narrow view of the purpose of the criminal justice system.

As someone involved at one point in Criminal Justice, you're probably aware that there are four theories of criminal justice: retribution, rehabilitation, isolation, and incentivization. The "oh, it's not his fault so he doesn't get punished" only works if you choose only to follow the retributive path, and most intelligent people inevitably come up with a theory that combines at least two of those four principles (I prefer the third and fourth - remove them, as dangers to society, and create incentives for others not to become dangers to society; I reject the first two, because "punishment" seems too uncerebral, and I feel that law should be more careful, and I reject the rehabilitation premise that we can make bad people better).

But when the gavel drops, the rules are clear: Our judiciary should NOT give a damn who your deity is, nor should it give a damn WHY you acted out.

But our legislature should. You're focusing too much on crime and punishment and too little on policy. If part of the problem is that these people are ignorant hicks, maybe part of the solution is to get the so-far nonviolent ignorant hicks a better education before they become violent ignorant hicks. If part of the problem is that their rights are being suppressed, maybe part of the solution is to give the nonviolent people more freedom to do what they want, so that they won't feel forced to act out. That last one's a big maybe, because it's possible their freedoms are restricted (as are many of ours) for good reason. The problem is that you can't figure that out unless you're willing to admit that there are reasons people do what they do. But the point is that we need to have an eye towards mitigating future crime as much as we do correcting for past crimes.

And, in all honesty, I know very little about the tenets of Islamic faith, or about the story of Muhammed. That wasn't really a wisecrack. Were I to know more, I'd be happy to make fun of it. Maybe you'd like me to educate myself so that I can say more, but I'm not going to back off of an easy target just because another target isn't as easy to me. I mean, really, Greg... I wasn't aware that you'd enlisted in the PC brigade.

[AZhitman]

it's not as simple as "Christians good, Muslims bad," which is what you risk doing with a bare-bones summary."

I'm fine with that.

That it's a simplification of factual events doesn't make it any more correct.

Ah, but it is. None of those were disputed.

You went into a convoluted diatribe (first about books and craziness, which was a weak example, then about sandwiches and dead people, which was a little more applicable, but still nebulous).

If you'd like to dispute the simplified "list", then do so. But don't cast aspersions on it by saying, "That it's a simplification of factual events doesn't make it any more correct" when there's no factual inaccuracies.

Question the CONCLUSION that we're intended to reach ALL YOU WANT. I'm 100% in agreement with that - I said so above. See, look - I'll do it again:

it's not as simple as "Christians good, Muslims bad," which is what you risk doing with a bare-bones summary."

I'm fine with that.

Wooo. Look at me go.

As someone involved at one point in Criminal Justice, you're probably aware that there are four theories of criminal justice: retribution, rehabilitation, isolation, and incentivization. The "oh, it's not his fault so he doesn't get punished" only works if you choose only to follow the retributive path, and most intelligent people inevitably come up with a theory that combines at least two of those four principles (I prefer the third and fourth - remove them, as dangers to society, and create incentives for others not to become dangers to society)

Agreed. As someone who worked in the LE community for quite a while, I prefer a solid dose of the third principle, a tad less of the fourth, with a pinch of the first thrown in for community morale (and furtherance of the fourth from a "stick", not a "carrot", standpoint). My faith in rehabilitation for the most part dissolved within 6 months of carrying a caseload.

But our legislature should. You're focusing too much on crime and punishment and too little on policy. If part of the problem is that these people are ignorant hicks, maybe part of the solution is to get them a better education before they become violent ignorant hicks. If part of the problem is that their rights are being suppressed, maybe part of the solution is to give them more freedom to do what they want, so that they won't feel forced to act out. That last one's a big maybe, because it's possible their freedoms are restricted (as are many of ours) for good reason. The problem is that you can't figure that out unless you're willing to admit that there are reasons people do what they do.

Also agreed. But implemeting those legislative decisions takes time, and there may well be current conditions that need to be addressed NOW while we're crafting a more proactive policy. As such, longitudinally, there may be disparate treatment. I'm fine with that - we're evolving.

I mean, really, Greg... I wasn't aware that you'd enlisted in the PC brigade.

Far from it. I don't offend easily, and my feigned offense was simply to point out a disparity. You, of all people, should know what it's like to be "an easy target". I'd challenge you to step up and take on some "big game" in the future, if you're going to be in the "pot-shot-taking" business. Just remember to wear your chain mail turtleneck - they already don't like you.

[szh]

Question for T and Z, does an accurate portrait of Muhammad actually even exist, or is he given the same sort of generic "robed beardy" look. Theres no portrait of Jesus, and its funny to see the portraits you see in different churches, some have him white as a ghost as if he were an englishman.

In Islam, its considered idolotry to have or make depictions of God, Muhammad, or any other prophets.

It is stronger than that actually. In the early days, because of the large number of idols that were worshipped in Saudi Arabia, all representations of anything living (people, animals, etc.) were disallowed ... for centuries!

Which is why much of the architecture and "paintings" that you see from those days show geometric patterns and stuff - look at the buildings in Cordoba, Spain for good examples.

This has relaxed a lot over time, so, for example, you see paintings by Mughal artists that show the ruler and people, etc. As well as statues today - although what the Taliban did to the giant stone Buddha in Afghanistan is a most distasteful act of historical destruction. The then Pakistan President (a Muslim) flew to Kabul for the express purpose to try and get the authorities to not destroy the statue, but he was not successful.

Anyway, since Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, images of him are still not allowed in Muslim countries ... because then "worship" would become too close to "worship of an image" to be comfortable for Muslims. There are no paintings or representations of him in any public place, let alone mosques, etc. Nor in books or the Koran.

The Shiites dont see things that way, and so they have pictures of Ali, and Muhammad. As a result, outside of iran, you wont find any pictures or depictions.

Really? I did not know that ... there are plenty of Shias in Pakistan that I knew when I was there and I did not think they had any "pictures" of Muhammad. Of course, images Ali would not count by today's more relaxed standards, but, since the Shias do revere him a lot, having pictures of him might start bordering (for me anyway) on the "worship of an image" problem. But, I don't care much about that, and would not make a big deal about it per se.

Z

[AZhitman]

So, if there are disparate treatments of this issue in the Muslim world, why arent they fighting with each other over it?

(...and by fighting with each other, I mean to the extent that they're upset with the West.)

[szh]

Well you know for catholics, the virgin mary came about from the conquistadors in central america. They wanted to "convert" the locals, which worshipped a goddess of some sorts, so the church set up the virgin mary to take the place of this goddess. I may be mucking that up a bit, im sure Vikes can fix me.

its in our Holy Book, which was revealed and compiled in the 7th century AD. It continues the belief that Jesus was born by Mary, who was a virgin.

Ummmm, Mary is far more important than that in Islam: http://www.islamawareness.net/Christianity/galvan1.html

She is the only woman specifically named in the Koran. She also has a chapter named after her and has more references to her than Muhammad's wives.

Here is some more info from that source I linked above: Many people may be surprised that Muslims love Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the Quran, no woman is given more attention than Mary. Mary receives the most attention of any woman mentioned in the Quran even though all the Prophets with the exception of Adam had mothers. Of the Quran's 114 chapters, she is among the eight people who have a chapter named after them. The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her, Mariam. Mariam means Mary in Arabic. The third chapter in the Quran is named after her father, Imran. Chapters Mariam and Imran are among the most beautiful chapters in the Quran. Mary (peace be upon her) is the only woman specifically named in the Quran. An authentic Haddith states that the Prophet said, "The superiority of 'Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. meat and bread dish) to other meals. Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh." (Bukhari 4.643). Indeed, both Mary and Pharoah's wife are an example (Quran 66:11-12). The Virgin Mary plays a very significant role in Islam. She is an example and a sign for all people.

Z

[szh]

So, if there are disparate treatments of this issue in the Muslim world, why arent they fighting with each other over it?

(...and by fighting with each other, I mean to the extent that they're upset with the West.)

Unfortunately, they do fight a lot about the aspects of the Sunni and Shia differences ... more people have died in these than any sane person could like, particularly in countries other than Iran that have a significant Shia population.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I'm fine with that.

Fine with what?

Ah, but it is. None of those were disputed.

You went into a convoluted diatribe (first about books and craziness, which was a weak example, then about sandwiches and dead people, which was a little more applicable, but still nebulous).

And you managed to actually respond to none of it. Congratulations.

If you'd like to dispute the simplified "list", then do so. But don't cast aspersions on it by saying, "That it's a simplification of factual events doesn't make it any more correct" when there's no factual inaccuracies.

I don't want to dispute the simplified list. I don't challenge the factual points, just the logical implications when you remove most of the meat and leave only a sparsity of the bones. Sure, you can try to reconstruct the thing, and there's a chance that you'll get it right, but there's a much better chance that you're making s*** up. And that's what he did - he took a few events in time, removed all the surrounding context, and tried to create a narrative. When you cherry-pick history, you make for a lousy historian.

Question the CONCLUSION that we're intended to reach ALL YOU WANT. I'm 100% in agreement with that - I said so above. See, look - I'll do it again:

it's not as simple as "Christians good, Muslims bad," which is what you risk doing with a bare-bones summary."

I'm fine with that.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. You're okay with the risk? You're okay with "Christians good, Muslims bad?" You're okay with "It's not as simple?" You're just not feeling especially good or bad today? I don't understand.

[AZhitman]

Forget it. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

I tried to be clear, but your whole "sandwiches and dead people" allegory (which didn't fit much better than the prior example) leads me to believe you're unwilling to put forth the same effort.

"I'm fine" with the point that it's not as simple as one group is good, one is bad, as in, I agree. That wasn't the point.

You're so hung up on belaboring the mitigating factors that you're unconcerned about the facts - those facts remain, regardless of how much "context" you surround them with.

[IBCoupe]

Correct, but their significance as an illustration of "irrationality" is what I was objecting to. You're so hung up on the isolated truth of the individual facts that you've forgotten they were sent out as a cohesive message. Once again, it's not the data points I'm concerned about, it's the fact that they're not terribly helpful data points in ascertaining the accuracy of the message they're supposed to present.

It's like people pointing to Arizona crime statistics, picking 1998, with its record low violent crime rates, and jumping to 2008 with record highs, ignoring the fact that all the way in between there were many years of mostly constant levels. I'm not disputing that 1998 and 2008 are what they're said to be, I'm disputing the assertion that it means anything.

I sincerely hope that was clear enough; I'm tired of trying to re-explain the same thing.

[AZhitman]

Well, THAT I can agree is debatable.

I see them as more significantly indicative of "irrationality" in general than you do, and on that we'll just have to differ.

I guess my position is this: Lashing out with physical violence, in response to a perceived slight, is irrational. Those who display those characteristics most frequently run the risk of earning their demographic a label of "irrational", while those who refrain from acting impulsively on similar perceived slights are more likely to be viewed by the lay person as "tolerant".

Then again, there we are again, generalizing the actions of a few to sully the reputations of many.

[IBCoupe]

I guess my position is this: Lashing out with physical violence, in response to a perceived slight, is irrational. Those who display those characteristics most frequently run the risk of earning their demographic a label of "irrational", while those who refrain from acting impulsively on similar perceived slights are more likely to be viewed by the lay person as "tolerant"

If that's the case, then why bother with the compare and contrast? What I mean is: to know that rioting in response to a cartoon or a burned book is irrational, do we need to know that Christians don't riot at that kind of thing and more, as the piece Aud was quoting pointed out?

Sure, it might help a bit to compare and contrast to establish relative irrationality, but if your position is so well-established, why do it except to further a different message?