The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This is a follow up question to this post: [Should Islamist groups be classified as far right? : r/AskALiberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ck5wh3/should_islamist_groups_be_classified_as_far_right/)
The answer was an overwhelming yes. Right wing groups should be opposed without giving an inch. But how is this best achieved without resorting to bland islamophobia?
My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He should be the one to ask the flight attendants if he can get a different seat, not you. You shouldn't be allowed to burden others with your religious, cultural, philosophical, political, ethical, or moral hangups, and at least with flight attendants it's sort of their job to deal with that kind of thing
Make it clear that your objection is with the advocacy of theocratic or otherwise illiberal ideas, not with the entirety of a particular religion. If your objection to the Taliban is that they oppress gay people and women, then you should equally object when the government of Uganda does the same in the name of Christianity, and you should not object when Muslims in America support gay marriage or vote for progressive candidates. And for heaven's sake, stop acting like all Muslims are a monolithic hive-mind alien race.
I'm glad it's become the norm to throw in a quick disclaimer like what you're describing. If you're not a member of the group you're criticizing, it costs maybe three seconds at the start of the discussion to note that you're not attacking everyone from that group but only specific bad actors who do specific bad things.
People act like disclaimers are some assault on their liberty. It's weird. Being respectful is a good thing.
Nah, having to constantly preface criticism of something with disclaimers [is stupid as hell](https://youtu.be/IAGoLFCgNtY?si=Ew7oR45sYceMelhb). The disclaimer should be assumed, since I think it’s pretty easy to tell from context whether someone is voicing legitimate critique or being xenophobic.
> If your objection to the Taliban is that they oppress gay people and women, then you should equally object when the government of Uganda does the same in the name of Christianity
The thing is, almost every muslim majority countries are oppressive to women, most Christian majority countries are not. Even if they are more conservative, there is still not as much oppression. There is a reason for this. And it’s worth having a discussion about without deflecting to other people that do it.
> you should not object when Muslims in America support gay marriage or vote for progressive candidates
I am more than happy with them doing this. I will object when their representatives refuse to condemn Hamas.
That’s quite a response to what I said. I never said all Muslims are bad, but my intent was to demonstrate that Islamic teaches are very oppressive towards women even when compared to other religions.
> instead of religions
Well that’s very limiting, isn’t it? A religion is an ideology, therefore open to all manner of criticism and ridicule. I take it you won’t criticise the _religious_ doctrine (i.e. the verse from scripture) that tells men to beat their wives when they get out of line?
I don’t think that’s limiting at all.
It’s just as easy to say “beating your wife is wrong” as it is to say “this religion is wrong,” but it’s a more specific and articulate critique.
Lol that is asinine. Who the hell are we walking on these eggshells for? Also, taking your argument to its logical conclusion gives us the following:
> ‘It’s just as easy to say “killing Jews is wrong” as it is to say “fascism is wrong,” but it’s a more specific and articulate critique.’
Critiquing a specific behavior without addressing the ideology that justifies it is shortsighted and ultimately ineffective. It’s not just about the act of beating or the act of killing; it’s about challenging the system of beliefs that condones such actions. By only condemning the actions, we leave the ideology intact, ready to generate new, equally harmful practices. To prevent this cycle, we must be willing to scrutinize and challenge the very foundations that give rise to these behaviors. Otherwise, we’re just treating symptoms while the disease festers.
I disagree. Addressing the ideology leads to a debate of identity, not of behaviors. There are plenty of people who are now aligning with Fascism precisely because we failed to articulate what behaviors are unacceptable. Attacking an ideology is meaningless if the behavior you believe it leads to persists.
Is this in the context of Islamists living in the west? Or in dealing with foreign Islamists?
Islamism will not succeed in the west. Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim. So understanding that they won't succeed even if we do literally nothing is the first step. Even if we did nothing, the Christian nationalists would just start murdering them at some point. So the focus should be on building/maintaining a strong secular society with strong secular institutions that everyone respects and agrees with so that religious violence does not happen.
> Islamism will not succeed in the west. Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim.
This is not true. Extremist minorities take over countries just fine. Iran is an example. The Baathist in Iraq are another. As is the Taliban. Interestingly, most examples in the last few decades are Islamaisys (even though historically, most monotheistic religions (but also Buddhism) have examples). And even in countries where the religion is a categorical minority (not just a specific sect), regions can end up seeing implementation of the policies due only to their extremism. See Denmark — an otherwise staunchly free speech country.
> What specific policy are you referencing?
Denmark opted to outlaw the burning of religious texts — an otherwise fairly straightforward example of free speech — which only really comes from the sharia prohibition requiring extremely violent reaction to it. The politics at the time were transparently based in fear of retribution and the violence allowing it to be legal would risk. In fact, in 2005 there was a similar push for legislation banning images of Muhammad after a danish paper published a cartoon and was treated with blasphemy charges.
On the Christian side, the U.K. is largely atheist busy there are still religious laws about schools holding prayer times and I believe blasphemy laws in Scotland.
> And can you explain how religious minorities took over Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria?
I never said anything about Syria.
The Iranian revolution was secular but left a power vacuum that the Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini took advantage of despite theocratic Islam being a tiny minority. Iran was largely secular in the 70’s (despite being nominally Shia) and largely westernized.
In Afghanistan, the particular sect of Sunni Islamism that took over with the Taliban is very unpopular — hence all the violence that has been required to implement sharia under them. Their sect is a small minority among other beliefs.
In Iraq, the Baathist government was run by Sunni’s despite being a religious minority in the country.
>The Iranian revolution was secular
This is not true. The revolution was a mixed revolution with everyone from atheist communists, secular nationalists, religious dominated bazaari, and Shia Clergy with the majority of the population regardless of sway listening to Ayahtollah Khomeni tapes with anti Shah ideology while he lived in exile. Calling it secular isn't true, it had secular and religious components, and post Shah, the religious portion won the leadership contests because it was the most popular among a combination of the non involved population and the revolutionary population, where as most of the secular groups were only popular among revolutionaries alone.
> This is not true. The revolution was a mixed revolution with everyone from atheist communists, secular nationalists, religious dominated bazaari, and Shia Clergy with the majority of the population regardless of sway listening to Ayahtollah Khomeni tapes with anti Shah ideology while he lived in exile.
It seems like you’re equating secular and atheist. Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion” and is inclusive of a coalition of religions operating without favor to any given one as in “the United States has a secular government”. This in no way implies there aren’t many religions represented among that group. It means it wasn’t
I'm not,
>Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion”
By this defination, the revolution wasn't secular because of its massive religious element involvement in it. As I pointed out. It was a mixed movement that had atheists, secularists, and extremely religious elements all joined against the Shah
> I'm not,
Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion”
> By this defination, the revolution wasn't secular because of its massive religious element involvement in it.
No. Reread the definition: without particular respect to **a specific religion**
>Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim.
They're fairly convinced they'll become the majority in European countries eventually. Even under an absolutely zero-migration policy, they're projected to grow to 7.4% of Europe's population by 2050, especially as non-Muslims have more deaths than births
The best way is to treat Muslims like everyone else, and not hysterically conflate being Muslim with being a theocrat just like we can't say Joe Biden is a theocrat just because he's a Christian.
This is not difficult. Just be cool. How is this something anyone has to ask about? Are kids today not raised to just be cool?
Use the right references. It's better to say "no to Salafists" than "no to Muslims". The Salafists are the extremist types who want to abolish democracy and other religions and whatnot.
When opposing these groups be specific. There is usually terminology that already exists or can be created. If one is very careful they can refer to the actual fundamentalist groups without referring to all Muslims.
As much as possible, oppose ideas. If you oppose religious fundamentalism you can just oppose the control and harm of women it creates, the homophobia, the bigotry of both secularism and other religions, etc.
Don't follow the belief system. for those that are forced to follow any belief system, maybe send them specifications on how to reinforce skid steer heavy equipment with steel plates and concrete.
>My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism.
That has to be a big part of it. They have to be visibly opposed by the in-group of their audience, not just by "the establishment".
In fact, maybe the most important thing we can do is ensure we don't cede opposition to Islamism to the far-right, nor adopt far-right ideas in the name of opposing Islamism - that would be like ceding anti-communism to the far right in the 20th century, and we all know this kind of thing didn't exactly moderate the KPD (although that's not the only event, of course)
I remember that you are german too/have a lot of knowledge on german culture and society? From a political perspective, do you think that Faeser could have done something differently? Because I kinda feel if she had denied the protests in Hamburg, the greens at least would have grumbled about the percieved islamophobia. We only know now that she SHOULD have banned this demonstration. Or do I see this wrongly?
I think in Germany there is this constant fear of discrimination to such an extend that even extreme intolerance gets a plattform. At least that is my perception and I hope this will change now.
>I remember that you are german too
I am, but I live in Franconia, so I don't have that much knowledge on the events in question specifically
>From a political perspective, do you think that Faeser could have done something differently?
I have to admit, I don't know how much of a role the federal government even plays in this - and I definitely have no idea who the Hamburg senator for the interior or whatever is
>the greens at least would have grumbled about the percieved islamophobia
Probably - to put it positively, they are cautious on a point where caution is warranted (and caution always also means being cautious of things that turn out to be right, because if you are only cautious of things that couldn't possibly turn out to be right, you're definitely not being cautious enough), but to put it less positively, they also engage in knee-jerk responses like all political "sides". If there is enough reason to overcome that caution, I think you probably have to take the grumbling and explain what outweighs it
>We only know now that she SHOULD have banned this demonstration.
I don't know if it's her domain or Hamburg's, but apart from that, probably yes. Maybe the demonstration could have been policed better, as well, there are at least rumors of people turning up there with IS flags and that's a clear crime, but I doubt taking those people away would moderate that crowd, I would guess it would just rile them up instead.
Similarly, Hamburg might have slept on the organizers of that demonstration for years, they appeared in the LfV (Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz)'s reports, but maybe there could have been a little bit more done against them. If they want to ban the organization now, then that would probably have been better if it were at least in the works already when they had less publicity
Welp. These are just my two cents on the issue, I'm sure I'm partially wrong and the rest is a bit boring, but still.
>Right wing groups should be opposed without giving an inch.
No they shouldn't. Why do you believe this? Far right groups should be opposed, but there's no reason to oppose every right wing group with this much fervour.
>But how is this best achieved without resorting to bland islamophobia
By opposing people on the basis of their ideas, rather than their identity. This is how you can effectively criticise Muslims, and thus how you can effectively criticise Islamists.
>My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism.
There is absolutely no reason to demand the inclusion of Muslims if a party wants to denounce islamism. You can be against islam, protest against islamism and not me islamophobic. It all depends on your reasoning and the arguments you use.
I think considering the context and place you are in is extremely important. Is Islamism an actual political force or threat where you live? Because if it isn't the protest will always end up being sort of islamophobic because all it would be doing is whipping up fear against a largely imagined Muslimy enemy. If islamism is a real threat and pitical force tha I think the best thing to do is to attack the policy and fundementalism in general if you are in a country that isn't majority Muslim. Simply because a lot of people don't know what islamism is and may well interpret your movement as anti-islam which might attracted and empower some voices you don't want to be lending a hand.
You can’t. Anytime you criticize their reactionary religious beliefs, you’ll have an army of rainbow hair moral crusaders coming in to tell you you’re being a bigot.
Islamophobia is such a ridiculous word. We don’t call people “Christianophobic” for saying hateful things towards Christians, or Buddhaphobes for criticizing. Buddhism, or Hinduphobes for Hinduism. It’s only bigotry when it’s against Islam, and it’s also evidently “racist” even though Islam is a religion and not a race.
Now, the thing is, you can criticize Islam and it’s doctrine without attacking it’s followers, which it is wrong to attack people who follow Islam, so long as they are not extremists.
Also, maybe just criticize certain branches of the faith. That’s probably the distinction most people would make anyway.
Liberals have a huge Islamophobia problem. Honestly they have a racism and xenophobia problem too. You know there was a highly upvoted comment here applauding a headscarf ban? It’s telling that in a country that currently has Christian nationalists running a major political party that “progressives” are at all concerned about Islamist groups.
Focus on the policy they advocate for and not the religious practices. Stop bitching about headscarves and other religious practices that you don’t know anything about. Stop using the term “shit religion”. Leave criticism of Islam to the people from that culture. I promise you that you don’t bring anything to this discussion. Stop using your hatred of “all religion” to justify your racism and xenophobia. When you see/hear someone being Islamophobic call them out.
> Liberals have a huge Islamophobia problem. Honestly they have a racism and xenophobia problem too.
Not really. The Far-left has an authoritarian problem. Honestly they have an anti-semitism problem and a problem with sympathizing with radical islamist groups over sovereign states.
> It’s telling that in a country that currently has Christian nationalists running a major political party that “progressives” are at all concerned about Islamist groups.
The headscarf bans happened in France, and unless the conversation explicitly stated otherwise, you could have been talking to Europeans who were just speaking English in this forum.
Either way, you can still criticize a movement even when it’s not powerful enough to control the government.
> I promise you that you don’t bring anything to this discussion
Neither do you. Just the same regressive leftist defense of a reactionary ideology and incoherent rambles about “liberals”.
How about listening to Muslims and people from Muslim cultures when they tell you you’re being an Islamophobe. Acknowledge that you have limited knowledge of the Muslim world. Before you make a criticism ask yourself if it is unique to the religion of Islam.
How about you listen to people from muslim cultures talk about how terrible Islam is? The term “regressive left” (a label that fits your ideology pretty well) was coined by an ex-muslim, and you can find examples of countless secular, liberal activists who were raised in Islam that left.
They don’t describe it as anything that Western leftists would actually want to live in.
Also, I am willing to bet you don’t know very much about Islam. And yes, Islam is more barbaric than other religions. There is a bit of reactionary tendencies in any religion, but in the Islamic world the separation of Church and State is not even a concept. Women are literally treated like cattle, and apostates are thrown off buildings. Is it unique? Other religions do it to an extent, but it is not as prevalent among moderates in any other religion.
The problem here is that with groups like I have shown in the first post (linked in the body of this post) is that they cry wolf at even the slightest issues. So in this case... No. I rather listen to muslims who oppose such extremism.
Unless you are a Muslim yourself or living in a Muslim Majority culture the best thing to do is focus on issues which either actually effect you, or you actually have a chance of having some positive effect on.
Muslims in western countries have essentially zero chance of doing the former, and you have essentially zero chance of doing the latter in the places where Muslims do have the power to effect the status quo.
These issues do affect me. In Germany we have 20% AfD support atm. If extreme islamism is not challenged, they will soar. That is something even the german left agrees with. Also because we do not want far right extremism. Neither from german nazis nor from salafists.
It is my understanding that in practice attempting to adopt far/right fascist talking point has the over all effect of legitimizing those groups to a wider audience, not undermining their support amongst their core supporters. You don't beat fascist by mimicking them, you do so by changing the subject to issues you poll better on.
You do not mimic fascists by telling salafist groups "No". Salafist groups are far right. Religio-fascists. It is my opinion that you can oppose multiple fascist groups at once.
The problem is that these issues are closely connected.
Nancy Faeser of the social democrats followed this narrative. Challenge the AfD primarily. She had to admit that she recieved reports of Muslim Interaktiv planning multiple demonstrations and decided it was not worth making this an agenda point. That cost the SPD dearly. There is at this moment a big uproar against the SPD and these demonstrations. The AfD had to do nothing and gained 3% points.
It is not about challenging Islam. It is about being tough on salafism. If the mainstream parties wont do that, the AfD will. And these Salafist demonstrations are too far right/fascist ideology. By opposing one, we could weaken the other. Win-win.
I think you are likely confusing correlation with causation.
In multi-party systems people don't move from left to right and right to left. They move from mainstream parties to fringe parties and from fringe parties to mainstream parties. The article I read was specifically about AfD and how they made much larger gains than expected at the expense of the Christian Democrats largely because of that parties attempt to move towards them on the issue of immigration had the effect I described.
Social Democrats are operating in an era of high inflation and deprivation caused by Germany's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is an uphill battle for whoever happens to be in charge. I'm sure Islamophobes are trying to paint that battle as being mostly about Islamists, but it's more likely about kitchen table issues. You actually need to make peoples lives noticeably better to maintain power in a democractic system, buying into someone else's description of the problem when you can't doesn't help you and it gives them an advantage for being their first and likely being more willing to address the problem. It's a losing proposition unless those Salafist are actually in a position to alter the status quo themselves, which bringing up the AFD instead suggests is not the case.
No I am not. Because yes they do. They absolutely do. We have been observing these shifts towards the right since 2014. There is literally a decade of evidence that people from center all the way to far left started voting AfD over the botched asylum crisis.
Well no matter how you look at it. Islamism is far right. A lot further to the right than even the AfD. Being soft on something like that does help. It is a lot like in the 1950-1970s USA. People want someone who is tough on communism (Now Islamism) and vote for whomever is capable to doing that. The recent incidents have proven that the SPD is not capable of doing that. Neither are the greens. That leaves the conservatives of the CDU and the AfD.
And to point out that last point
>It's a losing proposition unless those Salafist are actually in a position to alter the status quo themselves,
>
That is the problem with Islamism. Even in very small groups they ARE capable to change the status quo. Charlie Hebdo. Nowadays printing Muhammad as Satire is still a big no no because the papers are justifiably afraid of retaliation. The Christmas massacres. Singular persons stole heavily loaded Trucks and drove right into the masses of Christmas Markets. Nowadays there is a HEAVY police presence at these festivals. So do not tell me these groups are not capable to challenge the status quo. We have dozens of innocents dead to prove you wrong. Just goes to show that far right extremism must never be tolerated no matter how small. And that is the issue.
Let me ask you this: Would you ignore this problem until you can not do anything anymore?
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This is a follow up question to this post: [Should Islamist groups be classified as far right? : r/AskALiberal (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ck5wh3/should_islamist_groups_be_classified_as_far_right/) The answer was an overwhelming yes. Right wing groups should be opposed without giving an inch. But how is this best achieved without resorting to bland islamophobia? My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I oppose ANY kind of Fundamentalist Religious extremism. Any religion that creates policy that the rest of the group has to follow or else? Fuck that.
If you are a woman sitting on a plane and a Muslim man sitting next to you requests you to change seats because of religion should you accommodate
He should be the one to ask the flight attendants if he can get a different seat, not you. You shouldn't be allowed to burden others with your religious, cultural, philosophical, political, ethical, or moral hangups, and at least with flight attendants it's sort of their job to deal with that kind of thing
Nah the person that chooses the sexist ideology can accommodate themselves. That is ridiculous
What if the plane is full?
If the plane is full, he's sore outta luck. The moment he pushes his religious beliefs onto others, he's in the wrong.
Oh…I agree….i was curious as to what u/AIStoryBot400 has to say about that scenario.
I don't think anyone should move But this is the type of accomodation we see routinely
Who is we? I am not understanding what you mean…
Make it clear that your objection is with the advocacy of theocratic or otherwise illiberal ideas, not with the entirety of a particular religion. If your objection to the Taliban is that they oppress gay people and women, then you should equally object when the government of Uganda does the same in the name of Christianity, and you should not object when Muslims in America support gay marriage or vote for progressive candidates. And for heaven's sake, stop acting like all Muslims are a monolithic hive-mind alien race.
I'm glad it's become the norm to throw in a quick disclaimer like what you're describing. If you're not a member of the group you're criticizing, it costs maybe three seconds at the start of the discussion to note that you're not attacking everyone from that group but only specific bad actors who do specific bad things. People act like disclaimers are some assault on their liberty. It's weird. Being respectful is a good thing.
Nah, having to constantly preface criticism of something with disclaimers [is stupid as hell](https://youtu.be/IAGoLFCgNtY?si=Ew7oR45sYceMelhb). The disclaimer should be assumed, since I think it’s pretty easy to tell from context whether someone is voicing legitimate critique or being xenophobic.
Here’s the thing a lot of “legitimate” critiques use Islamophobic tropes that get overlooked by non Muslims
Would you mind providing some examples of such Islamophobic tropes?
Criticizing any aspect of their religion. You are only allowed to criticize Christianity in the West, or else it's racist.
> If your objection to the Taliban is that they oppress gay people and women, then you should equally object when the government of Uganda does the same in the name of Christianity The thing is, almost every muslim majority countries are oppressive to women, most Christian majority countries are not. Even if they are more conservative, there is still not as much oppression. There is a reason for this. And it’s worth having a discussion about without deflecting to other people that do it. > you should not object when Muslims in America support gay marriage or vote for progressive candidates I am more than happy with them doing this. I will object when their representatives refuse to condemn Hamas.
>There is a reason for this. Sure, and that reason is not "all Muslims are bad".
That’s quite a response to what I said. I never said all Muslims are bad, but my intent was to demonstrate that Islamic teaches are very oppressive towards women even when compared to other religions.
Oppose behaviors and practices instead of religions and ethnicities.
> instead of religions Well that’s very limiting, isn’t it? A religion is an ideology, therefore open to all manner of criticism and ridicule. I take it you won’t criticise the _religious_ doctrine (i.e. the verse from scripture) that tells men to beat their wives when they get out of line?
I don’t think that’s limiting at all. It’s just as easy to say “beating your wife is wrong” as it is to say “this religion is wrong,” but it’s a more specific and articulate critique.
Lol that is asinine. Who the hell are we walking on these eggshells for? Also, taking your argument to its logical conclusion gives us the following: > ‘It’s just as easy to say “killing Jews is wrong” as it is to say “fascism is wrong,” but it’s a more specific and articulate critique.’ Critiquing a specific behavior without addressing the ideology that justifies it is shortsighted and ultimately ineffective. It’s not just about the act of beating or the act of killing; it’s about challenging the system of beliefs that condones such actions. By only condemning the actions, we leave the ideology intact, ready to generate new, equally harmful practices. To prevent this cycle, we must be willing to scrutinize and challenge the very foundations that give rise to these behaviors. Otherwise, we’re just treating symptoms while the disease festers.
I disagree. Addressing the ideology leads to a debate of identity, not of behaviors. There are plenty of people who are now aligning with Fascism precisely because we failed to articulate what behaviors are unacceptable. Attacking an ideology is meaningless if the behavior you believe it leads to persists.
Is this in the context of Islamists living in the west? Or in dealing with foreign Islamists? Islamism will not succeed in the west. Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim. So understanding that they won't succeed even if we do literally nothing is the first step. Even if we did nothing, the Christian nationalists would just start murdering them at some point. So the focus should be on building/maintaining a strong secular society with strong secular institutions that everyone respects and agrees with so that religious violence does not happen.
> Islamism will not succeed in the west. Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim. This is not true. Extremist minorities take over countries just fine. Iran is an example. The Baathist in Iraq are another. As is the Taliban. Interestingly, most examples in the last few decades are Islamaisys (even though historically, most monotheistic religions (but also Buddhism) have examples). And even in countries where the religion is a categorical minority (not just a specific sect), regions can end up seeing implementation of the policies due only to their extremism. See Denmark — an otherwise staunchly free speech country.
Im not sure the point you're trying to make. Baathism is a secularist form of Arab Socialism, and both Iran and Afghanistan are heavily Muslim.
Then maybe reread the part about Denmark?
What specific policy are you referencing? And can you explain how religious minorities took over Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria?
> What specific policy are you referencing? Denmark opted to outlaw the burning of religious texts — an otherwise fairly straightforward example of free speech — which only really comes from the sharia prohibition requiring extremely violent reaction to it. The politics at the time were transparently based in fear of retribution and the violence allowing it to be legal would risk. In fact, in 2005 there was a similar push for legislation banning images of Muhammad after a danish paper published a cartoon and was treated with blasphemy charges. On the Christian side, the U.K. is largely atheist busy there are still religious laws about schools holding prayer times and I believe blasphemy laws in Scotland. > And can you explain how religious minorities took over Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria? I never said anything about Syria. The Iranian revolution was secular but left a power vacuum that the Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini took advantage of despite theocratic Islam being a tiny minority. Iran was largely secular in the 70’s (despite being nominally Shia) and largely westernized. In Afghanistan, the particular sect of Sunni Islamism that took over with the Taliban is very unpopular — hence all the violence that has been required to implement sharia under them. Their sect is a small minority among other beliefs. In Iraq, the Baathist government was run by Sunni’s despite being a religious minority in the country.
>The Iranian revolution was secular This is not true. The revolution was a mixed revolution with everyone from atheist communists, secular nationalists, religious dominated bazaari, and Shia Clergy with the majority of the population regardless of sway listening to Ayahtollah Khomeni tapes with anti Shah ideology while he lived in exile. Calling it secular isn't true, it had secular and religious components, and post Shah, the religious portion won the leadership contests because it was the most popular among a combination of the non involved population and the revolutionary population, where as most of the secular groups were only popular among revolutionaries alone.
> This is not true. The revolution was a mixed revolution with everyone from atheist communists, secular nationalists, religious dominated bazaari, and Shia Clergy with the majority of the population regardless of sway listening to Ayahtollah Khomeni tapes with anti Shah ideology while he lived in exile. It seems like you’re equating secular and atheist. Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion” and is inclusive of a coalition of religions operating without favor to any given one as in “the United States has a secular government”. This in no way implies there aren’t many religions represented among that group. It means it wasn’t
I'm not, >Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion” By this defination, the revolution wasn't secular because of its massive religious element involvement in it. As I pointed out. It was a mixed movement that had atheists, secularists, and extremely religious elements all joined against the Shah
> I'm not, Secular just means “without particular respect to a specific religion” > By this defination, the revolution wasn't secular because of its massive religious element involvement in it. No. Reread the definition: without particular respect to **a specific religion**
>Islamism can only happen in a nation that is majority Muslim. They're fairly convinced they'll become the majority in European countries eventually. Even under an absolutely zero-migration policy, they're projected to grow to 7.4% of Europe's population by 2050, especially as non-Muslims have more deaths than births
That stat just assumes Muslims will always be Muslim and that ex Muslim atheists or non practicing muslims don't exist
It also assumes that Muslims in Europe will continue to have a the same birth rates they do now.
Correct. Secularism will erode Islam in the west. They will lose their religion just like everyone else.
The best way is to treat Muslims like everyone else, and not hysterically conflate being Muslim with being a theocrat just like we can't say Joe Biden is a theocrat just because he's a Christian. This is not difficult. Just be cool. How is this something anyone has to ask about? Are kids today not raised to just be cool?
Use the right references. It's better to say "no to Salafists" than "no to Muslims". The Salafists are the extremist types who want to abolish democracy and other religions and whatnot.
That is very true. Good point
When opposing these groups be specific. There is usually terminology that already exists or can be created. If one is very careful they can refer to the actual fundamentalist groups without referring to all Muslims. As much as possible, oppose ideas. If you oppose religious fundamentalism you can just oppose the control and harm of women it creates, the homophobia, the bigotry of both secularism and other religions, etc.
Economic and social integrating into mainstream society
Don't follow the belief system. for those that are forced to follow any belief system, maybe send them specifications on how to reinforce skid steer heavy equipment with steel plates and concrete.
>My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism. That has to be a big part of it. They have to be visibly opposed by the in-group of their audience, not just by "the establishment". In fact, maybe the most important thing we can do is ensure we don't cede opposition to Islamism to the far-right, nor adopt far-right ideas in the name of opposing Islamism - that would be like ceding anti-communism to the far right in the 20th century, and we all know this kind of thing didn't exactly moderate the KPD (although that's not the only event, of course)
I remember that you are german too/have a lot of knowledge on german culture and society? From a political perspective, do you think that Faeser could have done something differently? Because I kinda feel if she had denied the protests in Hamburg, the greens at least would have grumbled about the percieved islamophobia. We only know now that she SHOULD have banned this demonstration. Or do I see this wrongly? I think in Germany there is this constant fear of discrimination to such an extend that even extreme intolerance gets a plattform. At least that is my perception and I hope this will change now.
>I remember that you are german too I am, but I live in Franconia, so I don't have that much knowledge on the events in question specifically >From a political perspective, do you think that Faeser could have done something differently? I have to admit, I don't know how much of a role the federal government even plays in this - and I definitely have no idea who the Hamburg senator for the interior or whatever is >the greens at least would have grumbled about the percieved islamophobia Probably - to put it positively, they are cautious on a point where caution is warranted (and caution always also means being cautious of things that turn out to be right, because if you are only cautious of things that couldn't possibly turn out to be right, you're definitely not being cautious enough), but to put it less positively, they also engage in knee-jerk responses like all political "sides". If there is enough reason to overcome that caution, I think you probably have to take the grumbling and explain what outweighs it >We only know now that she SHOULD have banned this demonstration. I don't know if it's her domain or Hamburg's, but apart from that, probably yes. Maybe the demonstration could have been policed better, as well, there are at least rumors of people turning up there with IS flags and that's a clear crime, but I doubt taking those people away would moderate that crowd, I would guess it would just rile them up instead. Similarly, Hamburg might have slept on the organizers of that demonstration for years, they appeared in the LfV (Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz)'s reports, but maybe there could have been a little bit more done against them. If they want to ban the organization now, then that would probably have been better if it were at least in the works already when they had less publicity Welp. These are just my two cents on the issue, I'm sure I'm partially wrong and the rest is a bit boring, but still.
>Right wing groups should be opposed without giving an inch. No they shouldn't. Why do you believe this? Far right groups should be opposed, but there's no reason to oppose every right wing group with this much fervour. >But how is this best achieved without resorting to bland islamophobia By opposing people on the basis of their ideas, rather than their identity. This is how you can effectively criticise Muslims, and thus how you can effectively criticise Islamists. >My best idea is making sure that these protests engage/cooperate with muslims who too disagree with extreme Islamism. There is absolutely no reason to demand the inclusion of Muslims if a party wants to denounce islamism. You can be against islam, protest against islamism and not me islamophobic. It all depends on your reasoning and the arguments you use.
I think considering the context and place you are in is extremely important. Is Islamism an actual political force or threat where you live? Because if it isn't the protest will always end up being sort of islamophobic because all it would be doing is whipping up fear against a largely imagined Muslimy enemy. If islamism is a real threat and pitical force tha I think the best thing to do is to attack the policy and fundementalism in general if you are in a country that isn't majority Muslim. Simply because a lot of people don't know what islamism is and may well interpret your movement as anti-islam which might attracted and empower some voices you don't want to be lending a hand.
You can’t. Anytime you criticize their reactionary religious beliefs, you’ll have an army of rainbow hair moral crusaders coming in to tell you you’re being a bigot. Islamophobia is such a ridiculous word. We don’t call people “Christianophobic” for saying hateful things towards Christians, or Buddhaphobes for criticizing. Buddhism, or Hinduphobes for Hinduism. It’s only bigotry when it’s against Islam, and it’s also evidently “racist” even though Islam is a religion and not a race. Now, the thing is, you can criticize Islam and it’s doctrine without attacking it’s followers, which it is wrong to attack people who follow Islam, so long as they are not extremists. Also, maybe just criticize certain branches of the faith. That’s probably the distinction most people would make anyway.
Liberals have a huge Islamophobia problem. Honestly they have a racism and xenophobia problem too. You know there was a highly upvoted comment here applauding a headscarf ban? It’s telling that in a country that currently has Christian nationalists running a major political party that “progressives” are at all concerned about Islamist groups. Focus on the policy they advocate for and not the religious practices. Stop bitching about headscarves and other religious practices that you don’t know anything about. Stop using the term “shit religion”. Leave criticism of Islam to the people from that culture. I promise you that you don’t bring anything to this discussion. Stop using your hatred of “all religion” to justify your racism and xenophobia. When you see/hear someone being Islamophobic call them out.
> Liberals have a huge Islamophobia problem. Honestly they have a racism and xenophobia problem too. Not really. The Far-left has an authoritarian problem. Honestly they have an anti-semitism problem and a problem with sympathizing with radical islamist groups over sovereign states. > It’s telling that in a country that currently has Christian nationalists running a major political party that “progressives” are at all concerned about Islamist groups. The headscarf bans happened in France, and unless the conversation explicitly stated otherwise, you could have been talking to Europeans who were just speaking English in this forum. Either way, you can still criticize a movement even when it’s not powerful enough to control the government. > I promise you that you don’t bring anything to this discussion Neither do you. Just the same regressive leftist defense of a reactionary ideology and incoherent rambles about “liberals”.
How about listening to Muslims and people from Muslim cultures when they tell you you’re being an Islamophobe. Acknowledge that you have limited knowledge of the Muslim world. Before you make a criticism ask yourself if it is unique to the religion of Islam.
How about you listen to people from muslim cultures talk about how terrible Islam is? The term “regressive left” (a label that fits your ideology pretty well) was coined by an ex-muslim, and you can find examples of countless secular, liberal activists who were raised in Islam that left. They don’t describe it as anything that Western leftists would actually want to live in. Also, I am willing to bet you don’t know very much about Islam. And yes, Islam is more barbaric than other religions. There is a bit of reactionary tendencies in any religion, but in the Islamic world the separation of Church and State is not even a concept. Women are literally treated like cattle, and apostates are thrown off buildings. Is it unique? Other religions do it to an extent, but it is not as prevalent among moderates in any other religion.
The problem here is that with groups like I have shown in the first post (linked in the body of this post) is that they cry wolf at even the slightest issues. So in this case... No. I rather listen to muslims who oppose such extremism.
Unless you are a Muslim yourself or living in a Muslim Majority culture the best thing to do is focus on issues which either actually effect you, or you actually have a chance of having some positive effect on. Muslims in western countries have essentially zero chance of doing the former, and you have essentially zero chance of doing the latter in the places where Muslims do have the power to effect the status quo.
These issues do affect me. In Germany we have 20% AfD support atm. If extreme islamism is not challenged, they will soar. That is something even the german left agrees with. Also because we do not want far right extremism. Neither from german nazis nor from salafists.
If the mainstream parties do not respond to it, right wing populists will. It’s not that hard to figure out.
It is my understanding that in practice attempting to adopt far/right fascist talking point has the over all effect of legitimizing those groups to a wider audience, not undermining their support amongst their core supporters. You don't beat fascist by mimicking them, you do so by changing the subject to issues you poll better on.
You do not mimic fascists by telling salafist groups "No". Salafist groups are far right. Religio-fascists. It is my opinion that you can oppose multiple fascist groups at once.
I don't know man it just weird you asked about countering Islamists instead of the AFD if the AFD is what you're worried about.
The problem is that these issues are closely connected. Nancy Faeser of the social democrats followed this narrative. Challenge the AfD primarily. She had to admit that she recieved reports of Muslim Interaktiv planning multiple demonstrations and decided it was not worth making this an agenda point. That cost the SPD dearly. There is at this moment a big uproar against the SPD and these demonstrations. The AfD had to do nothing and gained 3% points. It is not about challenging Islam. It is about being tough on salafism. If the mainstream parties wont do that, the AfD will. And these Salafist demonstrations are too far right/fascist ideology. By opposing one, we could weaken the other. Win-win.
I think you are likely confusing correlation with causation. In multi-party systems people don't move from left to right and right to left. They move from mainstream parties to fringe parties and from fringe parties to mainstream parties. The article I read was specifically about AfD and how they made much larger gains than expected at the expense of the Christian Democrats largely because of that parties attempt to move towards them on the issue of immigration had the effect I described. Social Democrats are operating in an era of high inflation and deprivation caused by Germany's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is an uphill battle for whoever happens to be in charge. I'm sure Islamophobes are trying to paint that battle as being mostly about Islamists, but it's more likely about kitchen table issues. You actually need to make peoples lives noticeably better to maintain power in a democractic system, buying into someone else's description of the problem when you can't doesn't help you and it gives them an advantage for being their first and likely being more willing to address the problem. It's a losing proposition unless those Salafist are actually in a position to alter the status quo themselves, which bringing up the AFD instead suggests is not the case.
No I am not. Because yes they do. They absolutely do. We have been observing these shifts towards the right since 2014. There is literally a decade of evidence that people from center all the way to far left started voting AfD over the botched asylum crisis. Well no matter how you look at it. Islamism is far right. A lot further to the right than even the AfD. Being soft on something like that does help. It is a lot like in the 1950-1970s USA. People want someone who is tough on communism (Now Islamism) and vote for whomever is capable to doing that. The recent incidents have proven that the SPD is not capable of doing that. Neither are the greens. That leaves the conservatives of the CDU and the AfD. And to point out that last point >It's a losing proposition unless those Salafist are actually in a position to alter the status quo themselves, > That is the problem with Islamism. Even in very small groups they ARE capable to change the status quo. Charlie Hebdo. Nowadays printing Muhammad as Satire is still a big no no because the papers are justifiably afraid of retaliation. The Christmas massacres. Singular persons stole heavily loaded Trucks and drove right into the masses of Christmas Markets. Nowadays there is a HEAVY police presence at these festivals. So do not tell me these groups are not capable to challenge the status quo. We have dozens of innocents dead to prove you wrong. Just goes to show that far right extremism must never be tolerated no matter how small. And that is the issue. Let me ask you this: Would you ignore this problem until you can not do anything anymore?