Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia

[Kitsune]

Just listening to Quackcast. . . . .
We almost had Polio but a bunch Imams decided that the Polio vaccine caused sterility
In Pakistan, they actually murdered those administering the vaccine.

[PainRack]

I combined a stereotype with blind ignorance huh? How about you got buy a history book detailing how Mohamed spread his desert hallucination in the first place. Or maybe look up what happened one generation later after he died. Or perhaps look up what happened to everyone else who refused to convert.

I can not and will not condone religion, of any kind even Pastafarian, spread by forced conversion. Everyone can believe what they wish, right up until they try to force it on another.

So.... you're STILL going to ignore that traditional muslim nations like Indonesia and Malaysia didn't become that way through forced conversion?

[PainRack]

The world LARGEST muslim state? Indonesia.

Which is also not generally associated with Islam in most Westerner's minds.

I'm sorry, but that's the fault of WESTERNERS.

And its interesting that you claim this, because outside of Saudi Arabia and Iran, Indonesia is arguably one of the world most fundamentalist country right now. Yes, even Pakistan. Pakistan was a secular country, had a military coup under Musharaaf and its facing political Islam as a counter-force. Indonesia politics is in bed with fundamentalist Islam, which over time is shifting away from its moral crusade to a political one.

Of course, the picture is more complex than expected. The exoneration of the spiritual leader of JI for terrorist attacks in Bali is primarily due to the lack of evidence brought up against him, notably, the lack of key witness testimony from US prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

Congratulations, you have discovered the exception that proves the rule. Egypt, Syria, Persia, North Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the Indian subcontinent were all brought Islam by conquering armies.

Exception that proves the rule my ASS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar
The Mulghal Empire was the empire that brought about the full scale presence of Islam on India. While there were incidents of forced conversion during the invasion, their rule was relatively free of such.
Furthermore, may I point out that taxation for Coptics Christians and etc hardly fall under the aegis of conquering armies?

[PainRack]

Just listening to Quackcast. . . . .
We almost had Polio but a bunch Imams decided that the Polio vaccine caused sterility
In Pakistan, they actually murdered those administering the vaccine.

Its a mistrust of the government, that isn't aided by previous wrongdoings done under the cover of medical aid. From forced sterilization without adequate consent done in the 50s to CIA search for Bin Laden, there is an underlying mistrust of official health teams that's being fostered by tribal leaders.

[Terralthra]

Can you tell me what it means? What do I physically do in a conversation to show this? Flog myself over the back? I just don't get it.

Are there any other privileges that I should be aware of? Does this logic apply to other ethnic groups or is it only for whites?

Scifi author John Scalzi has an excellent post that attempts to explain this concept to people not already familiar with it.

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word “privilege,” in a way that your average straight white man will get, without freaking out about it?

Being a white guy who likes women, here’s how I would do it:

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

So that’s “Straight White Male” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The lowest difficulty setting there is. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.

There are some follow-up posts, if you are interested, located here and here.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I always really liked the allegory of the dog and the lizard since it also helps highlight that a big part of privilege (and the need to prioritise the voices of the oppressed) is that the privileged often can have a lot of problem even seeing their own privilege on a conceptual level due to how people have been trained to think.

[DarkArk]

I'm sorry, but that's the fault of WESTERNERS.

Why are you dodging the point? Islam would have never become what it did if it hadn't conquered and subjugated two of the largest and most advanced empires of its day. If their armies had been crushed by the Romans and Persians, Islam would have likely remained a religion local to the Arabian peninsula.

The intricacies of Indonesian politics is irrelevant to this.

While there were incidents of forced conversion during the invasion, their rule was relatively free of such.

The existence or not of forced conversion is irrelevant. The Muslims didn't do that to Christians and Jews in the 600s either (though they did to Pagans, Zoroastrianism died for a reason). This expansion by military conquest has shaped its views: namely that if there are Muslims they are in charge, and tolerance is granted on Islamic terms. Non-Muslims must accept the spirit of the Pact of Umar. The Mughal Empire was no different in this, it conquered a people and then brought about its own administration upon them. It is telling that Muslims insisted on a divided India after it was granted independence in the 40s.

[PainRack]

I'm sorry, but that's the fault of WESTERNERS.

Why are you dodging the point? Islam would have never become what it did if it hadn't conquered and subjugated two of the largest and most advanced empires of its day. If their armies had been crushed by the Romans and Persians, Islam would have likely remained a religion local to the Arabian peninsula.

The intricacies of Indonesian politics is irrelevant to this.

how am I dodging the point when traditional muslim countries include nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia?

The existence or not of forced conversion is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevent when the example raised was "convert or die"? Not conquer and use government powers to encourage conversion via taxation?

The Muslims didn't do that to Christians and Jews in the 600s either (though they did to Pagans, Zoroastrianism died for a reason). This expansion by military conquest has shaped its views: namely that if there are Muslims they are in charge, and tolerance is granted on Islamic terms. Non-Muslims must accept the spirit of the Pact of Umar. The Mughal Empire was no different in this, it conquered a people and then brought about its own administration upon them. It is telling that Muslims insisted on a divided India after it was granted independence in the 40s.

The Mughal empire was relatively secular after Ackbar. More importantly, it didn't impose forced conversions unlike what was attributed(previous invasion not Mughal.)
We have examples from the first Mughal Emperor Babur forbidding the killing of cows due to the sacred nature the Hindus treated it. Its also interesting you mentioned administration because Ackbar was one of the first Islamic rulers to separate Sharia law from non muslim people.

This policy would remain even after his son took over and restored a more conventional Islamic state religion.

As for Pakistan, you got to be kidding me, right? A muslim minority arguing about how a Hindu dominated majority and Hindu inspired nationalism would deny Islam rights? Sure. Not under Gandhi or Nehru. But Gandhi himself was assassinated by a Hindu extremist, who was angered that he was appeasing Muslim concerns over Hindu nationalism. The impending civil war was more complex than just Islam being a conquering people.

[PainRack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC historically most of the invasions and forceful conquering of regions by Muslim caliphates was only after several decades of peaceful spread of Islam to those regions in the first place, until a substantial portion of the population were Muslims already. So saying that Islam was being spread "through the sword" is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak; in most cases, the expansion of those Islamic states was more about consolidating existing Muslims than creating new ones.

No. Islam was quite literally spread by the sword into the Eastern Roman Empire, The Sassanid Empire, Spain and Southern Italy. None of those regions had Muslim populations before.

For Spain, I read somewhere that much of the boom in Muslim population there post Vandals was due to immigration, is that true?

[PainRack]

I always really liked the allegory of the dog and the lizard since it also helps highlight that a big part of privilege (and the need to prioritise the voices of the oppressed) is that the privileged often can have a lot of problem even seeing their own privilege on a conceptual level due to how people have been trained to think.

The dog and the lizard brings out a counter-point though. If the Lizard now insists that the dog has to be subject to temperatures that will cause harm to it for the benefit of the lizard, then its no longer equality that the lizard is seeking. A compromise where an temperature where both sides could survive but don't get what they want, or a win win situation where certain areas of the house are of certain temperature and both side gets the necessities is more equitable.

The later is why affirmative action exists, a state intervention to create an artificial environment where minorities might prosper.

[Metahive]

The dog and the lizard brings out a counter-point though. If the Lizard now insists that the dog has to be subject to temperatures that will cause harm to it for the benefit of the lizard, then its no longer equality that the lizard is seeking. A compromise where an temperature where both sides could survive but don't get what they want, or a win win situation where certain areas of the house are of certain temperature and both side gets the necessities is more equitable.

The later is why affirmative action exists, a state intervention to create an artificial environment where minorities might prosper.

The point of the analogy is that the dog, like privileged people, doesn't acknowledge that lesser privileged people can have problems and issues that he does not experience and may exacerbate through his ignorance. That you attempt to twist it into yet another scenario that puts the needs of the weak and the strong on an equal level is a sterling example of the blinding effect that privilege has. Yeah, the lizard might insist on temperatures that suit him, but guess what, he can't force it on the dog. It's like complaining about a baby crying out of hunger because it interrupts you listening to some Beethoven. Would you say that there needs to be a compromise between you and the baby, that it should only be hungry when you deign to give it your time*? Yeah, didn't think so.

"Let them eat cake!" is not an appropriate answer to people who are starving!

As for the criticism of the islamic world, well, can't chide them for being violent when Whitelandia is so eager to aid, abet and participate in the slaughter. Right now western politicians are eager to drop some more bombs on brown people because chemical weapons are, wait a moment, [coin toss] BAD and face has to be saved and credibility maintained by blowing shit up. They weren't so bad when Saddam poured them out on the darned Iranians so I wonder what "face" and what "credibility" people are talking about here.





*For all the literal minded dunderheads out there who I know exist: no, I'm not saying that weak people are exactly like babies, this is just used as an illustration of the power differential.

[Kitsune]

Just listening to Quackcast. . . . .
We almost had Polio but a bunch Imams decided that the Polio vaccine caused sterility
In Pakistan, they actually murdered those administering the vaccine.

Its a mistrust of the government, that isn't aided by previous wrongdoings done under the cover of medical aid. From forced sterilization without adequate consent done in the 50s to CIA search for Bin Laden, there is an underlying mistrust of official health teams that's being fostered by tribal leaders.

In Pakistan, it was not US or UN but Pakistan government individuals.
Really though, we are speaking of men who are afraid of magic cursing their virility.

[PainRack]

The point of the analogy is that the dog, like privileged people, doesn't acknowledge that lesser privileged people can have problems and issues that he does not experience and may exacerbate through his ignorance.

Yes. I know that.

That you attempt to twist it into yet another scenario that puts the needs of the weak and the strong on an equal level is a sterling example of the blinding effect that privilege has.

YET?

Yeah, the lizard might insist on temperatures that suit him, but guess what, he can't force it on the dog. It's like complaining about a baby crying out of hunger because it interrupts you listening to some Beethoven. Would you say that there needs to be a compromise between you and the baby, that it should only be hungry when you deign to give it your time*? Yeah, didn't think so.

Way to miss the point. The analogy was that in such a scenario, there are two plausible ways of adjusting the inequity. A compromise position where both sides don't get everything suited to them or policies which become win win, such as affirmative action.

The third way, that of forcible wealth redistribution say or any policy that sets out to equalise inequity is not a position I want to advocate.

[PainRack]

In Pakistan, it was not US or UN but Pakistan government individuals.
Really though, we are speaking of men who are afraid of magic cursing their virility.

What magic? You are referring to this guy, right?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-pakistan
Maulana Fazlullah sermons is that the vaccinations were a US conspiracy to sterilise Muslims in Pakistan.
Saying its Pakistanis doesn't help much, since it was a Pakistani doctor who helped ferret out Osama Bin Ladin.

Its not even radical. Since a few years before Fazlullah, the claim that AIDs was a disease intended to wipe out the blacks rose in Africa and the claim that AIDs came about because of vaccination was spun into vaccines are unsafe by Orac.

Mockery of stupid people is one thing, but not realizing why they came about to their conclusion is another.

[Thanas]

For Spain, I read somewhere that much of the boom in Muslim population there post Vandals was due to immigration, is that true?

Depends on your point of view and your data, but I doubt you could call it immigration in any case. More like "killing and displacing people".

In any case, despite your insistence - which I find rather comical and point-dodging - to every country along the mediterranean sea Islam was brought by the sword. The Sassanid Empire was conquered and its religion destroyed.

It does not matter if Islam went about in different ways in some examples which are past long the golden age of expansion of the caliphates, which is what this discussion was about. Those who say Islam did not spread by the sword are either delusional or lying. They are about on the same level of people who claim that Colonialism wasn't spread by guns.

The intricacies of Indonesian politics is irrelevant to this.

how am I dodging the point when traditional muslim countries include nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia?[/quote]

Because the original point was that Islam spread through the sword. Nobody claimed it did so exclusively and you are focusing on two countries that do not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

[Zwinmar]

I readily admit I do not know that much/if anything about Indonesia and Malaysia. It has not been something I have studied, and I was not talking about that area. That does not change the fact that Islam was spread by force, that was how it was founded and what drove it to conquer its initial holdings (North Africa, Sinai, Arabian Peninsula, etc.)

When someone is converted by 'force' that means that their life will be easier if they follow someone elses rules. Never mind that it goes against self determinism, rather for the average subsistence farmer/herder it means that they no longer have a lively hood as everything extra they have is going to pay for some zealots piety. So if the choice is a. give lip service to some new deity or b. starve or c. try to fight, or let me put it another way, you have a wife and children and you have the same choices, which really aren't choices.

There is also the economic factor: namely, if you have have to pay an extra tax on everything because you aren't X that means you are not viable in a competition. The other merchants who are X have a definitive edge over you, they can always undercut you.

To clarify, when I say 'sword' or 'force' I am including military activities as well as social and economic pressures.

[Kitsune]

What magic? You are referring to this guy, right?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-pakistan
Maulana Fazlullah sermons is that the vaccinations were a US conspiracy to sterilise Muslims in Pakistan.
Saying its Pakistanis doesn't help much, since it was a Pakistani doctor who helped ferret out Osama Bin Ladin.

Its not even radical. Since a few years before Fazlullah, the claim that AIDs was a disease intended to wipe out the blacks rose in Africa and the claim that AIDs came about because of vaccination was spun into vaccines are unsafe by Orac.

Mockery of stupid people is one thing, but not realizing why they came about to their conclusion is another.

Just remove religion from the issue, what do you get?
Look, I am not saying either Christians or Jews do not have any nuts beliefs.
The doctor who's podcast I got this form was lamenting about having a Jehovah Witness die under his care from bleeding when a simple platelet transfusion would have saved him.
Not even saying I don't believe pretty silly things. . .Humans are only partly rational afterall.

[PainRack]

Just remove religion from the issue, what do you get?
Look, I am not saying either Christians or Jews do not have any nuts beliefs.
The doctor who's podcast I got this form was lamenting about having a Jehovah Witness die under his care from bleeding when a simple platelet transfusion would have saved him.
Not even saying I don't believe pretty silly things. . .Humans are only partly rational afterall.

You get the SAME reasons, because the sermon was about the evil US doing anything to sterilize the Pakistanis. Religion probably makes this a lot easier to slide down because it demonized the Americans but when you have 9/11 truthers out there or Illuminati conspiracy theorists out there, it isn't difficult to see just how mistrust of America has cascaded down to matters such as polio eradication.

[PainRack]

Depends on your point of view and your data, but I doubt you could call it immigration in any case. More like "killing and displacing people".

of course.

Because the original point was that Islam spread through the sword. Nobody claimed it did so exclusively and you are focusing on two countries that do not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

The original point was convert or die EXCUSLIVELY.

"Traditionally" Muslim countries are only so because they were forced to become so or die

What does the word only mean Thanas?
What does the term or die mean?

Its not as if Zwinmar attempts to clarify later shows any signs of this.

Or perhaps look up what happened to everyone else who refused to convert.

Everyone else.

Does that suggest that Islam only spread through the sword ?Or Islam was spread through the sword only in the desert. Everyone else who refused to convert was hunky dory and there were exceptions.


But of course. I'm point dodging because I'm supposedly unaware of how Islam spread in Persia, Ottoman Empire, North Africa, Egypt, Spain and the general Mediterranean ocean and even other parts of Africia . There's also Central Asia where invasions inspired by Islam could be documentated.

Or are we now dodging because in the eyes of some Westerners, the word traditionally Muslim countries, or Muslim world is Arabia? Ethnocentric much?

[Kitsune]

You get the SAME reasons, because the sermon was about the evil US doing anything to sterilize the Pakistanis. Religion probably makes this a lot easier to slide down because it demonized the Americans but when you have 9/11 truthers out there or Illuminati conspiracy theorists out there, it isn't difficult to see just how mistrust of America has cascaded down to matters such as polio eradication.

You kind of admitted my point. . . Religion makes it easier to slide down.
I mean, we still have Jenny McCarthy thinking vaccines cause autism
Removal of religion (no, I don't mean by force) at least removes one more irrational belief.

[Thanas]

Depends on your point of view and your data, but I doubt you could call it immigration in any case. More like "killing and displacing people".

of course.

Because the original point was that Islam spread through the sword. Nobody claimed it did so exclusively and you are focusing on two countries that do not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

The original point was convert or die EXCUSLIVELY.

"Traditionally" Muslim countries are only so because they were forced to become so or die

Missed that, so I am willing to concede that "the vast and overwhelming majority of countries are only so because they were forced to become so or die" would be a more accurate representation.

[Zwinmar]

There are always cases where people convert willingly. In Islam's case it was most likely adult males of certain class and standing because that is who Islam benefits the most. The concept, right or wrong, of 72 virgins points directly at a benefit to males, then add in the shaming of women by various means and it becomes almost exclusively male rather quickly.

Are you refuting that Islam wouldn't rather convert or kill those who do not believe the way they do? Those who do not believe their crap are, in their eyes, subhuman. Does their theology allow for anything else? Please, enlighten me, just do not try to be an apologist.

The traditional Muslim world is Arabia you twit. That is were it came from. That is where the major events seem to happen, at least from a historical standpoint. the reason most Westerners do not know much about Indonesia and Malaysia is because they are not the metaphorical squeaky wheel. That is not taking into account where the holy locations are; namely Mecca (and others I can't remember off the top of my head, think Jerusalem is another)

As for how it spread to Indonesia in the first place it seems to be a case of the rich (royalty and merchants) converting first and one thing that seems prevalent is that where the leaders go the people follows, officially. Not to mention in some areas: i.e. Java and Pajajaran was conquered by Muslims, not peacefully as you seem to be proposing.

[Thanas]

Actually, Zwimmar, "somehow" significant christian, jewish and other minorities exist in nearly every muslim country even today, so the convert and kill rhetoric is just that. Forced conversion after invasion might have occurred and the state religion was always forcibly changed to Islam, but it is not as if they went Nazi terror squad style from home to home.

[Scrib]

Are you refuting that Islam wouldn't rather convert or kill those who do not believe the way they do? Those who do not believe their crap are, in their eyes, subhuman. Does their theology allow for anything else? Please, enlighten me, just do not try to be an apologist.

Full disclaimer: My Islamic knowledge has become pretty...thin.

I don't think they're considered subhuman. Sub-Muslim? More or less.But Islam definitely pays lip service to the notion of tolerance (especially for the other Abrahamic faiths), how tolerant it was in reality...varied. Though I wonder why you would want to kill or convert people. Muslims are supposed to tax the non-religious members of their countries iirc. This seems to provide a clear incentive to y'know, not murder them. Of course, you'd likely have to kill enough people to be in the position to tax them in the first place.

The traditional Muslim world is Arabia you twit. That is were it came from. That is where the major events seem to happen, at least from a historical standpoint. the reason most Westerners do not know much about Indonesia and Malaysia is because they are not the metaphorical squeaky wheel. That is not taking into account where the holy locations are; namely Mecca (and others I can't remember off the top of my head, think Jerusalem is another)

So because Westerners do not care about the other Islamic countries they get to make blanket statements then hide behind their lack of concern when confronted?

[xthetenth]

This seems to provide a clear incentive to y'know, not murder them. Of course, you'd likely have to kill enough people to be in the position to tax them in the first place.

I seem to recall the Jizya being a rather important source of income for early Muslim states.